The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XX Olympic Winter Games in Turin, 2006 / International Olympic Committee (IOC). - Lausanne : IOC, 2005

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 Applicable Law, Amendment And Interpretation Of
Anti-Doping Rules
Article 16 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)

The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules Applicable To The Games Of The XXVIII Olympiad In Athens In 2004 / International Olympic Committee (IOC). - Lausanne: IOC, 2004

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 Management Of Anti-Doping Rule Violations
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 Animals Competing In Sport
Article 16 Amendment And Interpretation Of Anti-Doping Rules
Article 17 Languages.
Appendix 1 – Definitions
Appendix 2 – Criteria Relating To The International Standard For Testing.

Related case:
- CAS 2017_A_4969 Evgeniy Belov vs FIS
August 31, 2017
- IOC 2017 IOC vs Evgeniy Belov - Decision
November 27, 2017
- CAS 2017_A_5380 Evgeniy Belov vs IOC
February 1, 2018

Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof Richard McLaren on 18.07.2016 and 09.12.2016, showed 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.

As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. In the context of this Commission the IOC decided that all the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establish whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated.

Evgeniy Belov is a Russian Athlete competing in the Men’s Skiathlon and the Cross Country Skiing Events at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete and considered the facts and arguments submitted by the Parties.

Therefore, pending the issue of a motivated decision, the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 1 November 2017 that the Athlete Evgeniy Belov:

1.) is found to have committed anti-doping rules violations pursuant to Article 2 of The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, in 2014;
2.) is disqualified from the events in which he participated upon the occasion of the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, in 2014, namely:
- (i) the Men’s Skiathlon 15 + 15 km Mass Start Cross Country Skiing Event, in which he ranked 18th;
- (ii) the Men’s 15km Classic Country Skiing Event, in which he ranked 25th;
3.) The International Ski Federation is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
4.) Evgeniy Belov is declared ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games.
5.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
6.) This decision enters into force immediately.

Related cases:
CAS 2017_A_5379 Alexander Legkov vs IOC - Decision
April 23, 2018
CAS 2017_A_5379 Alexander Legkov vs IOC - Operative Part
February 1, 2018
CAS OG_2018_03 | 15 Russian athletes and coaches vs IOC
February 9, 2018
CAS 2017_A_4968 Alexander Legkov vs FIS
August 31, 2017
IOC 2017 IOC vs Alexander Legkov - Decision
November 27, 2017
Swiss Federal Court 4A_382_2018 IOC vs Alexander Legkov
January 15, 2019

Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof Richard McLaren on 18.07.2016 and 09.12.2016, showed 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.

As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. In the context of this Commission the IOC decided that all the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establish whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated.

Alexander Legkov is Russian Athlete competing in the Cross Country Skiing Events at the Sotchi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete and considered the facts and arguments submitted by the Parties.

Therefore, pending the issue of a motivated decision, the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 1 November 2017 that the Athlete Alexander Legkov:

1.) is found to have committed anti-doping rule violations pursuant to Article 2 of The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, in 2014;
2.) is disqualified from the events in which he participated upon the occasion of the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, in 2014, namely:
- (i) the Men’s 50km Cross Country Skiing Event, in which he ranked 1st and for which he was awarded a gold medal, a medallist pin and a diploma;
- (ii) the Men’s 4x10km Cross Country Skiing Event, in which he ranked 2nd and for which he was awarded a silver medal, a medallist pin and a diploma;
- (iii) the Men’s Skiathlon 15 + 15 km Mass Start Cross Country Skiing Event, in which he ranked 10th;
3.) has the medals, the medallist pins and the diplomas obtained in the above-mentioned Events withdrawn and is ordered to return the same to the International Olympic Committee.
4.) The Russian Team is disqualified from the Men’s 4x10km Cross Country Skiing Event. The corresponding medals, medallist pins and diplomas are withdrawn and shall be returned to the International Olympic Committee.
5.) The International Ski Federation is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
6.) Alexander Legkov is declared ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games.
7.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
8.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the International Olympic Committee, as soon as possible, of the medals, the medallist pins and the diplomas awarded in connection with Men’s 50km Cross Country Skiing Event to Alexander Legkov and the medals, the medallist pins and the diplomas awarded in connection with the Men’s 4x10km Cross Country Skiing Event to the members of the Russian Team.
9.) This decision enters into force immediately.

CAS 2017/A/5021 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. UAE Athletics Federation & Betlhem Desalegn

• Athletics (middle- and long distance)
• Doping (Athlete Biological Passport; blood doping)
• Aggravating circumstances under Rule 40.6 2014 IAAF Rules/Article 10.6 2009 WADA Code
• “Multiple occasions” and “doping plan or scheme” as aggravating circumstances
• Disqualification of results under Rule 40.8 IAAF Rules

1. The burden to establish the existence of aggravating circumstances in the meaning of Rule 40.6 2014 IAAF Rules (Article 10.6 of the 2009 WADA Code) lies on the IAAF. In this respect the standard of “comfortable satisfaction” not only applies to the IAAF, but also to the athlete, in order to rebut any claim of aggravating circumstances. Furthermore, even if aggravating circumstances in the meaning of Rule 40.6 2014 IAAF were to be established, a CAS panel has discretion whether to increase a sanction based on aggravating circumstances, and if so, how much the sanction should be increased, as Rule 40.6 2014 IAAF Rules does not impose a minimum increase. A single example of aggravating circumstances may sometimes warrant the maximum period of four years, while another time multiple examples may call for a lesser penalty only.

2. Given that a rEPO course commonly stretches over a period of two to three weeks and involves two to three injections a week, with a single injection not providing the expected enhancing effects, this course of injections may be considered a continuous doping practice. However, in case only one sample out of four taken for the purpose of an ABP establish an abnormality (i.e. one doping violation), this does not necessarily establish use on “multiple occasions” in the meaning of Rule 40.6 2014 IAAF Rules. Put differently, the fact that blood doping, whether by use of rEPO or by blood transfusion, presupposes the use of syringes on more than just one occasion, i.e. injection of rEPO every two to three days or taking of blood to re-inject blood, does not necessarily justify the imposition of an increased period of ineligibility for use on “multiple occasions”. Furthermore, the sole fact that blood doping usually requires specific knowledge or assistance from a specialist, i.e. an athlete engaging in blood doping is most probably assisted by another person, does not automatically qualify the conduct as part of a doping plan or scheme in the meaning of Rule 40.6 2014 IAAF Rules and is therefore not per se constitutive of a doping plan or scheme.

3. Some limitation may be applicable to the retroactive disqualification of competitive results if in an individual case it is considered that “fairness requires” so. When determining whether or not to disqualify results under Rule 40.8 IAAF Rules the main purpose of disqualification of results, i.e. to correct any unfair advantage and remove any tainted performances from the record, has to be kept in mind.

In July 2016 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Ethiopian Athlete Betlhem Desalegn after an IAAF expert panel concluded unanimously in June 2016, and again in July 2016, that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that she used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping.

This conclusion of the UCI expert panel is based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 8 March 2012 until 24 August 2015 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).

Previously the Athlete submitted an explanation to the IAAF about the circumstances surrounding the collected samples which was rejected by the Expert Panel in August 2016.

On 4 August 2016 the United Arab Emirates National Anti-Doping Committee (UAE-NADO) accepted the explanations from the Athlete and ruled that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation. The IAAF appealed this decision and on 22 January 2017 the UAE Athletics Federation (UAE AF) Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in March 2017 the IAAF appealed the decision of 22 January 2017 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The IAAF requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete between 2 and 4 years.

The UAE AF asserted that the antidoping rule violation was not clearly established. Therefore, the UAE AF Committee tried to make a fair balance between the legal aspects and the factual elements of the case and imposed a 15 month ban on the Athlete.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of doping and stated that she had no knowledge of rhEPO, nor had the financial means to perform blood doping. She asserted that the medical treatment, prescribed supplements and high altitude training could explain her ABP blood profile.

Regarding the ABP model, the Panel notes that, according to the well-established jurisprudence of the CAS, the ABP model is a valid and reliable means of establishing an anti-doping rule violation. Moreover, in the present case, the UAE AF and the Athlete neither question the results of sample 3 in particular, nor the validity of the ABP model as such.

In view of the strong and un-rebutted evidence, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that, prior to the taking of sample 3 on 6 March 2014, the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation by using a prohibited substance and/or method in the sense of Rule 32.2 (b) of the 2014 IAAF Rules. The Panel observes that, in its Appealed Decision, the Disciplinary Committee of the UAE AF came to the same conclusion.

Given that a course of rEPO as well as blood transfusion can exclusively be done by injections, the anti-doping rule violation at hand has, in the Panel's view, to be considered as having been committed intentionally. In this regard, the Panel has not been convinced by the Athlete’s assertions according to which she had never engaged in any doping practice, had no knowledge of rhEPO and did not have the financial means to engage in blood doping. Moreover, the Athlete did not try to establish the existence of any mitigating circumstances.

In the light of several considerations and in view of the fact that each case has to be considered on its own merits, the Panel finds that in the present case there are no aggravating circumstances that would justify the imposition of a period of ineligibility greater than the standard period of twenty-four (24) months.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 17 October 2017 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 3 March 2017 by the International Association of Athletics Federations with the Court of Arbitration for Sport against the decision of the United Arab Emirates Athletic Federation's Disciplinary Committee dated 22 January 2017 is admissible.

2.) The decision of the United Arab Emirates Athletic Federation Disciplinary Committee dated 22 January 2017 is set aside.

3.) Ms Betlhem Desalegn committed an anti-doping rule violation according to Rule 32.2 (b) of the 2014 IAAF Rules.

4.) Ms Betlhem Desalegn is sanctioned with two (2) year period of ineligibility, starting on 10 August 2016, date of her second provisional suspension. The period of provisional suspension served by Ms Betlhem Desalegn between 22 July 2016 and 4 August 2016, shall be credited against the two-year period of ineligibility to be served.

5.) All competitive results obtained by Ms Betlhem Desalegn from 6 March 2014 to 13 August 2015 shall be disqualified, with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points, prizes, and appearance money.

6.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne entirely by the United Arab Emirates Athletics Federation.

7.) The United Arab Emirates Athletic Federation is ordered to pay to the IAAF the amount of CHF 5,000 (five thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution to the IAAF towards the legal fees and expenses incurred in relation to the present proceedings.

8.) All other motions or requests for relief are dismissed.

TAS 2017/A/4996 lnternational Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) c. Fédération Française d' Athlétisme (FFA) et Riad Guerfi

CAS 2017/A/4996 IAAF vs FFA & Riad Guerfi

On 28 September 2016 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French Athlete Riad Guerfi after an IAAF expert panel concluded unanimously in August 2016, that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping.

This conclusion of the IAAF expert panel is based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 24 April 2013 until 16 June 2016 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).

On 4 January 2017 the Disciplinary Body of the French Athletics Federation (FFA) decided to acquit the Athlete. The FFA Discilinary Body ruled that the Athlete was not properly notified of the alleged anti-doping rule violation and the IAAF failed to demonstrate that after notification by e-mail the Athlete had knowledge of this notification. Therefore the Athlete did not have the opportunity to challenge the conclusions of the expert panel or provide explanations in accordance with IAAF Anti-Doping Regulations.

In January 2017 the Athlete submitted an explanation to the IAAF about the circumstances regarding the collected samples which was rejected by the expert panel in February 2017.

Hereafter in February 2017 the IAAF appealed the FFA decision of 4 January 2017 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The IAAF requested the Panel to annul the FFA decision of 4 January 2017 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Considering the evidence in this case the CAS Panel establishes that the IAAF notification by e-mail on 28 September 2016 had reached the Athlete without technical problems. As a consequence the Athlete’s was in control to become acquainted with the IAAF notification.

The Panel finds that the Athlete's right to be heard by the IAAF expert panel has not been violated and therefore no procedural error in this case occurred. Further the Panel finds after consideration that all the objections produced by the Athlete were unfounded regarding the ABP analysis process, the disciplinary proceedings and the validity of the samples analysed by the expert panel.

In view of the evidence the Panel concludes that prior to the collecton of sample 1 and 2 the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation by using a prohibited substance and/or method.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 October 2017 to partially uphold the IAAF appeal, to annul the FFA decision of 4 January 2017 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Riad Guerfi starting on 29 April 2015.

Doping prevention through anti-doping education and practical strength training: The Hercules program / Dominic Sagoe, Geir Holden, Eirin Nygaard, Karlsholm Rise, Therese Torgersen, Gøran Paulsen, Tron Krosshauge, Fredrik Lauritzen, Ståle Pallesen. - (Performance Enhancement & Health 5 (2016) 1 (September) : p. 24-30)

• DOI: 10.1016/j.peh.2016.01.001

Abstract

There is a paucity of well-controlled anti-doping interventions. We developed and evaluated the efficacy of a doping prevention program for adolescents – the Hercules program. The program is different from most anti-doping interventions in the combination of theoretical lessons with practical strength training and inclusion of three groups of participants. A total of 202 high school students (females = 98) aged 15–21 years (mean = 16.9) were randomised to the three groups: control (n = 50), theory only (n = 88), and theory with workout (n = 64). Participants completed baseline and posttest questionnaires including demographic, doping use, and psychophysical items/measures. Data were analysed using chi-square tests and mixed between-within analysis of variance. From baseline to posttest, the theory with workout group gained a higher knowledge of anabolic–androgenic steroids (AAS) and their harmful effects as well as a higher increase in strength training self-efficacy. The Hercules program seems valuable in providing adolescents knowledge on AAS and their harmful effects as well as positive strength training skills. The program elucidates the benefits of combining anti-doping education with practical strength training in doping prevention.

Doping and public health : the endocrine system, substances, dietary supplements, prevention / Fredrik Lauritzen, Per Wiik Johansen, Morten Heierdal, Christine Helle, Dominic Sagoe, Ruth Velsvik, Britha Røkenes, Per M. Thorsby. - Oslo : Anti-Doping Norway, 2017

CONTENTS:

1. What is doping?
1.1 Definitions
1.2 Areas of use
1.3 User groups and motivation
1.4 Adverse effects in general
1.5 Production and distribution of doping agents
2 Legislation
2.1 Doping-related penal provisions
2.2 Doping-related provisions in sport
3 Prevalence
3.1 Lifetime prevalence in Norway
3.2 Lifetime prevalence in the Nordic Region and globally
3.3 Prevalence estimates of AAS use
3.4 Conclusion
4 The endocrine system
4.1 The pituitary gland
4.2 The pancreas
4.3 Adrenal glands
4.4 Ovaries and testicles
5 Doping agents
5.1 Anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS)
- Background
- Medicinal treatment
- Chemical modification of testosterone
- Dosages, administration and usage patterns
- AAS adverse effects in general
- Adverse physical effects from the use of AAS
- Specific adverse physical effects in women
- Adverse effects specific to children and adolescents
- Adverse psychological effects of AAS use
- Relationship between AAS and violence
- Dependency
5.2 Growth Factors
- Growth hormone
- IGF-1 38
- Insulin
5.3 Stimulants
- Amphetamines
- Ephedrine
5.4 Hormone-modulating agents
5.5 Polypharmacy
5.6 Use of doping in combination with narcotic substances
5.7 Summary, adverse effects
6 The users' univers
6.1 Anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS): User knowledge and drug-specific adverse effects
6.2 Growth hormone
6.3 Stimulants
6.4 Hormone-modulating substances
7 Dietary supplements
7.1 Dietary supplements used in connection with physical exercise
- Sports products
- Medical dietary supplements
- Dietary supplements containing ergogenic agents
- Natural remedies
7.2 Medical dietary supplements and protein supplements – need and effect
7.3 Performance-enhancing dietary supplements and natural remedies
7.4 The risk of dietary supplements containing doping agents
7.5 Certification of dietary supplements
8 Prevention
8.1 Prevention from a lifetime perspective
8.2 Early and broad input
8.3 Parents and coaches
8.4 Fitness centres
8.5 Schools
8.6 Skills development among professional groups
8.7 Teaching as a prevention strategy
8.8 Systematic prevention process
8.9 The tough conversation – suspicion or use of doping

2016 Anti-Doping Testing Figures Report / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2017

Contents:

- Executive Summary - pp. 2-9 (7 pages)
- Laboratory Report -– pp. 10-36 (26 pages)
- Sport Report - pp. 37-150 (113 pages)
- Testing Authority Report - pp. 151-287 (136 pages)
- ABP Report-Blood Analysis - pp. 288-323 (35 pages)

In March 2017 the UCI reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian cyclist Alex Correia Diniz after an UCI expert panel concluded that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping.

This conclusion of the UCI expert panel is based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 29 September 2015 until 31 March 2016 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).
Previously the Athlete submitted an explanation to the UCI about the circumstances surrounding the collected samples which was rejected by the Expert Panel in January 2017.

The Athlete was sanctioned before in 2009 for 2 years after he tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences and he filed a statement in his defence. Without a hearing a decision was rendered by the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal Sole Arbitrator on the basis of the written submissions.

The UCI asserted that the Athlete committed an ADRV within the meaning of Article 2.2 ADR, which conclusion it derives from the analytical data in the ABP as well as the interpretation of said data by the UCI expert panel. The Athlete objected to this conclusion on a number of grounds: departures from the WADA Code and the IST; the withdrawn accreditation of the Rio Laboratory; the validity of the test results; and departures of the ISL. Also the Athlete argued that the UCI must provide additional evidence demonstrating that doping is a possible source of the abnormal values and that all other scenarios suggested by Athlete can be ruled out.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the objections raised by the Athlete in the case at hand are not sufficiently substantiated, whether it be with respect to a departures from the applicable International Standards or concerning the required causative link. The Athlete failed to produce any evidence to contest the findings of the UCI expert panel in a substantiated manner by explaining which of the conclusions of the Expert Panel to be wrong and for what reasons. In addition the Sole Arbitrator finds that there is no evidence on file that shows that the doping scenario is implausible.

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator concludes the Athlete committed and anti-doping rule violation in the form of Use as the Athletes second violation and without grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Panel decides on 13 september to impose a fine and a 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 March 2017. The UCI legal costs and the costs for the results management and the ABP documentation package shall be borne by the Athlete.