CAS ADD - Sentencia 49

CAS Anti-Doping Division Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS 2022/ADD/49 International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Yunder Beytula ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

sitting in the following composition: Sole Arbitrator: Ken E. Lalo, Attorney-at-Law in Gan-Yoshiyya, Israel in the arbitration between International Weightlifting Federation, Lausanne, Switzerland Represented by Ms Dominique Leroux-Lacroix and Mr Damien Clivaz of the International Testing Agency, in Lausanne, Switzerland Claimant and Yunder Beytula, Sofija-Grad, Bulgaria Respondent Palais de Beaulieu Avenue Bergières 10 CH-1004 Lausanne Tel : +41 (21) 613 50 00 antidoping@tas-cas.org CAS Anti-Doping Division 2022/ADD/49 - Page 2 Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS

I. PARTIES

1. The International Weightlifting Federation (the “IWF” or “Claimant”) is the International Federation governing the sport of weightlifting, having its registered seat in Lausanne, Switzerland. The IWF is recognised by the International Olympic Committee. The IWF is a signatory of the World Anti-Doping Code (“WADC”) and has enacted the IWF AntiDoping Rules (the “2019 IWF ADR” or the “2021 IWF ADR”, as the case may be, or generally “IWF ADR”).

2. The IWF has delegated the implementation of its anti-doping programme to the International Testing Agency (“ITA”). Such delegation includes, amongst others, the Results Management and subsequent prosecution of potential Anti-Doping Rule Violations (“ADRV”) under the IWF’s jurisdiction. By virtue of such delegation, the ITA has filed this case, on behalf of the IWF, to the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for

Sport (the “CAS ADD”) for adjudication.

3. Mr Yunder Beytula (Mr Beytula, the “Athlete” or the “Respondent”) is a Bulgarian weightlifter. The Athlete was born in 1992. The Athlete is an International Level Athlete for the purposes of the IWF ADR and has been competing in international events since 2011.

4. The Claimant and the Respondents are hereinafter referred to as the “Parties”.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. Below is a summary of the relevant facts and allegations based on the Parties’ written submissions, pleadings and evidence adduced in this procedure. Additional facts and allegations found in the Parties’ written submissions, pleadings and evidence may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion that follows. While the Sole Arbitrator has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the Parties in the present proceedings, he only refers to the submissions and evidence he considers necessary to explain his reasoning.

6. The case concerns alleged (i) tampering with the doping control process by purposely providing false Whereabouts information to the IWF in order to obtain advance notice of forthcoming anti-doping controls, (ii) refusal to submit to sample collection, and (iii) after being notified and provisionally suspended, testing positive for human growth hormone (“hGH”), a prohibited performance-enhancing substance revealed during an out-ofcompetition (“OOC”) test.

7. It is thus alleged that the Athlete has committed several ADRVs pursuant to Articles 2.1, 2.3 and 2.5 of the IWF ADR.

8. By way of background, which is not the subject of these proceedings, on 21 January 2014, the Athlete was sanctioned by the IWF with a period of Ineligibility of two years in connection with an Adverse Analytical Finding (“AAF”) for stanozolol and

dehydrochloromethyl testosterone, i.e. two anabolic steroids revealed in a urine sample collected from the Athlete on 25 September 2013 during the 2013 European Junior IWF championships. The Athlete served such period of Ineligibility until 11 October 2015.

9. On 7 October 2019, Mr Vladimir Sekulic (“Mr Sekulic”), a Doping Control Officer (“DCO”), tried to collect an OOC sample from the Athlete. According to his ADAMS Whereabouts, the Athlete was living at his parents’ house, in the village of Feldfebel CAS Anti-Doping Division 2022/ADD/49 - Page 3

Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS Denkovo, a small village in the region of the city of Dobrich, Bulgaria. When Mr Sekulic arrived at the Athlete’s registered address in Feldfebel Denkovo, the Athlete’s father explained that Mr Beytula was not living in the village anymore but had moved to the city of Dobrich. The Athlete’s father called the Athlete who arrived from Dobrich approximately 45 minutes later to provide the sample.

10. On 1 November 2019, Mr Sekulic arrived to collect an OOC sample from the Athlete at his registered address in Feldfebel Denkovo, where the Athlete was living according to his ADAMS Whereabouts. The Athlete’s father advised that the Athlete was living in Dobrich.

The Athlete’s father called the Athlete who arrived from Dobrich approximately 45 minutes later to provide the sample. The Athlete was expressly instructed by Mr Sekulic to update his ADAMS Whereabouts address to his Dobrich home.

11. On 25 November 2019, Mr Sekulic arrived to collect an OOC sample from the Athlete at his registered address in Feldfebel Denkovo. The Athlete’s mother advised that the Athlete

was living in Dobrich. The Athlete’s mother called the Athlete who requested her to send Mr Sekulic to his Dobrich home address located at Dunav 18, floor 7, apartment 19. Mr Sekulic then drove to the Athlete’s Dobrich apartment and was able to collect a sample from the Athlete who was accompanied by his coach. Again, the Athlete was expressly instructed by Mr Sekulic to update his ADAMS Whereabouts address to his Dobrich home.

12. On 16 November 2020, Mr Sekulic was tasked with the collection of an OOC sample from the Athlete. The Athlete has still not updated his Whereabouts information. This time Mr Sekulic went directly to the Athlete’s Dobrich address rather than to Feldfebel Denkovo, the Athlete’s ADAMS Whereabouts address. The DCO was able to successfully collect a sample from the Athlete. Again, Mr Sekulic advised the Athlete to change his ADAMS Whereabouts location to his Dobrich address.

13. On 29 December 2020, having been instructed to collect samples from the Athlete, Mr Sekulic, acting as a DCO, and Mr Nikolay Kostadinov (“Mr Kostadinov”), acting as the Doping Control Assistant (“DCA”), presented themselves at Mr Beytula’s home address in Dobrich, Bulgaria, knowing from prior experiences that the Athlete was residing there rather than at his ADAMS Whereabouts location.

14. The DCO and the DCA rang the doorbell of the apartment at approximately 9:15 AM and the Athlete opened the door. Mr Sekulic notified the Athlete of the doping control.

According to Mr Sekulic, the Athlete “appeared very agitated and angry” and told the DCO and DCA “no no you don’t understand it’s not the right moment because you will wake up the baby. Come back in one hour or in the evening”.

15. Mr Sekulic explained to the Athlete that he had to provide a sample as he had already been

notified of the control, suggested to conduct the sample collection elsewhere and attempted to warn the Athlete of the consequences of his refusal but before finishing to do so the Athlete closed the door to the apartment and did not provide the sample.

16. Mr Sekulic and the DCA returned to the apartment one hour later, rang the doorbell, but the door remained closed. According to Mr Sekulic, “we heard noises from inside of the apartment (water being flushed and a vacuum cleaner). When the vacuum cleaner noise stopped, we tried ringing the doorbell three more times but the door remained closed. At this point, I tried to call Mr Beytula using the mobile number he had indicated in his prior DCF but he did not pick up”.

CAS Anti-Doping Division 2022/ADD/49 - Page 4 Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS

17. On 10 June 2021, the ITA notified the Athlete of the ADRVs for Tampering with the Doping Control and Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection.

18. On 30 June 2021, the Athlete replied to the notice of charge and explained that he had only moved to the Dobrich apartment in December 2020 and had not purposely provided wrong Whereabouts information to the IWF.

19. The Athlete also explained that on the morning of 29 December 2020 he was alone with his sleeping child in his apartment and that his child had been sick during the night of 28 to 29

December 2020. The Athlete further explained that he asked the DCO and DCA to come back an hour later or in the evening but that they had never returned to the apartment and never called him.

20. The Athlete informed the ITA that he, therefore, challenged the ADRVs and requested that the case be referred for adjudication to the CAS ADD.

21. On 1 July 2021, the Athlete was subject to an OOC doping control conducted on behalf of

the IWF at his Dobrich apartment where urine and blood samples were collected from him.

22. On 19 July 2021, the WADA-accredited Laboratory in Cologne, Germany (the “Laboratory”) reported an AAF for hGH in the Athlete’s blood sample.

23. On 13 August 2021, the ITA notified the Athlete of the AAF.

24. On 20 August 2021, the Athlete informed the ITA that he requested the analysis of the Bsample.

25. On 29 September 2021, the Laboratory opened and analyzed the B-sample in the presence of an independent witness, due to the fact that neither the Athlete nor his representative could be present.

26. On 30 September 2021, the Laboratory reported an AAF for hGH in the B-sample, thus confirming the A-sample analysis.

27. On 18 October 2021, the ITA notified the Athlete that it asserted a further ADRV against him for the presence of hGH in the blood sample taken from him.

28. On 15 November 2021, the Athlete informed the ITA that he challenged the ADRV and that he did not know how hGH was detected in his sample and alleged “that this might be due to some defect in the testing procedure or the analysis of the test or somehow it must have been produced naturally in my body without the use of any prohibited substances”.

29. The ITA then referred this case to the CAS ADD for the determination on the ADRVs and the consequences to be applied.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

30. On 17 June 2022, the Claimant filed a Request for Arbitration with the ADD in accordance with Article A13 of the Arbitration Rules of the CAS ADD (the “ADD Rules”).

31. The Request for Arbitration was sent to the Athlete at his lawyer’s address. On 27 June 2022, the lawyer informed the CAS ADD that he was not representing the Athlete any longer and

CAS Anti-Doping Division 2022/ADD/49 - Page 5 Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS provided the Athlete’s email address, as also provided by ITA. All communication from that point onwards was provided to the Athlete at his email address.

32. In its Request for Arbitration, and in accordance with Article A16 of the ADD Rules, the Claimant requested that this procedure be referred to a Sole Arbitrator appointed by the President of the CAS ADD.

33. On 1 July 2022, the CAS ADD on behalf of the President of the CAS ADD, confirmed the appointment of Mr Ken Lalo as Sole Arbitrator in accordance with Article A16 of the ADD

Rules.

34. The Athlete failed to file his Answer to the Request for Arbitration, in accordance with Article A14 of the ADD Rules, within the prescribed time limit or at any time.

35. On 14 July 2022, the Parties were requested to advise whether they request a hearing in this matter. On 15 July 2022, the ITA responded on behalf of the Claimant that it does not request a hearing in this matter.

36. The Athlete has not responded to the request to advise if he deems a hearing necessary, and on 11 August 2022, the CAS ADD issued an additional request to advise whether the Athlete requests a hearing in this matter. The Athlete has not responded to such additional request either. The Sole Arbitrator having deemed himself sufficiently well informed and pursuant to Article A19.3 of the ADD Rules, confirmed that no hearing shall be held in this matter.

37. On 23 September 2022, the CAS ADD circulated an Order of Procedure which was signed on behalf of the Claimant and returned to the CAS ADD on the same day. The Order of Procedure acknowledged, inter alia, that: “By signature of the present Order, the Parties confirm their agreement that the Sole Arbitrator may decide this matter based on the Parties’ written submissions. The Parties confirm that their right to be

heard has been respected. Pursuant to Article A19.3 of the Rules, the Sole Arbitrator considers himself to be sufficiently well informed to decide this matter without the need to hold a hearing.”

38. The Athlete failed to sign and return the Order of Procedure.

39. Despite having sent all pleadings and letters to the Athlete at his lawyer’s address until 27

June 2022 and from then onwards to the Athlete’s email address, the CAS ADD office has couriered all such pleadings again to the Athlete’s home address on 21 September 2022. On 4 October 2022, the CAS ADD informed the Parties that the Athlete received on 26 September 2022 the Order of Procedure, the Request for Arbitration, its Annexures and the Parties’ correspondence, as confirmed by a DHL delivery report.

40. The Athlete has failed to respond to any of the pleadings and requests also following their additional delivery.

IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

41. The Claimant’s submissions, in essence, may be summarised as follows: • From October 2019 until December 2020, Mr Beytula knowingly provided demonstrably erroneous Whereabouts information to the IWF thereby obtaining advance notice of forthcoming anti-doping testing. Moreover, Mr Beytula CAS Anti-Doping Division 2022/ADD/49 - Page 6

Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS deliberately failed to correct his Whereabouts information even after being prompted to do so by the DCO. • This allowed the Athlete to obtain advance notice of several anti-doping controls, notably on 7 October, on 1 November and on 25 November 2019. More precisely, Mr Beytula was systematically notified of the forthcoming doping control by his parents and only appeared approximately 45 minutes later to provide a sample. • The underlying principle of no advance notice testing is to prevent Athletes from carrying acts which would hinder the detection of banned substances or prohibited

methods, such as, passing urine, drinking water/alcohol, saline infusion, etc. It is noteworthy that the distance between the two locations provided for sufficient time for the Athlete to potentially tamper with his bodily fluids. • By refusing to update his Whereabouts location to his new domicile, Mr Beytula provided knowingly false information to the IWF which interfered, obstructed and rendered impossible the IWF’s attempt to conduct no advance notice testing on him. • For the sake of clarity, and despite the fact that the Athlete received advanced notice, it was appropriate for the DCO to collect samples on those three occasions. This is clearly allowed by International Standard for Testing and Investigation (“ISTI”). Moreover, it was also correct for the DCO not to file an unsuccessful attempt report with the ITA for the purpose of pursuing Whereabouts Failures. That said, as confirmed in the ISTI, Mr Beytula’s pattern of behaviour can constitute an ADRV for Tampering. • The ITA, on behalf of the IWF, has discharged its burden of establishing to the Sole Arbitrator’s comfortable satisfaction that Mr Beytula Tampered with the Doping Control Process and thus committed an ADRV pursuant to Article 2.5 of the 2019 IWF ADR which prohibits Tampering and Attempted Tampering. • On 29 December 2020, Mr Beytula Refused, or at the very least Failed, to submit to Sample Collection. • More precisely, on that day, a DCO and a DCA presented themselves at Mr Beytula’s Dobrich apartment. After being notified that he was required to provide a sample, Mr Beytula appeared very agitated and angry and informed the DCO and the DCA that they should come back “in one hour or in the evening”. • The DCO and the DCA informed the Athlete that this was not possible as he had already been notified of the doping control and that he was to provide a sample. The

DCO further attempted to remind the Athlete of the consequences that a refusal would entail and also tried suggesting conducting the sample collection elsewhere. However, Mr Beytula closed the door and retreated into his apartment. • Attempting to nevertheless collect a sample from Mr Beytula, the DCO and the DCA returned to the apartment one hour later. Despite ringing the doorbell several times, and hearing noises coming from inside the apartment, as well as calling the Athlete on his mobile phone, Mr Beytula did not open the door. CAS Anti-Doping Division 2022/ADD/49 - Page 7 Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS • Article 2.3 of the 2019 IWF ADR prohibits Evading, Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection. • CAS jurisprudence confirms that refusing to submit to sample collection is presumed to have been committed intentionally. • Such refusal cannot be considered to having occurred due to circumstances which can constitute “compelling justifications” justifying a Refusal pursuant to Article 2.3 of the 2019 IWF ADR. It was “physically, hygienically and morally possible” for the sample to be provided. • In this case, Mr Beytula denied having refused to submit to sample collection. More precisely, the Athlete explained that his child had fallen ill during the night from 28 to 29 December 2020, that in the morning of 29 December 2020 his wife had gone to the pharmacy to purchase medicine for their child and that he was alone in his Dobrich apartment, and that his child had just fallen asleep. • Mr Beytula acknowledged having opened the door, recognizing the doping control officers which he “knew both of them from previous doping tests”. The Athlete does not challenge having been notified of the doping control. Mr Beytula then simply explained that he asked the DCO and DCA to come back one hour later or in the evening, but that they did not return. Mr Beytula also denied having received any calls

from the DCO. • Both the DCO and the DCA explained that Mr Beytula initially appeared very agitated and angry and refused to provide a sample. When being told that he had to provide a sample as he had already been notified of the doping control, Mr Beytula closed the door on the officers. • Contrary to Mr Beytula’s account of the events, the DCO and the DCA returned to the apartment one hour later, rang the doorbell several times and heard noises from inside of the apartment. The DCO and DCA also attempted to call the Athlete at the mobile number that Mr Beytula had indicated as his contact details on a previous Doping Control Form. • In other words, and in light of the foregoing, Mr Beytula, a very experienced, elite international weightlifter accustomed to the anti-doping control process, undoubtedly refused to submit to sample collection on 29 December 2020. More precisely, Mr Beytula: o Admitted recognizing the DCO and the DCA from prior anti-doping controls and was therefore aware of the nature of their visit and of the related procedure; o Unilaterally decided to interrupt the sample collection process prior to providing a sample by closing the door of his apartment on the DCO and the DCA; o Did not answer the door and/or his phone when the DCO and the DCA returned to the apartment in a last attempt to collect a sample; o Was later tested positive for a prohibited substance, as will be further discussed below, thus further giving motive to his refusal to undergo sample collection on CAS Anti-Doping Division 2022/ADD/49 - Page 8 Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS 29 December 2020. • The ITA, on behalf of the IWF, has discharged its burden of establishing, to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator, that Mr Beytula Refused, or at the very least Failed, to submit to Sample Collection on 29 December 2020, and thus

committed an ADRV pursuant to Article 2.3 of the 2019 IWF ADR. • On 1 July 2021, whilst being provisionally suspended for the Tampering and Refusal ADRVs, Mr Beytula was subject to an OOC doping control conducted on behalf of IWF where urine and blood samples were collected from him. • On 19 July 2021, the Laboratory reported an AAF for hGH in the Athlete’s blood sample. • The Prohibited Substance, an hGH, was detected in the Athlete’s A-Sample. hGH is classified as a “Non-Specified Substance” under S2.2 (Peptide Hormones and their releasing factors) of the 2021 WADA Prohibited List. The use of hGH as a performance-enhancing anabolic agent began in the early 1980s and is particularly efficient to accelerate soft-tissue recovery, for example after training or an injury, and is a substance widely used and abused by weightlifters to increase strength capacity, particularly when combined with other steroids. • On 30 September 2021, the B-Sample confirmed the finding of hGH. • Pursuant to Article 3.2.2 of the 2021 IWF ADR, the Laboratory is presumed to have conducted the analysis in compliance with the International Standard for Laboratories (“ISL”). Moreover, “and out of an abundance of caution”, the ITA has asked Dr. Martin Bidlingmaier, Head of the Endocrine Laboratories and Research Group leader, Neuroendocrine Unit at the Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik IV, Klinikum der LMU, Munich, to review the Laboratory document packages of the Aand BSamples. Dr. Bidlingmaier confirmed the reliability of the AAF and analytical work. • Considering the reliability of the analytical data and in light of the strict liability enshrined in Article 2.1.1 of the 2021 IWF ADR, it is unequivocal that the Athlete

has committed an ADRV pursuant to Article 2.1 of the 2021 IWF ADR. • The Athlete did not have a Therapeutic Use Exemption justifying the use of the prohibited substance. • The Athlete has never provided any explanation for the presence of hGH in his bodily specimen save for arguing that “this might be due to some defect in the testing procedure or the analysis of the test or somehow it must have been produced naturally in my body without the use of any prohibited substances”. Whilst the Athlete has not provided any corroborative evidence supporting this claim, the ITA can offer Dr. Bidlingmaier’s preliminary opinion according to which these claims are scientifically unsound. The robustness of the AAF unrefutably establishes the exogenous origin of the hGH. • The ITA submits that the IWF has discharged its burden of proof to establish the ADRV for the presence of a prohibited substance as per Article 2.1 of the 2021 IWF ADR to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator, bearing in mind the seriousness of the claim. CAS Anti-Doping Division 2022/ADD/49 - Page 9 Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS

42. In regard to the consequences of the ADRVs the Claimant’s submissions, in essence, may be summarised as follows: • Regarding the Period of Ineligibility, the Claimant highlights that on 21 January 2014, Mr Beytula received a two-year sanction for the presence of an Anabolic steroid in an In-Competition sample collected from him on 24 September 2013 during the European Junior U23 Championships in Tallin, Estonia, being the Athlete’s first ADRV. • The IWF has met its burden and standard of proof in regard to both ADRVs under Articles 2.3 and 2.5 of the 2019 IWF ADR for the Athlete’s Tampering pertaining to his 2019 Whereabouts filing and his 2020 Refusal to Submit to Sample Collection.

• The Athlete was notified of both such charges simultaneously and accordingly, they shall be considered together as one single violation. Such violation constitutes Mr Beytula’s second ADRV, for which any imposed period of ineligibility shall be doubled pursuant to Article 10.7.1(c) of the 2019 IWF ADR. • According to Article 10.3.1 of the 2019 IWF ADR, the period of Ineligibility imposed for the violation of Article 2.3 and/or 2.5 shall be four years unless the athlete establishes that the ADRV was not intentional. • The Athlete knew of his obligations to submit to sample collection and to provide a sample, but purposefully refused to comply, and no mitigation can be applied and, therefore, a period of Ineligibility of eight years should be imposed on the Athlete. • After being notified of and provisionally suspended for such second ADRVs, Mr Beytula committed a violation of Articles 2.1 of the 2021 IWF ADR for the Presence of a Prohibited Substance. Pursuant to Article 10.9.3 of the 2021 IWF ADR, this constitutes Mr Beytula’s third ADRV. • Under Article 10.2 of the IWF ADR, the period of Ineligibility imposed for a violation of Article 2.1 when the ADRV does not involve a Specified Substance is four years, “unless the Athlete or other Person can establish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional”. • The notion of “intentional” is defined in Article 10.2.3 of the 2021 IWF ADR. • The Athlete did not adduce any evidence which would establish that his ADRV was unintentional. • One should also take into account that Mr. Beytula was already caught for doping in 2013, that he made efforts to avoid testing positive, as well as the seriousness and

relevance of hGH for the sport of weightlifting. These also confirm that the Presence of the banned substance in the Athlete’s sample was intentional. • Pursuant to Article 10.9.1.2 of the 2021 IWF ADR, a third ADRV will always result in a lifetime period of Ineligibility, except if the third violation fulfils the condition for elimination or reduction of the period of Ineligibility under Articles 10.5 or 10.6 IWF ADR or involve a violation of Article 2.4 IWF ADR, all of which do not apply in this case. CAS Anti-Doping Division 2022/ADD/49 - Page 10 Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS • Pursuant to Article 10.9.3.4 of the 2021 IWF ADR, “[i]f IWF establishes that a Person has committed a second or third antidoping rule violation during a period of Ineligibility, the periods of Ineligibility for the multiple violations shall run consecutively, rather than concurrently”. • Therefore, the applicable period of Ineligibility for the third ADRV should be a lifetime period of Ineligibility which shall run consecutively to the period of Ineligibility imposed for the second ADRVs. • According to Article 10.13 of the 2021 IWF ADR, the period of Ineligibility starts on the day of issuance of this Award. • The Athlete has been provisionally suspended since 10 June 2021 and has been respecting the terms of his temporary ban. According to Article 10.13.2 of the IWF ADR, the Athlete should receive a credit for the period of Provisional Suspension, which has commenced on 10 June 2021, against any period of Ineligibility imposed. • Articles 10.8 of the 2019 IWF ADR and Article 10.10 of the 2021 IWF ADR are applicable to the disqualification results subsequent to the commission of ADRVs

and thus “all competitive results of the Athlete obtained from the date of the ADRV through the commencement of the provisional suspension” should be disqualified. Fairness does not require otherwise in the present case. • Therefore, all competitive results of the Athlete as of the date of the first evidence the second ADRVs, i.e. 7 October 2019, until the date of provisional suspension, i.e. until 10 June 2021, should be disqualified including forfeiture of any medals, prizes and points. • Pursuant to Article 10.12 of the 2021 ADR and Articles A24 and A25 of the ADD Rules, the ITA seeks to impose upon the Athlete the costs associated with these proceedings, to be determined by the Sole Arbitrator, as well as a fine of USD 5,000.

43. In its Request for Arbitration, the Claimant requested the following relief: “The ITA, on behalf of International Weightlifting Federation, hereby respectfully requests the Panel

to issue a decision holding that:

1. The ITA’s request is admissible.

2. Mr Yunder Beytula is found to have committed one or multiple anti-doping rule violations pursuant to Article 2.3 and / or 2.5 of the 2019 IWF Anti-Doping Rules.

3. Mr Yunder Beytula is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.1 of the 2021 IWF Anti-Doping Rules.

4. Mr Yunder Beytula is sanctioned with a period of Ineligibility of 8 years for the 2019

ADRVs and with a lifetime period of Ineligibility for the 2021 ADRV.

5. The periods of ineligibility shall be served consecutively and shall start on the date on which the CAS award enters into force. Any period of provisional suspension or ineligibility effectively served by Mr Yunder Beytula before the entry into force of the CAS award shall be

credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served. CAS Anti-Doping Division 2022/ADD/49 - Page 11 Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS

6. All competitive results of Mr Yunder Beytula from and including 7 October 2019 are disqualified with all resulting Consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

7. The costs of the proceedings, if any, shall be borne by Mr Yunder Beytula.

8. The ITA is granted an award for its legal and other costs and Mr Yunder Beytula is fined an amount of 5’000.00 USD pursuant to Article 10.12.1 of the 2021 IWF Anti-Doping

Rules.

9. Any other prayer for relief that the Hearing Panel deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

44. The Athlete has not filed any submissions in this case.

V. JURISDICTION

45. Article A2 of the ADD Rules provides that the ADD has jurisdiction to rule as a firstinstance authority on behalf of any sports entity which has formally delegated its powers to the ADD to conduct anti-doping proceedings and impose applicable sanctions, stating as follows: “CAS ADD shall be the first-instance authority to conduct proceedings and issue decisions when an alleged anti-doping rule violation has been filed with it and for imposition of any sanctions resulting from a finding that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. CAS ADD has jurisdiction to rule as a firstinstance authority on behalf of any WADC signatory which has formally delegated its powers