IOC 2016 IOC vs Antonina Krivoshapka

27 Jan 2017

Ms Antonina Krivoshapka is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women’s 400m athletics event at the 2012 London Olympic Games. In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012. In July 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol). After notification the Athlete submitted that she did not accept the test results, she filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission. The Athlete disputed the filing of the McLaren Report, Part 2; she challenged the validity of the testing method; she contended that the presence of a Prohibited Substance in her bodily sample may be a result of a contaminated product unintentionally ingested; and she requested the appointment of independent expert. The Disciplinary Commission finds that the content of the McLaren Report has been publicly issued and is available to anybody. It is therefore part of common knowledge and its acceptance or exclusion from the file could not change that. The report was indeed not related to the Athlete and, as such, could not permit to draw a conclusion in her respect. Regarding the validity of the testing method the Disciplinary Commission observes that the Athlete filed the opinion of an expert witness Dr Kopylov which was also filed and heard in 3 other cases. The Commission notes that according to the McLaren Report, Part 2, turinabol appears to have been widely used in Russia in this period can only bring additional comfort in holding that the analysis through the challenged method did effectively properly identified this substance. The Commission concludes that the arguments put forward by Dr Kopylov are meritless. The scientific validity of the analytical method used by the Laboratory is beyond question and the application to appoint an independent expert is rejected. The Disciplinary Commission notes that athletes have long been warned against the use of supplements. As such, the fact that turinabol may have been ingested as part of a supplement is not likely to constitute an element exonerating the Athlete from having been at fault for using a Prohibited Substance. In this respect, the Disciplinary Commission observes that supplements do not, as a rule, contain turinabol and that accidental contamination of a legitimate supplement by this substance appears to be very unlikely. With the positive test results the Commission concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation consistent with intentional use of prohibited substances specifically ingested to deliberately improve performance. The fact that the metabolites of a doping substance, which is a traditional doping substance, was found, supports this consideration. The Disciplinary Commission, which has now handled multiple cases arising out of the reanalysis of samples from the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games, observes that the presence of metabolites of this particular substance has been established in a remarkably high number of cases, which resulted from the re-analysis of the samples collected in Beijing 2008 and London 2012. This constitutes an indication that said substance has been in widespread use by athletes, who were doping at that time. Therfore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 27 January 2017 that the Athlete, Antonina Krivoshapka: 1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXX Olympiad in London in 2012 (presence and/or use, of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen), 2.) is disqualified from the events in which she participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games London 2012, namely, the Women’s 400m event and the Women’s 4x400m relay event, and 3.) has the silver medal, the medallist pin and the diplomas obtained in the Women’s 400m event and in the Women’s 4x400m relay event withdrawn and is ordered to return same. 4.) The Russian Federation Team is disqualified from the Women’s 4x400m relay event. The corresponding medals, medallist pins and diplomas are withdrawn and shall be returned. 5.) The IAAF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence. 6.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision. 7.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the diploma awarded to the Athlete in connection with the Women’s 400m event and the silver medals, medallist pins and diplomas awarded to the members of the Russian Federation Team who participated in the Women’s 4x400m relay event. 8.) This decision enters into force immediately.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IOC 2016 IOC vs Adem Kılıçcı

27 Jan 2017

Mr Adem Kılıçcı is a Turkish Athlete competing in the Men’s 69-75 kg boxing event at the 2012 London Olympic Games. In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012. In May 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol). After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission. The Athlete denied the use of prohibited substances, he never tested positive in his career and contended that the presence of a Prohibited Substance in his bodily sample may be a result of a contaminated product unintentionally ingested. The Disciplinary Commission notes that athletes have long been warned against the use of supplements. As such, the fact that turinabol may have been ingested as part of a supplement is not likely to constitute an element exonerating the Athlete from having been at fault for using a Prohibited Substance. In this respect, the Disciplinary Commission observes that supplements do not, as a rule, contain turinabol and that accidental contamination of a legitimate supplement by this substance appears to be very unlikely. With the positive test results the Commission concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation consistent with intentional use of prohibited substances specifically ingested to deliberately improve performance. The fact that the metabolites of a doping substance, which is a “classical” doping substance, was found, supports this consideration. The Disciplinary Commission, which has now handled multiple cases arising out of the reanalysis of samples from the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games, observes that the presence of metabolites of this particular substance has been established in a remarkably high number of cases, which resulted from the re-analysis of the samples collected in Beijing 2008 and London 2012. This constitutes an indication that said substance has been in widespread use by athletes, who were doping at that time. Therfore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 27 January 2017 that the Athlete, Adem Kılıçcı: 1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXX Olympiad in London in 2012 (presence, and/or use, of Prohibited Substances or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen), 2.) is disqualified from the event in which he participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games London 2012, namely the Men’s 69-75 kg boxing event, in which he ranked 5th and for which he was awarded a diploma. 3.) has the diploma obtained in the Men’s 69-75 kg boxing event withdrawn and is ordered to return the same. 4.) The AIBA is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence. 5.) The Turkish Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision. 6.) The Turkish Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the diploma awarded in connection with the Men’s 69-75 kg boxing event to the Athlete. 7.) This decision enters into force immediately.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IOC 2016 IOC vs Vera Ganeeva

27 Jan 2017

Ms Vera Ganeeva is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women’s discus throw athletics event at the 2012 London Olympic Games. In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012. In May 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2012 sample tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol). After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission. The Athlete denied having used performance enhancing substances. As an explanation for the presence of the Prohibited Substance, she raises the hypothesis that the substances may have been contained in medication or food supplements bought in Ukraine by her coach/husband at that time. She also suspects that somebody would have contaminated her food during her preparation for the 2012 Olympic Games. The Disciplinary Commission notes that the Athlete does not bring forth any concrete evidence to support her submissions. Furthermore, the fact that the substance in question may have been contained in food supplements would not exonerate the Athlete from having used it. With the positive test results the Commission concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation consistent with intentional use of prohibited substances specifically ingested to deliberately improve performance. The fact that the metabolites of a doping substance, which is a “classical” doping substance, was found, supports this consideration. The Disciplinary Commission further observes that the substance found in the Athlete’s sample is the same as the one detected in the overwhelming majority of cases of anti-doping violations, which were established in the course of the re-analysis process. The fact that turinabol has been effectively and widely used as a doping substance, notably in Russia, is further corroborated by the McLaren Report, Part 2, which expressly mentions turinabol as the doping substance of choice in the period up to the 2012 Olympic Games. Therfore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 27 January 2017 that the Athlete, Vera Ganeeva: 1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXX Olympiad in London in 2012 (presence, and/or use, of Prohibited Substances or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen), 2.) is disqualified from the event in which she participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games London 2012, namely the Women’s discus throw event. 3.) The IAAF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence. 4.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision. 5.) This decision enters into force immediately.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

iNADO Quarterly Report 4_2016

3 Jan 2017

iNADO Quarterly Report 4/2016 / Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2017 (See attached pdf-file for more information) This communication goes to iNADO’s 62 Members. iNADO is happy to answer any questions on your Institute’s activities. Please send your questions to info@inado.org _________________________________________________ Contents: - New members - New iNADO Partnerships - iNADO Attendance at Anti-Doping Conferences/Meetings - NADOs visited - iNADO Webinars - iNADO Board Meetings - iNADO Public Statements - iNADO Finances - iNADO Updates - iNADO Member Communications - Added Documents on iNADO Website - Other iNADO Projects and Activities

show » details »
Type:
pdf

iNADO Quarterly Report 3_2016

30 Sep 2016

iNADO Quarterly Report 3/2016 / Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2016 (See attached pdf-file for more information) This communication goes to iNADO’s 59 Members. This quarterly corporate report shares information on iNADO’s activities during the period July - Sept. 2016. iNADO is happy to answer any questions on your Institute’s activities. Please send your questions to info@inado.org _________________________________________________ Contents: - New iNADO Partnerships - iNADO Attendance at Anti-Doping Conferences/Meetings - NADOs visited - iNADO Webinars - iNADO Board Meetings - iNADO Finances - iNADO Public Statements - iNADO Updates - iNADO Member Communications - Added Documents on iNADO Website - Other iNADO Projects and Activities

show » details »
Type:
pdf

Council of Europe - Additional Protocol to the Anti-Doping Convention (2002)

12 Sep 2002

Additional Protocol to the Anti-Doping Convention / Council of Europe. - Warsaw, 2002. - (European Treaty Series; ETS No. 188) Warsaw, 12/09/2002 - Treaty open for signature by the member States of the Council of Europe and the other States signatories or Parties to the Convention The aim of the Protocol is to ensure the mutual recognition of doping controls and to reinforce the application of the Convention (ETS No. 135). To this end, the Protocol ensures the recognition by States Parties to the Convention of doping controls carried out on sportsmen and women coming from the other States Parties to the Convention. This will obviate the need for the conclusion of multiple bilateral agreements and will increase the effectiveness of anti-doping controls. In the same spirit, the Protocol is the first instrument of international public law, which recognises the competence of the World Anti-Doping Agency to conduct out of competition controls. With regard to the reinforcement of the application of the Convention, the Protocol sets up a binding monitoring mechanism. This monitoring will be carried out by an evaluation team, which will make a visit to the State concerned, followed by an evaluation report.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

Council of Europe - Anti-Doping Convention (1989)

16 Nov 1989

Anti-Doping Convention/ Council of Europe. - Strasbourg, 1989. - (European Treaty Series; ETS No. 135) The Convention was open for signature on 16th November 1989 and entered into force on 1 March 1990. To this day it has been ratified by 52 states and is open to non-Member States of the Council of Europe. It has been adopted by Australia, Belarus, Canada, and Tunisia. The Convention does not claim to create a uniform model of anti-doping, but sets a certain number of common standards and regulations requiring Parties to adopt legislative, financial, technical, educational and other measures. The main objective of the Convention is to promote the national and international harmonisation of the measures to be taken against doping. In their constitutional provisions, each contracting party undertakes to: - create a national co-coordinating body; - reduce the trafficking of doping substances and the use of banned doping agents; - reinforce doping controls and improve detection techniques; - support education and awareness-raising programmes; - guarantee the efficiency of sanctions taken against offenders; - collaborate with sports organisations at all levels, including at international level; and - to use accredited anti-doping laboratories Furthermore the Convention describes the mission of the Monitoring Group set up in order to monitor its implementation and periodically re-examine the List of prohibited substances and methods which can be found in annex to the main text. An Additional Protocol to the Convention entered into force on 1st April 2004 with the aim of ensuring the mutual recognition of anti-doping controls and of reinforcing the implementation of the Convention using a binding control system. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/sport/doping/convention_en.asp

show » details »
Type:
pdf

UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Gavin Duffy

9 Feb 2016

In August 2015 UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Gavin Duffy after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel. The Athlete admitted the out-of-competition use of the substance without intention to enhance his performance. The Athlete told the Panel, sustained by expert witnesses, that he suffered from a depression with increased alcohol consumption after his relationship broke down in January 2015. He lost his job, injured his shoulder and stopped attending the rugby training. The Athlete stated that in the six weeks before the competition he had drunk alcohol and used cocaine each weekend. The Panel accepts the Athlete’s evidence and concludes that the anti-doping violation was not intentional and that he bears no significant fault or negligence. Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 9 February 2016 to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 August 2015.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

UKAD 2015 Luke Willmott vs UKAD – Appeal

11 Jan 2016

1.) UKAD 2014 RFU vs Luke Willmott Decision RFU Anti-Doping Panel April 13, 2015 2.) UKAD 2015 RFU vs Luke Willmott Decision RFU Anti-Doping Panel on sanction June 2, 2015 3.) UKAD 2015 Luke Willmott vs UKAD - Appeal Decision RFU Appeal Panel January 11, 2016 _________________________________________________ In June 2013, UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) received notification that the International Crime Team had seized a parcel addressed to the Athlete containing vials labelled Jintopirn (Human Growth Hormone, hGH). However analysis of the substance in the vials showed they did not contain hGH. The Athlete was interviewed by UKAD one year later in July 2014 and hereafter charged for attempted use (later withdrawn) and attempted trafficking. After notification of the anti-doping rule violation the Rugby Football Union (RFU) ordered a provisional suspension. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he waived his right to be heard for the RFU Anti-Doping Panel. The Athlete denied the charge of attempted trafficking and admitted that he had provided the delivery address to a Person (Mr X) he knew from the gym they both used. The Person had asked the Athlete for an address to which he could have delivery parcels addressed and sent. On 13 April 2015, the RFU Anti-Doping Panel ruled that the Athlete committed the anti-doping rule violation of Attempted Trafficking. On 2 June 2015 the RFU Anti-Doping Panel ruled about the sanction and decided to impose a 5 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension. Hereafter the Athlete appealed the decision of the RFU Anti-Doping Panel with the RFU Appeal Panel. The Athlete disputed with several arguments the analysis that he was involved in transporting, sending, delivering or distribution of a Prohibited Substance by the Athlete to the Person. The Appeal Panel concludes that the facts admitted by the Athlete are consistent with attempted trafficking. The Panel observes that the seizure of the parcel alone was not sufficient for the RFU to charge the Athlete with any violation. The RFU only charged him after the UKAD interview and, even then, it was in relation to an anti-doping rule violation that the RFU no longer pursues (i.e. “Use or Attempted Use”). It was only after the RFU received a witness statement from the Athlete reaffirming what he had already said in his UKAD interview that it decided to charge him with “Attempted Trafficking”. The RFU could not have charged the Athlete, less still secured a conviction against him, but for the Athlete’s candid Admission. The Panel considers the facts and circumstances in this case and determines that the Athlete is entitled to a reduction of the imposed sanction. The RFU admitted that the Athlete complied fully with the proceedings and that there have been substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of Doping Control not attributable to the Athlete or other person. Therefore on 11 january 2011 the RFU Appeal Panel decides that the appeal of the Athlete is partially granted and partially denied as follows: 1.) The Panel has determined that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rules violation pursuant to IRB Regulation 21.2.7; 2.) The Panel has determined to impose a two-year period of ineligibility on the Athlete pursuant to IRB Regulation 21.22.7; 3.) The start date for Mr. Willmott’s period of ineligibility shall commence at 12:01AM on 1 April 2014, and expires at midnight on 31 March 2016; 4.) The Athlete’s period of ineligibility shall be credited for the time he has served his provisional suspension since 23 July 2014 to the present in accordance with IRB 21.22.12(c); and 5.) The Athlete’s status during the period of ineligibility is as provided by IRB Regulation 21.22.13. 6.) (…) 7.) (…)

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IOC 2016 IOC vs Tatiana Lebedeva

25 Jan 2017

Ms. Tatiana Lebedeva is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women’s triple jump athletics event in the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2008. In July 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol). After notification the Athlete submitted that she raised legal questions regarding the application of the Rules and the ISL. The Athlete filed a statement with arguments in her defence and she waived her right to be heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission. The Athlete did not dispute the validity of the test results. Her arguments were of legal and procedural nature and did not relate to factual or analytical issues. The Commission finds that the argument that the possibility to conduct further analysis and the establishment of the anti-doping rule violation based on the split B-samples would not have existed in 2008 is incorrect and is also not a retroactive application of rules. The Athlete’s retirement has no relevance whatsoever in connection with the application of the Rules. Considering the statute of limitation under the Rules and the Athlete’s sample collection on 18 Augustus 2008 the Commission observes that the notification of the anti-doping violation to the Athlete on 29 July 2016 was valid and in any event without merits. The cancellation of the Athlete’s results in the Long Jump event are a consequence of the proceedings conducted on the basis of the analytical results of the sample collected on 18 August 2016. The Commission finds that the Athlete does not bring forth any element challenging the validity of the analytical results and concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation consistent with intentional use of prohibited substances specifically ingested to deliberately improve performance, which at that time could not have been detected with the then available detection methonds. The fact that the metabolite of a doping substance, which is a “classical” doping substance was found, supports this consideration. The IOC Disciplinary Commission has now handled multiple cases arising out of the re-analysis of samples collected upon the occasion of the 2008 Olympic Games. The presence of metabolites of the specific substance at stake in this case has also been established in a remarkably high number of these cases. This constitutes an indication that such substance has been widely used by athletes, who were doping at that time. Therfore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 25 January 2017 that the Athlete, Tatiana Lebedeva: 1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in Beijing in 2008 (presence and/or use, of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen), 2.) is disqualified from the events in which she participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games Beijing 2008, namely, the Women’s triple jump event and the Women’s long jump event in which she twice ranked 2nd and for which she was consequently awarded in each case the silver medal, and 3.) has both silver medals, diplomas and medallist pins obtained in the Women’s triple jump event and the Women’s long jump event withdrawn and is ordered to return the same. 4.) The IAAF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence. 5.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision. 6.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the silver medals, the diplomas and the medallist pins awarded in connection with the Women’s triple jump event and the Women’s long jump event to the Athlete. 7.) This decision enters into force immediately.

show » details »
Type:
pdf
Category
  • (Medical) Science
  • Doping classes
  • Education
  • History
  • Laboratories
  • Legal
  • Statistics
Publication period
Origin
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Document category
  • Document type
  • Health/Medical
  • IF'S
  • Laboratories/Analysis
  • Legal Terms
  • Organisations
  • Substances
  • Various
  • Version