Russian weightlifter Alexei Lovchev appealed a decision by the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) after testing positive for the prohibited substance Ipamorelin during the 2015 World Championships. The IWF imposed a four-year suspension and disqualified his results, including forfeiting medals and prizes. Lovchev contested the findings, arguing the IWF failed to conclusively prove the substance was Ipamorelin and requested further analysis of his B-sample using advanced methods. The case was reviewed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which comprised a panel of experts. The panel noted that neither the World Anti-Doping Code nor the IWF Anti-Doping Policy mandates reanalysis unless the athlete casts sufficient doubt on the laboratory's conclusions, which Lovchev failed to do. Additionally, Ipamorelin is not a threshold substance, meaning any detectable amount constitutes a violation, rendering measurement uncertainty irrelevant. Lovchev’s arguments included claims of contaminated supplements and inconsistencies between A and B-sample analyses, but these were dismissed as unsubstantiated. The panel also rejected his contention that the absence of Ipamorelin metabolites cast doubt on the findings, as the presence of the prohibited substance alone was sufficient for a violation under IWF rules. Expert testimonies were reviewed, including those from Dr. Faber, Dr. Kopylov, and Dr. de Boer, but the panel found their arguments either irrelevant or unconvincing. The Montreal Laboratory’s procedures were upheld as reliable, with no departures from the International Standard for Laboratories. Lovchev’s clean doping record and denial of intentional use were deemed insufficient to overturn the strict liability principle in anti-doping cases. The panel dismissed his appeal, reaffirming the IWF’s sanctions and emphasizing the importance of adhering to anti-doping regulations. The ruling underscored the reliability of accredited laboratory procedures and the strict liability principle, holding athletes responsible for any prohibited substances found in their samples, regardless of intent or concentration. The CAS panel’s decision confirmed the validity of the original findings and the sanctions imposed by the IWF, concluding the case with a firm endorsement of the anti-doping framework.