Back
1 October 2025
In July and August 2023, samples were collected from Gurami Giorbelidze and Revaz Davitadze during out-of-competition anti-doping controls conducted under the testing authority of GADA. The analysis of the samples returned adverse analytical findings¹ for Ostarine, a non-specified prohibited substance under the Prohibited List of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).
Ostarine is prohibited under the WADA Prohibited List as an anabolic agent (S1.2). It is prohibited at all times (in-competition and out-of-competition).
Following the results management process conducted by GADA, on 26 August 2024, the Disciplinary Committee of GADA has found that although the athletes had committed ADRVs for the presence of a prohibited substance in their samples, they bore “no fault or negligence”² for their ADRVs because they were victims of “sabotage”, and hence, no period of ineligibility was imposed³.
On 25 October 2024, the ITA on behalf of the IWF appealed the decisions of the Disciplinary Committee of GADA to CAS⁴.
A hearing took place on 26 and 27 August 2025, in which the ITA represented the IWF. After hearing the parties and considering the written submissions and evidence, on 30 September 2025, CAS issued an operative award⁵, whereby it set aside the decisions of the Disciplinary Committee of GADA. CAS confirmed that the athletes had committed ADRVs for presence of a prohibited substance and sanctioned them with a period of ineligibility of four years each from the date of the CAS award. CAS also imposed the disqualification of the athletes’ competitive results from the respective dates of the sample collection.
The ITA will not comment further on this case.
¹ A report from a WADA-accredited laboratory that, consistent with the International Standard for Laboratories, establishes in a sample the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers or evidence of the use of a prohibited method.
² ‘No Fault or Negligence’ is defined as “The Athlete or other Person’s establishing that he or she did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution, that he or she had Used or been administered the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method or otherwise violated an anti-doping rule”.
³ The default period of ineligibility for an anti-doping rule violation for the presence of a non-specified prohibited substance such as Ostarine is four years, unless the athlete establishes, for instance ‘No Fault or Negligence’.
⁴ Under Article 13.2.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code, the IWF as the “relevant International Federation” of the athletes is a party with a right to appeal the decision.
⁵ An operative award provides the conclusion of the panel without providing the detailed reasoning for arriving at such conclusion.
