Tomasz Zieliński, a Polish weightlifter, appealed a decision by the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) imposing a four-year ineligibility period due to an anti-doping rule violation. The violation stemmed from an adverse analytical finding for 19-Norandrosterone, a prohibited substance, during an out-of-competition test at the 2016 Rio Olympics. Zieliński argued the violation was unintentional, claiming the substance entered his system through contaminated vitamin B12 supplements provided by the Polish Weightlifting Federation (PWF) and administered under medical supervision. However, the IWF Hearing Panel rejected this explanation, citing insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in his testimony, including unlabeled ampoules and lack of corroborating evidence from other athletes. The panel emphasized the burden of proof rested on Zieliński to demonstrate lack of intent by a balance of probability, which he failed to meet.
The case proceeded to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where Zieliński sought to overturn the sanction, arguing for reduced penalties based on no significant fault or negligence, unintentional violation, or proportionality. He highlighted his clean record, reliance on PWF-provided products, and the reputational and personal toll of the case. The CAS Panel, however, upheld the IWF’s decision, finding Zieliński’s contamination theory flawed due to lack of credible evidence and procedural irregularities, such as late submissions of a polygraph test and unverified ampoules. The panel also dismissed his sabotage claims as speculative.
Key issues included whether Zieliński proved the violation was unintentional and whether the exact source of the substance was necessary to establish lack of intent. The panel referenced the World Anti-Doping Code’s flexible approach, noting proof of ingestion route, while helpful, is not mandatory. However, Zieliński’s use of unlabeled products and inconsistent testimony undermined his case. The panel concluded his conduct constituted intentional doping, as minimal diligence would have avoided such risks.
Ultimately, the CAS confirmed the four-year ineligibility, starting from the final hearing date (October 30, 2017), with credit for time served under provisional suspension. The ruling reinforced strict liability in anti-doping regulations, emphasizing athletes’ responsibility for substances in their bodies and the high burden of proof to contest violations. The case underscores the challenges athletes face in challenging sanctions without compelling evidence of unintentional use.