The case revolves around allegations of anti-doping rule violations by Hasan Akkus, a senior official in the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF). The IWF accused Akkus of tampering with the results management process for doping tests involving 21 Turkish weightlifters in late 2012. The central allegation was that Akkus, along with other senior IWF officials, backdated a letter to transfer the management of adverse analytical findings (AAFs) from the IWF to the Turkish Weightlifting Federation (TWF), thereby avoiding stricter sanctions for the athletes and the TWF. The IWF argued this constituted tampering under its Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). Akkus denied the allegations, challenging the applicability of the IWF ADR and the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Anti-Doping Division (ADD). He claimed the testing and results management were conducted with the agreement of the IWF President and legal counsel, and he did not engage in any wrongdoing.
The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Murray Rosen KC, rejected Akkus's arguments, emphasizing that senior officials like Akkus are bound by the IWF's anti-doping rules and cannot evade accountability. The panel also dismissed claims questioning the independence of the CAS ADD, citing its established reputation and procedural fairness. The decision clarified that the extension of the statute of limitations from 8 to 10 years under the IWF ADR was procedural and did not violate legal principles against retroactivity. The panel found that Akkus's actions—concealing interference with the results management process—constituted tampering, aggravated by his senior position.
The case highlights a series of events involving doping tests conducted on Turkish weightlifters in late 2012 and early 2013. Out-of-competition urine samples collected from Turkish athletes at training camps revealed 21 AAFs for the prohibited steroid stanozolol. Akkus, then President of the TWF and IWF Vice-President, played an active role in managing the fallout. He communicated with IWF officials, proposing to backdate a letter to justify imposing penalties on the athletes while avoiding public scrutiny. The IWF revised the letter and coordinated a joint press release, portraying the TWF as cooperative in uncovering doping while omitting key details about the out-of-competition positives.
In 2019, the IWF delegated its anti-doping program to the International Testing Agency (ITA), which investigated allegations of mishandling doping cases between 2009 and 2014. A report by Professor Richard McLaren in 2020 identified over 40 anti-doping rule violations that were improperly pursued, including the 21 Turkish cases. The ITA charged Akkus in 2021 under Article 2.5 of the 2012 IWF ADR for allegedly orchestrating a scheme to transfer the results management of the AAFs to avoid sanctions. Akkus disputed the charges, claiming the existence of a November 2012 letter requesting testing on behalf of the TWF. However, forensic analysis later concluded the document was likely backdated, leading to a second charge for submitting false evidence.
The CAS ADD ultimately ruled it had jurisdiction under the 2021 IWF ADR, finding Akkus had implicitly agreed to its authority. The Sole Arbitrator concluded that Akkus tampered with the results management process in 2013 by backdating a letter to falsely indicate IWF approval of the TWF’s handling of the athletes’ positive tests. This was done to shield the TWF from sanctions and minimize repercussions for the athletes. The Arbitrator also found that Akkus fabricated metadata in 2021 to support the authenticity of the backdated letter, further concealing his misconduct. The decision imposed a four-year ineligibility sanction, citing severe aggravating circumstances, including betrayal of trust, conspiracy with senior IWF officials, and undermining anti-doping efforts.
The case underscores the responsibility of sports federation officials to uphold anti-doping policies and the consequences of subverting them. The ruling reaffirms the authority of CAS in adjudicating such disputes and the importance of maintaining integrity in anti-doping efforts. The outcome highlights systemic failures and the need for accountability in anti-doping enforcement, emphasizing the gravity of actions that damage the integrity of the sport.