The case involves a dispute between the Bulgarian Weightlifting Federation (BWF) and the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) over sanctions imposed due to multiple anti-doping violations by Bulgarian athletes. The IWF fined the BWF $500,000 and banned its athletes from participating in the 2016 Rio Olympics, citing 11 doping violations within a calendar year under its Anti-Doping Policy (ADP). The BWF appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the sanctions were unlawful. The BWF contended that the IWF President lacked authority to impose the fine, as only the IWF Executive Board could do so under ADP rules. The CAS agreed, ruling the President’s initial decision invalid, and set aside the fine. However, the CAS upheld the Olympic ban, finding it legally justified under the IWF’s Qualification System, which mandates such bans for federations with nine or more doping violations. The BWF argued the ban violated the ne bis in idem principle, as it punished athletes already sanctioned for doping, but the CAS rejected this, stating the ban targeted the federation’s systemic failures, not individual athletes. The BWF also claimed unequal treatment compared to other federations, like Azerbaijan, but the CAS noted differences in regulatory timing and context. The arbitrator emphasized the ban’s preventive purpose, distinguishing it from the abolished "Osaka Rule," which automatically barred athletes with prior violations. The ruling clarified that the ban was compulsory under the Qualification System, regardless of whether the BWF’s membership was suspended. Ultimately, the CAS annulled the fine due to procedural irregularities but upheld the ban, reinforcing the IWF’s authority to enforce anti-doping measures while ensuring fairness. The decision highlights the balance between holding federations accountable for doping and protecting athletes’ rights, setting a precedent for future cases involving anti-doping sanctions and procedural compliance.