International Weightlifting Federation v. Revaz Davitadze & Georgian Anti-Doping Agency (GADA)

V. JURISDICTION

60. Pursuant to Article R47 of the CAS Code:

“An appeal against the decision of a federation, association or sports-related body may be filed with CAS if the statutes or regulations of the said body so provide or if the parties have concluded a specific arbitration agreement and if the Appellant has exhausted the legal remedies available to it prior to the appeal, in accordance with the statutes or regulations of that body […]”.

61. The Appellant submitted that the CAS has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 13.2.1 and 13.2.3.1 of the ADR.

62. Article 13.2.1 of the ADR provides as follows:

“[i]n cases arising from participation in an International Event or in cases involving International-Level Athletes, the decision may be appealed exclusively to CAS.”

63. Article 13.2.3.1 of the ADR provides as follows:

“Appeals Involving International-Level Athletes or International Events

In cases under Article 13.2.1, the following parties shall have the right to appeal to CAS: […] the relevant International Federation”.

64. Article 13.2.3.2 of the ADR provides as follows:

“Appeals Involving Other Athletes or Other Persons

In cases under Article 13.2.2, the parties having the right to appeal to the appellate body shall be as provided in the National Anti-Doping Organization’s rules but, at a minimum, shall include the following parties: […] the relevant International Federation. For cases under Article 13.2.2, WADA, the International Olympic Committee, the

International Paralympic Committee, and the relevant International Federation shall also have the right to appeal to CAS with respect to the decision of the appellate body. Any party filing an appeal shall be entitled to assistance from CAS to obtain all relevant information from the Anti-Doping Organization whose decision is being appealed and the information shall be provided if CAS so directs.”

65. The Respondents did not contest the jurisdiction of the CAS.

66. The Sole Arbitrator notes that the Appellant is an International Federation and the First Respondent is an International-Level Athlete within the meaning of the ADR, the IWF ADR, and the WADA Code. Article 13.2.3.1 and 13.2.3.2 of the ADR applicable to the Appealed Decision read together explicitly provide for the Appellant’s direct right of appeal to the CAS. The Sole Arbitrator therefore concludes that the CAS has jurisdiction to entertain the present Appeal.

VI. ADMISSIBILITY — A. Appeal

67. Article R49 of the CAS Code provides as follows:

“In the absence of a time limit set in the statutes or regulations of the federation, association or sports-related body concerned, or in a previous agreement, the time limit for appeal shall be twenty-one days from the receipt of the decision appealed against. The Division President shall not initiate a procedure if the statement of appeal is, on its face, late and shall so notify the person who filed the document. When a procedure is initiated, a party may request the Division President or the President of the Panel, if a Panel has been already constituted, to terminate if the statement of appeal is late. The Division President or the President of the Panel renders her/his decision after any submission made by the other parties.”

68. Article R51 of the CAS Code provides as follows:

“Within ten days following the expiry of the time limit for the appeal, the Appellant shall file with the CAS Court Office a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal, together with all exhibits and specification of other evidence upon which it intends to rely. Alternatively, the Appellant shall inform the CAS Court Office in writing within the same time limit that the statement of appeal shall be considered as the appeal brief. The appeal shall be deemed to have been withdrawn if the appellant fails to meet such time limit.”

69. Article 13.2.3.4 of the ADR provides as follows:

“Appeal Deadline for Parties other than WADA

The deadline to file an appeal for parties other than WADA shall be as provided in the rules of the Anti-Doping Organization conducting Results Management.”

70. The admissibility of the Appeal was not contested by the Respondents.

71. The Sole Arbitrator notes that the Appellant received the Appealed Decision and case file on 4 October 2024. The Appellant filed the Statement of Appeal on 25 October 2024, and therefore within the 21-day time limit prescribed by Article 13.6.1(b) of the ADR. The Appeal Brief was filed on 6 December 2024 and thus within the extended deadline of 9 December 2024.

72. Accordingly, the present Appeal is admissible.

B. Answer

73. The Sole Arbitrator explains below the reasons for the exceptional admission of the Second Respondent’s Answer, despite that it was only submitted by e-mail and not by courier.

74. Article R31 of the CAS Code provides as follows:

“The request for arbitration, the statement of appeal and any other written submissions, printed or saved on digital medium, must be filed by courier delivery to the CAS Court Office by the parties in as many copies as there are other parties and arbitrators, together with one additional copy for the CAS itself, failing which the CAS shall not proceed.”

75. Article R56 of the CAS Code provides as follows:

“Unless the parties agree otherwise or the President of the Panel orders otherwise on the basis of exceptional circumstances, the parties shall not be authorized to supplement or amend their requests or their argument, to produce new exhibits, or to specify further evidence on which they intend to rely after the submission of the appeal brief and of the answer.”

76. The Sole Arbitrator notes that the requirement for a delivery by courier is wellestablished in the CAS Code, given that procedural formalities are necessary to implement access to justice in order to ensure that the running of the procedure complies with the principle of equal treatment of the parties.

77. Nonethless, the Sole Arbitrator decided to exceptionally admit the Second Respondent’s Answer under Article R56 of the CAS Code as neither the Appellant nor the First Respondent expressly objected to the admission when requested so by the Sole Arbitrator nor did they raise any procedural objections at the Hearing.

C. Additional Document Produced by the Appellant

78. For completeness, the Sole Arbitrator also explains the reasons for the exceptional admission of the correspondence with WADA in a related case arising of the same alleged sabotage scenario, which was produced by the Appellant after it had already filed its Appeal Brief.

79. Article R56 of the CAS Code provides as follows:

“Unless the parties agree otherwise or the President of the Panel orders otherwise on the basis of exceptional circumstances, the parties shall not be authorized to supplement or amend their requests or their argument, to produce new exhibits, or to specify further evidence on which they intend to rely after the submission of the appeal brief and of the answer.”

80. The Sole Arbitrator notes that the additional document produced by the Appellant was not available at the time the Appeal Brief was filed and therefore satisfied the requirement of exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article R56 of the CAS Code. For completeness, the document at issue essentially discussed the interpretation of Article 3.2.4 of the WADA Code, which was anyway already addressed in previous CAS case jurisprudence (2025/ADD/117).

VII. APPLICABLE LAW

81. Article R58 of the CAS Code provides as follows:

“The Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable regulations and, subsidiarily, to the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, according to the law of the country in which the federation, association or sports-related body which has issued the challenged decision is domiciled or according to the rules of law that the Panel deems appropriate. In the latter case, the Panel shall give reasons for its decision.”

82. The Appealed Decision was issued under the ADR, which is not disputed. The ADR mirrors the provisions of the WADA Code and the IWF ADR. Accordingly, consistent with Article R58 of the CAS Code and CAS jurisprudence, the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the ADR, as well as the IWF ADR and the WADA Code (2021), to which the ADR must conform as per Article 20.5.2 of the WADA Code, are applicable to the present case.

83. In accordance with Article R58 of the CAS Code and given that the First Respondent has its seat in Georgia, Georgian law will apply on a subsidiary basis.

VIII. MERITS

84. There is no dispute between the Parties that a prohibited substance – ostarine – was detected in the First Respondent’s body. However, the Respondents argue that this is entirely unintentional and without fault or negligence as it results from sabotage, both as a matter of law (based on the Tbilisi City Court Judgment) and fact (based on further evidence and testimonies allegedly corroborating the Tbilisi City Court Judgment). The First Respondent subsidiarily claims that he in any even bears no significant fault or negligence. The Sole Arbitrator will proceed as follows.

85. First, the Sole Arbitrator will analyse the legal status of the Tbilisi City Court Judgment under Article 3.2.4 of the WADA Code to assess whether it can constitute an irrebuttable evidence in favour of the First Respondent.

86. Second, the Sole Arbitrator will examine the entirety of the evidence to assess whether it supports the sabotage scenario on the balance of probabilities and subsidiarily whether the First Respondent demonstrated no significant fault or negligence.

87. Third, the Sole Arbitrator will consider whether the First Respondent breached his obligations during his provisional suspension.

A. Legal Status of the Tbilisi City Court Judgment under the Applicable ADR

88. The Respondents argue that the Tbilisi City Court Judgment ought to be respected on its face pursuant to Article 3.2.4 of the WADA Code, the ADR, and the IWF ADR, which would preclude the CAS from making any ruling contradicting that judgment.

89. The Sole Arbitrator recalls that Article 3.2.4 of the ADR/WADA Code provides as follows:

“[t]he facts established by a decision of a court or professional disciplinary tribunal of competent jurisdiction which is not the subject of a pending appeal shall be irrebuttable evidence against the Athlete or other Person to whom the decision pertained of those facts unless the Athlete or other Person establishes that the decision violated principles of natural justice.”

90. The Sole Arbitrator notes the following in relation to Article 3.2.4 of the ADR/WADA Code:

- The heading of Article 3 indicates that the provision as a whole is concerned with establishing “Proof of Doping”, which indicates that the rationale has to do with establishing anti-doping rule violations rather than exonerating athletes.

- Similarly, the wording of Article 3.2.4 unambiguously refers to evidence “against” the person to whom the decision pertained, indicating that its purpose is to facilitate the establishment of anti-doping rule violations rather than to provide for a defence against such violations. Moreover, the Sole Arbitrator notes a clear rationale in this regard – if there is a national ruling against an athlete or Other Person, those individuals are able to appeal, failing which it is only fair to take that decision on its face against its addressees. The same is not the case for non-addressees because they are not parties to those proceedings. Moreover, to find otherwise would also mean that other interested parties such as WADA or international federations would be left without any recourse – both nationally and internationally. That is not the rationale of the WADA Code as a whole (which expressly grants WADA jurisdiction to appeal certain cases) or Article 3.2.4 of the ADR specifically.

- The Introduction to the WADA Code and the ADR clarifies that “Anti-doping rules, like competition rules, are sport rules governing the conditions under which sport is played. Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel or other Persons (including board members, directors, officers, and specified employees and Delegated Third Parties and their employees) accept these rules as a condition of participation or involvement in sport and shall be bound by these rules.” This indicates that the mention of “other Person” in Article 3.2.4 refers specifically to persons related to sport who are subject to the WADA Code, not any person generally. The provision therefore applies to athletes or other persons within the sporting framework who can be held accountable under anti-doping rules, and whose alleged doping offence is being investigated in parallel by WADA (or NADOs) on the one hand, and a national court or professional disciplinary tribunal. Accordingly, national court judgments can only establish irrebuttable evidence against athletes or other persons to whom the WADA Code applies, such as those involved in facilitating alleged doping offences within the sporting context.

- Moreover, even though the wording of Article 3.2.4 of the ADR is clear, the Sole Arbitrator notes that the interpretation put forward by the Respondents is untenable as it would effectively mean that the CAS would be bound by any national ruling against any person, which would automatically preclude the CAS from exercising its de novo jurisdiction. This cannot be accepted as a conceptual matter.

- The position of the Respondents is also untenable as a policy matter as it would enable “fall guy” scenarios where complicit third parties could confess to sabotage, allowing athletes to escape sanctions through manufactured defences. The Sole Arbitrator is mindful that the person at hand who confessed to the alleged sabotage obtained only a short probationary sentence.

91. Applying the above considerations to the facts of the present case, the Tbilisi City Court Judgment concerns Mr. Nikoloz Gogava, an individual who is not subject to the WADA Code and anti-doping proceedings by WADA or a NADO. Therefore, the Tbilisi City Court Judgment cannot constitute irrebuttable evidence to justify a finding of No Fault or Negligence with respect to the First Respondent under Article 10.5 of the WADA Code and the ADR.

92. The Tbilisi City Court Judgment will, however, be assessed holistically as part of a broader evidence base in this case.

B. Assessment of the Evidentiary Basis

a. Factual circumstances of the alleged sabotage

i. Mr. Nikoloz Gogava

93. In his direct examination by First Respondent’s counsel, Mr. Gogava delivered the following testimony:

- Mr. Gogava explained he had ostarine in capsules. The substance came from Russia and he had brought it back to Georgia and was consuming it himself. At some point, he decided to take revenge on Mr. Giorgi Asanidze and Mr. Zurab Kharabrishvili. To this effect, he took the powder out of the capsules and put it on paper and went to Bakuriani and later to Dusheti. In Bakuriani and Dusheti, he entered hotel rooms which had doors open, putting the powder in a liquid and added it to some vitamin powder he found.

94. On cross-examination by the Appellant, Mr. Gogava delivered the following testimony:

- Regarding his approach to use ostarine for spiking, the Appellant questioned Mr. Gogava about whether he knew ostarine was prohibited when taking it, and Mr. Gogava testified he did not know at the time but “learned that a bit later” as “some guys […] told me that it’s probably prohibited.” When asked why he kept the ostarine pills he had acquired for his personal usage upon his return to Tbilisi from Moscow, Mr. Gogava responded “I had them; why should I throw them away? It was good for restoring energy.”

- Regarding his travels to Bakuriani, Mr. Gogava confirmed he lived in Kutaisi in June 2023 and travelled to Bakuriani by bus. When asked when he decided to go, Mr. Gogava stated “I can’t remember because I was out of my mind and upset. Because when you mix methadone, sleeping pills and vodka one is not in right mind.” Mr. Gogava testified he did not buy the ticket in advance but “just stopped the microbus”.

- Regarding his ability to access the hotel where the First Respondent was staying in Bakuriani, Mr. Gogava described that he walked for “maybe 30-40 minutes” from the bus to the hotel. He had no problems accessing the hotel, noting that security was “not even there”. He had “no problem” passing reception at the lobby.

- When asked how he found the room, Mr. Gogava said “almost all rooms were open” and there were personal belongings in the rooms. Mr. Gogava testified he was “looking for Kharabrishvili’s room” who he “had asked for help.” Mr. Gogava testified he was not sure in the end if it was Kharabrishvili’s room “but when I entered there were vitamins and proteins, I adduced it” and confirmed he never actually saw Kharabrishvili at the hotel.

- Mr. Gogava then described his actions in the room: “I spread the powder” and clarified “there were cans with powder inside and I poured the powder into that one. I put it in the liquid too.” When asked if he used all the ostarine, Mr. Gogava said “I had a lot so I was afraid if I put too much they will get sick”, and “I put about half”, while he had “10-15” capsules overall and that he opened them “beforehand”, not in the room.

- Mr. Gogava then decided to go to Dusheti “4-5 days after going back to Kutaisi” and knew about it because “these camps usually take place in Dusheti or Bakuriani.” He learned about the specific camp from “some wrestlers” including “Ramaz”.

- At the Dusheti hotel, Mr. Gogava wanted to go to the room of Mr. Giorgi Asanidze to sabotage him: “I wanted to go to Giorgi’s room but I was not sure if it was his room.” He however testified that he saw Mr. Giorgi Asanidze leaving the hotel. He then wanted to enter any weightlifters room and “put [ostarine] in two rooms.” He put the substance in “some liquid. I put it in whatever I could put it in”, including “several bottles”. When asked about dosage, Mr. Gogava said “I don’t know, I did not measure the amounts.”

95. When questioned by the Sole Arbitrator, Mr. Gogava delivered the following testimony:

- When questioned on his duration of ostarine use, Mr. Gogava testified that he used it for “10 days or 2 weeks” and that “some time had passed between using and returning” to Georgia.” Mr. Gogava confirmed he used ostarine in “capsules” form, and he bought them “in the club where I was training.” Mr. Gogava purchased “two bottles” with “c. 100 per bottle” though later said “I did not count the capsules, maybe it was 50 or 100.” The total price was “100 dollars.” Mr. Gogava was employed “supplying a Georgian restaurant with products” earning “around 1000 dollars” monthly by “going to market and bringing it to them.” Despite the cost for ostarine, Mr. Gogava could afford it because “I didn’t spend money for food as I was eating in the restaurant.”

ii. The First Respondent

96. On direct examination by his counsel, the First Respondent testified the following:

- The First Respondent confirmed he was present at the sports camp in Dusheti in 2023, staying in room number 16 on the second floor with Mr. Kakhi Asanidze. He described the room’s location, noting that Mr. Giorgi Asanidze was in the neighbouring room 15, and the coach was in room 17.

- Regarding room security, the First Respondent explained that the room used a key rather than a card system. He stated that athletes usually kept the key, but for cleaning purposes, they would sometimes leave it at reception or in the lock. The First Respondent confirmed they occasionally left the key in the door to allow cleaning staff to enter, which meant someone from outside could potentially access the room.

- Concerning items in the room, the First Respondent testified they had water and vitamins, with water in different bottle sizes (1.5L, 2L, 5L) kept “all over the place” as they purchased large quantities. He noted these products were easily accessible because the room was small, and confirmed it was possible that someone could have entered and contaminated these items without their knowledge. After the training camp, they did not take water outside but consumed it during training sessions.

- When asked about doping controls, the First Respondent confirmed he underwent testing, and other athletes were also accused of using ostarine, including his roommate Mr. Kakhi Asanidze and Mr. Gurami Giorbelidze.

- When specifically asked if he knowingly used ostarine, the First Respondent firmly denied it, stating: “No, I don’t even know what this medicine looks like and the judgment confirmed victim.” When questioned about whether he lied about the sabotage theory, the First Respondent maintained: “No it was sabotage and [the sabotage] was proven by Supreme court of Georgia.”

97. During cross-examination by the Appellant, the First Respondent testified the following:

- The First Respondent explained his arrival at the training camp where the alleged sabotage occurred, stating he arrived on 1 July 2023 with the team but requested a week to stay at home due to having a newborn baby and needing to help his wife. During this first week, he attended only training sessions before moving to the Dusheti base permanently after one week. When asked why he did not train in Tbilisi, he explained: “Because the world championship was coming closer and last chance to get license for Paris Olympiad and the trainer insisted.”

- When asked about previous training camps in Dusheti before July 2023, the First Respondent stated he could not recall precisely but visited quite often, noting that he was in Antalya before the alleged sabotage. The First Respondent confirmed he returned from the Turkey training camp on 26 June 2023 but could not recall exactly due to the passage of 2 years.

98. During examination by the Sole Arbitrator, the First Respondent testified the following:

- When questioned by the Sole Arbitrator about supplement use, the First Respondent confirmed: “Yes as any athlete we have special vitamins as supplements.” He described the forms as “tablets, powders, liquids” and stated these supplements are “given to us, we are prohibited to buy themselves.” The First Respondent explained they come from the Georgian “medical association.”

- Regarding checks for prohibited substances in the supplements, the First Respondent stated: “[the medical association] are responsible for it and testing it themselves.” The First Respondent confirmed he had “not intentionally and knowingly taken prohibited substances.” When asked if supplements could have contained prohibited substances, the First Respondent stated: “No I cannot confirm this. The fact was discovered later. For next camp we would receive new vitamins.”

- When asked if sabotage was the only plausible explanation for the adverse analytical finding, the First Respondent confirmed: “Yes […]; I am professional athlete realizing risk of taking prohibited substances.”

iii. Other witnesses

99. Other witnesses testified on the factual circumstances surrounding the alleged sabotage, including Mr. Kakhi Asanidze and Mr. Giorgi Asanidze:

- Mr. Kakhi Asanidze provided detailed testimony about the security vulnerabilities at the Olympic House in Dusheti, confirming that while rooms were “locked by key,” they were “left open when cleaning ladies came” and that “someone from outside could enter your hotel and your rooms.” He described the storage arrangements that allegedly facilitated contamination, testifying that “vitamins were kept on tables whilst water bottles were placed at various places in rooms,” making these items easily accessible to potential saboteurs.

- Coach Giorgi Asanidze described the Olympic House as “not a high class luxury hotel” with basic key-based security rather than modern card access systems. He confirmed that despite instructing athletes not to leave doors open, “doors were left open for cleaning, with cleaning ladies saying they would lock the doors,” creating opportunities for unauthorised access. He stated that “[The First Defendant] was in room 16 on the 2nd floor, GA’s room was 15, Kakhi and [The First Defendant] shared one room, and GG was alone in room 22 on the second floor.” Upon learning of the positive tests, he testified having immediate “suspicions of sabotage” which were later “confirmed” by official investigation, and described how he immediately contacted ministry officials to involve investigative authorities.

b. The perpetrator’s motive

i. Mr. Nikoloz Gogava

100. In his direct examination by the First Respondent’s counsel, Mr. Gogava delivered the following testimony:

- Mr. Gogava explained he had learnt about a tournament among veterans in the U.S. and was eager to get there. He had family tragedies and wanted to get to the U.S. to recommence his training. He approached Mr. Zurab Kakhabrishbili and Mr. Giorgi Asanidze and asked for help and “initially they promised to help”. Later they started avoiding him and depicted him as a drug addict.

- When Mr. Kakhabrishbili and Mr. Asanidze did not answer his phone calls, he decided to go to Bakuriani “to see them there and discuss the issues”, but then changed his mind and “decided to take revenge” because they did not help him go to the U.S.

- Mr. Gogava described that he was in an “inadequate state” at the time and that he was consuming methadone, vodka, and sleeping pills. He expressed his remorse.

101. On cross-examination by the Appellant, Mr. Gogava delivered the following testimony:

- Mr. Gogava explained that he had reached out to Mr. Asanidze to help him for “training with weights” and “physical training.” While Mr. Gogava had “access to gym” in Kutaisi where he could exercise, he nevertheless “was angry because I had asked initially and they refused” and he wanted to “train along with the athletes, because the trainer would be there; provide vitamins and supplements. I really wanted to go to veteran tournament in United States and I wanted to stay there.”

- Mr. Gogava’s expectation upon his sabotage was that he “thought Kakhabrishvili would be punished” by “the control” from the “Ministry or whoever” and “I thought when athletes take this and it would be discovered, they would be punished for this.”

- Mr. Gogava testified about his remorse: “when I learned that the athletes were punished I was back in adequate situation but at the time of doing this I was in odd position” and “when I came back to my mind, I had understood what I had done and I regretted it. I was a dumb idiot doing this.”

102. When questioned by the Sole Arbitrator, Mr. Gogava delivered the following testimony:

- Mr. Gogava’s desired support was “no financial support. Just with training and vitamins” and he “expected help with my training, vitamins, general support; I was trying to get rid of methadone.” The support was related to a “veterans tournament that he wanted to qualify for and he needed to be top 3 in Georgia.”

ii. The First Respondent and Mr. Gurami Giorbelidze

103. The First Respondent testified that he learned that Mr. Gogava’s motive was vengeance.

104. When asked about Mr. Gogava’s motive, Mr. Giorbelidze answered “Not sure.”

iii. Other witnesses

105. Mr. Giorgi Asanidze and Mr. Zurab Kakhabrishvili, the alleged targets of Mr. Gogava’s sabotage, testified the following:

- Mr. Giorgi Asanidze testified that he had seen Mr. Gogava several times but had no good relationship with him. When asked about the motive, Mr. Asanidze explained that Mr. Gogava had approached him asking for help, and they had met at the funeral of a common friend. However, Mr. Asanidze stated he did not know Mr. Gogava well, and noted that Mr. Gogava was drunk at the time and it was unclear why he was angry with them.

- Mr. Zurab Kakhabrishvili testified about his interaction with Mr. Gogava, explaining that Mr. Gogava had approached both him and Mr. Asanidze at a funeral where they were sitting at the same table. Mr. Kakhabrishvili stated that Mr. Gogava was drunk and wanted help with vitamins and physical preparation.

- Mr. Kakhabrishvili learned that Mr. Gogava was the perpetrator from Mr. Irakli Sirekhidze in October 2023, but decided not to go public with this information because he “didn’t want this information to spread. We didn’t want to disclose.”

106. Other witnesses including Mr. Teimuraz Ukleba, Mr. Lasha Alkadze, and Mr. Kakhi Asanidze testified that they heard that Mr. Gogava’s motive was revenge.

c. Investigation of the Alleged Sabotage

i. Mr. Nikoloz Gogava

107. In his examination by First Respondent’s counsel, Mr. Gogava delivered the following testimony:

- Mr. Gogava told a man named Irakli Tsirekidze about his actions and decided to contact the Georgian authorities to confess when he learned his actions had damaged the athletes. His confession occurred in January 2024.

- After confessing, Mr. Gogava was interrogated and there were court proceedings resulting in a two-year suspended sentence or one year of imprisonment.

- Mr. Gogava testified that he did not appeal the court decision because he had admitted to the crime. When asked if the decision is final and binding in Georgia, Mr. Gogava said he does not know whether it is binding or not.

108. On cross-examination by the Appellant, Mr. Gogava delivered the following testimony:

- Mr. Gogava testified that he met a man called Irakli Tsirekidze to confess “end of October or early November”, although he did not remember exactly. Further, Mr. Gogava claimed that “Irakli told me he’d report me”. Mr. Gogava testified that “I thought I’d be arrested and decided to confess” because “I understood what I had done.”

- When asked why he did not go to the police in October 2023, Mr. Gogava said “not sure” and that he asked Mr. Tsirekidze to wait until the new year 2024.

- Mr. Gogava was “pardoned based on amnesty act” because “before the elections they had an amnesty; it was my first offense and they relieved me” and he confirmed he no longer needs “to go to the authorities.” The amnesty act was issued around “July 2024.”

ii. The First Respondent and Mr. Gurami Giorbelidze

109. The First Respondent noted in his testimony that both the public prosecutor and the police conducted an investigation into the criminal liability in connection to the alleged sabotage.

110. Gurami Giorbelidze had a limited recollection of the investigation. During his examination by his counsel, he confirmed that he was “questioned during criminal proceedings.” When asked by the Sole Arbitrator whether he was interrogated by the police, he said “Yes”, but when asked where that was, and whether it was in Bakuriani, he could not remember and said “No. I am not sure. I can’t tell you for sure.”

iii. Other witnesses

111. Several other witnesses testified about the investigation following the alleged sabotage, generally confirming that a police and criminal investigation took place. Mr. Kakhi Asanidze confirmed that he was interrogated. Mr. Giorgi Asanidze testified that the prosecutor’s office initiated an investigation and interviewed “25 people including athletes.”

112. Mr. Teimuraz Ukleba testified that as soon as the criminal investigation started, the representatives of the Second Respondent were invited to the criminal department and were interviewed as witnesses. When asked about the result of the proceedings, Mr. Ukleba confirmed there was a court trial and the court ruled that there was sabotage.

113. Mr. Lasha Alkadze testified that “the police were involved, and an investigation was started. Eventually, the person responsible was identified and confessed to the sabotage.”

d. Scientific Evidence

114. The two expert witnesses that were called to the proceedings by the Parties (Prof. Martial Saugy for the Appellant, and Prof. Pascal Kintz for the First Respondent), gave detailed assessments of the scientific possibility of contamination in the training camps in Bakuriani and Dusheti, including in relation to the possibility that the First Respondent was allegedly subject to contamination on 1 July 2023, tested negative on 16 July 2023, and then only tested positive on 15 August 2023.

115. Prof. Saugy testified the following:

- Regarding the timeline of the First Respondent’s ostarine intake, Prof. Saugy explained that contact with ostarine must have occurred after 15 July, stating “it can be one day or several days after the 15th of July, depending on the dose.” He referenced a publication from Walpurgis et al. 1 showing that ostarine glucuronide was detected until approximately 15 days after intake of 15 microgram doses, noting the difficulty in determining whether the 16 August adverse finding was due to “a single intake of a high dose or pharmacologically active dose of Ostarine the days after 15th of July or several small doses always after 15th of July.”

- Prof. Saugy explicitly stated during the hearing that “from the scientific point of view, I have to say that in my case, I cannot conclude that this is sabotage rather than voluntary intake” and emphasized that “sabotage is something for the forensic and for the legal to decide.” He testified that “I cannot rule out any intentional intake of a substance. Even if the results is low, the concentration in the urine is low, we have a lot of time for the athlete to take several mini-doses or several doses and to have this kind of concentration.”

- Prof. Saugy challenged the environmental contamination theory presented by Prof. Kintz, stating: “it’s difficult to understand if the environment was contaminated 1st or 2nd of July, why the 16 of July sample was negative.”

116. Prof. Kintz testified the following:

- Prof. Kintz stated that “I fully agree that exposure to ostarine occurred after the 16th of July.” He also acknowledged the general scientific uncertainty: “We don’t know whether it is a single dose, multiple dose, low dose, therapeutic dose,

Walpurgis, Rubio, Wagener, Krug, Knoop, Görgens, Guddat & Thevis, 2020: Elimination profiles of microdosed ostarine mimicking contaminated products ingestion. Drug test Anal 2020;12: 1570-1580.

pharmacologically active, mini-dose, micro dose. So in fact, we don’t know a lot of things.”

- Prof. Kintz described the possibility of environmental contamination after 16 July. He explained that ostarine can persist on surfaces for days or weeks, and that athletes could be contaminated by touching these surfaces long after the initial sabotage, noting that even microgram quantities could result in detectable levels in urine. Prof. Kintz confirmed that contamination occurring two weeks after initial sabotage was possible.

- Commenting on the concentrations of ostarine found in the samples of the athletes that were tested, he opined regarding Gurami Giorbelidze that “we have 767 [picograms per milligram]. I agree with Professor Saugy, this can either be due to contamination or due to the end of excretion”, the latter referring to an intentional intake. However, regarding the other two athletes that were tested (including the First Respondent), “the concentration is very low” and “does not correspond to a regimen of doping, intentional doping.” However, Prof. Kintz admitted that the scientific evidence is not conclusive and also relied on the alleged sabotage scenario to privilege the scenario that contamination occurred due to sabotage: “it can be [a doping situation]; it is more likely, a consequence of contamination, because the sabotage, I guess, is now established and recognized.”

e. Analysis

117. The principal issue at hand is whether the Tbilisi City Court Judgment and/or other evidence in the file set out in the preceding section, demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that Mr. Gogava engaged in the alleged sabotage and the Athlete was a victim thereof.

i. Evidence established in the Tbilisi City Court Judgment

118. A detailed examination of the Tbilisi City Court Judgment reveals fundamental deficiencies that prevent it from supporting the alleged sabotage scenario. The judgment lacks essential details about Mr. Gogava’s specific intentions for targeting these particular athletes including the First Respondent, how he procured ostarine, how he gained access to the training facilities, and crucially, how he ensured that the First Respondent consumed the substance. The judgment also does not explain why Mr. Gogava would use ostarine, a performance-enhancing drug, for sabotage purposes, or what effect he was hoping to achieve.

119. These deficiencies are compounded by significant scientific and factual inconsistencies. Ostarine is not soluble in water, which fundamentally undermines the alleged method of administration through contaminated drinking water.

120. In this regard, the Single Judge in a parallel CAS proceedings (2025/ADD/117) concerning an athlete who was subject to the same alleged sabotage by Mr. Gogava has found that the sabotage was impossible with respect to the concerned athlete, who was not at the training site in Bakuriani when the alleged sabotage occurred. The Single Judge noted that the entire sabotage scenario might have been construed. This finding sheds further doubt on the reliability of the Tbilisi City Court Judgment as evidence to prove that the First Respondent was indeed a victim to sabotage in the scope of this sabotage scenario.

121. Overall, the Tbilisi City Court Judgment contains only high-level factual explanations and conclusions that leave open essential facts required for establishing on the balance of probabilities that a spiking offence occurred which led to ostarine entering the First Respondent’s system without his knowledge or suspicion. The evidence referenced in paragraph 2 of the Tbilisi City Court Judgment has not been made available for examination. This lack of detailed investigation, combined with the scientific implausibility and contradictory testimony, renders the facts established by the judgment insufficient to allow the First Respondent to meet his burden of proof.

122. From a policy perspective, accepting such superficial findings without thorough independent verification would create a dangerous precedent for anti-doping enforcement. It would enable “fall guy” scenarios where complicit third parties could confess to sabotage, allowing athletes to escape sanctions through manufactured defences.

123. In conclusion, the judgment lacks the detailed factual investigation necessary to support the sabotage theory and accepting such evidence without rigorous verification would undermine the integrity of anti-doping enforcement by enabling manufactured defences.

ii. Other evidence

124. The evidence file includes other documentary evidence, witness testimonies, and expert evidence. The core element, however, is the evidence and testimony provided by Mr. Gogava, the alleged perpetrator of the claimed sabotage. Demonstrating that the sabotage actually occurred is a prerequisite for subsequent showing that a specific athlete was a victim thereof, be it due to direct exposure or indirect environmental contamination.

125. Based on a detailed review of Mr. Gogava’s statements in this case (as well as the transcript of Mr. Gogava’s statements in case CAS 2023/ADD/65 that the Parties agreed to be included in the case file in the present proceedings), the Sole Arbitrator concludes that Mr. Gogava’s testimony fundamentally lacks credibility:

- Implausible financial and logistical circumstances. The Sole Arbitrator considers it highly implausible that Mr. Gogava, reportedly earning “around

1000 dollars” monthly at the time, would spend “100 dollars” on ostarine capsules (of which he had two packages), only to use them briefly for “10 days or 2 weeks”, then suddenly decided to return to Georgia to seek revenge against coaches who had refused to help him. This sequence of events lacks logical coherence and raises serious questions about the veracity of his account. Moreover, in another case (CAS 2023/ADD/65), Mr. Gogava testified that he paid for ostarine in roubles, not dollars, which casts further doubts on the circumstances of the alleged purchase of ostarine.

- Contradictory mental state claims. Mr. Gogava described himself as being “in inadequate situation” due to methadone intake combined with “sleeping pills and vodka,” yet simultaneously provided detailed recollections of specific actions and locations. For instance, regarding his decision to go to Bakuriani, Mr. Gogava stated “I can’t remember because I was out of my mind and upset. Because when you mix methadone, sleeping pills and vodka one is not in right mind”. At the same time, Mr. Gogava was able to recall details of the alleged sabotage, including whether the hotel security was present in Bakuriani, how he passed by the reception, and how he identified the rooms where he would commit the alleged sabotage. This contradiction between claimed mental incapacity and detailed memory is inherently implausible.

- Inconsistent and vague details concerning the usage of ostarine. Mr. Gogava’s explanations for the quantities of ostarine used were contradictory - initially claiming he had 10-15 capsules in total, but later testifying he bought “two bottles” with “c. 100 per bottle,” then stating “I did not count the capsules, maybe it was 50 or 100.” When asked about dosage he said “I don’t know, I did not measure the amounts”, while at the same time testifying that he did not want to use too much ostarine to avoid inflicting too much harm. Mr. Gogava testified he was “looking for Kharabrishvili’s room” but “wasn’t sure in the end if it was Kharabrishvili’s room” and confirmed he never actually saw Kharabrishvili at the hotel, instead identifying his room by seeing “vitamins and proteins.”

- Implausible motive. According to Mr. Gogava, his motive was revenge for Giorgi Asanidze’s and Zhurab Khakrabishvili’s failure to help him compete in a tournament in the United States. Yet he fails to explain why and how exactly these two people disappointed him and why did it call for a major act of elaborate vengeance. The testimonies of Mr. Giorgi Asanidze and Mr. Zurab Khakrabishvili do not shed further light on this point, as neither seems able to give a plausible reason for Mr. Gogava’s disappointment. Furthermore, the hearing transcript from the case concerning Mr. Kakhi Asanidze (CAS 2023/ADD/65) reveals inconsistencies in Mr. Gogava’s testimony regarding his encounters with Mr. Giorgi Asanidze and Mr. Zhurab Khakrabishvili. In particular, he contradicts himself by first explicitly stating that he did not meet them at the funeral of a mutual friend, only to later withdraw this statement and claim that it was during a funeral.

- Implausible sabotage method. While Mr. Gogava testified taking ostarine himself for its performance enhancing effect while living in Moscow, he wanted to use it to harm Giorgi Asanidze and Zhurab Khakrabishvili. When asked to explain what harm he was trying to inflict with ostarine, he simply stated “I did not think properly”, and at the same time claimed that he did not want to use too much ostarine to not inflict excessive harm.

- Implausible execution. As noted above, Mr. Gogava testified extensively that he was in a difficult mental state (subject to substance abuse) at the time of the alleged sabotage, yet effectively claimed he was able to implement a highly elaborate sabotage scheme at two different locations in the span of weeks, with complex logistics, and without any detection.

- Implausible voluntary confession. Mr. Gogava testified that he was aggrieved and wanted to get revenge, which he allegedly undertook not once but twice and not against his direct targets but against athletes. It is inherent in an elaborate contamination sabotage that the “damage” would only arise if athletes are subsequently tested and detected. Mr. Gogava ought to have known this when he allegedly planned and implemented the sabotage. Yet Mr. Gogava concurrently claims that while no one detected him in the commission of a crime, he suddenly voluntarily disclosed his alleged involvement and confessed to the police, because he felt sorry about the athletes. This further adds to the implausibility of the entire sabotage scenario.

126. In conclusion, the evidence of Mr. Gogava’s alleged sabotage is far-fetched, contradictory, entirely unconvincing, and inherently implausible. Absent a proof of Mr. Gogava’s sabotage, the remaining evidence and testimonies from the First Respondent, other athletes, the coach and other sports personnel, as well as the First Respondent’s expert, effectively fall away because that evidence is dependent on proving that sabotage occurred in the first place. For example, while Prof. Kintz opined that it was possible for the First Respondent to be a victim of an environmental contamination from an ostarine residue left during Mr. Gogava’s alleged sabotage, that possibility only arises if the alleged ostarine sabotage occurred on the balance of probabilities. But this was not demonstrated.

iii. No Significant Fault or Negligence Defence

127. As explained above, the First Respondent’s request for relief also includes an alternative no significant fault or negligence defence under Article 10.5 of the ADR which appears to go beyond the sabotage scenario. The First Respondent argues that independently from the sabotage scenario, he could not have known or suspected, even with the exercise of utmost caution, that he had used or been administered the prohibited substance.

128. To benefit from a no significant fault or negligence, the Athlete must provide concrete evidence of how the prohibited substance entered their system through no fault of their own. The First Respondent has manifestly failed to discharge this burden for the following reasons: (i) other than relying on the alleged sabotage which was not demonstrated, the Athlete did not establish any credible alternative scenario explaining how ostarine entered his system; (ii) his vague references to potential contamination lack any substantive explanation of how such contamination could have occurred; (iii) his general assertions that doping would not make sense for him are speculative and do not constitute evidence of how the substance was ingested; and (iv) his reliance on the small detected concentration as indicative of innocence fails to address the fundamental question of source and ingestion pathway. Such wholly inadequate assertions ought to be dismissed.

f. Overall conclusion

129. Accordingly, on the basis of all evidence considered, the Sole Arbitrator finds that: (i) the First Respondent did not establish the sabotage scenario on the balance of probabilities; and (ii) the First Respondent did not demonstrate he bore no significant fault or negligence. The Sole Arbitrator therefore finds that the First Respondent committed an anti-doping rule violation in breach of Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the ADR.

C. Provisional Suspension

a. Background

130. The Appellant alleges that, in violation of his obligations under the ADR, the First Respondent participated in a training session with the Georgian National Weightlifting Team during his provisional suspension.

131. At the Hearing, the following witness testimonies were provided in this regard.

i. First Respondent

132. During cross-examination by the Appellant, the First Respondent testified the following:

- The First Respondent confirmed he recalled the training session on 13 March 2024. When asked if he was in the same room where the weightlifting team was training, the First Respondent clarified: “Only after they finished. Then we entered the room.” The First Respondent confirmed he was present next to them at the same time “because they were asked to stay in the room by the doping officers.” The First Respondent stated he did not arrive after the doping officers, explaining: “No, they entered right after us. The trainer told them that.”

- When asked who told him he could train in that facility, the First Respondent explained: “I am visiting Bakuriani often with family; in this case we knew that we were not guilty, I did not want to stop training; I asked trainer I take family to Bakuriani to not miss the training. I was not expecting to see the national team there. They were still there only because doping officers asked them to wait.”

- When asked why he did not leave when he was conscious about not training with the national team, the First Respondent explained: “They weren’t training any longer. […] Minutes later the doping officers entered; the trainer explained that they didn’t expect to see us. When trainer asked if it would constitute any problem, they said no because they could also test us.”

- The First Respondent confirmed he recognized video footage of the training and confirmed he was training in the gym. When confronted about the contradiction between saying nobody was training and the video showing a training, the First Respondent maintained: “The training was over, and the video was shot by doping officers.”

- When questioned whether the First Respondent included Bakuriani in his whereabouts for that day, the First Respondent stated he could not recall because almost 2 years had passed.

ii. Mr. Kakhi Asanidze

133. On direct examination by the First Respondent’s counsel, Mr. Kakhi Asanidze testified that “[The First Respondent] was going there with family” and that they “went together”. Their coach had confirmed that they could train in Bakuriani after the national team had finished. When Mr. Asanidze and the First Respondent arrived to the camp, Mr. Asanidze “saw the team, [and] although they had finished doping officers asked them to stay.”

134. On cross-examination by the Appellant, Mr. Asanidze testified that he arrived at the gym in Bakuriani whilst other members were finishing their training. He explained why he started training while other team members were still there: “They were finished. They were staying there because of the doping officer’s demand.” Regarding the timing of the doping officers’ demand, Mr. Asanidze stated “I don’t know. It was communicated to the head coach.” He added that had he known that the doping control was happening “I would not even go there. I would wait until they vacate the building.” When asked why he did not leave when the other athletes in the gym were waiting for doping control officers, he explained: “In the moment when I learned, in the exact moment the officers arrived. Maybe it was not seconds, but 1-2 minutes maximum. When they entered they saw us. Coach asked if we can start training. The doping officers said no problem.” When asked if he was surprised that doping control officers wanted to test him and the

First Respondent that day, Mr. Asanidze responded “yes” and when asked why, he stated “in this moment they should not have come to me.”

iii. Mr. Giorgi Asanidze

135. On direct examination by the First Respondent’s counsel, Mr. Giorgi Asanidze testified that Mr. Kakhi Asanidze and the First Respondent were not officially training with the national team that day. Before the incident his son “Kakhi [...] called […] and he said he and Revaz were planning to come there. I told him that he cannot. But that he can train after the training is done.”

136. Regarding the approach of the testing officers, he testified that the security at the Crystal Hotel stopped the doping officers: “The security took them to the reception and there was a dialogue and I told [the doping officers] that the training was finished. They demanded us to stay in gym and wait there.” When the doping officers entered he explained them the situation regarding the First Respondent and Mr. Kakhi Asanidze and explained that they were about to leave the room. According to Mr. Asanidze, the officer said that he “wanted to test the two anyway.”

iv. Mr. Nikita Sharapov

137. On direct examination by the Appellant, Mr. Nikita Sharapov testified the following:

- Mr. Sharapov confirmed that he remembered the training incident and went to the hotel where the national team was training. When asked if he was stopped by security staff when entering, Mr. Sharapov stated: “entrance was open, no control” and regarding whether there was any interaction with security, he responded “not at all.” Regarding notification of the head coach or Georgian weightlifting team, Mr. Sharapov stated: “No, there was no communication. We parked car near building of weightlifting hall. We notified the coach at the same time when the athletes. No interaction with coach.” When asked what he saw before entering the gym, Mr. Sharapov described: “the first door is main one, right side .. toilet and bench, and when you go a meter straight you see another door, and you see the training hall; and you can see the people.”

138. On cross-examination by First Respondent’s counsel, Mr. Sharapov testified the following:

- When asked how many doping controls Mr. Sharapov had conducted in Bakuriani, he responded it was his “second time there” and when asked why he remembered this doping control so well, he explained: “when we get the missions, I pay attention to special instructions, I check the circumstances and the areas. It was special mission because it involved group of athletes; involved more instructions.” When asked if he could see Mr. Kakhi Asanidze and the First Respondent, Mr. Sharapov confirmed “yes” and regarding whether the coach was giving them instructions, he stated: “yes coach was there, in middle section, the coaches and doctors were moving around. I couldn’t hear them.” When asked if he could see that Mr. Davitadze was lifting the bar and that they were training, Mr. Sharapov stated: “I could see that Davitadze was lifting the bar and that they were training but I don’t know if they were given instructions by the coach.”

- When asked by GADA to confirm that the athletes were held in the gym room due to ongoing doping control, Mr. Sharapov responded: “No. When I was entering, the athletes were having a training session. When we notified the athletes they were training. We did not force anyone to stay.” When asked if the First Respondent was training as an active team member, Mr. Sharapov stated: “he was in the room with the team; athletes have their own bar bells, he had his own volume and lifting weights” but he did not confirm that the First Respondent received specific instructions from the coach.

b. Analysis

139. According to Article 10.14.1 of the ADR, “No Athlete or other Person who has been declared Ineligible or is subject to a Provisional Suspension may, during a period of Ineligibility or Provisional Suspension, participate in any capacity in a Competition or activity (other than authorised anti-doping Education or rehabilitation programmes) authorised or organised by any Signatory, Signatory’s member organisation, or a club or other member organisation of a Signatory’s member organisation […].”

140. Comment to Article 10.14.1 clarifies that “For example, subject to Article 10.14.2 below, Ineligible Athletes cannot participate in a training camp, exhibition or practice organized by their National Federation or a club which is a member of that National Federation or which is funded by a governmental agency” (emphasis added).

141. The key question therefore is whether the First Respondent participated in a training camp organized by the Georgian national weightlifting team. In assessing this question, the Sole Arbitrator considers both the objective circumstances of the training setting and the testimonial record regarding whether the First Respondent was functionally integrated into the team’s organised session or instead trained independently in proximity to the team. Importantly, the Sole Arbitrator is mindful that the provisional suspension rules are strict as a matter of policy. The athletes are expected to strictly adhere to these rules and not look for technical ways to circumvent them.

142. Against this background, the Sole Arbitrator is mindful of the broader context -- the First Respondent travelled all the way to Bakuriani and trained around the same time and in the same venue as the Georgian national team . The circumstances, including his arrival and commencement of training while the team was still present in the hall, tend to show functional participation in the team’s session rather than a clearly segregated, private workout.

143. The First Respondent’s testimony indicates that he was told by Coach Giorgi Asanidze he could train “after” the national team had completed their organised session. However, the lead doping control officer, Mr. Nikita Sharapov, testified that the First Respondent was actively training when the officers arrived, and that he was training “in the room with the team,” lifting weights in the same hall and observable as part of the group present.

144. Mr Sharapov’s testimony also reveals contradictions in the account of Coach Giorgi Asanidze regarding entry security and communications. Whereas Coach Asanidze claimed the doping officers were stopped by hotel security and a dialogue ensued before they came to the gym, Mr. Sharapov stated there was no interaction with security at entry, and that he notified athletes and coach contemporaneously upon entering the hall. These contradictions weaken the First Respondent’s narrative that he waited to begin only after team training had formally ended and suggest the team remained in active training when the First Respondent was present and lifting.

145. In light of the evidence at hand, the Sole Arbitrator finds that the First Respondent participated in a training camp organized by a national federation, in violation of Article 10.14.1 of the ADR.

D. Sanction

146. Article 10.2 of the ADR and the WADA Code provides as follows:

“The period of Ineligibility, subject to Article 10.2.4, shall be four (4) years where:

- 10.2.1.1 The anti-doping rule violation does not involve a Specified Substance or a Specified Method, unless the Athlete or other Person can establish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.

- 10.2.1.2 The anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance or a Specified Method and the Anti-Doping Organization can establish that the antidoping rule violation was intentional.”

147. Article 10.10 of the ADR and the WADA Code provides as follows:

“In addition to the automatic Disqualification of the results in the Competition which produced the positive Sample under Article 9, all other competitive results of the Athlete obtained from the date a positive Sample was collected (whether In-Competition or Outof-Competition), or other anti-doping rule violation occurred, through the commencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period, shall, unless fairness requires otherwise, be Disqualified with all of the resulting Consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.”

148. Article 10.13 of the ADR and the WADA Code provides as follows:

“Where an Athlete is already serving a period of Ineligibility for an anti-doping rule violation, any new period of Ineligibility shall commence on the first day after the current period of Ineligibility has been served. Otherwise, except as provided below, the period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of the final hearing decision providing for Ineligibility or, if the hearing is waived or there is no hearing.”

149. Further, Article 10.13.2.1 of the ADR and the WADA Code provides that “If a period of Ineligibility is served pursuant to a decision that is subsequently appealed, then the Athlete or other Person shall receive a credit for such period of Ineligibility served against any period of Ineligibility which may ultimately be imposed on appeal.” Conversely, Article 10.14.3 of the ADR stipulates that “An Athlete or other Person who violates the prohibition against participation during a Provisional Suspension described in Article 10.14.1 shall receive no credit for any period of Provisional Suspension served and the results of such participation shall be Disqualified”.

150. The Sole Arbitrator notes that the First Respondent committed an anti-doping rule violation under Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the ADR. Ostarine is not a Specified Substance and it has not been established that the anti-doping violation was not intentional. The appropriate period of ineligibility to be imposed on the First Respondent pursuant to Article 10.2 of the ADR and the WADA Code is thus four years.

151. The period of ineligibility shall commence on the date when this Award becomes effective.

152. Moreover, pursuant to Article 10.10 of the ADR and the WADA Code, all competitive results obtained by the First Respondent from and including the day that the Sample was collected (15 August 2023) through the commencement of the period of ineligibility shall be annulled, with resulting consequences including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes.

153. Finally, given the First Respondent violated his provisional suspension, he shall receive no credit for the period of provisional suspension served.

IX. COSTS

(…)