AAA No. 01 16 0000 8552 USADA vs Charis Chan

6 Jan 2017

In December 2015 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Charis Chan after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance trenbolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and waived her right to be heard for the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Commercial Arbitration Tribunal. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance and asserted that the positive test was the result of eating meat she did not know and had no reason to know was contaminated with trenbolone. The Sole Arbitrator holds that the Athlete’s assertions regarding meat contamination as the source of the positive sample are factually and scientifically implausible and for several reasons dismissed. Therefore the AAA Tribunal Panel decides on 6 January 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 29 December 2015.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IOC 2016 IOC vs Viktoriya Tereshchuk

27 Feb 2017

Ms Victoriya Tereshchuk is an Ukrainian Athlete competing in the Women’s individual modern pentathlon event at the 2008 Beijing 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 sample 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 with evidence in her defence and was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission. The Athlete challenged the validity of the analytical results; 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 dna analyses of her samples conducted in an independent laboratory. The Disciplinary Commission holds that DNA analysis is not part of the regular process and at no time and place were the samples stored or handled in any context in which a manipulation of the kind, which occurred in Sochi, would be, even remotely, plausible. The Commission finds that none of the Athlete’s arguments is putting in question the validity of the analysis results of the Athlete’s sample and of the corresponding finding consisting in the establishment of an anti-doping rule violation. 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 February 2017 that the Athlete, Victoriya Tereshchuk: 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 individual modern pentathlon event in which she ranked 3rd and for which she was awarded a bronze medal, and 3.) has the bronze medal, the diploma and the medallist pin obtained in the Women’s individual modern pentathlon event withdrawn and is ordered to return same. 4.) The UIPM is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence. 5.) The National Olympic Committee of Ukraine shall ensure full implementation of this decision. 6.) The National Olympic Committee of Ukraine shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the bronze medal, the diploma and the medallist pin awarded in connection with the Women’s individual modern pentathlon even to the Athlete. 7.) This decision enters into force immediately.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IOC Letter on the current situation of Anti-Doping System Reforms

23 Feb 2017

IOC Letter on the current situation of Anti-Doping System Reforms / Christophe De Kepper. - IOC Office of the Director General. - Lausanne : International Olympic Committee (IOC), 2017 __________________________________________________ In a letter sent to Olympic Movement stakeholders today, the IOC gave an update of the current situation regarding the reforms of the anti-doping system. The letter outlines the specific actions being taken by the IOC with regard to the findings of the McLaren Report on doping and manipulation in Russia, explaining in detail the roles and responsibilities of the two Commissions established by the IOC to address the matter. It also highlights other steps taken in pursuing the reform of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) system.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

iNADO Update #79

24 Feb 2017

iNADO Update (2017) 79 (24 February) Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO) _________________________________________________ Contents: - New Member - iNADO Workshop 2017 - WADA´s Research Package for Anti-Doping Organisations - Soon WADA´s Code Compliance User Guide also in Arabic, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish - Andreas Krieger Story: Website and Video available in 11 Languages - iNADO Testing Expert Group in Basecamp - Doping and Public Health Conference in Oslo (June 7-9): Last Days of Early Bird Registration - Funding available for Anti-Doping Research - PCC (2017) - Definition of Clean Sport to measure Anti-Doping - New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Centre

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2016_A_4708 Belarus Canoe Association & Belarusian Senior Men’s Canoe and Kayak team members vs ICF

23 Jan 2017

CAS 2016/A/4708 Belarus Canoe Association & Belarusian Senior Men’s Canoe and Kayak team members v. International Canoe Federation (ICF) The members of the Belarusian senior men’s kayak team: - Mr. Raman Piatrushenka, - Mr. Vitaliy Bialko, - Mr. Aleh Yurenia, - Mr. Pavel Miadzvedzeu, - Mr. Vadzim Makhneu, - Mr. Taras Valko, - Mr. Aliaksandr Liapeshka, - Mr. Andrei Tsarykovich, - Mr. Ihar Baicheuski, - Mr. Ivan Tsuranau, - Mr. Dzmitry Khilchanka, - Mr. Spartak Bazhkou, - Mr. Mikita Borykau, - Mr. Stanislau Daineka, - Mr. Dzimtry Tratsiakou. The members of the Belarusian senior men’s canoe team: - Mr. Aliaksandr Bahdanovich, - Mr. Andrei Bahdanovich, - Mr. Dzianis Harazha, - Mr. Dzmitry Rabchanka, - Mr. Dzmitry Vaitsishkin, - Mr. Artsem Kozyr, - Mr. Maksim Piatrou, - Mr. Hleb Saladukha, - Mr. Dzianis Makhlai, - Mr. Aliaksandr Vauchetski), The Belarussian coaches: - Mr. Uladzimir Shantarovich, - Mr. Mikalai Banko, - Mr. Ihar Radomski, - Mr. Henadzi Halitski. The Belarussian medical staff of these male teams: - Mrs. Elena Kallaur, - Mr. Aliaksei Roik. _________________________________________________ On 12 April 2016, French Police and Customs raided the rooms and personal belongings of the male Belarusian canoe athletes at the training camp in Le Temple-sur-Lot (France). They confiscated various substances, medication, material and medical equipment, including meldonium, needles and other equipment for transfusions, Actovegin and iron supplements. The meldonium (16 capsules of Mildronate) were found in the room of Mr. Henadzi Halitski, the coach of the Belarusian women’s kayak team. Seventeen athletes from the Belarus canoe team underwent a doping control and urine samples were taken from them. Meldonium was found in five of these samples and the French Ministry of Justice openened a criminal case against the Belarussian team. Only one sample showed a concentration above the WADA threshold and the Belarus Canoe Association (BCA) suspended the athlete from any competition. The BCA expressed to the International Canoe Federation (ICF) its intention to support doping free sport. The BCA argued that the import of certain medicines was only a violation of customs rules and explained with evidence that the use and possession of the medication was valid. It asserted that the seized Mildranat was prescribed and used by Henadzi Halitski the coach of the Belarus’ women’s team. Considering the results of the French raid into the training camp the ICF Executive Committee concluded that there was enough evidence and proof to issue sanctions against the athletes, coaches and entourage of the Belarus delegation. The ICF Executive Committee decided on 15 July 2016 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Senior Men’s Canoe and Kayak teams including coaches, medical staff and entourage for all international competitions. The starting date for this sanction would be 13 July 2016. Hereafter in July 2016 the Appellants appealed the ICF decision of 15 July 2016 with the Court of Arbitation for Sport (CAS). The BCA argued that the ICF Executive Committee was not entitled to issue the Decision and it violated the relevant Rules and procedural rights of the Athletes. The Panel finds that the ICF Decision of 15 July 2016 to the exclusion (ban) was not restricted to officials only and disregarding two further restrictions. Having not been provided with evidence by the ICF to its comfortable satisfaction that the BCA Athletes took meldonium after 1 January 2016, the Panel holds that there was no anti-doping rule violation committed by the athletes as to meldonium. Besides, the ICF Executive Committee erred in the Appealed Decision in holding that meldonium was in the possession of the Belarus contingent, which, thus, committed a violation of Article 2.6.2 ICF ADR. The coach Mr. Halitski could explain to the Panel on a balance of probability and even to its comfortable satisfaction that the meldonium was in his possession for personal medical reasons. Since there is no obligation for a Therapeutic Use Exemption for coaches in place under the WADA Code and the ICF ADR, the Panel finds that Article 2.6.2 ICF ADR has not been violated by such possession. The ICF could not establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that the transfusion equipment and medication found at the raid of the BCA’s training camp in France, as far as disclosed to the Panel, served the aims of prohibited methods. Thus, the Panel finds that no violation of Article 2.6.2 ICF ADR took place. There was no possession of prohibited methods, regardless of the question whether Article 2.6.2 ICF ADR is clear and precise enough at all because it does not determine under which conditions and from when a person has possession of a prohibited method. Since there were not four or more violations of the ICF ADR (other than violations involving Article 2.4) committed by Athletes or other Persons affiliated with the BCA within a 12-month period in testing conducted by the ICF or Anti-Doping Organisations other than the BCA or BCA’s National Anti-Doping Organisation, the Panel finds that Article 12.3 ICF ADR, read together with Sub-Article 12.3.1 could not be applied on the BCA, based on the established facts. As a result, the Appealed Decision of the ICF Executive Committee is set aside. In conclusion, the Panel finds that the Appealed Decision is also set aside as premature because there were no previous decisions taken by the ICF Doping Control Panel on violations of the ICF ADR by Athletes or other Persons affiliated with the BCA. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 23 January 2017: 1.) The appeal filed by the Belarus Canoe Association and the Belarusian senior men’s canoe and kayak team members against the decision rendered on 15 July 2016 by the ICF Executive Committee is upheld. 2.) The decision of the Executive Committee of the International Canoe Federation rendered on 15 July 2016 is set aside. 3.) The present award is rendered without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss francs), which has already been paid by the Belarus Canoe Association and is retained by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. 4.) (…). 5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2016_A_4697 Elena Dorofeyeva vs ITF

3 Feb 2017

Related case: ITF 2015 ITF vs Elena Dorofeyeva June 9, 2016 On 27 May 2015 the Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal of the International Tennis Federation (ITF) decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the the Ukranian Player Kateryna Kozlova after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 1,3-dimethylbutylamin (DMBA). The Athlete admitted the violation and testified that the prohibited substance was an ingredient of the product Red Rum recommended, bought and suplied by Dr Elena Dorofeyeva and used before the matches in Turkey (in December 2014) and Australia (in January 2015). As a consequence the Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decided on 9 June 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on Dr Dorofeyeva for the administration of the prohibited substance to Ms Kozlova. Hereafter in June 2016 Dr Dorofeyeva appealed the ITF decision of 9 June 2016 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Appellan asserted that the accusations and charges have been created on fabricated documents with simultaneous hiding of key evidences. The Appellant filed several requests in her defence: - the request to declare the appealed decision null and void; - the request for damages; - the declaratory Relief in respect to Articles 6, 8 ECHR; - the request for permanent injunction. The Sole Arbitrator finds that the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal unjustly assumed jurisdiction over the Appellant and, therefore, the Appealed decision must be declared null and void. The Sole Arbitrator dismisses the Appellant’s damage claim, the claim for declaratory Relief and the claim for permanent injunction due to the Sole Arbitrator is convinced that it was Dr Dorofeyeva that provided the Athlete with the product Red Rum which caused the ADRV of the Athlete. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 3 February 2017 that: 1.) The Appeal filed on 30 June 2016 by Dr Elena Dorofeyeva against the decision rendered by the Independent Tribunal of the International Tennis Federation on 9 June 2016 is partially upheld. 2.) The decision rendered by the Independent Tribunal of the International Tennis Federation on 9 June 2016 is declared null and void. 3.) The request for payment of damages filed by Dr Elena Dorofeyeva against the International Tennis Federation is dismissed. 4.) The Award is pronounced without costs, except for the CAS Court Office fee of CHF 1 '000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Dr Elena Dorofeyeva, which is retained by the CAS. 5.) The Parties shall bear their own legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings. 6.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

ITF 2015 ITF vs Elena Dorofeyeva

9 Jun 2016

Related case: CAS 2016_A_4697 Elena Dorofeyeva vs ITF February 3, 2017 On 27 May 2015 the Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal of the International Tennis Federation (ITF) decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Ukranian Player Kateryna Kozlova after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 1,3-dimethylbutylamin (DMBA). The Athlete admitted the violation and testified that the prohibited substance was an ingredient of the product Red Rum recommended, bought and supplied by Dr. Elena Dorofeyeva and used before the matches in Turkey (in December 2014) and Australia (in January 2015). Hereafter in July 2015 the ITF reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Ukranian Dr. Elena Dorofeyeva for the administration of prohibited substances to the Athlete Kateryna Kozlova. After several attempts by the ITF to notify Dr Dorofeyeva of the violation she filed a statement in her defence in November 2015 and she did not attend the hearing of the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal. Dr. Dorofeyeva submitted a number of arguments and motions in this case. She denied the violation, asserted that she had not prescribed or advised the use of Red Rum to anyone as she did not know the product. Considering the evidence and statements in this case the Tribunal Sole Arbitrator rules: - not to accept Dr Dorofeyeva’s denial for the prescription by her, and the provision by her, to Ms Kozlova of Red Rum in November 2014; - not to accept her denial that the ‘Elena’ on the pharmacy receipt referred to her; - that Dr Dorofeyeva is subject to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and therefore her jurisdiction motion is rejected; - not to accept the claim that she suffered due to the period of avoidable delay and therefore her deadline lapse motion is rejected; - that her right to a fair trial is not violated and therefore her summary judgment motion is rejected; - that Dr Dorofeyeva has committed an anti-doping rule violation for the administration of a prohibited substance to Ms Kozlova. On 9 June 2016 the Sole Arbitrator of the Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decides to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on Dr. Dorofeyeva starting on 1 May 2016.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

ISR 2016 NBF Decision Appeal Committee 2016007 B

12 Dec 2016

Related case: ISR 2016 NBF Decision Disciplinary Committee 2016007 T October 3, 2016 On 3 October 2016 the ISR-Disciplinary Committee of the Dutch Bowling Federation (NBF) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Person after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). The Person denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance and assumed that someone put the substance in his drink at the party on the evening before the competition. The ISR-NBF Disciplinary Committee ruled that the Person didn’t producte evidence for his assumption and he failed to explain how the prohibited substance came into his body. Hereafter in October 2016 the Person appealed the decision of 3 October 2016 of the ISR-NBF Disciplinary Committee with the ISR-NBF Appeal Committee. The Appeal Committee upholds the conclusion of the Disciplinary Committee that the evidence showed that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation after testing positive for the prohibited substance. The Appeal Committee considers in this appeal whether there are grounds to reduce the imposed sanction and whether the violation was without intention to enhance his sport performance. The Appeal Committee accepts the conclusion that the violation wasn’t intentional and establish that the Person failed to produce any evidence for his assumption about how the prohibited substance came into his body. Without grounds to reduce the sanction the ISR-NBF Appeal Committee decides on 12 December 2016 to confirm the imposed 2 year period of ineligibility on the Person. Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the Person.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

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
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