In December 2015 the International Cricket Council (ICC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Pakistan cricket player Yasir Shah after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Chlorthalidone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission and stated that the violation occurred without intention to enhance his sport performance or to mask the use of any other prohibited substance.
He explained that both he and his wife suffered from high blood pressure and used different prescribed medication.
In the morning before the match he was struck by hight blood pressure and by mistake under urgent and stressful circumstance he used his wife medication that contains Atenolol and Chlortalidone. The Athlete produced relevant medical information and showed the similarities to the blister packs containing the medications for him and his wife. Also he mentioned his medical condition and the use of his wife medication on the Doping Control Form.

The ICC accepts the Athlete’s explanation how the substance entered his system under extreme and unique circumstances and concludes that he not intentionally acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. Therefore the ICC decides on 7 February 2016 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 December 2016.

Related case:
CAS 2006/A/1190 WADA vs Pakistan Cricket Board & Shoaib Akhtar & Muhammed Asif
June 28, 2006

In October 2006 the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cricket players Shoaib Akhtar and Muhammed Asif after their samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosteron (Nandrolone).
On 1 November 2006 the PCB Anti-Doping Commission decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Akhtar and a 1 year period on the Athlete Asif.

Hereafter in November 2006 both Athlete’s appealed the PCB decision with the PCB Anti-Doping Appeals Committee.

Akhtar’s arguments in his defence was as follows:
(i) that his high protein intake and rigorous workout schedule over the years had caused endogenous production of 19-Norandrosterone in his system well over the prescribed limit of 2 ng/ml;
(ii) that the nutritional supplements taken by him - including Blaze Xtreme, Nitron 5, Size On, T-Bomb II, Promax 50 and Viper - were not banned items;
(iii) that contamination in the aforesaid supplements taken by him could have been the reason for the elevated level of 19-Norandrosterone; and
(iv) that he was never warned by the PCB about the PCB Regulations.

Asif’s defence to the charge of doping was more circumscribed. He pleaded:
(i) that he had not knowingly taken any medicine or substance which could explain the test result;
(ii) that he had started using supplements, including Promax, when he was in the U.K. three years ago;
(iii) that he honestly did not know the effects of the supplements he was taking; and
(iv) that when recently the team physiotherapist Mr. Darryn Lipson advised him to discontinue the use of supplements, he immediately stopped ingesting them.

The Appeals Committee accepts the Athlete's arguments and rules that the Athletes had “successfully established that they held an honest and reasonable belief that the supplement ingested by them did not contain any prohibited substances”, and the Athletes had therefore “met the test of ‘exceptional circumstances’ as laid down under clause 4.5 of the PCB Anti Doping Regulations.”

Therefore the PCB Anti-Doping Appeals Committee decides on 5 december 2006 to set aside the decision of 1 November 2006 and to annul the imposed sanction.

Hereafter in December 2006 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appeals the decision of the PCB Appeals Committee with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). However the CAS rules on 28 June 2007 that the WADA appeal is inadmissible due to CAS has no jurisdiction to rule under the PCB and ICC Rules.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In July 2016 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Sri Lankan rugby player Rochana Hettiarachchi after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance tamoxifen. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the World Rugby Judicial Committee.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission, he denied the intentional use of the substance tamoxifen and could not explain the presence of the substance in his system. However he admitted that previously he had purchased the supplement Dianabol (metandienone) and a medication Liv52 in order to recover from an injury after he was misinformed that this supplement was ‘safe’.
The Athlete explained that he had received minimal ant-doping education and he was not capable of reading or understanding in English when the anti-doping booklets and relevant documents were in English and not in the Sinhalese language.

Considering the Athlete’s explanation the Judicial Committee is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete was engaged in conduct which he knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk. Also the Committee finds that this case has little if anything to do with a lack of education.

Without grounds for a reduced sanction the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 20 February 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 July 2016.