2016/2017 Annual Report / Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK). - Nairobi : ADAK, 2017

Contents:

- Who We Are
- Word From The Chief Executive Officer
- Background
- Collaborations
- Strategic Plan Launch
- List Of Workshops And Seminars Done
- Tests Carried Out
- ADAK And Anti-Doping Norway Sign Agreement
- IAAF World Under 18 Championship
- WADA Press Release
- Picture Speak
- Statement Of Accounts

In April 2017 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violations against the rugby player Lucky Schuster Palamo after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Salbutamol in a concentation above the WADA threshold.
After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the substance, waived his right to be heard and filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete stated that he suffered from asthma since childhood and the symptoms deteriorates during exercise including training and playing rugby. The asthma is more severe in hotter weather conditions necessitating an increased use of inhaled Salbutamol to manage his symptoms. He asserted that he was not aware that excessive use of his inhaler would result in an anti-doping violation. During the competition in Suva in March 2017 the Athlete used his inhaler more frequently due to the hot and humid conditions since he had never played in Fiji and had played all of his rugby matches in either New Zealand or Australia.

World Rugby accepted that the violation was not intentional, that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence due to his careless use of his inhaler and requested for the imposition of a 3 month period of ineligibility.

Considering the circumstances and evidence in this case the Judicial Committee agrees that the Athlete’s fault was not significant or negligent. Therefore the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 16 August 2017 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 April 2017.

In May 2017 the International Volleyball Federation (FIVB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Chinese Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance sibutramine. After notification the Athlete filed a statement with evidence in her defence and she was heard for the FIVB Disciplinary Panel.

The Athlete did not challenge the test results and explained with evidence that she suffered from a medical condition since 2008 and used prescribed medications als treatment. Befor using she researched the content of two of the medications but not the prescribed Shinya Koso Night medication because the label information was in Japanese. The Athlete only informed the coach of her club team about her medication and did not apply a TUE because she believed that the medication contained no prohibited substances, and she was not familiar with the TUE procedure.

On being asked by the FIVB the Japanes Anti-Doping Agency (JADA) reported that the Athlete’s Shinya Koso Night medication contained no prohibited substances but it was difficult to make an accurate judgement due to the medication contained herbal medicines and digestive enzymes. Translation of the ingredients mentioned on the label of this medication showed also no probable prohibited substances.

Considering the evidence the Panel finds that the anti-doping violation was not intentional and concludes, on a balance of probabilities, that one of the three medications used by the Athlete was the source of the positive test. Regarding the prescribed Shinya Koso Night medication the Panel finds that the Athlete failed to consult any competent anti-doping authority but the Panel acknowledge that an internet search does not reveal that these three prescribed medications contain a prohibited substance.

Therefore the FIVB Disciplinary Panel decides on 21 August 2017 to impose a 10 month period of ineligibility on the minor Chinese Athlete starting on the date of the hearing, i.e. on 6 June 2017.

CAS 2016/A/4845 Fabien Whitfield v. Federation Internationale de Volleyball

Volleyball
Doping (testosterone)
System of reduction in the period of ineligibility
Start date of the period of ineligibility

1. If an athlete’s anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) does not involve a Specified Substance, Art. 10.2.1.1 of the FIVB Medical & Anti-doping Regulations (MADR) provides that his/her period of Ineligibility shall be four years unless s/he can establish it was not “intentional”. To reduce the standard sanction for his/her ADRV from four years to two years pursuant to Article 10.2.2 FIVB MADR, the athlete must prove the source of the prohibited substances in his/her system, which is a threshold requirement necessary to establish that his/her ADRV was not intentional. Based on CAS (and national anti-doping tribunal) jurisprudence and the provisions of the FIVB MADR, to obtain any reduction of his presumptive four-year suspension under Article 10.2.1 for testing positive for a non-Specified Substance pursuant to Articles 10.2.2, 10.4, or 10.5, the athlete is required to prove by a balance of probability the source of the prohibited substances in his/her system.

2. Even if an athlete waived analysis of his/her B sample, the fact that s/he has contested the sanction and raised the issue of lack of intent in two hearings, thereby not saving cost and time in any significant way, does not constitute a timely admission of his/her ADRV that entitles his/her to have the date of his/her four-year period of Ineligibility begin on the date of his/her sample collection in accordance with Article 10.11.2 of the FIVB MADR.

In May 2016 the International Volleyball Federation (FIVB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Trinidadian Athlete Fabien Whitfield after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 5aAdiol and/or 5bAdiol (Testosterone). On 14 October 2016 the FIVB Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in October 2016 the Athlete appealed the FIVB decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested to set aside the FIVB decision of 14 October 2016 and to impose a reduced sanction considering his degree of fault.

The Athlete asserted that the violaton was not intentional and caused by eating a large quantity of red meat, which he did not know at the time was horse meat, allegedly contaminated with testosterone and other anabolic steroids resulting in his AAF, during a meal at his sister's home in Taco, Trinidad & Tobago in March 2016. The Athlete argued that he is therefore the victim of unforeseeable contamination and he is not a cheater.

The FIVB contended that the Athlete tested positive for multiple prohibited substance and he failed to establish that the violation was not intentional and failed to prove that the alleged contaminated horse meat was the source of the positive test.

The Panel finds it undisputed that the Athlete’s sample tested positive for prohibited substances and that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. Considering the evidence in this case, the Panel determines that the Athlete has not proven by a balance of probability that the source of the prohibited substances in his system that resulted in AAF was contaminated horse meat that he ate during a meal at his sister's home in March 2016. There is no proof that the horse meat that Athlete ate was contaminated with testosterone. Even if it was, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that eating 500 grams of horse meat at least four days prior to the date of his urine sample collection would not have resulted in a finding of exogenous testosterone in his system based on IRMS analysis. The Panel concludes it is more likely that presence of the prohibited substances in his system was a source other than contaminated horse meat.

Notwithstanding these determinations the Panel considers the Athlete's testimony to be credible and truthful and, although he committed an anti-doping rule violation, it does not find grounds for concluding he is a cheater who deliberately, knowingly, or voluntarily violated the FIVB Rule or that he knowingly took the prohibited substances present in his system. Based on the evidence of record, the Panel agrees with the FIVB Disciplinary Panel's conclusion that Athlete's four year period of Ineligibility is a sanction that is especially harsh in the present case. Nevertheless, the appropriate adjudicatory role of the Panel is to apply the FIVB Rules as written, not to disregard its clear and unambiguous express terms even if their application to the particular facts results in a harsh sanction and other corresponding adverse consequences to an athlete.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 May 2017 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 31 October 2016 by Mr. Fabien Whitfield against the FIVB Disciplinary Panel's 14 October 2016 Decision is dismissed.
2.) The decision of the FIVB Disciplinary Panel dated 14 October 2016 is upheld.
3.) This award is made without the awarding of costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by the Appellant, which is retained by the CAS.
4.) Each party shall bear his/its own costs, including attorney's fees, incurred in connection -with the present proceedings.
5.) All other motions, requests, or prayers for relief are dismissed.

International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018 (as of August 2017) / International Olympic Committee (IOC). - Lausanne : IOC, 2017

Provisional version August 2017

Contents:

Article 1 Definition Of Doping
Article 2 Anti-Doping Rule Violations
Article 3 Proof Of Doping
Article 4 The Prohibited List
Article 5 Testing And Investigations
Article 6 Analysis Of Samples
Article 7 Results Management
Article 8 Right To Be Heard
Article 9 Automatic Disqualification Of Individual Results
Article 10 Sanctions On Individuals
Article 11 Consequences To Teams
Article 12 Appeals
Article 13 Confidentiality And Reporting
Article 14 Deemed Notification & Representation
Article 15 Application And Recognition Of Decisions
Article 16 Statute Of Limitations
Article 17 Amendment And Interpretation Of Anti-Doping Rules
Appendix 1 Definitions

The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXXI Olympiad, in Rio de Janeiro, in 2016 / International Olympic Committee (IOC). - Lausanne : IOC, 2016

Contents:

Scope Of These Anti-Doping Rules
Article 1 Definition Of Doping
Article 2 Anti-Doping Rule Violations
Article 3 Proof Of Doping
Article 4 The Prohibited List
Article 5 Testing And Investigations
Article 6 Analysis Of Samples
Article 7 Results Management
Article 8 Right To Be Heard
Article 9 Automatic Disqualification Of Individual Results
Article 10 Sanctions On Individuals
Article 11 Consequences To Teams
Article 12 Appeals
Article 13 Confidentiality And Reporting
Article 14 Doping And Medication Control For Horses – Equine Anti-Doping And Controlled Medication Regulations
Article 15 Application And Recognition Of Decisions
Article 16 Statute Of Limitations
Article 17 Amendment And Interpretation Of Anti-Doping Rules
Appendix 1 Definitions

The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, in 2014 / International Olympic Committee (IOC). - Lausanne : IOC, 2013

Contents:

Article 1 Application Of The Code ‐ Definition Of Doping – Breach Of The Rules
Article 2 Anti‐Doping Rule Violations
Article 3 The Prohibited List
Article 4 Doping Control
Article 5 Analysis Of Samples
Article 6 Disciplinary Procedure With Respect To Alleged Anti‐Doping Rule Violations Arising Upon The Occasion Of The Olympic Games
Article 7 Automatic Disqualification Of Individual Results, Ineligibility For Olympic Games
Article 8 Sanctions On Individuals
Article 9 Consequences To Teams
Article 10 Financial And Other Sanctions Assessed Against National Olympic Committees And International Federations
Article 11 Appeals
Article 12 Applicable Law, Amendment And Interpretation Of Anti‐Doping Rules
Article 13 Languages
Appendix 1 Definitions
Appendix 2 Criteria Relating To The International Standard For Testing (Article 4.3 Of The Rules)
Appendix 3 Technical Procedures For Doping Control For Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games

The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXX Olympiad, London 2012 / International Olympic Committee (IOC). - Lausanne : IOC, 2011

Contents:

Article 1 Application Of The Code - Definition Of Doping – Breach Of The Rules
Article 2 Anti-Doping Rule Violations
Article 3 The Prohibited List
Article 4 Doping Control
Article 5 Analysis Of Samples
Article 6 Disciplinary Procedure With Respect To Alleged Anti-Doping Rule Violations Arising Upon The Occasion Of The Olympic Games
Article 7 Automatic Disqualification Of Individual Results, Ineligibility For Olympic Games
Article 8 Sanctions On Individuals
Article 9 Consequences To Teams
Article 10 Financial And Other Sanctions Assessed Against National Olympic Committees And International Federations
Article 11 Appeals
Article 12 Doping Control For Horses – Equine Anti-Doping And Controlled Medication Regulations
Article 13 Applicable Law, Amendment And Interpretation Of Anti-Doping Rules
Article 14 Languages
Appendix 1 Definitions
Appendix 2 Criteria Relating To The International Standard For Testing (Article 4.3 Of The Rules) . 19
Appendix 3 Technical Procedures For Doping Control By LOCOG For The 2012 London Olympic Summer Games

The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXI Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver, 2010 / International Olympic Committee (IOC). - Lausanne : IOC, 2009

Contents:

Article 1 Application Of The Code - Definition Of Doping – Breach Of The Rules
Article 2 Anti-Doping Rule Violations
Article 3 The Prohibited List
Article 4 Doping Control
Article 5 Analysis Of Samples
Article 6 Disciplinary Procedure With Respect To Alleged Anti-Doping Rule Violations Arising Upon The Occasion Of The Olympic Games
Article 7 Automatic Disqualification Of Individual Results, Ineligibility For Olympic Games
Article 8 Sanctions On Individuals
Article 9 Consequences To Teams
Article 10 Financial And Other Sanctions Assessed Against National Olympic Committees And International Federations
Article 11 Appeals
Article 12 Applicable Law, Amendment And Interpretation Of Anti-Doping Rules
Article 13 Languages
Appendix 1 – Definitions
Appendix 2 – Criteria Relating To The International Standard For Testing (Article 4.3 Of The Rules)
Appendix 3 Of The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules: Technical Procedures For Doping Control By VANOC For The 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games

The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad, Beijing 2008 / International Olympic Committee (IOC). - Lausanne : IOC, 2008

Contents:

Article 1 Definition Of Doping
Article 2 Anti-Doping Rule Violations
Article 3 Proof Of Doping
Article 4 The Prohibited List
Article 5 Doping Control
Article 6 Analysis Of Samples
Article 7 Disciplinary Procedure With Respect To Alleged Anti-Doping Rule Violations Arising Upon The Occasion Of The Olympic Games
Article 8 Automatic Disqualification Of Individual Results, Ineligibility For Olympic Games
Article 9 Sanctions On Individuals
Article 10 Consequences To Teams
Article 11 Financial And Other Sanctions Assessed Against National Olympic Committees And International Federations
Article 12 Appeals
Article 13 Confidentiality And Reporting
Article 14 Mutual Recognition Of Decisions.
Article 15 Doping Control For Horses – Equine Anti-Doping And Medication Control Rules
Article 16 Applicable Law, Amendment And Interpretation Of Anti-Doping Rules
Article 17 Languages
Appendix 1 – Definitions (Referred To In The Preambles)
Appendix 2 – Criteria Relating To The International Standard For Testing (Referred To In Article 5.3)
Appendix 3 – Technical Procedures Relating To Doping Control (Referred To In Article 5.3)