Report by the Disciplinary Commission responsible for alleged doping violations by Russian athletes at the Olympic Games Sochi 2014 : 131st IOC Session in Lima –13, 14, 15 and 16 September 2017 / Dennis Oswald. - Lima : International Olympic Committee (IOC), 2017 __________________________________________________ Prof. Richard McLaren’s mission was to determine if an institutionalised doping system had existed in Russia, particularly in 2014. He was not tasked with establishing the possible liability of individual athletes. In order to do this and to issue any sanctions that could result from this task, the IOC President appointed a specific Disciplinary Commission made up of Dennis Oswald, as Chair, and Juan Antonio Samaranch and Tony Estanguet. The Commission immediately set to work, aware of the urgency imposed on it, so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. As a first step, it carefully studied the McLaren Report to determine if the accusations made against certain athletes were proven and based on solid evidence. Prof. McLaren lent the Commission his assistance in carrying out this task.
IOC - Report by the Disciplinary Commission responsible for alleged doping violations by Russian athletes at the Olympic Games Sochi 2014
Forensic analysis of Sochi samples / International Olympic Committee (IOC). - Lima : IOC, 2017 Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof Richard McLaren on 18.07.2016 and 09.12.2016, detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Olympic Winter Games Sochi 2014. The reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample. This manipulation has been reported to cause slight damage leaving scratches and marks (S&M) on the lids (caps). The quality of the documentation and the evidence produced in the McLaren reports was designed to show the whole picture of organised manipulation and is not sufficient for individual antidoping rule violations (ARDVs). Consequently, it was decided in December 2016 to set up a working group to produce the documentation and methodology for collection of the forensic evidence required.
IOC reanalysis programme Beijing 2008 and London 2012 : latest update on 18 August 2017 / The International Olympic Committee (IOC). - Lausanne : IOC, 2017 _________________________________________________ To provide a level playing field for all clean athletes at the Olympic Games Rio 2016, the IOC put special measures in place, including targeted pre-tests and the reanalysis of stored samples from the Olympic Games Beijing 2008 and London 2012, following an intelligence-gathering process that started in August 2015 – in consultation with WADA and International Federations (IFs). The additional analyses on samples collected during the Olympic Games Beijing 2008 and London 2012 were performed with improved analytical methods, in order to possibly detect prohibited substances that could not be identified by the analysis performed at the time of these editions of the Olympic Games. For reference, some reanalysis of the stored samples of Beijing 2008 and London 2012 was already conducted in 2009 and 2015 respectively, leading to the sanctioning of six athletes. The programme for Beijing samples has concluded due to the statute of limitations. The total number of confirmed Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs) by reanalysis in 2016 was announced as 101.
IOC - Report of the IOC Disciplinary Commission in charge of the retests of samples from Beijing 2008 and London 2012
Report of the IOC Disciplinary Commission in charge of the retests of samples from Beijing 2008 and London 2012 / Dennis Oswald. - Lima : International Olympic Committee (IOC), 2017 __________________________________________________ IOC Member and Chair of the Disciplinary Commission Denis Oswald updated the IOC membership on two topics. The Disciplinary Commission is overseeing the retests of samples from the Olympic Games Beijing 2008 and London 2012, and is responsible for investigating the alleged doping violations by Russian athletes at the Olympic Winter Games Sochi 2014. This IOC reanalysis programme was initiated by the IOC prior to the Olympic Games in Rio last year in order “to provide a level playing field for all clean athletes” via, for example, targeted pre-tests and the reanalysis of stored samples from the Olympic Games Beijing 2008 and London 2012. Around 1,100 samples were selected for retesting, of which 106 samples returned with a positive result, leading to 99 hearings by the IOC Disciplinary Commission. Consequently, 75 medals have been withdrawn.
IOC - Current Status Of Work Of The Samuel Schmid Disciplinary Commission Relating To The Mclaren Report
Current Status Of Work Of The Samuel Schmid Disciplinary Commission Relating To The Mclaren Report / Samuel Schmid. - Lima : International Olympic Committee (IOC), 2017 On behalf of Samuel Schmid, the Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer Pâquerette Girard-Zappelli provided an update on the Inquiry Commission. Chaired by the former President of Switzerland, Samuel Schmid, the Inquiry Commission was tasked with addressing the “institutional conspiracy across summer and winter sports athletes who participated with Russian officials within the Ministry of Sport and its infrastructure, such as RUSADA, CSP and the Moscow Laboratory along with the FSB”, in particular with regard to the Olympic Winter Games Sochi 2014.
WADA Report to the 131st IOC Session, 2017 / Craig Reedie. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2017 This Report updates IOC Members on what has been a very eventful and productive post Rio Games year for WADA and the broader anti-doping community. Contents: Russia Stakeholder consultation WADA Priorities - Governance - Intelligence and Investigations/Whistleblowing - Compliance - Independent Testing Authority - WADA-Accredited Laboratories - Finance
Doping Crisis Threatens 2018 Winter Olympic Games : Clean sport leaders call on IOC to fulfill responsibility to discipline Russia, protect clean athletes and Olympic Games / Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2017 ________________________________________________ Denver, Colorado (September 14, 2017) Less than five months before the start of the 2018 Winter Olympic Games, seventeen National Anti-Doping Organization (NADO) leaders held a fourth special meeting since the 2016 Rio Olympic Games and addressed the International Olympic Committee’s continuing refusal to hold Russia accountable for one of the biggest doping scandals in sports history, saying IOC inaction imperils clean athletes and the future of the Olympic movement. Over a two-day meeting, NADO leaders called on the IOC to ban the Russian Olympic Committee from participation in the 2018 Winter Games for proven corruption of the Sochi Olympic Games and continuing failure in its obligations to clean sport. “A country’s sport leaders and organizations should not be given credentials to the Olympics when they intentionally violate the rules and rob clean athletes. This is especially unfair when athletes are punished when they violate the rules,” NADO leaders said. NADO leaders reaffirmed their commitment to provide consistent criteria for individual Russian athletes to compete, as neutrals and independent of the Russian Olympic Committee, for those who have been subject to robust anti-doping protocols, consistent with precedent established by the IAAF. “The IOC needs to stop kicking the can down the road and immediately issue meaningful consequences,” NADO leaders said. “The failure to expeditiously investigate individual Russian athlete doping poses a clear and present danger for clean athletes worldwide and at the 2018 Winter Games. We have serious doubts that the 2018 Games will be clean due to the incomplete investigation of massive evidence of individual doping by Russians athletes at the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games and given the inadequate testing evidence of Russian athletes over the past four years.” NADO leaders support the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)’s requirement that Russia take public responsibility for its fraudulent actions detailed in the McLaren Report, in order to regain eligibility following the 2018 Winter Games, specifically: - Acceptance by the Russians of the findings of the McLaren Report, or credible proof to refute it, in line with similar requests from the IAAF and the IPC; - A systematic effort to interview Russian athletes, officials and other witnesses exposed by the McLaren Report as having been potentially involved in the doping conspiracy; - Access to samples from the Moscow Laboratory, turning over electronic data, including servers, testing instrument data files, computer files, and email and text message archives from the time period of the Russian conspiracy, as outlined in the McLaren Report. “The IOC and WADA must insist that Russia turn over this key additional evidence. A full account and justice for clean athletes cannot be achieved without this information,” NADO leaders said. “The failure to properly investigate and prosecute free of sport-political influence those who violated anti-doping rules, breaks the trust with millions of clean athletes around the world. This dereliction of duty sends a cynical message that those of favored, insider nations within the Olympic Movement will never be punished or held accountable, violating the fundamental covenant of fairness on which sport is based.” With the potential effects of individual athlete investigations unresolved, the hopes and dreams of clean athletes worldwide hang in the balance. Less than 100 of more than 1000 possible cases of Russian doping have been closed and those appear to have been shut prematurely before the IOC or IFs have obtained complete evidence from the Moscow laboratory or interviewed the relevant witnesses. “The mishandling of this Russia doping crisis has left the athletes of the world wondering if global anti-doping regulations have teeth and whether their fundamental right to clean sport matters,” the leaders said. “This is exactly why reforms are urgently needed now. The reforms outlined in the Copenhagen Reform Declaration will protect the progress that has been made in anti-doping and ensure a brighter future to prevent this type of scandal from ever happening again.” The reforms outlined by the leaders support a strong, global regulator in WADA and an international commitment to totally independent anti-doping systems. The changes put forth are not merely cosmetic but ensure WADA is governed with transparency, independence and free of conflict of interest between those who promote sport and those who police it. The NADO leaders steadfastly support the principle of true independence by ensuring that no decision maker from an anti-doping organization be allowed to hold a policy-making position within a sport or event. During the meeting, NADO leaders also heard from Russian whistleblowers Yulia and Vitaly Stephanov and Olympian Johan Olav Koss of Fair Sport. The leaders fully support WADA Athletes Committee Chair, Beckie Scott, and her effort to formalize the Charter of Athlete’s Rights. “It’s time for action. Athletes want to see results -- not more lip service-- that actually support their decision to compete clean,” said NADO leaders. Those in attendance and supporting the outcomes included anti-doping leaders from around the world, including: Austria, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, United Kingdom and the USA, as well as the Institute of National Anti-Doping Organizations, the international member association of National Anti-Doping Organizations. NADOs have the sole and unequivocal mandate to protect clean athletes, without conflicting responsibilities such as promoting sport. iNADO's 69 Members represent all Olympic Regions and conduct the majority of anti-doping work worldwide each year.
Related case: WR 2014 WR vs Maxim Gargalic (1) November 28, 2014 On 28 November 2014 the World Rugby Judicial Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Moldovian Athlete Maxim Gargalic after he tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone) starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 3 July 2014. Hereafter World Rugby received information that the Athlete had played in 8 matches between July 2014 and September 2014 as breach of the previous ordered provisional suspension. The Athlete did not dispute he played the matches during the provisional suspension and explained that he mistakenly believed that he was entitled to continue to play until the final decision was rendered. The Judicial Committee finds that the Athlete is either wilfully blind or untruthful as to his understanding of the terms of the provisional suspension. There is no other plausible interpretation of the words “provisionally suspended” such that the Player might have reasonably believed that he was entitled to continue to play rugby. Further, the Regulations themselves are abundantly clear on the Player’s status while under provisional suspension. Without mitigating circumstances the Judicial Committee decides on 29 June 2015 that the originally imposed sanction (two years) shall start over again on the date of the latest violation, i.e. 15 September 2014, including disqualification of his results obtained during the provisional suspension.
CAS 2014/A/3772 Salmon Rutgert Van Huyssteen v. International Rugby Board In September 2013 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Athlete Salmon Rutgert Van Huysssteen after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). The Athlete and his parents admitted the violation and stated that the Athlete was injected in September 2012 a medication Deca 300 which was provided by a cousin, a bodybuilder, who had assured that the product was “safe”. On 14 March 2014 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The International Rugby Board (IRB) appealed this decision and on 8 September 2014 the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa decided to set aside the decision of 14 March 2014 and to impose a 24 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Hereafter in October 2014 the Athlete appealed the decision of the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel for a reduced sanction because he did not act with any Significant Fault or Negligence. The Athlete argued that he was not a professional athlete when the violation was committed and he had never received any anti-doping education whatsoever. He contended he was administered the injections by his mother and that for a sixteen-year old boy it is both normal and reasonable to rely on the advice of his parents and not to cast any doubt on the trust he should have in the care he receives from them. The Athlete had admitted the violations, had been cooperative throughout the proceedings and had explained how the prohibited substance entered his system. The Panel finds the IRB did not produce any evidence whatsoever to contradict the Athlete’s testimony (or his mother’s testimony for that matter) and the Panel does not question the Athlete’s explanation as to the source of the Prohibited Substance. The Panel concludes that by completely ignoring all of the clear risks related to the use of a product about whose content and source he could not be and was not sure and by failing to carry out even the most basic search to verify whether the product contained a Prohibited Substance, the Athlete acted in a manner that deviates significantly from the standard of behavior expected of an athlete in his specific circumstances. This departure is all the more significant, considering that, as indicated, the Athlete knowingly and willfully accepted the “risk” of participating in sports competitions with a prohibited substance in his system. Having considered the Parties’ submissions and the evidence provided by them, the Panel finds that the Athlete committed an ADRV pursuant the IRB Rules and that the conduct held by the Athlete does not permit a reduction of the sanction on the basis of Article 21.22.5 of the IRB Regulations (No Significant Fault or Negligence). Therefor the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 19 June 2015 that: 1.) The appeal filed by Mr Salmon Rutgert Van Huyssteen on 29 September 2014 against the decision issued by the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa on 8 September is dismissed. 2.) The decision issued by the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa on 8 September 2014 is confirmed. 3.) The costs of the proceedings, to be separately determined and communicated by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by Mr Salmon Rutgert Van Huyssteen. 4.) Mr Salmon Rutgert Van Huyssteen shall contribute CHF 1,000 to the legal and other costs incurred by the International Rugby Board in these arbitral proceedings. 5.) All further prayers for relief are hereby dismissed.
CAS 2017/O/5039 International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) v. Russian Athletic Federation (RUSAF) & Anna Pyatykh In this case two distinct sets of facts amount to separate anti-doping rule violations against the Russian Athlete Anna Pyatykh: (A) a retesting of a sample collected in 2007 (the Retesting Allegation); and (B) the Moscow washout testing as described in the Richard H. McLaren, Independent Person reports of 16 July 2016 (the First IP Report) and of 9 December 2016 (the Second IP Report) and the underlying evidence (the Washout Allegation). To avoid detection at the 2013 IAAF World Championships, the Moscow Laboratory conducted “under the table testing" (pretesting) on the samples provided by the Athlete. All the results of the unofficial testing were reported on the Washout Schedule. The Washout Schedule indicated that the Athlete was tested three times in July 2013 before the 2013 IAAF World Championship. When the Athlete’s third sample of 25 July 2013 showed normal levels the Washout Schedule indicated that the Athlete was “like clean”. As a result the Athlete was allowed to compete at the 2013 IAAF World Championship, as the Russian knew that she would not test positive. In December 2016 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after reanalysis of her sample, provided in 2007, tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol). In February 2017, after publication of the Second IP Report and the underlying evidence, the IAAF reported a second anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for the use or attempted use of multiple prohibited substances in 2013: oxandrolone, methenolone, mesterolone and turinabol including a T/E ration above the WADA threshold. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Because the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF) was suspended by the IAAF the case was referred in March 2017 to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the CAS Panel. The IAAF considered that the anti-doping violation arising from the Washout Allegations carries the most severe sanction en requested the Panel to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete due to aggravating circumstances. The IAAF argued that the Athlete committed this anti-doping rule violation as part of a doping plan or scheme and used multiple prohibited substances or used prohibited substances on multiple occasions. Also the first reported anti-doping rule violation following the retesting of the Athlete’s sample must be taken into account when assessing the Athlete’s sanction. The Athlete stated as to the Retesting Allegations that contaminated supplements she used in 2007 could apparently have caused the positive test result. As to the Washout Allegations, the Athlete asserted that she has always been tested officially, strictly in accordance with the WADA Code and the IAAF Rules and she has never provided the unofficial urine samples. The main issues to be resolved by the CAS Sole Arbitrator are: - A. Did the Athlete violate Rule 32.2(a) of the 2007 IAAF Rules? - B. Did the Athlete violate Rule 32.2(b) of the 2013 IAAF Rules? The Sole Arbitrator notes that the prohibited substance turinabol has been found in the Athlete’s 2007 sample and finds that she committed an anti-doping rule violation under the 2007 IAAF Rules. The statute of limitation has not expired and the IAAF was entitled to initiate proceedings against the Athlete. The Sole Arbitrator observes that the Athlete offered no explanation neither in her written submissions nor at the hearing why her name ended up in the Washout Schedule nor did she challenge the credibility of the Second IP Report. It follows that, the Sole Arbitrator finds the Athlete’s denial to be unsubstantiated and not credible. The Sole Arbitrator finds it to be convincingly established by the IAAF that it is in fact the Athlete’s name in the Washout Schedule. The Sole Arbitrator holds that the Washout Schedule is a strong indication that the Athlete used the prohibited substances oxandrolone, metenolone mesterolone and turinabol. The Sole Arbitrator agrees with the IAAF’s reading that the declining T/E ratio level supports the assertion the Athlete used the Prohibited Substances to prepare for the 2013 IAAF World Championships in Moscow. The latter is furthermore supported by the proximity between the dates mentioned in the Washout Schedule and the Athlete’s participation in the 2013 IAAF World Championships in Moscow. Based on these findings, the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation under the 2013 IAAF Rules. Considering the seriousness of the Athlete’s ARDV and the fact that almost all of the aggravating factors under the 2013 IAAF Rules are relevant in the present case, the Sole Arbitrator finds that a period of ineligibility of four (4) years is appropriate to the severity and the Athlete’s misbehavior. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 18 August 2017 that: 1.) The request for arbitration filed by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) on 22 March 2017 against the Russian Athletics Federation and Ms Anna Pyatykh is partially upheld. 2.) Ms Anna Pyatykh has violated Rule 32.2(a) of the 2007 IAAF Rules and Rule 32.2(b) of the 2013 IAAF Rules. 3.) A period of ineligibility of four (4) years is imposed on Ms Anna Pyatykh starting on 15 December 2016. 4.) All results achieved by Ms Anna Pyatykh on 31 August 2007 and from 6 July 2013 to 15 December 2016 are disqualified, including forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money obtained during this period. 5.) (…). 6.) (…). 7.) (…). 8.) All other and further prayers or request for relief are dismissed.