The case revolves around a series of disputes between the Bulgarian Weightlifting Federation (BWF) and the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) concerning sanctions imposed on the BWF due to multiple anti-doping rule violations by its athletes. The controversy began in March 2015 when 11 Bulgarian weightlifters tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol during out-of-competition doping controls. The athletes claimed the substance entered their systems through a contaminated food supplement provided by the BWF. The IWF initially imposed suspensions ranging from 9 to 18 months on the athletes, which were later confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Subsequently, the IWF invoked Article 12.3 of its Anti-Doping Policy (ADP), which allows additional sanctions on a member federation if multiple violations occur within a calendar year. The IWF imposed a fine of $500,000 and suspended the BWF from participating in IWF events until the fine was paid, with further restrictions on Olympic participation. The BWF appealed, arguing the sanctions were disproportionate and that the violations were unintentional due to the contaminated supplement. The CAS initially set aside the fine in 2016, ruling it was imposed by the wrong body, but upheld the Olympic ban. The IWF later re-imposed a reduced fine of $250,000 in 2017, which the BWF again challenged, alleging procedural irregularities and disproportionality.
The CAS panel reviewed the case de novo, examining procedural fairness, the applicability of sanctions under the ADP, and the proportionality of the penalties. The panel dismissed the BWF's claims of procedural flaws, noting that any initial irregularities were cured by the full appeal process. It also rejected the BWF's argument that the 11 violations should be treated as a single offense, emphasizing that each athlete's violation was separate and triggered Article 12.3.1 of the ADP. The panel clarified that the IWF's authority to impose additional sanctions under Article 12.3 was independent of any prior action under Article 12.1, which addresses violations by the federation itself.
Regarding proportionality, the panel upheld the $250,000 fine, finding it aligned with the goal of deterring doping violations and incentivizing federations to educate their athletes. The panel noted the IWF had already considered mitigating factors by reducing the fine by half and dismissed the BWF's claims of financial hardship due to lack of evidence. The panel emphasized that CAS generally defers to disciplinary bodies unless sanctions are evidently and grossly disproportionate, which was not the case here.
Ultimately, the CAS panel dismissed the BWF's appeal, confirming the IWF's decision and reinforcing the importance of strict anti-doping enforcement while respecting the discretion of governing bodies. The ruling underscores the responsibilities of member federations to ensure compliance with anti-doping regulations, even in cases of unintended contamination. The case highlights the complexities of international sports governance and the role of arbitration in resolving such disputes.