In May 2016 the Badminton World Federation (BWF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance terbutaline. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the BWF Hearing Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and accepted the test results. She explained that during her stay in New Zealand she used a recommended terbutaline inhaler to improve her breathing prior before she got tested. Also she checked the WADA 2015 prohibited list before using this inhaler.

The Panel is convinced that the violation was not intentional and accepts the Athlete’s explanation.
The Panel notes that terbutaline is a beta-2 agonist and is not one of the two beta-2 agonists that is explicitly allowed on the WADA 2015 prohibited list. The Panel finds that the Athlete has been careless when studying the Prohibited List and has without doubt acted with negligence.

Considering the circumstances in this case the Panel concludes that the Athlete’s degree of negligence is rather severe.
Therefore the BWF Hearing Panel decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 24 March 2016.

In January 2016 the ASEAN Para Sports Federation (APSF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Thai parathlete Sudsaifon Yodpa after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance sibutramine.
After notification by the Badminton World Federation (BWF) a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the BWF Hearing Panel.

The Athlete accepted the test results and stated that she had used a nutritional supplement purchased on the internet as treatment for constipation and believed this supplement was the source of the prohibited substance.
However in June 2016 the BWF was informed that analytical results showed that the substance sibutramine was not detected in this supplement.

The Hearing Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to establish how the prohibited substance entered her system and that her negligence is rather significant.
Therefore the BWF Hearing Panel decides on 6 September 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 7 December 2015.

In July 2016 the Badminton World Federation (BWF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Thai Athlete Ratchanok Intanon after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Triamcinolone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete accepted the test results.
The Athlete’s medical evidence together with the testimony from an expert witness estabilshed to the satisfaction of the Panel that the substance was administered in May 2016, before the competition as part of on‐going medical treatment of the athlete and that the route of administration of the substance was intra‐tendinous. The Panel concludes that for this mecical treatment no TUE was necessary.

Therefore the BWF Hearing Panel decides on 17 July 2016 that the Athlete did not commit an anti-doping rule violation.

In July 2015 the International University Sports Federation (FISU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Chinese Athlete Xiaohan Yu after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance sibutramine.
After notification by the Badminton World Federation (BWF) a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the BWF Hearing Panel.

The Athlete stated that the only possibility for her to get the substance in her system was the Exclusive Pill she took. Also the China Anti-Doping Agency (CHINADA) confirmed that analysis results showed that sibutramine was detected in these pills.

The Hearing Panel accepts that the Athlete’s violation was non intentional and that the positive test is without doubt caused by a contaminated natural supplement.
The Panel emphasizes that this case is a classic example of the dangers of consuming any product that has not been thoroughly tested by a responsible pharmaceutical institution or medical professional.
The Panel concludes that by only not taking the Exclusive Pill could the Athlete avoid being negligent and that her degree of negligence is rather light.

Therefore the BWF Hearing Panel decides on 11 February 2016 to impose a 7 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 12 July 2015.

Related case:
UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Adrian Canaveral
October 7, 2019

In October and in November 2016 the UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported two anti-doping rule violations against the weightlifter Adrian Canaveral after his samples, provided in September and in October 2016, tested positive for the prohibited substances: 19-norandrosterone, Clomiphene, Stanozolol, Tamoxifen and Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete gave a prompt admission and without a hearing he accepted a 4 year period of ineligibility rendered by UKAD. Because the Athlete’s second violation was committed before he received notice about the first violation UKAD considers the two anti-doping rule violations as a single first anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the Rules.

Therefore UKAD decides on 27 June 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the second sample collection, i.e. on 9 October 2016.

In September 2016 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance modafinil.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard before the Commercial Arbitration Tribunal of the American Arbitration Association (AAA).

USADA contended that the Athlete failed to prove that the violation was non intentional because to the Athlete used the medication Nuvigil (modafinil) without a prescription; the medication was provided by her coach; she didn’t apply for a TUE and neither did she mention it on the doping control form.

The Athlete stated that the violation was non intentional and explained that due to the long and irregular hours she worked and the heat in Arizona required her to train late at night. She struggled with sleep issues and used Nuvigil, provided by her coach, to help keep her alert for late night training sessions. Before using the medication she consulted a doctor who agreed that Nuvigil could help her and she researched the medication on the DRO website which confirmed that the medication was not prohibited out-of-competition. She used the medication between March and July 2016 and showed with evidence that she was tested out-of-competition during that time without incident.

In this case the parties' experts agree that the half-life of modafinil is 12-15 hours and that the peak plasma concentration is two to four hours after ingestion. After considering all of the submissions of the parties and evidence presented, the Panel concludes the Athelete has established by a balance of probability that she took Nuvigil 150mg tablets obtained from her coach out-of-competition knowing that Nuvigil was only prohibited in-competition.

The Panel finds that USADA has failed to carry its burden of proving that the Athlete engaged in conduct which she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or that she knew that there was a significant risk that her conduct might result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.
Considering the Athlete’s subjective element of fault and the mitigating subjective factors the Panel concludes that the Athlete’s conduct falls in the higher level of fault category.
Due to several months delay not attributed to the Athlete the Panel finds it appropriate to start the period of ineligibility on the date of the sample collection.

Therefore the AAA Commercial Arbitration Tribunal decides on 30 June 2017:

1.) Respondent has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the Code and the UCI Rules.
2.) The following sanction shall be imposed on the Respondent:
a.) A twenty one (21) month period of ineligibility commencing August I 0. 2016, including her ineligibility from participating in and having access to the training facilities of the United States Olympic Committee Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC including, but not limited to, grants, awards or employment pursuant to the USOC Anti-Doping Policies only during the period of ineligibility.
b.) Respondent's results from August 10, 2016 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes pursuant to Atticle 9 of the Code.
3.) The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs associated with this arbitration.
4.) The Administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association and the compensation and expenses of the Arbitrators shall be borne entirely by USADA and the USOC.
5.) This Award is in full settlement of all of the claims and counterclaims submitted to this Arbitration. All claims not expressly granted herein are denied.
6.) (…)

CAS (Oceania Registry) A2/2015 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), on behalf of Cycling Australia v. Jeone Park

Cycling
Doping (prohibited method: intravenous infusion of grape syrup and vitamins)
Establishment of an anti-doping rule violation and shifting of the onus to the athlete to mitigate the sanction
Athlete’s youth and ignorance that an intravenous injection constituted a breach of the WADA Code
Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no prohibited method is used according to the WADA Code

1. Once the anti-doping rule violation is established, the athlete must be suspended for two years, unless the conditions for eliminating or reducing the period of ineligibility are met. The onus then shifts to the athlete to mitigate the sanction and, in that regard, to satisfy the CAS of any specified facts or circumstances on the balance of probabilities.

2. Ignorance that an intravenous injection constituted a breach of the WADA Code (prohibited method) is no excuse. An athlete’s youth and his propensity to accept direction from his family members are also not excuses. They are relied upon to alleviate the consequences for the purposes of assessing culpability. That lack of knowledge is not an exculpatory or mitigating factor.

3. Article 2.2 of the WADA Code provides that it is each athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no prohibited method is used and that it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on the athlete’s part be demonstrated. Further, the success or failure of the attempted use is not material.

In January 2015 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for the attempted use of a Prohibited Method: the intravenous infusion of grape syrup and vitamins.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Oceania Registry Ordinary Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The violation occurred previously in August 2014 in Korea when the Athlete’s cousing, a fully trained nurse, administerd this intravenous infusion to assist the Athlete recovery after he felt unwell.

ASADA requested the Panel to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing the anti-doping rule violation of Attempted Use of a Prohibited Method with the IV infusion in August 2014. ASADA argued that the Athlete was not inexperienced and he failed to establish that he bears no significant fault or negligence.

The Athlete accepted that he committed the anti-doping rule violation in August 2014 and contended that the violation was principally the result of the actions conducted by the adults around him. The Athlete argued that he gave a prompt admission; there is no allegation of use of a prohibited substance; he gained no benefit from the attempted use; he was a minor at the time and in his situation unaware that he was committing an anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete’s arguments are insufficient for establishing that he bears no significant fault or negligence and concludes that the Athlete has committed a violation of the CA Anti-Doping Policy.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 17 March 2016:

1.) Jeone Park committed an anti-doping rule violation of Attempted Use of a Prohibited Method, namely an intravenous infusion, in breach of Art. 7 of the Cycling Australia Anti-Doping Policy 2010, which incorporates by reference Art. 2.2 of the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code.
2.) In accordance with Art. 17 of the Cycling Australia Anti-Doping Policy 2010 (which incorporates by reference Art. 10 of the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code), a period of ineligibility be imposed upon Jeone Park for a period of two (2) years, backdated to commence on 11 June 2015.
3.) All competitive results obtained by Jeone Park from 11 June 2015 shall be invalidated with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points or prizes.
4.) (…)
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS (Oceania Registry) A4/2014 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) (on behalf of Athletics Australia) v. Kim Mottrom

Doping (dextran / S5 - Diuretics and other Masking Agents)
Burden and standard of proof
Dextran as a blood (plasma) expander and effect of dextran as masking agent for steroids
Presence of dextran in the athlete’s urine and intravenous administration

1. The burden of proving (presence and use) of a prohibited substance by an athlete lies upon the anti-doping organisation. The standard of proof is comfortable satisfaction, a term of art, in so far as deployed in sports law derived from a decision of a CAS ad hoc panel at the Atlanta Games in 1996 and regularly applied by CAS panels since then.

2. To consider the effect of dextran in a urine sample it is necessary to understand the chemistry of sugar and also the digestion of carbohydrates in the human digestive tract. Dextran is a blood (plasma) expander. When in the blood it draws in fluid which increases the fluidity of the blood. The blood volume is expanded. The blood has the ability to transport oxygen around the system releasing energy and thereby assisting acrobat performance. Dextran can also act as a masking agent for steroids.

3. If the overwhelming scientific evidence establish the presence of dextran in the athlete’s urine and oral ingestion cannot explain the concentration detected, then the panel is comfortably satisfied that the substance detected in the athlete’s sample was by intravenous administration.

In March 2014 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Kim Mottrom after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance dextran.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Oceania Registry Ordinary Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) with the right of appeal.

ASADA argued that the presence of high concentration dextran was established in the Athlete’s samples as result of intravenous administration.
The Athlete rejected ASADA’s evidence and contended that ASADA’s “intravenous injection” case rests on an unstable foundation of unqualified and inappropriately retained expert witnesses, contaminated urine samples, unexplained and less than thorough scientific analysis by the Laboratory and sloppy speculation.

The Sole Arbitrator accepts that the scientific evidence satisfies as to the presence of dextran and this was not challenged. The challenge was how the dextran entered the Athlete’s blood stream.

The Sole Arbitrator notes that both the Athlete’s A and B samples revealed the analytical finding was of high concentration of high molecule weight dextran. It was, even at the lowest reported range, a concentration far in excess of the allowable level. While there may have been a contaminated ceramic dish used that affected the A sample with bacteria that does not negate that the detection of dextran and the calculations of its concentration were done by the laboratory in accordance with accredited techniques.

The Sole Arbitrator rejects the proposition of the Athlete’s expert witness that the dextran was added to or made by the bacterial activity in the sample. The bacterial activity asserted could not have made the type of dextran detected. From the evidence, the Sole Arbitrator accepts the bacteria which was recognised by the laboratory in no way discredited the adverse analytical finding of the presence of dextran.

The overwhelming scientific evidence established the presence of dextran in the Athlete’s urine. Oral ingestion cannot explain the concentration detected. The Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied on the evidence the dextran detected in the Athlete’s sample was by intravenous administration.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 March 2016:

1.) Kim Mottrom has committed two anti-doping rule violations under the Athletes Australia Anti-Doping Policy that of:
a) The Presence of a Prohibited Substance; and
b) The Use of a Prohibited Substance.
2.) Mr Mottrom is suspended from competition for two years from 21 March 2014 with credit for the period of provisional voluntary suspension served by Mr Mottrom.
(…).

CAS 2016/A/4416 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Confederación Sudamericana de Fútbol & Brian Fernández

Football
Doping (cocaine)
Determination of the standard period of ineligibility for a non-intentional ADRV
Impossibility to eliminate the period of ineligibility based on No Fault or Negligence
Reduction of the standard sanction based on Non-Significant Fault
Assessment of the appropriate period of ineligibility

1. Art. 19 (1) of the FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR), which provides for a period of ineligibility of four years, is not applicable where the offence is not intentional. According to the rule, anti-doping rule violation resulting from an Adverse Analytical Finding for a substance which is only prohibited in-competition shall not be considered intentional if the substance is not a specified substance and the player can establish that the prohibited substance was used out-of-competition in a context unrelated to sport performance. Art. 19 (2) ADR (Art. 10 (2) (2) WADC) provides for a (standard) period of ineligibility of two years in case an athlete has acted negligently.

2. Where a player admitted having taken a substance which is not a specified substance and which is only prohibited In-Competition voluntarily, the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility of two years cannot be eliminated on the ground that the player bore No Fault or Negligence.

3. In order to establish whether or not an athlete acted with Non-Significant Fault (NSF), the athlete’s behaviour must be compared to the standard of care that can be expected from a “reasonable person” in the athlete’s situation. CAS jurisprudence has found that the threshold of NSF is met if the athlete observes the clear and obvious precautions which any human being would take in the specific set of circumstances. Obviously, a reasonable person would never have consumed drugs to begin with, in particular drugs like cocaine the addictive character of which is well known. However, when assessing whether or not an athlete acted with NSF, the athlete’s level of fault must be assessed in relationship to the anti-doping rule violation. In light of the WADC on the basis of which the ADR have been modelled, it can be considered in cases where an athlete establish that he consumed cocaine in a recreational / social context unrelated to sport performance that the athlete qualifies for NSF.

4. In light of CAS jurisprudence distinguishing between different categories of negligence, i.e. light, normal and significant negligence, only the first two categories allow for a reduction of the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility according to Art. 22 (2) ADR. In case of NSF, the applicable sanction can be reduced down to one half of the otherwise applicable sanction i.e. from 12 – 24 months. In order to determine which category of negligence is applicable in a particular case, it is helpful to consider both the objective and the subjective levels of fault. While the objective element describes what standard of care could have been expected from a reasonable person in the player’s situation, the subjective element describes what could have been expected from that particular player, with regard to his personal capacities.

On 10 May 2015 the Argentinian football player Brian Leonel Fernández tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine and a provisional suspension was ordered on 5 June 2015 by the Argentine Football Association (ASA).
On 17 June 2015 the Athlete’s A and B samples, provided on 28 May 2015 tested again positive for cocaine and the Disciplinary Unit of the South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) issued a provisional suspension on 9 July 2015.
On 21 October 2015 the CONMEBOL Disciplinary Unit decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete with 1 year as suspended sanction as confirmed by the CONMEBOL Appeal Chamber on 14 December 2015.

Hereafter in January 2016 the International Football Federation (FIFA) appealed the CONMEBOL decision of 14 December 2015 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
FIFA requested the Panel to set aside the CONMEBOL decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Since the Athlete’s first sample on 10 May 2015 was analysed by a laboratory not accredited by WADA, the anti-doping violation committed on 28 May 2015 cannot be qualified as a second violation.

CONMEBOL contended that the Athlete had admitted the use of cocaine, the violation was unrelated to sport and the Athlete had a problematic background resulting in an addiction. The Athlete underwent therapy for his addiction and the circumstances were ground for imposing a reduced sanction.

Even thought the Parties agree that the Athlete’s use of cocaine was not intentional and unrelated to sport performance, the Parties are in dispute whether or not further reductions apply tot the period of ineligibility under the Rules.

In this case the Panel finds that the objective level of negligence is not negligible, since the prohibited substance has been ingested rather close to the sporting event. The Athlete, thus, did not take any particular precautions with respect to observing a “cooling-off” period. Considering the Athlete’s reduced ability to exert control over and steer his private life, the Panel finds that the Athlete’s subjective level of negligence is lower. Balancing both aspects the Panel finds that this is a case on the borderline between normal and light degree of negligence and, thus, deems a period of ineligibility amounting to 18 months to be appropriate.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 November 2016 that:

1.) The Appeal filed by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association on 25 January 2016 against the decision issued by the Appeal Chamber of CONMEBOL’s Disciplinary Unit (CDU) dated 14 December 2015 is partially upheld.
2.) The decision issued by the Appeal Chamber of CONMEBOL’s Disciplinary Unit (CDU) dated 14 December 2015 is set aside.
3.) Mr Brian Fernández is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 18 months, starting from the date of the present award, with credit given for any period of ineligibility already served.
4.) (…).
5.) (…).
6.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

CAS 2016/A/4615 Asli Çakir Alptekin v. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)

Related case:

CAS 2014_A_3498 IAAF vs TAF & Asli Çakir-Alptekin - Settlement
August 17, 2015

• Athletics (middle distance)
• Further suspension of period of ineligibility based on
• Substantial Assistance Agreement with WADA
• Scope of CAS review of WADA refusal to further suspend the period of ineligibility of an athlete
• Grounds for WADA denial of further suspension of period of ineligibility

1. If a Substantial Assistance Agreement concluded between an athlete and WADA foresees that WADA – having suspended part of the athlete’s period of ineligibility at an earlier point in time – has the power to suspend more of the athlete’s period of ineligibility “if it considers, in its entire discretion”, that the extent and/or quality of the Substantial Assistance provided by the athlete proves more valuable than currently anticipated and if according to the Substantial Assistance Agreement WADA is further obligated to “act reasonably and in good faith”, a CAS Panel requested to review WADA’s refusal to suspend further parts of the athlete’s period of ineligibility may only annul WADA’s decision if the athlete in question proves that WADA, in taking its decision, acted unreasonably or in bad faith.

2. The decision by WADA not to grant a further suspension of the period of ineligibility based on the consideration that the athlete had two prior anti-doping violations (both of which were serious (steroids and blood doping)) and that the granting of the further suspension requested would potentially enable the athlete to compete at the upcoming Olympic Games is not unreasonable or taken in bad faith.

The Turkish Athlete Asli Çakir Alptekin was sanctioned in August 2015 for her second anti-doping rule violation. As a whistle blower the Athlete provided substantial assistance to the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

In November 2015, further to a Substantial Assistance Agreement, the Athlete revealed unprecedented levels of corruption within the IAAF, including attempts to subvert the anti-doping regime. Her Substantial Assistance included evidence of an alleged scheme by Papa Massata Diack (PMD) and Khalil Diack – both sons of former IAAF President Lamine Diack – and others to extort money from athletes charged with anti-doping violations.

Her evidence was given to WADA and the IAAF Ethics Board, as well as to the French financial crimes prosecutor, which has launched a criminal investigation into the scheme. Due to the Substantial Assistance Agreement WADA suspended in November 2015 4 years of the 8 years of the Athlete’s period of ineligibility which started on 10 January 2013 and ended on 10 January 2017.

Following the appeal of PMD, the IAAF Ethics Board and the French financial crimes prosecutor asked the Athlete to procure further evidence from additional witnesses to bolster the case against PMD. In response, in April 2016, the Athlete procured Additional Witness Statements that provide direct evidence of PMD’s attempt to extort money from her after she was charged with the anti-doping violation that ultimately led to the Consent Award.

Because of the provided information and her cooperation the Athlete requested WADA in April 2016 for a further suspension of her period of ineligibility by 6 months and 10 days such that she would be eligible to return to competition in July 2016 and potentially would allowed her to qualify for the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 25 April 2016 WADA responded that it was not willing to agree to suspend a further portion of the Athlete’s ineligibility period. Hereafter in May 2016 the Athlete filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete asserted that WADA has refused to suspend any further portion of the Athlete’s period of ineligibility for no legitimate reason. The WADA decision of 25 April 2016 appears to be motivated by political and/or reputational concerns linked to criticism WADA anticipates it might receive if it were to allow the Athlete the opportunity to compete in the Olympics. The Athlete argued that in denying her any additional suspension for the Additional Witness Statements WADA did not act reasonably and in good faith as required under Clause 5 of the Substantial Assistance Agreement.

WADA contended that the four-year suspension WADA has already granted the Athlete under the Substantial Assistance Agreement is substantial and generous and, perhaps, unprecedented. In providing the Additional Witness Statements, the Athlete simply complied with her duties under the Substantial Assistance Agreement and she cannot be rewarded twice for the same commitment.

The Athlete asked WADA to assess – within a very short time period – the value of the Additional Witness Statements within the context of appeal proceedings to which WADA was not a party. Taking into account the limited information it had, WADA decided to exercise its discretion not to grant any further suspension. The Athlete’s assistance has not proved more valuable than anticipated by WADA and WADA acted reasonably when taking its Decision.

The Panel does not consider that it arose from bad faith, but rather from WADA’s discomfort in having to decide upon a further suspension on short notice and limited information. Despite the time constraints and limited information, WADA did manage to consider the Athlete’s Application and decided that the value of the Additional Witness Statements did not justify granting the Athlete any further suspension of her period of ineligibility.

In review of the Athlete’s arguments the Panel concludes that WADA didn’t act unreasonably or in bad faith under Clause 5 of the Substanctial Assistance Agreement in denying the Athlete the further suspension she requested.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 November 2016 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Ms Asli Çakir Alptekin on 17 May 2016 in the case CAS 2016/A/4615 Asli Çakir Alptekin v. WADA concerning the decision rendered by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 25 April 2016 is dismissed.

(…)

4.) All further claims are dismissed.