The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding an anti-doping rule violation committed by Belarusian weightlifter Mikalai Novikau during the 2012 London Olympics. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) initiated the case after re-analysis of Novikau's urine sample in 2018 revealed the presence of prohibited substances, Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (oral turinabol) and Stanozolol metabolites, which are classified as exogenous anabolic androgenic steroids under the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List. Although the initial analysis in 2012 did not detect these substances, advanced testing methods later confirmed their presence in both the A and B samples. The International Testing Agency (ITA), acting on behalf of the IOC, notified Novikau of the adverse analytical finding and charged him with a violation. Novikau admitted the violation but claimed he had never intentionally taken prohibited substances, though he could not provide evidence to refute the findings due to the significant time elapsed since the competition. The case was referred to a sole arbitrator, Murray Rosen QC, who determined that the presence of the substances constituted violations under both Article 2.1 (presence) and Article 2.2 (use) of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC). The arbitrator ruled that Novikau’s results from the 2012 Olympics be disqualified, including forfeiture of any medals, points, or prizes, in accordance with the IOC’s anti-doping rules. Novikau did not contest the findings or request a hearing, and the arbitrator issued the award based on the written submissions. The decision highlights the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are held responsible for any prohibited substances found in their samples, regardless of intent. The case also demonstrates the IOC’s authority to re-analyze samples years after competitions using advanced detection methods to ensure fairness in sports. The ruling reaffirms the consequences of doping violations, including automatic disqualification and sanctions, as a deterrent against the use of performance-enhancing drugs. The IOC did not seek costs from Novikau, and the arbitrator ruled that each party would bear their own legal expenses. The final decision upheld the IOC's request, confirmed the anti-doping violation, and imposed the standard sanctions, dismissing all other requests for relief. The case underscores the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations and the long-term consequences of violations, even when detected years after the competition.