The case involves Adrian Ivan Zbirnea, a Moldovan weightlifter, who appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against a four-year doping ban imposed by the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF). The IWF had found Zbirnea guilty of using the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone during the 2015 European Championships, leading to his provisional suspension and disqualification of results. Zbirnea argued that the substance could have resulted from contaminated supplements or endogenous production, but the IWF rejected these claims, concluding he failed to prove lack of fault or negligence.
A key procedural issue was whether Zbirnea’s appeal to CAS was filed within the 21-day deadline. The IWF had sent the decision to Zbirnea’s attorney and the Moldovan Weightlifting Federation (WFRM) on November 24, 2015, but Zbirnea claimed he only received it on December 5, 2015. The IWF contended that notification to the attorney and federation constituted valid notification, making the appeal deadline December 15, 2015. Zbirnea filed his appeal on December 22 or 26, 2015 (sources differ), which the IWF argued was untimely. The CAS panel ruled that notification to an athlete’s attorney is equivalent to notification to the athlete, aligning with standard CAS procedures and Swiss civil law, and thus deemed the appeal inadmissible due to its lateness.
During the proceedings, Zbirnea introduced new evidence suggesting his positive test resulted from deliberate contamination of supplements by his assistant coach, Mr. Celma Veaceslav, who allegedly admitted to tampering during a criminal investigation. The CAS panel allowed this evidence, noting its potential significance, but ultimately upheld the IWF’s decision. The panel also considered expert testimony from Professor Baraldo, who argued that endogenous production of nandrolone could explain the positive test, but this was countered by IWF expert Dr. Hans Geyer, who stated that endogenous production above the 10 ng/ml threshold was scientifically unverified.
The case highlights the tension between strict anti-doping regulations and athletes' rights to a fair hearing, particularly when new evidence emerges. The CAS panel emphasized the importance of procedural deadlines while acknowledging the IWF’s willingness to reconsider the case if new evidence of tampering surfaced. Ultimately, the panel dismissed the appeal, upholding the four-year ban, but left open the possibility for Zbirnea to pursue alternative avenues for redress if further evidence could substantiate his claims. The decision underscores the challenges of proving contamination in doping cases and the critical role of procedural adherence in anti-doping litigation.