Gio TAS / CAS.
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT
ANY!) cous oF akeranion ron spor
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
CAS 2022/8584 Maxim Agapitoy y Attila Adamfi & International Weight
Federation (IWF)
ARBITRAL AWARD
delivered by the
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT
siting nthe following composition:
Prosdent: Prof. Massimo Coceia, Law Professor and Attomey-at-law in Rome, Italy
Arbitrators: The Hon. Michael J. BelofP KC, Baristr in London, United Kingdom
Me Lars Hilger, Attorney-at-law in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Clerk Ms Alexandra Veuthey, Atorey-at-l in Lausanne, Switzerland
bermeen
Maxim Agapitoy, Russia
Represented by Ms Anna Antsliovic and Mr Artem Pats, Attorneys-a-law ie Moscow, Russia
Appellant
And
tila Adam, Hungary
Represented by Ms Katalin Csi, Attome-t-law in Budapest, Hungary
First Respondent
International Weightliting Federation (IWR), Lausanne, Svtzeriand
Represented by Messes Nicolas Zbinden and Anton Sotir, Attomeysatiow in Lausanne,
Switerand
Scoond Respondent TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL. DU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
i
vi
vit
Xt
xt
‘TamLeor Contents
INTRODUCTION
PARTIES.
‘A. THBAPPELLANT: MAXIM AGAPTOV.
B, THE IRSTRESPONDENT: ATTA ADAMI
(C_THESHCOND RESFONDENT: IVTERNATIONAL WEIGHTLIFTING FEDERATION.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
PROCEEDINGS BEPORE THE IWF ETHICS AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION,
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT.
‘SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES.
A. THEAPPELLANT,
B.THEFIRST RESPONDENT.
CTHEStcoND ResfoNDmnT,
JURISDICTION.
ADMISSIBILITY.
[APPLICABLE LAW.
PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS.
8. LEGALSTANDING
oe dnb te Fis Reypndnt compan
brat Respondens sanding tobe sed.
Dur PRocis.
,_NEWARGUMENTS AND DOCUMENTS
Ge Prat dcLaren'steimony in relation tothe Mebaren Conf Report.
1B Boctoments ed by the Fira Respondent fer the ering:
MERITS.
A. DFAMATORY STATENENTS.
B._ApuszoFPosto .
c Saxcrioss :
D. FURTHER OR DEFERENT MOTIONS
URES Maxim Apion. Ai Ad TWP Page 2
b
a
16
18
21
a
2
4
24
24
25
& RRR
28
38
39
40 ‘TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT 2022/54 Maan Apap ws. Ai Adam & TWF = Page3
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
Intnonverion
‘This matter is related to an appeal brovelt by Mr Maxim Agapitov (Mr Agapitov” or the
“Appellan”) against Mr Adtila Adami ("Me Adamfi" othe “First Resondent”) and the
Inemational Weighting Federation CTWF" or the “Second Respondent"). The appeal
challenges the devision ofthe IWF Ethics and Disciplinary Commission of 17 December
20216) imposing on Me Agapitov a reprimand for breaching Ailes 120 and 121 of the
INVF Eathics and Disiplinary Commission Rules (*EDC Rules"), which prohibit the abuse
‘of position and public sttements af e defamatory nature, i) ordering () removal of video
‘lipmede by Mt Agapitow from all internet platforms and (b) payment to Nr Adami of USD
7,00 as compensation for reputational damage
Panries
‘he Appellant: Maxim Agapitov
‘The Appellant, Mr Agepitor, is the President of the Russian Weight fing Federation
CRW", former Acting President ofthe European Weightlifting Federaion EWP”) and
former member of the IWF Executive Board (“IWF EB")
“The First Respondent, Mr Adam, i former Director General and curtent Vice-President
of the WE. At the time of the fats examined in this appeal, he vasa delegate ofthe
Hungarian Weighting Federation HWP") forthe 2021 IWF Constitutional Congress and
‘candidat forthe 2021 IWF elections,
“The Second Respondent: International Weightlifting Federation
The IWP is the international governing body of weigtining, headquartred in Lausanne,
Switzerland,
FACTUAL BACKGROUND,
Below isa short summary ofthe relevant facts and allegations based on te Parties writen
and orl submissions and evidence adduced by them, Additonal fats and allezations may
be stout, where relevant, in connection withthe legal discussion that follows. While the
Panel has considered all the fet, allegations, egal arguments and evidence submited by
the Parts in the present proceedings, it refers in this Award only tothe submissions and
evidence it considers necessary to explain is reasoning.
On 4 June 2020, fllowing. his appointment as independent investigator by the IWF
Executive Board, Professor Richant McLaren issued a report entided “Independent ‘TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT 2022/8584 Maxi Apsptow vs Ais Ad & IWF Ped
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
10,
Investigator Report tothe Oversight and Inegtity Commission of Ineratinal Weightlifting
Federation" (the “McLaren Report”) onthe investigations he had conducted — together with,
‘team of investigators acting under his diretion and known asthe McLaren Independent
Investigation Team (CMIIT") — into allegations of corruption, financial regularities snd
e when setting a
= Me Agapitov must, therefor, be reprimanded, ordered to pay 8 compensation
and withdraw his Video Clip. However, he does nothaveo publish an apology
PROCKEDINGS HEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT
(On 6 January 2022, the Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal withthe Court of Acitation
for Sport C*CAS") against Mr Adami and the [WF, by which he challenged the Appealed
Decision pursuant to Article RAS of the Code of Sport-Related Arbiration (the “CAS
‘Code’). In his Statement of Appeal, the Appellant nominated Mr MichselJ. BelofFQC (now
KC) a arbitrator,
(On 31 January 2022, the Appellant ied his Appeal Brief within the extended time-timit, in
accordance with Aricle RSI of the CAS Code. The Appellant announced that he intended
ro call Professor Richard H. MeLaren of London, Canada, who wa in charge of the
Iimestigation inthe IBE as a witness to provide ths Pare! withthe firsehand information
‘about the real roles and responsiblites of Mr. Adamf within the IWF, theevidence collected
‘by the Independent Investigator’ Team om the internal procedures witn the IWF and all
‘other factual circumstances mentioned above in this Appeal Brief “TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT 2022/4854 Maxim Agaptow vs. Aa Adsnf & WE. Page 1
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
2,
2.
30.
31
2.
2
3
36.
37
38
2».
40.
(01 21 February 2022, Mr Adamfi filed his Answer pursuant to Aticle RSSaf the CAS Code,
(On 14 March 2022, the IWF filed its Answer within the extended time-imit pursuant to
‘Aatile RSS of the CAS Code,
‘On 15 March 2022, the CAS Court Office invited the Parties to indicate whether they
prefered a hearing to be held inthis matter or for the Panel issue an award based solely
fn the Panties’ writen submissions
(On 16 March 2022, the Respondents jointly appointed Me Lars Hilger, Attomey-a-aw in
Copenhagen, Denmark, as arbitrator
(On 17 March 2022, Mr Adami stated that a hearing Was unnecessary and requested the
Panel to decide based onthe Parties’ writen submissions only
(0922 March 2022, the 1WF expressed the same opinion.
‘023 March 2022, the Appellant informed the CAS Court Office that he preferred a hearing
tobe held
(On 3 May 2022, the CAS Coust Office informed the Parties thatthe Pane! appointed to
decide on the present matter was constituted as follows:
President: Prof, Massimo Coccia Law Professor and Attomey-a-law, Xome, Italy,
Asbitrtors: The Hon, Michael. Belof QC (now KO), Batiste, London, United
Kingdom:
Mr Lars Hillier, Attorney-a-law, Copenhagen, Denmark
‘On 5 May 2022, the CAS Court Ofice informed the Parties thatthe Panel would be assisted
by Ms Alexandsa Veuthey, Clerk with the CAS,
(On 2 June 2022, the CAS Court Ofice invited the IWF to ile copy ofthe complete file of
the proceedings before the EDC, which t id
(01 14 June 2022, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties thatthe Panel had decided 10
hold a hearing by video conference (as requested by the Appellant) and consulted the Parties
bout posible Rearing dates.
On 4 August 2022, the CAS Court Office issued on behalf of the Panel the Order of
Procedure inviting the Parties to sign it and tun i, which they subsequently di
(0 7 September 2022, a hearing was held by videoconference, In slitien othe Panel, Ms
‘Alexandra Veuthey, CAS Clerk, and Me Giovanni Maria Fares, CAS Course, te following
individuals attended the hearing remotely TRIBUNAL AREITRAL DU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT 2020/8584 Maxim Aasptow vo. Ala Adu & 1WE Page 12
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
a
2,
4.
45,
Forthe Appellant: Me Maxim Agapitoy, Appellant
Ms Anna Anseiovih, Legal Counse!
Mr Artem Patsev, Legal Counsel
Ms Evgenia Sedelniova, Interpreter
Forthe First Respondent: Mr Attila Adami First Respondent
Ms Katalin Csiszir, Legal Counsel
Far the Second Respondent: Mr Nicolas Zbinden, Legal Counsel
‘Minton Soi, Leal Counsel
At the outset of the heating, the Parties declared that they had no objections as tothe
Constitution nd composition ofthe Panel. The Ftst Respondent announced thst, nation
to his counsel's submissions, he would read personal statement, which he did during the
Final pare of the hearing,
“The Parties thereafter were given a full opportunity to present their case, submit their
vguments and submission, though thee alloreys and, when relevant, personally, and to
fnswer the questions posed by the Panel. Professor McLaren, witness called by the
‘Appellant, provided his oral testimony’ and answered to the questions posed by the Parties
and the Panel, In this context, he confirmed the existence ofa second, confidential report,
‘hich was "ioo sensitive to be made public". This statement andthe questions that ensued
ttigzered an objection fom the Second Respondent, while the Fist Respordent declared that
Ihe was not aware ofthis por.
The Panel requested the Fist Respondent submit after the hearings copy f his (ao longer
in force) employment contact with the [WF, in relation to his duties when he was Director
General of the IWF, which was not attached as an exhibit to is Appeal Brief but which was
‘efere oda ing his personal statement
[tthe end ofthe heating the Parties confirmed that they were said with the hearing and
‘that their ight tobe heard had ben flly respected.
(On 9 September 2022 the First Respondent fled withthe CAS, as authorized by the Panel
during the hearing, copy of his employment contract with the IWF. Heo submitted some
‘stitional document, particular audi recordings and some related comments, which had
hot been requested or authorised by the Pane.
On 12 September 2022, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Fist
Respondent's employment contrat withthe IWF. tealso stated tht the Pane, however, had
Gecided that it would not edit into the fle of consider the unsolicited documents and
‘comments as there were clearly no exceptional cireumstances justifying @ departre fom
AAicle R56 ofthe CAS Coe (ce Infra a para. 8). TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL.DU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT 29224856 Maxim Aspitow vA Adan & 1WE- Pape 13
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
Vi. Sunissions oF tHe Pareries
A. The Appellant
447. Inbis Appeal Bret, the Appellant requests the following reli
ti
This appeal of Mr, Maxim Agapitoy is admissible.
‘The appeal of Mr. Masi Agapitov is upheld
‘The decision rendered on 17 December 2021 by the INF Ethics and Disciplinary
Commission inthe matter of Me Aula Adamfi versus Mr Maxin Agopitoy is set
aside and Mr Adam's complaint against Mr Agoptoy is dismissed in is entirety.
‘The arbitration costs shall be borme by the Respondents jointly and severally
Mr Maxim Agaptov is granted a fair conribuion to his tegl and other costs
incurred with these proceedings”
48. The Appellant's submissions, in essnee, may be summarised as follows
o
@
‘With respect to the procedural defects ofthe first instance proceedings:
“The Appellant was unduly deprived ofthe right t fila second submission in
‘order to reply toa second submission fled by Mr Adamf, and was not given
fy desde todo so, These procedural flaws of the first instance proceedings,
whe serious enough to be mentioned, are “curable in Tight of the de nove
power of review ofthe CAS and, thus, “almost irelevan” in these appeal
proceedings
= The Appellant should not have to answer accusations rested to his Video Clip
of 6 November 2021. This video wae pated afer the Fist Respondent's
‘omplain to the EDC of § October 2021 sd, therefore, could not be foxmally
included inthe disciplinary proceedings prompted by Mr Acamf's complain
With vespect to the MeLaren Repor:
Prof: Richard MeL aren isan internationally recognised exper in sports law and
aubieation, and a well-known legal practitioner and scholar.
= The MeLaren Report states at page 12 that it contains information and
evidence thatthe 1! [Independent Investigator] considers ‘0 be reliable and
Jfomly established, What ts stated inthis Report is Backed by an enormons
‘volume of material reviewed and examined i the investigation together with
‘ver 30 ites interviews of those who voluntarily came jorward and spoke
With the MIIP investigators”. Many CAS Panels have lso endorsed the
Conclusions of this sime expec Tepanling the Russiar doping, scheme,
including in individval cases related to the IWF itself (ee eg. CAS OG
16/008, paras 7-10 to 712) TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL. DU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT 202214584 Maxim Apipitow vs. Ata Adan & TWP. Page 14
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
= ‘The MeLaren Repor establishes the involvement of the former IWF President,
Mr An, and the First Respondent, in his capacity as formet [WF Director
‘General, in varios instances of vote rigging and dubious Fnancial practices
(pages 38, 57, 62, 83, 44 and 88). The fact that the Executive Summary ofthe
MeLaren Report does not expressly refer tothe First Responnt is relevant
“The First Respondent never initiated any lel proceedings before CAS or State
cours to rebut these clear findings. He merely wrote alter to Prof. McLaren
(rectus to the IWF Inverim President and Executive Board, which does not
fount t0 a due challenge", but only proves that he had felt directly
incriminated, Likewise, he was never able fight doping, efficiently despite
his insistence on being informed of every ingle antidoping elated sue
= Conversely, and contrary to what was retained in the Appeded Decision, the
‘Appellant undertook signifieant effors to eradicate doring among elite
‘yeigliers within Russia, which was widespread when he took the office of
President ofthe RWF in October 2016, He set an “open leer" tothe [WF EB.
calling for urgent reforms, prepared and circulated the drat fertheamendments
ff the IWE AntiDoping Policy, and raised the red flag when “bizarre
‘agreements” were signed within the TWE. He was also one ofthe sources of
the ARD Channel documentary of 5 January 2020 that ended the “Aji
regime”, and collaborated with Prof. MeLaren investigatory team that shed
Tigh on corrupted practices in weighting
The [WF EB was also proactive, a itself commissioned the McLaren Report.
~The Appellant san individual, and the IWF, private association registered
in Switcrland, do not have the power to conduct further investigations nor to
fake eoerrive menses. Criminal authors in Switzerland ander Hungary
should now take te ead
= ‘The First Respondent was never deprived of hi right to “defend himsell™, since
he was interviewed by Prof. MeLarea and willingly abstaired from initiating
legal action to clear his name, By contas, the Appellant didnot hesitate to ile
“anappliction withthe CAS when he was unfiry stripped o This acreditation
forthe 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games in relation toa doping offence commited
in 1994 (CAS 0G 20008),
= Instead the Fest Respondent “Wid behind he bushes for mare than a year after
the MeLaren Report ua widely published. He only decided ola claim with
the EDC agsint the Appellant to “clean himself a pathway fo the new IVF
elections"
To the contrary, the EDC erred when the principe of “presumption of
innocence” was de facto applied tothe First Respondent, I is also common
‘round that in sports law, due tothe limited investigative powers of private
‘ssocations, a rule violation must be proved, a5 a rule, the standard of TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT —202/44584 Maxi Agito Ala Adan & WP Page 1S
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
comfortable satisfaction, which i lower than the eximinal but higher than the
‘iil standard of proot (sper the legal itrature mentioned),
= By applying the wrong standard of roof the EDC wrongly shifted the burden
tothe Appellant, who was accordingly wrongly sanctioned,
iy With respect to the alleged defamation:
= The FDC’s reasoning that fod to acknowledge the existence of defamatory
statements under Article 121 of the EDC Rules (February 2021 version) is
flayed. It wrongly relies om the fact thatthe MeL.aren Repo, which contains
the initial defamatory statements refered to by the Appellant, was published
“ong ago”. Yet, such report was ony released on June 2020. This reasoning
obviously sends a wrong signal to virongdoers and is detrimental tothe fight
‘gains comuption,
“The BDC'S reasoning did not consider the Fist Respondent’ inconsistent
submissions in first instance proceedings and his overall behaviour (he fist
fceused Prof. McLaren of "forging emails", while describing his “ull
Cooperation” and gate ofthe investigators towards him; he then abstained
fiom challenging the findings of the MeLaren Report but finally held the
‘Appellant accountable fr reerringto thse same findings).
“The EDC didnot explain either which particular “words used by Mr Agopitow”|
"were defamatory. In addition, the purpose of this provision isto protet the
current members ofthe weightlifting community of, in geera, the Olympic
Movement, from any defaming and improper statement. is clear that the
First Respondent was not part ofthe eile of protected persons, since he did
hot hold any office or managerial positon atte time of the alleged offences.
Fe sna wot wcanidote either athe latest IWF elections did mot aetually start
unl September 2021
‘The EDC highlighted that many people were inclined to criticise the Fist
Respondent, du to his decision-making power when he waste WE Director
‘General I thus unfairly implied thatthe Appellant was one of those people:
his sole motivation was to clean his sport from “dirty practices ofthe past” and
avoid weighting to be “rhrown out ofthe Ompie Program’.
~The EDC wrongly retained thatthe Appellants’ statements were “beyond the
cal of publle duty to inform or seeking for public interes. Such statements,
‘which merely mimor the MeLaren Report, are crucial t acknowledge flues
Tom the past and definitely end doping, coruption and belbery practices in
‘weighting
Gv) With respect to the alleged abuse of position:
~The EDC failed to identity what particular language and tenor ofthe two letters
amounted tan “abuse of office” TRIBUNAL. ARBITRAL.DU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT 2022/9584 Mim Azalea vs. Ala Adamf & 1WE- Page 16
“TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
B,
49.
”
with
“The EDC erred in applying the EDC Rules (February 2021 version) that were
apparent notin force snymore atthe ine a the filing ofthe complaint by the
Fist Respondent on 8 October 2021 Instead, it should have applied the new
EDC Rules that were approved on 27 September 2021
“The EDC also mistakenly stated that the “abuse of postion” was governed by
Article 121 ofthe EDC Rules (February 2021 version), which in fact refers 0
the “public statements ofa defamatory nature”
The Appellant never stated in his letters that he was expressing the opinion of |
the EWP EB or any oft members, He was in any case not equred to consult
‘hem, inthe Hight of the EWB Constttion
In amy event, evident that an “abuse of position” may only take place ifs
person bound by the Code “pursues personal aims or gains” andor attempts 10
improperly influence the outcome of an afcial decision, which is not the
case here. Any broader interpretation would lead to absurd results, such as
Considering that such offences could he commited by an oficial during the
course of his private it
[At no time id the Appellant make any threats. He only invited the
representatives of the national federations to reconsider ther positions, and
reminded ther that officials should refrain from bringing their sport into
dlsrepute,
respect to the stnetion:
‘The EDC wrongly considered that the Appellant's high positon was an
eravating circumstance, While itis not disputed thatthe Appellant signed the
{oo contentious letersi his capacity of Acting President ofthe EWF, and sent
the to national federations” representatives, his position f imelevant to the
‘The EDC's argument regarding this aggravating circemstance is also
inconsistent with the reprimand imposed, which isthe lowest sanction onthe
IWF scale.
Finally, its uncle why the BDC relied on British prceden', whereas Article
7 ofthe EDC Rules (rectus: Article 3) February 2021 version) refers to Swiss
low. Even if British and Swiss legal concepts may be simi, the absence of
reference to Swiss law in the Appeled Decision demonstates that the EDC
embers didnot have the require skills to lil their tasks.
“The First Respondent
Imi Answer, he First Respondent requessthe following relief
“dismiss the appeal of Mr: Agapitoy TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT 202/584 Mim Apatow Ala Adu & 1WE- Page 17
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
confirm the EDC decision of 17 December 2021 (BDC 2021/3)
order the Appellant to remove the referred video Immediately from lf plaforms
- onder the Appellant to pay the compensation within even (7) days
- order the Appeltan to pay a contribution forthe legal and other cost of this
‘procedure incurred by my elient (in an amovnt fo be decided atthe discretion of the
Panel) within seven (7) days”.
‘50, ‘The First Respondent's submission, in essence, may be summarised as fllows:
i) With respect to the standing to be sued:
= The inclusion of Me Adamfi as a Fist Respondent in these proceedings is
“surprising” asthe Second Respondent i expected to defen is own decision,
= The First Respondent is however, willing provide additonal information,
ii) With respect to the MeLaren Repor:
= The Appellant used the MeLaren Report to discret the Fist Respondent and
then divert the Panels stention from his own reaches ofthe EDC Rules. His
allegations are unfounded and were triggered by @ deste for eovenge o even
political motives.
= ‘The MeLaren Reports ielevant othe present ase In any event, it does not
csablsh any wrongdoings frm the First Respondent, does mt include specific
fccusations nor any evidence supporting the Appellants allegations. I is
biased and wrongly lies on the assumption thatthe First Respondent didnot
collaborate tothe investigation Finally, it contradicts TA ard WADA follow
tp investigations, and the exchange af messages beowoen the Appellant and
‘various official, including ITA Director Geneel
No regulatory or judicial authority has initiated proceecings oF isued a
decision concerning the Fist Respondent, wi passed the integrity check for
the 2021 TWF elections, Conversely, the Appellant was sanctioned for an an
{oping rule violation when he was an athlete
= The First Respondent was not in charge of the IWF antidoning and financial
raters, as supported by his employment contrat, as well asthe witness
Slatements ofthe former Chait of the 1WF Commission an te former IWF
Interim President.
(ii) With respect to the defamation:
= ‘The EDC correctly established thatthe Appellant breached Article 121 of the
EDC Rules (February 2021), which prohibits any public statements of a
defamatory nature TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL.DU SPORT
COURTOF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT 20214884 Masi Azspitov Ate Adan 1WP Page 1B
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
= TheEDC Rules (February 2021 version) apply to IWF offices, employees, EB
members, IWF Commission members, IWF sta and candidates to these
positions, pursuant to Ail 2
‘Therefore the Appellant cannot rely on the fact thatthe Fist Respondent did
nothold any office within the spor of weightlifting o exclude their application,
‘Since the First Respondent was an official candidat tothe 2021 [WF elections
{from March 2021
(iv) With respect to the abuse of postion:
= The EDC correctly found thatthe Appellant breached Article 120 ofthe EDC
Rules (February 2021), which prohibits the “abuse of position”, bearing in
tind tha ch abuse may occur “in any wen”
The First Letter was sent from the EWP Secretariat email address, which
further evidences the abuse of position.
(9) With respect to the sanction:
= The imposed sanctions are jst and proportionate, and the exercise of high-
level fnetion i expressly refered tb a8 an “aggravating circumstance” under
‘Anite [30 ofthe EDC Rules February 2021 version}.
~The Appellant id not comply withthe Appesled Decision, which required him
to withdraw his Video Clip from all platforms within seven days, causing
further damage. Yet ths injunction was enforceable, since the Appellant did
not request any suspensve effet,
©. The Second Respondent
SI. Init Answer, he Second Respondent requests the following rele
“(1) The appeal filed by Maxim Agapltov on 7 January 2022 is dismissed nits
entry.
(2) Maxim Agapitov is ordered to pay he CAS arbiration costs, Ife.
(Maxim Agopitov is ordered o make a significant contribution tothe legal and
other caste ofthe International Weightlifting Federation"
52. The Second Respondents submissions in essence, may be summarised as follows
(With respect tothe MeLaren Repor:
The EDC's conclusions with respect to the MeLaren Reporte correct.
‘The MeLaten Report was prepared by professionals, is detailed and well
“writen, Regardless ofthe veracity ofthe corruption and doping allegations that
it contains regarding the “old regime”, it does not single out the Fest
Respondent init exceutive summary. TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL. DU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT 2020/4586 Maxim Asritow vs Ata Ada & WE. Page 19
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
@
~The MeL.aren Report includes, forthe remainder, subjective statements, and is
ot intended to gather evidence against individuals, os was te case with his
previous report on the Russian doping seheme (CAS 2017/5438, par, 63;
rectus: CAS 2017/A/S468, para 63).
~The MeLaren Report doesnot constiute a inal and binding decision of an
adjudieatory body as tothe ibility of the persons mentored It could only
pave the way for potential investigation to be conducted by the relevant IWF
Fodies. Is assimilation to a quasi-judicial decision would lead to an
infringement of the Fist Respondent’ right tobe heard
= There was no possible remedy agninst the MeLarea Repod, which is nota
decision that gives rise to standing to appesl In that sonst difes from the
(Olympic acoreitation sat was temporarily withdrawn fromthe Appellant,
= As oftoday, the EDC has not opened any disciplinary procedure against the
First Respondent on the basis of the MeLaren Report pursuant to the IWF
‘Constitution. The only decision assessing Mr Adami’ intogity was that ofthe
“independent veiting commitee which gave hm the all certo takepart in
the 2021 IWF cleetons.
= Inlight ofthe above, the MeLaren Report should not be tested as iit were a
decision ofan independent tribunal that hat established on a definitive bess
that Ms Adamf is guilty of any wrongdoing,
= In the end the present dispute is not about the validity or reliability of the
(MeLaren Report, of whether or not it establishes rulebreches by the Fist
[Respondent during his tenure as TWP Director General. Th relevant subject
ratter forthe appes! Is solely the Appellants conduct, which was sttongly
Inappropriate and breached diferent provisions of the EDC Xules.
With respect to the defamation
= The EDC conoctly established thatthe Appellant breached Article 121 of the
EDC Rules (Februaty 2021), which prohibits any public stalements of a
defamatory natre
The Appellant cannot escape lisilty by arguing thatthe EDC Rules ate not
applicable to the First Respondent, who was @ representative of the HWF
‘during the TWF Constitution Reform Congress and a cand date for the 2021
IWF elections.
= The Appellant expressed several deftmatory statements regarding the Fits
Respondent, starting with his Fist Lefer, where he referrc to his mention in
the Metaren Report and his so-called responsibilty for the sport of
weighting into the TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT 20224884 Maxim Azapiow Atle Adu IWP- Page 20
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
= The Appellant made similar allegations in his Second Letter, where he
indicated that the Fst Respondent was one ofthe “architects and hy drivers
ofthis rotten system, who had no choice but to resign folossing the ARD
Channel docimentary’ and who was involved in “double cah payments” and
“bribes” during the IWE Eletorl Congress in 2017
The Appellant reiterated his defamstory claims in the Video Clip, where he
included photos and footages of the First Respondent anda text assimilating
him with “people who were port of the old doping system”, the old “doping
empire, an reering this “attempt to come backto the world of weighing
‘eho shocked everyone who really loved his port.
= The Appellant didnot refer solely and objectively tothe fet thatthe First
Respondent was mentioned inthe MeLaren Report. Instead, he went so fa 35
to accuse him expressly of being a person who brought the sport of
‘weiehtliting into diepute, and who was involved in eoruption, bribery and
Concealment of doping activities, These statements are maifeiy offensive
tnd unaceepable, and were shared widely, without any jusifistion of
overriding publi interest,
(ii) With respect tothe abuse of positon:
‘The EDC conetly found thatthe Appellant breached Article 120 ofthe EDC
Rates (Februry 2021), which prohibits the “abuse of postin”.
= ‘The EDC righty interpreted this provision in broad way. The provision
prohibits in particular “persons” to abuse their position “mn any way”: and
“officials ta attempt to improperly tnflunee the outcome of any offilal
decision”, The distinction between “officials” and “persons shows tht the
provisions are nat identical in thoi ambit, The fact ix that he Appellant is 8
petson and should have avoided to abuse his postion “in away"
The Appellant used the EWP official letterhead in both his First and Second
Letters and signed them in his espacity as Acting President of the EWE,
without prior consultation with te other EWP EB members. In his respect, it
is ivelevant if the Appellant considers that he was ating on his own behal?
sine he didnot use his personal email adress (aor di hes gn the documents
‘8 RWF President or IWF EB member).
~The Appellant abused his postion of EWF Acting Presidenttowards two EWE
members by tying to override the avtonomy of the national weightlifting
Federations In patcula, he tied to fore the BWLF to eu ff any relations
swith the First Respondent and the HWE to change its representatives for the
IWF Congress by raising criticism about their internal governance, exerting
pressure on their managers and referting to individual ardor international
Sanctions that could potentially be imposed on them and the sport of
‘weighting ‘TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL OU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FORSPORT 2020/84 Maxim Agptov ws, Aa Adan & TWF Page 21
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
Consequently, the tenor and language ofthe to leters amount oan abuse of |
office
(Gv) With espct to the sanction
= The measure of the sanction imposed by a disciplinary body inthe exercise of
the disretion allowed hy the relevant rufes can be reviewed only when the
sanction is evidently and- grossly disproporionate to the offence (CAS,
2008/4/1870, para. 125; CAS 201 1/4/2515, para 66; CAS 2016/A/4501, pata.
5313; CAS 201 1/4/2515, para. 6).
Inthe present case, the imposed sanctions are just and proporionate They take
into account the Appellant's duty of reserve stemming fom his high postion
in he sports hierarchy.
‘VIL. Junispicrion
53. Arlcle R47 ofthe CAS Code provides as follows
“An appeal against the decision ofa federation, association or spotsrlated body may
be filed with CAS if the statutes or regulations ofthe said Body so provide or if te
parties have concluded a specific arbitration agreement and ifthe Appellant has
‘exhausted the legal remedies available to prior fo dhe appeal, in aexordance with the
‘Statutes or regulations of tha bod"
S54, Article 64 ofthe EDC Rules (September 2021 edition) states follows:
“In accordance with Rule 43 ofthe ITF Constitution (2021 version, the decisions of
the EDC may only be appealed ether by «party tothe proceedings or by a party having
{legal interest inthe outcome ofthe case before the Court Of Arburaon for Sport (he
casy.
55, Antcle 43 ofthe TWF Constitution (August 202 edition) conficms that
“A final determination, decision or adjudication by the Federation is unless osherwise
specified in this Constitution and any applicable Policy, appeaable exclusively tothe
“Appeals Arbitration Division of the CAS. Any matter so appealed to CAS will be
Conclusive resolved by the CAS in aecordance with he CAS Code”
56, Finally, the Parties have expressly confirmed the jurisdiction ofthe CaS by signing the
(Onder of Procedure. follows from all the above that the CAS has jurstion to dese on
the present dispute
VIL Apyussimiurry
57. Article R49 ofthe CAS Code provides as follows: TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT
COURTOF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT 2024/84 Masi Azspitov Ata Adu 1WE- Page 22
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
58.
3.
1K
©.
61
“in the absence of atime limit set tn the statutes or regulations of the federation
association or sports-related Body concerned, or na previous agreement, the tne limit
for appeal shall be twenty-one days from the receipt ofthe decision appealed against
‘the Division President shall not initiate a procedure ifthe statement of appeal is, omits
{face late and shall so notify the person who filed the document”.
Aitite 65 ofthe EDC Roles reads as follows
“The deadline for fling am appeal to CAS shall be twenty-one (21) aays from the date
ofreceip ofthe Decision in question by the appealing party, The Code ofSportsrelted
“rbtration (CAS Code) shall apply to the proceedings
The Appesed Decision vas notified with grounds to the Appellant on 17 Devember 2021
‘The Appellant timely lodged his Statement of Appeal withthe CAS Court Ofiee on 6
Sanary 2022, i. within the oventy-one days alloted under the aforementioned provision,
“The Respondents ase no objections as to admissibility issues. It follows from ll the above
thatthe appeals admissible
APPLICABLE LAW
Article R58 of the CAS Code provides as follows
“The Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable regulations and
“subsidiary tothe rales of law chosen by the parts or, in the absenes of sucha choice,
‘cording othe law of the country in which the federation, association or sports-reloted
‘hod which has issued the challenged detsion Is domiciled or according to the rales of
Taw the Pane! deems appropriate. Inthe ltier case the Panel shall give reasons for ts
Secison”
‘Accordingly, the present disciplinary dispute must primarily be decided in accordance with
the various rules and regulations of the [WF, including the {WF Constitution and the
EDC Rates. Ths is common ground among the parties and, indeed, the WC EDC applied
the [WF rules inthe Appealed Decision.
From an intertemporal perspective, however, the Panel notes thatthe TW FDC applied the
‘ersions ofthe EDC Rules (February 2021 edition) and the IWF Constiuion (January 2017
‘edition which were in force at the tie ofthe alleged commission ofthe frst two offences
Ge when the Appellant sen the Ftst Letter andthe Second Letter). The WF EDC did not
Consider the new EDC rules that were adopted bythe [WF Executive Board on 27 September
2001 and which entered into force with immediate effect according to Article A.IL.3 ofthe
FEDE rules, nor the new IWF Constitution that came into fore on 31 August 2021, even
though both sets af rules entered into free prior tothe public diffusion or & November 2021,
ofthe Appellant's contested Video Clip “TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT 2520/4508 Maxim Aespitow vs. Aa Adan & 1WE-Pape23
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
6.
6
6.
7.
ca
The Panel also notes thatthe Appellant argues that the September 2021 edition ofthe EDC.
Rls and the 2021 TWF Constitution sould apply tothe present matter, wile alsorefering
to the previous regulations in his submissions, The Fist and Second Respondents state that
the February 2021 edition ofthe EDC Rules should apply and make reference in their
sulmissions tothe 2017 IWF Constitution.
“The Panel farther observes thatthe Appealed Decision contains various references to English
Jaw and jurisprudence, whereas the Appellant and Second Respondent paint out that Swiss
Jaw should apply oil any gaps in the TWF regulations. The Fist Respond didnot submit
ny comments inthis regard
With regard tothe intertemporal issue, the Panel reals that in the context of disipinary
matt this ssue ie governed by the genera egal principle of rempus regi acm or principe
fof nor-tetonctivty, which notably holds that any determination of what consis a
Sanctionabl rule violation and which sanctions ean be imposed asa consequence thereof
Inust be detemmined in accordance withthe law in force at the time of the allegedly
fanetionable conduct (ef. CAS 2008/A/191R, paras. 18 et seq; CAS 2017/A/S003, para
139), withthe exception of ex mitior whic is relevant in the ese at hand
In principle, the Panel should thus examine she alleged offences in Tight of diferent
regulations, depending on when they were committed; therefore, the alleged offenses
‘etiving from the Fist Leiter an the Second Letter should be examined under the February
2021 edition ofthe EDC rule and the 2017 edition of the TWF Constitution while the alleges
“offense deriving from the Video Clip made pubic in November 2021 should be examined
tinder the September 2021 edition of the EDC rules and the 2021 ection of the IWF
Constitution, The Panel considers, however, tht this question is at raot academic and
ultimately irelevent, since the pertinent provisions of the EDC mies and the IWF
{Constitution concerning, defamadion and. suse uf position as wll as the consequent
‘snetons remained in essence, unchanged during the relevant period,
With regard to the application of other lgal sources besides the IWF rues, the Panel
lserves thatthe 2021 TWF Constitution makes express reference to Swiss law and the
teneral principles of law tobe applied in ease of factmae in the EDC Rubs:
“The EDC Rates govern every subject to which te fext or the meaning oft provisions
refers. The applicable law in case af lacanae in this Bthies and Disciplinary Code
‘Swiss ka along withthe general prineples of law” (Schedule 1, pat. 7).
‘The Panel also observes that Article A-7 of the September 2021 edition of the EDC Rules
rakes reference to the application of Swiss law and general principles of law in case of
Taecunaein th sae terms as Artle 5 ofthe February 2021 eto:
“Phe EDC Rules govern every subject to which the text or the meaning of its provisions
refers The applicable law in ease of lacunae in the EDC Rules is Swiss Faw along with
the general principles of lw" TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT — 2a221s04 ni
m Ast vs. Ai Adan 1
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
7.
n
2.
2.
In light ofthe above, the Pane will adjudicate on this dispute by applying te pertinent IWF
rulesand, on subsidiary basis, Swiss law and penetal principles of la. Wi specifi regard
to the EDC Rules andthe IWF Constitation, forthe sake of simplicity, the Panel will make
fefetence herein below to the aticle numbers of the older versions of those rules (Le. the
February 2021 EDC Rules andthe 2017 IWF Constitution.
PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS
Legal standing
4 Aéimisebiity ofthe irst Respondent's complaint
‘The Appellant submits that Article 121 ofthe EDC Rules only protects members of the
\weightiing community, which excludes the Fits Respondent, who did nt hold any office
hor was a candidate athe tne of the alleged offences, with the consequence thatthe First
[Respondent could not file his complaint. The Respondents retort thatthe EDC les apply
toa large group of individual and thatthe actual timeline ofthe IWF elestions proves tha,
atthe tne ofthe relevant fact, he was pat ofthat group of individuals o which the EDC
Rules applied,
The Panel notes that Article 121 of the EDC Rules refers to “persons bound by the Ethics
nd Disciplinary Code” and“ofcals™. The Panel further notes that Article 2(6) of the EDC
Rules defines the “officials” s0 a8 to include the following individuas: “IWF officers,
employees. Executive Board Members, IVF Commission Members, ITF Commitee
Menbers, IWF staff and candidaes 1 these positions (collectively refered to herein as
“Offeias)
“The Panel recalls that the two allegedly defamatory eters are dated 14 ani 16 August 2021,
and thatthe contentious Video Clip was posted on 6 November 202. The Panel also
Understands, based on the pertinent [WE's pres release, thatthe First Respondent stepped
tdowm as IWE Director General at the latest on I October 2020. Then, the First Respondent
became ncandidat at the 2021 IWF Elections forthe positions of Viee-Prasident, Executive
‘oar Member and Treasurer in March 2021, as is confirmed by the relat IWP candidacy
forms dated 13 January 2021 and 17 September 2021 Fnaly, the evidence on file shows
that he was appointed by the HWF as ¢dalgate atthe [WF Constitutional Congress no later
than 16 August 2021
In view ofthe foregoing, the Panel finds thatthe First Respondent was abject tothe EDC
Roles al the tine ofthe alleged offences and, therefore, declares that the Fist Respondent's
complain was indeed admissible TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL. DU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT 202/484 Maxim Azaitov Ata Adan & 1WP- Page 25
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
1
1s
6
n
”.
¥0.
b, First Respondents standing to be sued
“The First Respondent “notes wit surprise” in his Answer that he was Included asa part in
these proceedings, without however expressly raising an objection as to his standing 0 be
‘sed, He then fll took part in the exchange of writen submissions and, athe hearin, did
hot submit any reservation a toi standing to be sued
For the sake of clarity, the Pane wishes to emphasise that CAS jurisprence has hel, in
cesence, tht defending party has standing to be sued (“égtimation passive") i it has
Something at take inthe dap (see c.g, CAS 2008/4/1518, para 2: see also SFT 142 NL
782, 4A. 635/2016, 4A, SOD20L5; Mavromati & Reeb, The Code ofthe Court of Arbitration
‘for Spor, pp-AL1-413, more specifically p. 413)
Inthe present case, the Appellant asks the Panel to reverse the decision hat resulted from
the complaint lodged by the Fist Respondent with the IWF EDC. The First Respondent
“seceeded with his claims and the Appealed Decision imposed on the Appellant a reprimand
land & fine tobe paid directly fo the Ftst Respondent "as compensation fr reputational
damage” is therefore cledr thatthe First Respondent has a direct stake in the dispute
tecause, should the appeal succeed, his complaint would be rejected and he would not
receive any amount of compensation,
In consequence, the Panel corms thatthe First Respondent has standing be sue in these
proceedings, I wl, therefore, take this into account when assessing the arbitration costs,
Fearing in mind that, according to CAS jurisprudence, the question ofthe sending to be sued
relates tothe merits ofthe case, and not tO the admissibility ofthe Apreal (see eg. CAS
DO1S/A/3140, and the references)
“The Appellant alleges that he was deprived ofthe rightto fle second round of submissions
in first instance proceedings, nd was not given clear time limits within which t do so, He
‘also underlines that his Video Clip was published after the First Responcents complaint to
the EDC and, thus, could nt be include in these dseplinary proceedings.
“The Panel ist observes that, according othe Appeated Decision, the Appellant was able to
provide an answer tothe claim on 11 November 2021, and further explanations on 24 and
‘30 November 2021 together with several exhibits
“The Panel thus considers thatthe Appellant was given the opportunity to argue his ease in @
sulficient and extensive manner, regardless of the fact thatthe EDC didnot pant clear time
imts to file his submissions. The Panel also wishes to undetne that the parties’ ight © be
heard does not include the Fight to a second exchange of submissions, ether in EDC
proceedings, CAS arbittation proceedings or Sate cour proceedings (ef. Ailes 34 ef seq
RDC Rules, Articles R39 and RS6 CAS Code, Article 225 of the Swiss Code of Civil TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT 2n2A/84 Manin Azspitov Ala Adan 1WE- Page 26
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
8.
4,
8
Procedure (*CPC°); CAS 2021/A/T684, paras. 90 et seq, SFT 138 1I'252,para 2.2), as long,
as tere is «possibility fully to presen partys factual and legal arguments. In any event,
the fll power of review of the Panel before the CAS under Article RST, fist paragraph, of
the CAS Cade would in principle eure the procedural violations that allegedly occurred in
prior proceedings (see x mals, CAS 201 1/4/2594, para 4, CAS 2018/4/5853, para. 115,
{CAS 2021/4/8256, paras. 133 ef 99.)
“The Panels also unpersuaded by the Appellant's argument related to the consideration of
the Video Clip in the Appealed Decision, Even though the Appellant posed the Video Clip
tnline in November 2021, thats, alter the filing of Mr Adami’ inital claim dated 6
(ciober 202, the said Video Clip was in any event commented on in detail by the Parties
in their subsequent written submissions, Its inclusion into the ile was notabjcted to bythe
‘Appellant at that time an, inthe Panel's view, such inclusion is justifiable on te bass of
the principles of procedural economy and fares,
“The Pane wil therefore ally consider the implication ofthe Appellants Video Clip es past
of these proceedings, bearing in mind that this arbitration i de navo review of the
Sisciplinary dispute that was adjudicate by the EDC (ef CAS 2016/A/4727, paras. 186 et
Seu; Maveonea, REED, The Code ofthe Court of Arbitration for Sport. Commentary, cases
tind material ad Article R56, p. 522)
Consequently, the Panel finds thatthe Appellants arguments and grievances related to an
alleged violation of his due proces rights are groundless and must be dismissed
[New arguments and documents
a. Prof MeLaren' testimony in relation tothe MeLaren Confidential Report
Professor MeLaren was heard atthe hearing as 9 witness and, during his testimony, he
mentioned that he also wrote a second report on the IWF that was not rendered public and
‘emalned confidential, da tothe sensitive character of the information included therein (he
“MeLaren Confidential Report) Such confidential report was only sentto the [WF and in
particular, to the Oversight and Integrity Commission appointed by the [WF Executive
Boar This statement and the subsequent questions put bythe Appellant the Respondents
toexpress thei diseonteniment and/or suprise
“The Panel, which has nat had acces 0 the McLaren Confidential Report, notes that this
report is srclycomected othe present procoedings, since its mentionod several mes in
the public McLaren Report, which was the subject of detailed discussions both at fist
instance and on appeal and forms an integral par ofthe case file. In particular, the following,
can be read a, expoctivey, pages 17, 67, 79-80 and 82 ofthe MeLaren Report
“As the imestigation progressed, the MIT became aware of ativites that demonstrated
possible criminal conduc, with milion in cash unaccounted fr and not entered inthe TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT 202248584 Maxim Apitow wail Adan & IWF
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
"7.
a8.
books ofthe IWF. The MILT however, has reported separately, on a.stiety confidential
basis, othe O& Commission on these matters (emphasis added);
“After interviewing the Bookkeeper twas discovered that he [NF intentionally omited
and obscured thousands of transactions within te DIVE spreadsheet fe, dhe overall net
tefect of which conceoled more than $10 milion USD in unaccounted for cash... The
‘cumulative effect of these confounding entries produced an approcimate diference
between cash revenues and cash expenses of $104 million USD over the period under
review A domino effect of accounting reporting failures resulted from this flawed
‘process ofrecoring enries inthe IE's books and records. Further etal ofthe Cash
naissis hove been provided fo the O&1 Commission on a contdential basis as
‘described in the Executive Sunamary i Chapter One” (emphasis added
— “Dr. Ain was able o assert and maintain his complete control over the organisation,
[More importa, his re-election, which was kxy to ie control, was assured through
is tam casing he manipslation ofthe results inthe Electoral Congresses ofthe INE.
‘This isthe pattern the MIIT has uncovered. more detailed report ofthis process and
the event in this Chapter was drafed by the MIF and has been given to the O&l
‘Commission on a confidential basi” emphasis ded;
“With the cash available to the vote brokers for distribution atthe election andthe
circumvention of the Constitution o ensure the numbers avilable 1 create a bribed
Soting bloe, Dr. Alan effectively safeguarded his Presidency during the period examined
bp the MIIT. The folowing section describes how the election was Bought in practice.
Once again, there 18 greater detail_in_the MIT investigator report provided
confidentially tothe OAT Commission” (emphasis aided),
In light ofthe shove, the Panel finds that the existence of confidential and more detailed
document reporting Profesor MeLaren's findings onthe IWF'sadministtio has been part
‘ofthe public domain since 4 June 2020. The Peel i thus ofthe view that twas open to any
party to ths ease to question Profesor McLaren about the existence and general content of
the MeLaren Confidential Report and wholly legitimate for any party todo so
‘The Panel observes that, jn any event, () Professor McLaren avoided disclosure of any
sensitive information included in the MeLaren Confidential Repor, ani (i) none of the
statements he made with respect tothe McLaren Confidential Report wes decisive for the
‘tcome ofthis ease In other words, the Panel would have reached the same conclusions
tven if Professoe MeL.aren had not mentioned at all the McLaren Confidential Report in the
‘0urse of his ral testimony.
Document fled bythe First Respondent afer the hearing
9 September 2022, the Ftst Respondent fled a copy of his employment contract, as
iscussed and authorised duving the hearing. The First Respondent als submited tothe TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT 200/584 Maxim Asptv vs, Adnf & TWE = Page28
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
9.
XI
9.
oy
Panel other documents and comments, in particular audio reeorings, wich had not been
requested or authorised bythe Panel (See supra at para. 43),
“The Penel confirms it decision, lready communicated tothe partes by the CAS Court
Office on 12 September 2022 (sce supra at para. 46), to exclude from the case fle and not
take into consideration the unsolicited dacuments and comments submited by the Fist
Respondent afer the hearing. The Panel hols that those documents and comments are
inadmissible under Article RSG of the CAS Code, piven the absence of the Appellant's
Consent or of any exceptional circumstance. In this espe, the Pane observes thatthe First,
Respondent did not even try and argue that there were Some exceptional citeumstances
‘which could jusiy the belted admission of those piees of evidence and related comments
into the ease file notwithstanding the partes’ preclusion under the CAS Cole “Yo supplement
Cr amend their requests or their argument, to produce new exhibits, orto specify further
tvidence om which they intend to rely afer the submission of he appeal brief and of the
‘onmver” (Aiele R56)
Meir
In light ofthe Paris” submissions, the Panel must address the following main questions:
|A. Did the Appellant express defamatory statements pursuant tothe EDC Rules?
'B, Did the Appellant commit an abuse of postion pursuant tothe EDC Rules?
©. Should the Appellant be found in breach of the EDC Rules, what would be the
appropriate sanction)?
Defamatory statements
“The present appeal concems a disciplinary case based on a IWF provision ~ Article 121 of
the EDC Rules ~ forbidding public statements of a defamatory nature made by sy person
bound by the EDC Rules targeting another person or organisation equally bound by those
rules.
Aicle 121 ofthe EDC Roles reads as follows
“Public statements of a defamatory nature- Persons bound by the Bihies and
Diselplnary Code are forbidden from making any public statemens of a defamatory
nature towards the Federation and/or towards anyother person or Organization bound
by the Ethics and Disciplinary Code inthe context of VF events. Offelals bound by the
{Ethics and Disciplinary Code shall refrain from making any public statement (eluding
in the media or social media) in respect or In connection with the Federation, is
‘Members, the Sport te Olympic Movement any Athlete or oficial ofthe Federation TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT 20214884 Maxim Azspitow Ata Adan & IWP- Page 28
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE
8
9
9s,
9%.
without the express permission of the President or the Executive Boord” (emphasis in
the eriginal document
It is undisputed that Mr Agapitoy sent the First Letter and the Second Leter and published
the Video Clip Its also undisputed that Mr Adamfi felt defamed by the Appellant's public
statcments and filed a complaint withthe [WF EDC which prompted these
You might also like
- The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)From EverandThe Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (122)
- Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New AmericaFrom EverandDevil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New AmericaRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (266)
- A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True StoryFrom EverandA Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True StoryRating: 3.5 out of 5 stars3.5/5 (231)
- Grit: The Power of Passion and PerseveranceFrom EverandGrit: The Power of Passion and PerseveranceRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (590)
- Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On ItFrom EverandNever Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On ItRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (842)
- The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good LifeFrom EverandThe Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good LifeRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (5807)
- The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first CenturyFrom EverandThe World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first CenturyRating: 3.5 out of 5 stars3.5/5 (2259)
- Her Body and Other Parties: StoriesFrom EverandHer Body and Other Parties: StoriesRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (821)
- The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of CancerFrom EverandThe Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of CancerRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (271)
- The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy LivingFrom EverandThe Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy LivingRating: 3.5 out of 5 stars3.5/5 (401)
- Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham LincolnFrom EverandTeam of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham LincolnRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (234)
- Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space RaceFrom EverandHidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space RaceRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (897)
- Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of NikeFrom EverandShoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of NikeRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (537)
- The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You AreFrom EverandThe Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You AreRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (1091)
- The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy AnswersFrom EverandThe Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy AnswersRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (345)
- Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic FutureFrom EverandElon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic FutureRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (474)
- On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New DealFrom EverandOn Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New DealRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (74)
- The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)From EverandThe Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (98)
- The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New AmericaFrom EverandThe Unwinding: An Inner History of the New AmericaRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (45)
