In January 2017 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Carl Lamb after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete gave a prompt admission, filed a statement in his defence and accepted the reduced sanction rendered by UKAD.

The Athlete explained that the violation was non intentional and out-of-competition when he had been drinking with friends the day before the sample collection. UKAD establish that the substance was taken out-of-competition, in a context unrelated to sport performance.

Therefore UKAD decides on 26 July 2017 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 10 December 2016.

In April 2017 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian tennis player after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance letrozole.
After notification the Athlete filed a statement with evidence in her defence and she was heard for the Sport Resolutions Independent Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted the charge that letrozole was present in her sample and therefore the proceedings are only concerned with the question of sanction. The Athlete explained with evidence and witness statements that she likely ingested the substance letrozole by accidentally consuming her mother's anti-cancer medication “Femara” while visiting her family in Italy in February 2017.

After hearing the expert evidence the Tribunal concludes that the scientific evidence is inconclusive in respect of the frequency, quantity and circumstances of the ingestion of letrozole by the Athlete.
Having found the threshold test to be made out and having identified the means by which the Prohibited Substance came to enter the Athlete’s body the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the plea of No Significant Fault or Negligence is made out.

The Tribunal takes into account the circumstances involved in this case and that the Athlete has not only an unblemished record but has demonstrated, through her evidence which the Tribunal accepts, having been otherwise meticulous in taking precautions to ensure that she acted in compliance with the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP). As a result of the findings that the Tribunal has made it concludes that the degree of fault is at the lowest end of the scale.

Therefore the Sport Resolutions Independent Tribunal decides on 3 August 2017 to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Related case:
CAS 2017_A_5112 Arsan Arashov vs ITF
November 21, 2017

In September 2016 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Kazakh player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with objections in his defence and he was heard for the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of Meldonium and suggested that the sample containers might have been contaminated with Meldonium or the bottles of water from which he drank at the doping control station. He contended that the blood sample he provided the previous day did not show the presence of Meldonium and alleged that departures occurred of the applicable Rules and Standards.

The ITF rejected the Athlete’s contentions and explained that the previous collected blood sample had not been tested for Meldonium. The Athlete had failed to give a plausible explanation for the presence of Meldonium in his sample and no departures occurred from relevant procedures in this case.

The Tribunal was unable to accept the Athlete’s evidence and assertions and concludes that he indeed committed the anti-doping rule violation. Notwithstanding the Athlete’s firm denials, the Tribunal finds that he did in fact ingest Meldonium prior to the sample collection; he failed to assist the Tribunal with helpful and accurate evidence; and failed to establish that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the ITF Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 10 April 2017 to impose a proportionate 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 September 2016.

CAS 2017/A/4949 Tatyana Chernova v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)

Related cases:

• CAS 2016_O_4469 IAAF vs ARAF & Tatyana Chernova
  November 29, 2016
• IOC 2016 IOC vs Tatiana Chernova
  April, 19, 2017
• CAS 2017_A_5124 Tatyana Chernova vs IOC
  December 4, 2017
  
  

• Athletics (heptathlon)
• Doping (Athlete’s Biological Passport, ABP)
• Reasons for the jurisdiction of the CAS Sole Arbitrator in the first instance
• Applicable requirements of the CAS Code
• Validity of the IAAF Rules as an arbitration agreement
• Validity of a rule providing for CAS jurisdiction in the first instance

1. The de novo power of review conferred upon a CAS panel under Article R57 of the CAS Code allows it to consider jurisdiction and the grounds therefor anew. According to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, a court can find that it had jurisdiction on grounds different from those enunciated previously, “as long as the facts found by the arbitral tribunal are sufficient to justify the substitution of new reasons”. Therefore, the reasons for a CAS panel’s findings on jurisdiction in appeals proceedings can differ from those identified by a CAS Sole Arbitrator in the first instance.

2. According to IAAF Rule 38.3, “the case shall be handled in accordance with CAS rules (those applicable to the appeal arbitration procedure without reference to any time limit for appeal)”. The reference in this provision to the appeal arbitration procedure merely concerns the procedural rules to be followed during the arbitral proceedings, not the threshold questions of jurisdiction. The requirements in Article R47 of the CAS Code governing appeals are inapplicable to the IAAF’s referral of the matter to a CAS Sole Arbitrator and do not operate to preclude him/her from assuming jurisdiction over the dispute. The full applicability of the jurisdictional requirements of Article R47 of the CAS Code would lead to the impossibility of applying Rule 38.3 as a basis for CAS jurisdiction, as there would never be a previous decision to review or prior internal remedies to exhaust. Such an interpretation is inconsistent with the interpretive principle ut res magis valeat quam pereat, according to which an interpretation rendering a rule effective must prevail over one which renders it superfluous.

3. Power asymmetries in sports arbitration agreements are inherent in the governing frameworks of international sport. While a sporting federation’s unilateral imposition of an arbitration agreement undeniably leaves athletes little bargaining power, the imposition also protects compelling constitutional interests – the autonomy of sporting associations – and is justified by the need for a uniform approach to doping. The Swiss Federal Tribunal has adopted a “benevolent” approach toward sports arbitration. It accepts as legitimate arbitration clauses “imposed” by international sports organizations on athletes, insofar as those agreements aim “to promote the swift resolution of disputes by specialized arbitral tribunals presenting sufficient guarantees of independence and impartiality, such as the CAS”.

4. Disciplinary matters typically arrive at the CAS as appeals against a prior decision, not as proceedings in the first instance. As a general matter, an athlete’s right to a hearing convened by his or her national federation is sensible as a guarantee of access to proximate and culturally attuned adjudicators. However, the purpose of Rule 38.3 of the IAAF Rules is to enable IAAF to refer cases to CAS where they cannot be done expeditiously within the national federation. This is typically the case when a national federation has been suspended and is therefore not in a position to convene a hearing. As no national entity within the national federation’s Member State has jurisdiction under the IAAF Rules to conduct a hearing, CAS enjoys jurisdiction over the first instance hearing.

In April 2015 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) initiated an investigation into a potential new anti-doping rule violation by the Russian Athlete Tatyana Chernova after three experts analysed the Athlete’s ABP on an anonymous basis and concluded that it is highly likely that a prohibited substance or prohibited method has been used.

Previously the Russian Anti-Doping Authority (RUSADA) had decided on 20 January 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete - from 22 July 2013 to 21 July 2015 - after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochloromethyltestosterone (turinabol).

In February 2016 the IAAF reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete and a provisional suspension was ordered. Because the All Russia Athletic Federation (ARAF) was suspended by the IAAF the ABP case and the previous appealed turinabol case were referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in February 2016 for a first instance hearing panel procedure (CAS 2016/O/4469) with the right to appeal.

The CAS Sole Arbitrator deemed that the IAAF succeeded to establish a “doping scenario” and is satisfied, indeed to his comfortable satisfaction, that the values in the Athlete’s ABP are caused by the use of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method by the Athlete.

Considering that the Athlete in the case at hand had committed two separate anti-doping rule violations, the use of turinabol and an ABP violation, and considering that the established ABP violation of the Athlete lasted considerably longer the CAS Sole Arbitrator decided on 29 November 2016 that a period of ineligibility of 3 years and 8 months to be appropriate to the severity of the Athlete’s misbehavior.

In the meantime in another case against the Athlete the IOC Disciplinary Commission had established on 19 April 2017 that the Athlete had also committed an anti-doping rule violation at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games after her 2008 A and B samples through reanalysis tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol).

Hereafter in January 2017 the Athlete appealed the CAS Decision (CAS 2016/O/4469) with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete alleges that the IAAF improperly referred the dispute to CAS rather than conducting its own first-instance hearing in the place of ARAF (which has been suspended by the IAAF since November 2015 and, but for its current suspension, would have adjudicated the dispute).

Accordingly, this appeal purely focuses on a jurisdictional issue and therefore does not require review of the Sole Arbitrator's finding in CAS 2016/O/4469 that "the Athlete engaged in blood doping practices throughout the period between August 2009 to at least July 2013."

The Parties in this appeal case (CAS 2017/A/4949) disagree as to the application of the CAS Code to the dispute before the CAS Sole Arbitrator (CAS 2016/O/4469). In particular, they adopt divergent positions concerning the extent to which Article R47 of the CAS Code governs and, if it does, whether it imposes threshold requirements beyond those present in IAAF Rule 38.3.

The Panel finds that having determined that the requirements of IAAF Rule 38.3 are met and that Article R47 of the CAS Code does not apply as a jurisdictional gateway, the IAAF has demonstrated that CAS enjoyed jurisdiction over the first-instance hearing before the Sole Arbitrator (CAS 2016/O/4469).

The CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete's submission concerning the jurisdiction of the CAS Sole Arbitrator (CAS 2016/O/4469) fails. As this was the only issue raised by the Athlete in her appeal, the Panel accordingly dismiss the appeal and confirms the Appealed Award.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 18 July 2017 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Ms. Tatyana Chernova on 12 January 2017 against the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) against the decision rendered by the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS 2016/O/4469) is dismissed.

2.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by Ms. Tatyana Chernova.

3.) Ms. Tatyana Chernova shall bear her own costs and is ordered to pay to the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) the amount of CHF 3,000 (three thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution toward the legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

4.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Doping in Two Elite Athletics Competitions Assessed by Randomized-Response Surveys / Rolf Ulrich, Harrison G. Pope Jr, Léa Cléret, Andrea Petróczi, Tamás Nepusz, Jay Schaffer, Gen Kanayama, R. Dawn Comstock, Perikles Simon. – (Sports Medicine (28 August 2017) : p. 1-9). - doi:10.1007/s40279-017-0765-4

CONTENTS

1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1 Study Design and Participation
2.2 Procedure
3. Results
3.1 Primary Analysis
3.2 Analyses Using Response Time
4. Discussion
4.1 Summary
4.2 Limitations
5. Conclusion

ABSTRACT

Background

Doping in sports compromises fair play and endangers health. To deter doping among elite athletes, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) oversees testing of several hundred thousand athletic blood and urine samples annually, of which 1–2% test positive. Measures using the Athlete Biological Passport suggest a higher mean prevalence of about 14% positive tests. Biological testing, however, likely fails to detect many cutting-edge doping techniques, and thus the true prevalence of doping remains unknown.
Methods

We surveyed 2167 athletes at two sporting events: the 13th International Association of Athletics Federations Word Championships in Athletics (WCA) in Daegu, South Korea in August 2011 and the 12th Quadrennial Pan-Arab Games (PAG) in Doha, Qatar in December 2011. To estimate the prevalence of doping, we utilized a “randomized response technique,” which guarantees anonymity for individuals when answering a sensitive question. We also administered a control question at PAG assessing past-year use of supplements.

Results

The estimated prevalence of past-year doping was 43.6% (95% confidence interval 39.4–47.9) at WCA and 57.1% (52.4–61.8) at PAG. The estimated prevalence of past-year supplement use at PAG was 70.1% (65.6–74.7%). Sensitivity analyses, assessing the robustness of these estimates under numerous hypothetical scenarios of intentional or unintentional noncompliance by respondents, suggested that we were unlikely to have overestimated the true prevalence of doping.

Conclusions

Doping appears remarkably widespread among elite athletes, and remains largely unchecked despite current biological testing. The survey technique presented here will allow future investigators to generate continued reference estimates of the prevalence of doping.
Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40279-017-0765-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

CAS 2017/A/4974 Lei Cao v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)

Related case:
IOC 2016 IOC vs Lei Cao
January 10, 2017

Weightlifting
Doping (Growth Hormone Releasing Peptide (GHRP-2) and its metabolites)
Prohibited Substances listed as part of a group
Burden of proof regarding sample analysis
Re-analysis of samples under Article 6.5 IOC ADR
Legality of period of time foreseen for re-analysis

1. Even without being expressly listed by name in the Prohibited List, a substance (e.g. Growth Hormone Releasing Peptide (GHRP-2)) may be covered by the respective list as belonging to a group of listed Prohibited Substances, e.g. “2. Growth Hormone (hGH)”. This is notwithstanding the fact that in a later version of the Prohibited List a more precise specification of the same group of Prohibited Substances, e.g. “GH-Releasing Peptides (GHRPs)”, is added and that version of the Prohibited List explicitly identifies certain substances as examples for the group in question.

2. Under the WADA Code (and the respective Anti-Doping Rules issued by the IOC for the 2008 Olympic Games (IOC ADR)) WADA-accredited laboratories are presumed to have conducted sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL). The mere allegation by an athlete that departures of whatever kind might have occurred does not meet the standard of proof necessary under the WADA Code and the respective IOC ADR to rebut the above presumption.

3. It is the main function of the re-analysis of samples foreseen under Article 6.5 IOC ADR to search for Prohibited Substances, which were prohibited at the time of the sample collection, with improved analytical means at a later stage. Accordingly, the mere fact that only on the occasion of the re-analysis, but not on the occasion of the initial analysis, Prohibited Substances were detected, does not constitute a contradiction between the respective results which would justify to disregard the results of the re-analysis.

4. The limitation of 8 (eight) years provided for in Article 6.5 IOC ADR for the re-analysis of samples – which coincides with the 8-year statute of limitation set forth in Article 17 of the WADA Code 2003 – is not in violation of legal principles or Swiss public policy. The aim of having the option for re-analysis, i.e. to make use of the improvements of the analytical devices and methods, requires sufficient time which is needed for making new methods operational.

Ms. Lei Cao is a Chinese Athlete competing in the Women’s 75 kg weightlifting event at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2008.

In July 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited Growth Hormone Releasing Peptide substance Pralmorelin (GHRP-2).

The IOC Disciplinary Commission ruled that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and decided on 10 January 2017 to disqualify the Athlete's results obtained to the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games and ordered her to return her silver medal, pins and diploma obtained thereat.

Hereafter in January 2017 the Athlete appealed the decision of the IOC Disciplinary Commission with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete requested the Panel to repeal the IOC decision of 10 January 2017 or to impose a less harsh disciplinary sanction.
The Athlete did not challenge the results of the analysis. She rather claimed that (1) the substance GHRP-2 was not listed on the applicable 2008 Prohibited List, (2) there had been no consideration of the inconsistency of the results found in two different laboratories, (3) the re-analysis after almost 8 years would be against principles of law, and (4) the applicable WADA Code did not provide for the re-analysis of samples.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the IOC ADR. The substance DHRP-2 was a prohibited substance pursuant to the applicable 2008 Prohibited List and the IOC has established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator that an ADRV had occurred.

The mere allegation that departures of whatever kind might have occurred does not meet the standard of proof necessary under Article 3.2.1 IOC ADR to rebut the presumption that WADA-accredited laboratories have conducted the sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the ISL.

The Sole Arbitrator does not find any inconsistency or even contradiction between the analytical findings obtained in 2008 and 2016. Both findings are the results of the analytical instruments and methodologies available at the time, respectively.

The re-analysis of the Athlete’s sample which was conducted in July 2016 took place within the 8-year period from the sample collection on 13 August 2008, provided for in Article 6.5 IOC ADR. The period of 8 years coincides with the 8-year statute of limitation set forth in Article 17 of the WADA Code 2003.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 31 July 2017 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Ms. Lei Cao on 29 March 2017 against the decision rendered by the Disciplinary Commission of the IOC on 10 January 2017 is dismissed.
2.) The decision rendered by the Disciplinary Commission of the IOC on 10 January 2017 is confirmed.
3.) (…).
4.) (…).
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2017/A/4973 Chunhong Liu v. International Olympic Committee
(IOC)

Related case:
IOC 2016 IOC vs Chunhong Liu
January 10, 2017

Weightlifting
Doping (Growth Hormone Releasing Peptide (GHRP-2) and its metabolites; Sibutramine)
Prohibited Substances listed as part of a group
Burden of proof regarding sample analysis
Re-analysis of samples under Article 6.5 IOC ADR
Legality of period of time foreseen for re-analysis

1. Even without being expressly listed by name in the Prohibited List, a substance (e.g. Growth Hormone Releasing Peptide (GHRP-2)) may be covered by the respective list as belonging to a group of listed Prohibited Substances, e.g. “2. Growth Hormone (hGH)”. This is notwithstanding the fact that in a later version of the Prohibited List a more precise specification of the same group of Prohibited Substances, e.g. “GH-Releasing Peptides (GHRPs)”, is added and that version of the Prohibited List explicitly identifies certain substances as examples for the group in question.

2. Under the WADA Code (and the respective Anti-Doping Rules issued by the IOC for the 2008 Olympic Games (IOC ADR)) WADA-accredited laboratories are presumed to have conducted sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL). The mere allegation by an athlete that departures of whatever kind might have occurred does not meet the standard of proof necessary under the WADA Code and the respective IOC ADR to rebut the above presumption.

3. It is the main function of the re-analysis of samples foreseen under Article 6.5 IOC ADR to search for Prohibited Substances, which were prohibited at the time of the sample collection, with improved analytical means at a later stage. Accordingly, the mere fact that only on the occasion of the re-analysis, but not on the occasion of the initial analysis, Prohibited Substances were detected, does not constitute a contradiction between the respective results which would justify to disregard the results of the re-analysis.

4. The limitation of 8 (eight) years provided for in Article 6.5 IOC ADR for the re-analysis of samples – which coincides with the 8-year statute of limitation set forth in Article 17 of the WADA Code 2003 – is not in violation of legal principles or Swiss public policy. The aim of having the option for re-analysis, i.e. to make use of the improvements of the analytical devices and methods, requires sufficient time which is needed for making new methods operational.

Ms. Chunhong Lia is a Chinese Athlete competing in the Women’s 69 kg weightlifting event at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2008.

In July 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited Growth Hormone Releasing Peptide substance Pralmorelin (GHRP-2) and the substance sibutramine.

The IOC Disciplinary Commission ruled that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and decided on 10 January 2017 to disqualify the Athlete's results obtained to the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games and ordered her to return her silver medal, pins and diploma obtained thereat.

Hereafter in January 2017 the Athlete appealed the decision of the IOC Disciplinary Commission with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete requested the Panel to repeal the IOC decision of 10 January 2017 or to impose a less harsh disciplinary sanction.
The Athlete did not challenge the results of the analysis. She rather claimed that (1) the substance GHRP-2 was not listed on the applicable 2008 Prohibited List, (2) there had been no consideration of the inconsistency of the results found in two different laboratories, (3) the re-analysis after almost 8 years would be against principles of law, and (4) the applicable WADA Code did not provide for the re-analysis of samples.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the IOC ADR. The substance DHRP-2 was a prohibited substance pursuant to the applicable 2008 Prohibited List and the IOC has established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator that an ADRV had occurred.

The mere allegation that departures of whatever kind might have occurred does not meet the standard of proof necessary under Article 3.2.1 IOC ADR to rebut the presumption that WADA-accredited laboratories have conducted the sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the ISL.

The Sole Arbitrator does not find any inconsistency or even contradiction between the analytical findings obtained in 2008 and 2016. Both findings are the results of the analytical instruments and methodologies available at the time, respectively.

The re-analysis of the Athlete’s sample which was conducted in July 2016 took place within the 8-year period from the sample collection on 13 August 2008, provided for in Article 6.5 IOC ADR. The period of 8 years coincides with the 8-year statute of limitation set forth in Article 17 of the WADA Code 2003.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 31 July 2017 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Ms. Chunhong Liu on 29 March 2017 against the decision rendered by the Disciplinary Commission of the IOC on 10 January 2017 is dismissed.
2.) The decision rendered by the Disciplinary Commission of the IOC on 10 January 2017 is confirmed.
3.) (…).
4.) (…).
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

World Anti-Doping Agency 2016 annual report / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2017

CONTENTS

- Wada Vision And Mission
- Message From The President And The Director General
- Our Priorities
- Governance
- Executive Committee
- Foundation Board
- Management Team
- Organizational Overview
- The World Anti-Doping Program And The World Anti-Doping Code
- Partnerships
- Code Compliance
- Athlete Relations
- Education
- Intelligence And Investigations
- Science And Medical
- Testing
- Information And Data Management
- Funding
- 2016 Finance Overview
- 2016 Contributions
- 2016 Financial Statements

While WADA’s 2016 priorities included development of new detection methods for doping; conducting new research; equipping Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) with tools to protect the integrity of sport; and, monitoring global anti-doping activities; the year was largely consumed by the revelations exposed via the independent Pound and McLaren investigations into Russian sport.

After the Rio Olympic and Paralympic Summer Games, the clean sport community rallied around the need for a more empowered WADA. There was consensus that WADA had accomplished much over its 17 years and that now it was time to equip the Agency with the tools it needs to truly fulfill its mission as the global independent leader of clean sport. Accordingly, at WADA’s 20 November 2016 Foundation Board meeting, the Board approved a series of recommendations for immediate action related to Code compliance; WADA’s Whistleblower Program; WADA’s governance model; the laboratory accreditation system; the Independent Testing Authority (ITA); and, the Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS). These recommendations led to the development of a series of priorities that will drive WADA’s work in 2017 and beyond.

At USD28.3 million, WADA’s budget -- which is based on contributions from the public sector that are matched by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) -- has increased slightly over the past five years (2012-2016), growing an average of 1.4% per year. At the same time, WADA’s scope of activities has increased significantly; and, some of those activities, such as investigations, have pulled resourcing from other key activities.

At the end of 2016, WADA employed 88 people from its headquarters in Montreal, Canada; and, its regional offices in Cape Town, South Africa; Tokyo, Japan; Lausanne, Switzerland; and, Montevideo, Uruguay. Together, the WADA team collaborates day-in and day-out with our global partners to preserve the integrity of sport and uphold the values of fair play.

In 2015 the International Cycling Union (UCI) decided for retesting the samples of the Italian cyclist Giampaolo Caruso. The Athlete’s samples were collected in March 2012 and the retesting was conducted in accordance with the new WADA Technical Document TD 2014EPO in order to reflect recent scientific devlopments in the detection of erythropoietin (EPO).

In August 2015 the UCI has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the retired Athlete after his 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance EPO.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with objections in his defence, waived an Acceptance of Consequences and he was heard before the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal (UCI-ADT).

The Athlete disputed the validity, admissibility and reliability of the evidence and claimed that departures occurred of the applicable Rules and Standards.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the procedure of retesting was carried out in conformity with the procedure provided for under the applicable standards, i.e. the ISL 2012 and that the Athlete’s fundamental rights provided for under the ISL 2012 were safeguarded.
Also the Tribunal finds that the UCI has established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal that the Athlete committed an ADRV pursuant to Article 21.1 of the ADR 2012 without departures of the ISL or the IST.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on June 16 2017 that:

1.) The Athlete has committed an ADRV (Article 21.1 of the ADR 2012).
2.) A period of Ineligibility of 2 (two) years commencing on 18 August 2015 is imposed on the Athlete.
3.) The results obtained by the Athlete between 27 March 2012 and 31 December 2012 are disqualified.
4.) The Athlete shall pay a fine (…).
5.) The Athlete shall pay to the UCI for costs (…).
6.) All other and/or further prayers for relief are dismissed.
7.) (…)

In 2015 the International Cycling Union (UCI) decided for retesting the samples of the Slovenian cyclist Jure Kocjan. The Athlete’s samples were collected in March 2012 and the retesting was conducted in accordance with the new WADA Technical Document TD 2014EPO in order to reflect recent scientific developments in the detection of erythropoietin (EPO).

In January 2016 the UCI has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoetin (rhEPO). Also in November 2016 the UCI has reported an second anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for Tampering and / or Attempted Tampering because the UCI qualified the Athlete’s menace to publicly release the (secretly) recorded telephone conversation with a UCI staff member as a conduct contrary to the ADR.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered, the Athlete filed statements with objections in his defence in both cases, rejected an Acceptance of Consequences and waived the provision of substantial assistance. Without a hearing for the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal (UCI-ADT) an decision was rendered on the basis of the written submissions.

In his submissions the Athlete disputed the validity, admissibility and reliability of the evidence and claimed that departures occurred of the applicable Rules and Standards.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete failed to show on a balance of probability that there were any departures from the ISL. The Athlete has not provided one specific reference to a provision of the ISL or other applicable International Standard that might have been violated by the Laboratory. Despite the principle of iura novit curia resp. iura novit arbiter, the Athlete must fulfill some minimum conditions when presenting the facts of the case. This (low) threshold has not been met in the case at hand.

Not only did the Athlete fail to substantiate his factual allegation with respect to a possible departure of the ISL. He also did not explain how the individual breach of a provision of the ISL could have reasonably caused the AAF. Since the Athlete was unable to rebut the presumption, the Sole Arbitrator finds that the ADRV in the form of “Presence” (Article 21.1 ADR 2012) has been established in the first reported anti-doping violation.

In the matter of the Athlete’s second anti-doping violation the Sole Arbitrator holds that the Athlete had no legitimate grounds to record the telephone conversation. The Sole Arbitrator finds that if the Athlete secretly recorded the telephone conversation he committed a criminal offense according to the Swiss Criminal Code. The Athlete tried to profit from the (simulated) criminal offense by intimidating the UCI staff member and thereby influencing the Doping Control process. The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete has committed a second ADRV in the form of attempted tampering within the meaning of Article 2.5 ADR 2015.

Therefore the UCI-Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 28 June 2017 that:

1.) Mr. Jure Kocjan has committed a first Anti-Doping Rule Violation according to Article 21.1 ADR 2012 and a second Anti-Doping-Rule Violation according to Article 2.5 ADR 2015.
2.) Mr. Jure Kocjan is suspended for a period of ineligibility of 4 years commencing on 28 January 2016.
3.) The results obtained by Mr. Jure Kocjan from 8 March 2012 until and including 8 March 2014 are disqualified.
4.) Mr. Jure Kocjan is ordered to pay to the UCI a monetary fine (…).
5.) Mr. Jure Kocjan is ordered to pay to the UCI for costs (…).
6.) Mr. Jure Kocjan is ordered to pay a contribution (…) towards UCI’s legal costs in connection with these proceedings.
7.) All other and / or further reaching requests are dismissed.
8.) (…)