The case involves an appeal by Bulgarian weightlifter B. against a doping violation decision by the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF). The dispute arose from an out-of-competition doping test conducted in Bulgaria in October 2003, where urine samples from 18 athletes, including B., were collected and sent to the Köln Laboratory. The lab reported that three samples, including B.'s, contained identical urine, indicating physical manipulation—a prohibited doping method under IWF rules. DNA analysis confirmed the urine was not naturally produced by the athletes. The IWF provisionally suspended B. for life, later negotiating a reduced eight-year ban with the Bulgarian Weightlifting Federation (BWF), which B. rejected, leading to his appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel examined whether the manipulation constituted a doping offense under IWF rules. It found the physical manipulation of samples undisputed, establishing a violation under Rule 5.1(b) of the IWF Anti-Doping Policy. The panel dismissed B.'s arguments about potential breaches in the chain of custody or a conspiracy against him, as these claims lacked sufficient evidence. The standard of proof required was based on Swiss law, requiring the panel to be comfortably satisfied of the violation—a standard higher than balance of probability but lower than beyond reasonable doubt. The panel concluded the evidence met this threshold.
The testing procedure was scrutinized for potential flaws. While the doping control officer admitted athletes were not under constant supervision, making manipulation possible, the panel noted B. had sole control over his sample during key stages. The doping control form contained no irregularities, and the samples arrived at the lab properly sealed. The lab's findings of identical urine in three samples, corroborated by DNA analysis, were undisputed. The panel found no credible alternative explanation for the identical samples other than manipulation.
The IWF initially imposed a lifetime ban but later negotiated an eight-year suspension with the BWF, which B. refused. The CAS panel upheld the violation but reduced the sanction to eight years, aligning with IWF rules and precedents. The decision emphasized the seriousness of sample manipulation and the need for strict anti-doping enforcement, while also considering proportionality in sanctions.
The panel also addressed procedural deficiencies in the IWF's internal investigation and appeal process, noting B. was denied a fair hearing initially. However, since both parties agreed to submit the case directly to CAS, the panel exercised its full authority to review the facts and law, remedying any prior procedural flaws. The panel dismissed B.'s appeal and upheld the eight-year suspension, reinforcing the importance of maintaining integrity in anti-doping procedures and the high evidentiary standards required to establish violations. The ruling concluded the matter, affirming the IWF's decision and underscoring the need for adherence to fair hearing principles in future cases.