Back
22 June 2026
On 14 August 2023, the athlete was notified that a sample he provided out‑of‑competition on 16 July 2023 had returned an adverse analytical finding¹ for ostarine, a non‑specified prohibited substance under the World Anti‑Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List. The athlete was provisionally suspended with immediate effect.²
Following the results management process conducted by the ITA on behalf of the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF), the matter was submitted to CAS ADD for adjudication.
The athlete alleged that he bore “no fault or negligence”³ for his ADRV because he (along with other members of the Georgian weightlifting team) was the victim of “sabotage”, and hence, no period of ineligibility should be imposed.
A hearing took place on 10 and 11 February 2025, in which the ITA represented the IWF. After hearing the parties and considering the written submissions and evidence, on 13 April 2026 the Sole Arbitrator found that the athlete had committed ADRVs under Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the IWF anti‑doping rules for the presence and use of a prohibited substance. As a result, CAS ADD imposed a four‑year period of ineligibility on Kakhi Asanidze from 14 August 2023 until 13 August 2027. All competitive results obtained by the athlete between 16 July 2023 and 14 August 2023 were disqualified.
The athlete and the relevant stakeholders, namely the IWF/ITA, WADA and the Georgian Anti‑Doping Agency, have the right to appeal the CAS ADD decision before the Appeals Arbitration Division of CAS within the relevant time limits.
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 The information about the Provisional Suspension was publicly disclosed by the ITA shortly after its imposition.
³ ‘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”.
