The case involves a dispute between the Belarusian Weightlifting Union (BWU) and the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) regarding the IWF's decision to suspend the BWU for one year due to multiple anti-doping rule violations by its athletes during the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games. The BWU appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the IWF's policy violated several legal principles, including tempus regit actum (the principle that the law at the time of the act applies), the right to be heard, good faith, equal treatment, proportionality, and ne bis in idem (double jeopardy). The IWF defended its decision, asserting that the policy was a legitimate interpretation of existing rules under Article 12.4 of its Anti-Doping Policy (ADP), which allows for disciplinary action against federations that bring the sport into disrepute.
The CAS panel, composed of three arbitrators, reviewed the case under Swiss law, as the IWF is based in Switzerland. The panel ruled that the IWF's policy did not introduce retroactive rules but rather clarified existing provisions, thus not violating the principle of tempus regit actum. It also found that the BWU had not yet been sanctioned under the policy at the time of the appeal, so the right to be heard had not been violated, though future disciplinary actions would require procedural fairness. The panel dismissed claims of bad faith and unequal treatment, noting the policy applied uniformly to all federations with similar violations. On proportionality, the panel upheld the IWF's autonomy to impose sanctions, given the severity of doping violations and their impact on the sport's reputation.
The BWU argued that the policy constituted double jeopardy, but the panel rejected this, stating that the sanctions addressed newly confirmed violations and the federation's broader failure to combat doping, not individual athletes. The panel also dismissed the BWU's claim that the policy bypassed the IWF Constitution, clarifying that anti-doping sanctions fall under the ADP, not general disciplinary procedures. Ultimately, the panel upheld the IWF's policy as a valid interpretation of its rules, emphasizing the federation's authority to enforce anti-doping measures while ensuring future applications respect procedural rights. The CAS dismissed the BWU's appeal, reinforcing the IWF's disciplinary autonomy and the importance of maintaining the integrity of weightlifting through fair and proportionate sanctions.