CAS 2005/A/925 Laura Dutra de Abreu Mancini de Azevedo v/ FINA In May 2003 the Confederação Brasileira de Desportos Aquáticos (CBDA), the Brazilian Water Sports Confederation, imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Laura Dutra de Abreu Mancini de Azevedo after her A and B samples tested positive for 3 prohibited substances. The Athlete appealed her case with the Brazilian courts and on 16 September 2003 the CBDA lifted the suspension imposed on the Athlete after the civil court in Rio de Janeiro had ordered that as a provisional measure the suspension should be lifted. On 15 January 2004 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Panel decided (CAS 2003/A/510) to uphold the 2 year period of ineligiblility imposed by the CBDA on the Athlete. Previously in December 2003 the Athlete, FINA and CBDA had signed an agreement with the conditions that the Athlete can compete when she is not sanctioned by CAS or when sanctioned she will serve the 2 year period of ineligibility. Despite the agreement and the CAS decision the Athlete did not withdraw her claim before the Brazilian courts and she continued to participate in swimming competitions in Brazil. In June 2004 the CBDA reported to the International Swimming Federation (FINA) the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation for her refusal to provide a sample for drug testing at a competition in Brazil. On 21 April 2005 the FINA Doping Panel decided to impose a liftetime ineligibility on the Athlete for her second anti-doping rule violation. Hereafter in July 2005 the Athlete appealed her case with CAS and requested the Panel to set aside the FINA decision of 21 April 2005. The Athlete argued that she did not commit the first doping offence in 2003 for which she was sanctioned by a two-year suspension; her innocence notably being established by the DNA tests relating to the May 2003 A and B samples. She asserted that she did not refuse to submit to a doping-test control during the Winter State Swimming Championships on 6 June 2004, but merely demanded that the test involve a different laboratory than LADETEC, whose previous test results she is questioning as part of her action pending in the Brazilian courts. Consequently, she cannot be deemed to have committed a second offence. Also she disputed the irregularities during the doping control in June 2004 where she refursed to provide a sample. FINA argued that the Athlete’s refusal is established and admitted by the Athlete. The Athlete has no right to to choose the laboratory and the LADETEC is a WADA accredited laboratory to conduct doping control. The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to provide a sample and having not proven “compelling justification” she has committed a doping violation under article 2.3 of the DC Rules, which is her second doping violation. Because Ms Azevedo refused to submit to the doping test control on 6 June 2004 in a situation where she was a competitor, disregarding her own written undertaking of 11 December 2003 to respect any period of ineligibility to which she might be sanctioned by CAS (CAS 2003/A/510). This is an aggravating factor which re-emphasises the panels finding that a lifetime ban is not disproportionate. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 January 2006: 1) The appeal by Ms Azevedo is dismissed. 2) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the court-office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) already paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS. 3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
Results of the WADA monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the 2016 Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport. These substances are: In Competition Monitoring: - Mitragynine - Tramadol, In and Out of Competition Monitoring: - Telmisartan - Glucocorticoids
IAAF Taskforce Interim Report to the IAAF Council about the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF) - 8 April 2017
IAAF Taskforce : interim report to IAAF Council, 12-13 April 2017 / Rune Andersen. - International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). - Monaco : IAAF, 2017 ____________________________________________________ This IAAF Taskforce report to the IAAF Council covers three things: (i) It will explain the progress that the Russian Athletics Federation ('RusAF') has made since the Council’s last meeting in satisfying the conditions for reinstatement set by this Council; ii) It will provide a roadmap setting out the remaining milestones that RusAF needs to reach to achieve reinstatement; and iii) It will give the Taskforce’s recommendation in relation to RusAF’s request that the Council give athletes in certain age categories blanket permission to compete internationally in advance of RusAF’s reinstatement. At the last Council meeting, in February 2017, the Taskforce identified six milestones that it considers will each need to be reached before it will be able to recommend provisional reinstatement of RusAF. Explained about these six milestones what progress (if any) has been made towards reaching each of them since that meeting. The Taskforce is concerned that little progress has been made since its last report in February 2017. The six milestones are still outstanding and at present it does not look like they will be met any time soon.
IAAF Taskforce Interim Report to the IAAF Council about the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF) - 6 February 2017
IAAF Taskforce : interim report to IAAF Council, 6 February 2017 / Rune Andersen. - International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). - Monaco : IAAF, 2017 ____________________________________________________ This IAAF Taskforce report to the IAAF Council covers three things: (i) It will explain the progress that the Russian Athletics Federation ('RusAF') has made since the Council’s last meeting in satisfying the conditions for reinstatement set by this Council; ii) It will provide a roadmap setting out the remaining milestones that RusAF needs to reach to achieve reinstatement; and iii) It will give the Taskforce’s recommendation in relation to RusAF’s request that the Council give athletes in certain age categories blanket permission to compete internationally in advance of RusAF’s reinstatement. The Taskforce finds that the Council should not consider reinstatement of RusAF's membership today. However, barring any unexpected developments, the Taskforce does think that it will be able to recommend (conditional) reinstatement of RusAF to IAAF membership if and when a number of milestones are met.
IAAF Taskforce Interim Report to the IAAF Council about the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF) - 1 December 2016
IAAF Taskforce : interim report to IAAF Council, 1 December 2016 / Rune Andersen. - International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). - Monaco : IAAF, 2016 ____________________________________________________ the IAAF Council suspended RusAF from membership in November 2015, after a WADA Independent Commission concluded there was a systemic and deeply-rooted culture of doping in Russian athletics. The Council decided that, in order to be reinstated to membership, RusAF must satisfy a number of specified 'Verification Criteria', and must demonstrate that the following three 'Reinstatement Conditions' "have been met, and can reasonably be expected to continue to be met moving forward": 1st, that RUSAF complies in full with the World Anti-Doping Code and IAAF Anti-Doping Rules; 2nd, that the IAAF and RUSADA (the Russian NADO) are able to conduct their anti-doping programmes in Russia (in particular, drug-testing) effectively and without interference; and 3rd, that as a result, the reintegration of Russian athletes into international competitions will not jeopardise the integrity of those competitions. The Taskforce recommends that there be no change to RusAF’s status now, but it will report again on progress at the Council’s next meeting, in February 2017, when it hopes to be able to identify a clear roadmap and timetable for RusAF’s reinstatement.
CAS 2016/A/4458 Lisa Christina Nemec v. Croatian Institute for Toxicology and AntiDoping (CITA) & International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) On 1 February 2016 the Disciplinary Panel of the Croatian Institute for Toxicology and Anti-Doping (CITA) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Croatian Athlete Lisa Christina Nemec after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant erythropoietin (rhEPO). Hereafter the Athlete appealed the decision op the CITA Disciplinary Panel with the Court of Arbitrarion for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to annul the CITA decision of 1 February 2016 and argued that the Doping Control Officer (DCO) sabotaged the Athlete’s sample by injecting rhEPO during the out-of-competition doping test in her apartment in October 2015. Also the Athlete asserted that departures occurred of the ISTI during the out-of-competition doping test. Both CITA and the IAAF rejected the hypothesis of sabotage and contended that the samples collected in 2012 in 2013 in the Athlete’s Biological Passport profile were suspicious and reason to conduct doping tests for rhEPO. They argued that no departures of the ISTI caused her positive test result and the analysis of the Athlete’s sample in the Laboratory was valid. The Panel notes that the Athlete did not produce evidence that the DCO spiked the Appellant’s samples and establish that there was no departure of the WADA International Standards. In conclusion, the Panel finds that when assessing the evidence in relation to the planning of the test, the practical difficulties encountered when spiking samples with rhEPO, whether the samples were left unattended by the Athlete and whether the testimony of the DCO is credible it appears more likely than not that the Appellant committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation compared to the scenario that the samples were spiked by the DCO. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 27 April 2017 that: 1.) The appeal filed by Ms Lisa Christina Nemec on 18 February 2016 is dismissed. 2.) The decision rendered by the Disciplinary Panel of the Croatian Institute for Toxicology and Anti-Doping (CITA) on 1 February 2016 is upheld. 3.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by Ms Lisa Christina Nemec. 4.) Ms Lisa Christina Nemec is ordered to pay CHF 1,000.00 (one thousand Swiss Francs) to the Croatian Institute for Toxicology and Anti-Doping (CITA) and a further CHF 1,000.00 (one thousand Swiss Francs) to the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) as a contribution towards their legal fees and expenses. Ms Lisa Christina Nemec shall bear her own legal fees and expenses. 5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
iNADO Update (2017) 82 (10 May) Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO) _________________________________________________ Contents: - Vacancy: iNADO is looking for a CEO - Independent Observer Report Paralympic Games Rio 2016 - Is your NADO ready to implement the ABP Haematological Module on January 1, 2018? - Richard McLaren, IOC, WADA and NADA Germany speak at German Parliamentary Hearing - European Commission´s Public Consultation on Whistleblowing - Oversight of NADOs - An Example of Best Practice IAAF and RusAF : CAS Lifetime Bans for Vladimir Kazarin and Alexey Melnikov - Update: IOC Sanctions from Reanalysis of Olympic Games Samples - New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center
iNADO White Paper on the Concept of an “Independent Testing Authority” / Jeremy Luke, Anders Solheim, Carey Brown, Herman Ram, Karine Henrie, Joanne McRae, Travis Tygart, John Frothingham, Bill Bock, Michael Cepic, Una May, Joseph de Pencier. - Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2017 ________________________________________________ The White Paper is developed by iNADO on the concept of the “independent testing authority” as this relates to the anti-doping responsibilities of International Federations (IF). iNADO members are now actively engaged with many IFs in a variety of initiatives whereby some of the anti-doping responsibilities of an IF are delivered by fully independent Anti-Doping Organisations (ADOs). As such, the NADO community represented by iNADO has a great deal of experience and an ongoing interest in the concept of the independent delivery of anti-doping services. Primarily, the White Paper strives to define the nature of the required independence of anti-doping organisations and to demonstrate that independence must encompass far more than testing. Secondarily, the White Paper identifies two approaches for IFs to consider. It explores the existing model of separate and autonomous anti-doping units created by IFs with responsibility for that sport’s elite athletes. It also introduces an approach that would see a new ‘third-party’ entity acquire the collective anti-doping responsibilities (not just testing) of the IFs that may choose to join such an initiative.
iNADO Update (2017) 81 (4 May) Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO) _________________________________________________ Contents: - WADA Ex-Co Meeting May 2017 - iNADO White Paper on the Independent Testing Authority
iNADO Board of Directors Statement on Low-Level Clenbuterol Findings / Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2017 _________________________________________________ Previously, the German broadcaster ARD reported about the presence of the prohibited steroid Clenbuterol in the urine samples of several unnamed athletes taken at the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games, and retested in 2016. WADA issued a Statement on the matter. A number of NADOs including those of iNADO Board Members contacted the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for clarification and additional information. Clenbuterol is a powerful performance enhancer with a long history of abuse in sport. Clenbuterol is used by cheating athletes to increase musculature, speed, strength and endurance without gaining weight and for its positive enhancement of breathing performance. But it is also used in meat production, especially in China, Mexico and Guatemala, and has led to inadvertent low-level adverse analytical findings in athletes who have eaten contaminated meat. The iNADO Board of Directors thanks WADA for responding to NADO concerns and providing additional information both at the meeting of WADA’s NADO Working Group April 11 and 12, and last week during a teleconference with WADA Director General Olivier Niggli and Science Director Olivier Rabin. It is clear that there are gaps in the World Anti-Doping Program for retesting of samples, for reporting the analytical results and for results management, including lack of detailed guidance to Anti-Doping Organisations (ADOs) on appropriate treatment of low-concentration Clenbuterol findings that may (with necessary preliminary review) be the result of contaminated meat. The NADO community is aware of the current inability of laboratories to distinguish between low-concentration Clenbuterol findings that may be the result of direct use and those that may be the result of meat contamination. (And of the ongoing work to remedy this problem.) The current situation has resulted in inconsistent treatment of low-concentration Clenbuterol findings by ADOs. Many cases involving clenbuterol findings have gone to a hearing have led to results disqualifications and 1st ADRVs and even periods of ineligibility. For example, the case of Polish paddler Adam Seroczynski. But many other cases with similar findings have been closed without full results management and leading to no consequences at all. The current situation has also resulted in inconsistent oversight of ADOs as results management authorities (RMAs) with respect to comparable Clenbuterol findings. All NADOs would agree that low-level Clenbuterol findings should be managed according to the Code and in an open and transparent way. Therefore, the iNADO Board urges WADA to take steps to ensure consistent treatment of low-concentration Clenbuterol findings that may indicate contamination from meat sources. These steps should include: 1.) WADA guidance to all ADOs, which should restate the problem of meat contamination in certain countries as a source of low-concentration Clenbuterol findings, and describe how such cases have been handled to date and the numbers of them. 2.) WADA updating ADOs on the ongoing research seeking to distinguish between direct use of Clenbuterol and clenbuterol sourced resulting from contaminated meat. 3.) WADA guidance to accredited laboratories on the consistent reporting of analytical results for Clenbuterol (including designating some analytical findings as “provisional analytical findings”), and about the communications they may have with RMAs in such cases. 4.) As was the case with respect to AAFs for Meldonium, WADA should give ADOs direction on a consistent approach for all ADOs to take for results management of such cases, including clearly stated circumstances in which such adverse analytical findings need not be pursued as possible ADRVs and need not go through the normal results management process, and the circumstances in which they must be pursued as possible anti-doping rule violations with full results management. 5.) That should include a definition and guidance to all ADOs on conducting “pattern analysis” to determine Clenbuterol cases to pursue or not. 6.) WADA should indicate the gaps in the current World Anti-Doping Program with respect to retesting of samples, including the results management of AAFs produced by retesting, and describe a process for filling those gaps. WADA’s stakeholders should be invited to make proposals to WADA. iNADO and its Members will be glad to participate in this effort. In the view of the iNADO Board, this should be done as a priority and cannot await the consultation and revision process leading to the 2021 Code. 7.) WADA should indicate how it intends to advise any ADO as RMA with secured stored samples on Clenbuterol retesting. This would include the IOC as the RMA in dealing with secured 2008 Beijing samples which might still be re-analysed for Clenbuterol with improved analytical techniques that in the future can distinguish between with a view direct use of Clenbuterol and Clenbuterol consumed in meat. The iNADO Board notes that the documents prepared for the upcoming WADA Executive Committee and Foundation Board meetings refer to a forthcoming WADA paper on the subject. The iNADO Board looks forward to the paper being issued as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire ADO community and of clean athletes.