In July 2015 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian cyclist Fabio Taborre after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance FG-4592.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences, he filed a statement in his defence and without a hearing for the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal (UCI-ADT) an decision was rendered on the basis of the written submissions.

The Athlete denied the anti-doping violation and filed an objection to the jurisdiction of the UCI-ADT.
The Tribunal notes that it is reinforced in its jurisdictional ruling by the confirmation of NADO Italia, which supported both the jurisdiction of the UCI to conduct results management with respect to the Athlete, as well as the lack of conflicting jurisdiction of the TNA 2nd Section in the CONI ADR.

The Tribunal finds that the Athlete submitted a statement of defence that stated the he did not admit to the alleged anti-doping rule violation, but did not provide any other supporting evidence nor make any other assertions to support this statement. The Athlete submitted neither any arguments nor any evidence as to his position regarding the potential Consequences to the alleged anti-doping rule violation.

In considering the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds itself comfortably satisfied that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation within the meaning of the UCI ADR.

Without grounds for a reduced sanction the UCI ADR decides on 25 May 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 July 2015. The sanction is including disqualification of his results and payment of a fine and costs.

In July 2015 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian cyclist Luca Paolini after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine.

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

The Athlete gave a prompt admission, explained that the use of the substance was recreational, out-of-competion, unrelated to competition and not intentional.
Considering the findings the Tribunal finds that the Athlete regularly and intentionally consumed a substance that is prohibited in-competition and that there is no basis to assume that he acted “with utmost care”, i.e. with “No Fault or Negligence”.

Therefore the UCI-ADT decides on 13 April 2016 to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 7 July 2015. The sanction is including disqualification of his results and payment of costs and expenses.

In March 2015 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French cyclist Lloyd Mondory after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance erythropoietin (EPO).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.
The Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences, he didn’t file a statement in his defence nor did he attend the hearing of the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal (UCI-ADT).

Without the Athlete’s response the Tribunal concludes that the prensence of EPO has been established and that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation.
Therefore the UCI-ADT decides on 30 October 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete including disqualification of his results and payment of fine, fees and costs.

CAS 2016/A/4828 Carlos Iván Oyarzun Guiñez v. Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) & UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal (UCI-ADT) & Pan American Sports Organization (PASO) & Chilean National Olympic Committee (CNOC)

Related case:
UCI-ADT 2016 UCI vs Carlos Oyarzun
September 16, 2016

Cycling
Doping (molecule FG-4592)
Standing to be sued
Inadmissibility of evidence regarding “presence” of a prohibited substance affected by improper B sample notification
Admissibility of evidence regarding the establishment of “use” of a prohibited substance
Conditions to benefit from a reduced sanction

1. The question of standing to be sued is a matter related to the merits. An organ of a federation such as the UCI-ADT does not, as such, have a legal personality and therefore has no standing to be sued. Likewise, entities which were not parties in the procedure in front of the first instance body have no standing to be sued and the appeal must be dismissed in so far as they are concerned.

2. The athlete’s right to attend the opening and analysis of the B Sample is of fundamental importance and if not respected, the B Sample results may be disregarded. The failure to properly notify the athlete with sufficient, reasonable reaction time to secure his/her attendance affects the admissibility of the analytical results of both samples for establishing an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) for “Presence” of the prohibited substance. Yet, the fact that the analytical results of a B Sample cannot be used to establish an ADRV for “Presence” because it was obtained in breach of the athlete’s fundamental right to attend the opening and analysis of said sample does not preclude the competent authorities to take this sample into account for a “Use” violation. In such a situation, the sample in question must be regarded with particular care and cannot by itself be sufficient to establish a “Use” violation.

3. According to the comment to Article 2.2 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules (UCI-ADR), Use or Attempted Use may be established by other reliable means which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish “Presence” of a Prohibited Substance under Article 2.1. In this respect, valid existing urine samples, blood samples as well as an athlete’s blood profile and the conclusions drawn from the correlating expert reports are admissible for establishing an ADRV under Article 2.2 as they constitute corroborating evidence.

4. To benefit from a reduced sanction, the athlete bears the burden of establishing that the ADRV was not intentional within the meaning of Article 10.2.3 of the UCI-ADR. The standard of proof imposed on the athlete is a “balance of probability”, as provided by Article 3.1 of the UCI-ADR. There could be cases, although extremely rare ones, in which a panel may be willing to accept that an ADRV was not intentional although the source of the substance had not been established. But, as a general matter, proof of source must be considered an important and even critical first step in any exculpation of intent. In this respect, the fact that the substance used at the time of the ADRV was still in clinical trial and, thus, not available on the market, precludes the athlete to demonstrate that the prohibited substance could have unintentionally entered his/her body. Consequently, no reduction of the period of ineligibility can be justified by an established lack of intent. For the same reasons, no reduction of the sanction based on No Fault or Negligence or on “exceptional circumstances” can be granted.

In July 2015 the Pan American Sports Organisation (PASO) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Chilean cyclist Carlos Iván Oyarzun Guiñez after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance FG-4592. As a consequence on 26 August 2016 the Anti-Doping Tribunal of the International Cycling Union (UCI-ADT) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete including a payment of a fine and costs.

Hereafter in October 2016 the Athlete appealed the decision of the UCI-ADT with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested the Panel to set aside the UCI-ADT decision of 16 September 2016 and to reinstate him to sports participation.
The Athlete disputed the validity, admissibility and reliability of the evidence and claimed that departures occurred of the applicable Rules and Standards.

The Panel finds that the UCI-ADT, PASO and CNOC have no standing to be sued in this case and that the Appeal must be dismissed in so far as they are concerned.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete has not been able to rebut the presumption, as he did not establish that the alleged departures, if any, could have caused the positive analytical findings. In view of the fact that it is not contested that the urine A and B Samples contained FG-4592 and of the circumstance that there is reliable evidence that the variations in the blood profile of the Athlete are fully consistent, on temporal, physiological and scientific bases, with the use of FG-4592, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete used FG-4592 and, thus, breached Article 2.2 of the UCI-ADR. In the opinion of the Panel, the Athlete also clearly failed to rebut the legal presumption of having committed the ADRV intentionally.

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

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Carlos Ivan Oyarzun Guifiez on 16 October 2016 is dismissed.
2.) The decision rendered by the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal on 26 August 2016 is confirmed.
3.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr Carlos Ivan Oyarzun Guifiez, which is retained by the CAS.
4.) Mr Carlos Ivan Oyarzun Guifiez is ordered to pay to the UCI a total amount of CHF 3,500 (three thousand five hundred Swiss Francs) as contribution towards the expenses incuned in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2016/A/4648 Blaža Klemenčič v. Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI)

Related case:
UCI-ADT 2016 UCI vs Blaža Klemenčič
May 20, 2016

Cycling (Mountain bike)
Doping (EPO)
Ne bis in idem principle and standing to appeal
Substantive law and procedural law in the meaning of Article 25.2 UCI ADR
Retesting of samples in case of insufficient remaining A sample
Article 2.1.2 of the UCI ADR 2015 as evidentiary rule
Determination of “substantive anti-doping rule” in the meaning of Article 25.2 UCI ADR 2015
“Any reliable means” in the meaning of Article 3.2 WADC
Commencement of period of ineligibility in case of retesting of samples

1. It is a fundamental principle that an athlete who tests positive for a Prohibited Substance can never be subject to “a double punishment”, i.e. be sanctioned two times for having committed two different anti-doping rule violations both for “Presence” and for “Use”. Furthermore an appeal against a decision finding an athlete guilty of an anti-doping rule violation for either “Presence” or “Use” by which it is claimed that the judgment was based on the “wrong” provision (i.e. for example “Presence” rather than “Use”), would have to be dismissed due to lack of standing to appeal in case the athlete was nevertheless found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation based on an identical offence (i.e. “Use”) and with an identical sanction period. However, a request that the CAS panel confirms the appealed decision (as here for “Use”), but also holds that the athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation for “Presence” is admissible, as it falls under the CAS Panel’s general scope of legal review pursuant to Article R57 of the CAS Code.

2. In the absence of an exact definition in the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR), or in any relevant CAS jurisprudence, of the distinction between “substantive law and procedural law” in the meaning of Article 25.2 WADC (and Article 25.2 UCI ADR), the distinction between substantive and procedural law may only be found through the application of normal interpretation rules and principles, in particular the overall purpose of the rule prohibiting sanctions to be applied retroactively for violations which occurred prior to the effective date of a new version of rules.

3. Despite the fact that the rule of the UCI ADR 2012 which addresses the establishment of an anti-doping rule violation for the Presence of a Prohibited Substance did not foresee that in case insufficient urine remained in the A sample for the purposes of retesting the sample, the B sample would be split and a confirmation procedure would be carried out with the two B sample bottles, the said procedure could already be applied under the UCI ADR 2012 insofar as it was specifically foreseen in the 2012 International Standards for Laboratories (ISL), and the UCI ADR 2012 have to be read in conjunction with this ISL. Therefore, in case an A sample collected in 2012 is retested in 2015 by splitting the B sample, in legal terms this cannot be regarded as application of a rule introduced in 2015 that was not already available in 2012.

4. The last paragraph of Article 2.1.2 of the UCI ADR 2015, which foresees that in case insufficient urine remained in the A sample for the purposes of retesting the sample, sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is also established in cases where the Rider’s B sample is split into two bottles, is an evidentiary rule which merely confirms how sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation may be established. It does not constitute a “substantive rule” in the meaning of Article 25.2 of the UCI ADR 2015 which means that the prohibition on retroactivity generally foreseen by Article 25.2 of the UCI ADR 2015 is inapplicable.

5. When analysing whether a certain anti-doping rule (here Article 21.1 UCI ADR 2012) qualifies as “substantive anti-doping rule” in the meaning of Article 25.2 of the UCI ADR 2015, not only the rule under examination, but also e.g. the applicable ISL have to be taken into account. This follows from the Introduction, Scope, and References Section of the ISL which stipulates that the WADC – and therefore also the UCI ADR – cannot be considered in isolation. That rather, in order to ensure optimal harmonisation and best practice in international and national anti-doping programmes, the World Anti-Doping Programme encompasses various elements, with the WADC (level 1), International Standards (level 2), and Models of Best Practice (level 3) being the main elements, which all have to be read in conjunction with each other.

6. The term “any reliable means” within the meaning of Article 3.2 WADC (as well as Article 23 of the UCI ADR 2012) is not supposed to be limited in any way through the examples contained in the Comments, and there is no indication whatsoever that these “means” should exclude analytical data.

7. It follows from the original intent behind the provision regarding delays not attributable to an athlete and possible credit for a served provisional suspension (Article 315 of the UCI ADR 2012) that it wasn’t intended to be applied in cases of retesting of samples, where the period between sample collection and establishment of the adverse analytical finding is usually long. Put differently, to fix the commencement of the period of ineligibility in retesting cases to the date of the collection of the sample (here in 2012) would usually contravene the possibility of retesting of an athlete’s sample, e.g. as here under an improved testing regime for the detection of EPO.

In 2015 the International Cycling Union (UCI) decided to retest the samples of the Slovenian cyclist Blaža Klemenčič. 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 September 2015 the UCI has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoetin (rhEPO).
On 20 May 2016 the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete including a fine and disqualification of her results between 27 March 2012 and 31 December 2012.

Hereafter in June 2015 the Athlete appealed the decision of the UCI-ADT with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete requested the Panel to annul the UCI-ADT decision of 20 May 2016 and argued that the re-analysis of her samples was invalid under the UCI ADR 2012 to form the basis of an anti-doping rule violation. Also the Athlete asserted that departures occurred from the Rules, International Standards and Technical Documents.

The Panel finds that the UCI has had the right to start proceedings against the Athlete and the UCI has established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that the Athlete has committed and anti-doping rule violation under the UCI ADR 2012. Also the Panel dismissed the Athlete’s claims for alleged departures from the applicable Rules, International Standards, or Technical Documents.

Considering the Athlete’s annual income from 2012 to 2016 the Panel holds that the imposed fine should reflect the Athlete's reasonable financial capacity today and thus it reduces the fine to 50 per cent of the annual gross income of the Athlete in 2016.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 3 March 2017 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 9 June 2016 by Blaža Klemenčič against the decision issued on 20 May 2016 by the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal is partially upheld.
2.) The decision issued on 20 May 2016 by the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal is confirmed and upheld, except that the reference to Article 21.2 of the UCI ADRin Section 1 of the decision is deleted and the monetary fine in Section 4 of the decision is reduced.
3.) The costs of the arbitration shall be free and the fee and costs of the Arbitrators shall be borne by CAS.
4.) Ms. Blaža Klemenčič shall pay CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss francs) in contribution to UCI's costs in connection with the present arbitration.
5.) All other prayers and motions for relief are dismissed.

Related case:

CAS 2017_A_5320 USADA vs Ryan Bailey
November 30, 2017

In January 2017 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bobsled Athlete Ryan Bailey after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 5-Methylhexan-2-amine (1,4-dimethylpentylamine, 1,4-dimethylamylamine, 1,4-DMAA). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence.

In this case USADA accepted after the Athlete's prompt admission that the source of the Athlete’s positive test was the supplement “Weapon X”. Detailed analysis conducted on the supplement by the WADA-accredited laboratory in Salt Lake City confirmed that the supplement contained DMBA. Although DMBA was not listed on the Supplement Facts label, another closely related prohibited stimulant, methylhexaneamine, also known as 1,3-Dimethylamylamine (DMAA), was listed on the label.

As a result the current version of the supplement that caused the Athlete’s positive test, which lists DMAA as an ingredient, but in fact contains DMBA, was added in April 2017 to the USADA High Risk List of supplements maintained on USADA’s online dietary supplement safety education and awareness resource, Supplement 411.

The Panel of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Commercial Arbitration Tribunal finds that the Athlete has sustained his burden of proof, by a balance of probability to qualify for a reduction on the Athlete’s period of ineligibility, based on his light degree of fault.

Therefore the AAA Commercial Arbitration Tribunal decides on 26 July 2017 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 20 January 2017.

In September 2016 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the track cyclist after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance clenbuterol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Commercial Arbitration Panel.

The Athlete did not challenge the test results and he denied the intentional use of the substance. He asserted that his positive test was the result of contaminated meat or supplements and referred to previous cases of meat tainted with clenbuterol. Laboratory reports showed that non of the supplements provided by the Athlete were contaminated. Also the Athlete filed a polygraph exam, which confirmed that he was truthful about not knowingly taking any substance containing clenbutererol and not having ever intentionally ingested clenbuterol.

The Panel, though willing to accept that the Athlete did not cheat, needs more than theories about contaminated meat or supplements. The Panel does not find the polygraph evidence particularly helpful, and unconvincing in this matter. The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to provide some evidence which constitutes a probable source of the positive result in addition to the Athlete’s denial of intent.

Therefore the AAA Commercial Arbitration Tribunal decides on 14 July 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 2 September 2016.

Related case:
CAS 2016_A_4776 Dorian Willes vs IBSF
July 14, 2017

In April 2016 the International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American Athlete Dorian Willes after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the IBSF Doping Hearing Panel.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and stated that he was very cautious and diligent in checking all substances in all of his supplements. The Athlete argued that the substance 1,3-dimethylamylamine wasn’t mentioned in the WADA prohibited list and that departures occurred from International Standards and Anti-Doping Rules.

The Panel concludes that in the event the testing procedure that was followed on 19 March 2016 should be considered as a departure from the International Standard for testing, as argued by the Athlete, and for that reason the burden of proof of an anti doping violation by the Athlete shifts to IBSF. Nevertheless the IBSF has to the comfortable satisfaction of the Doping Hearing Panel proven that the departure did not cause the AAF of the Athlete.

The Panel finds the an easy internet search would have made clear the 1,3-dimethylamylamine is just another name for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine. The Panel however considers that the Athlete made clear in his verbal testimony that he did not intent to enhance performance, but that he used supplements because of the variety of sports he is involved in and that although not sufficient in the subject matter he is very thorough in checking his supplements on banned substances.

Therefore the IBSF Doping Hearing Panel decides on 18 August 2016 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 April 2016.

CAS 2017/A/5015 International Ski Federation (FIS) v. Therese Johaug & The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (NIF)

CAS 2017/A/5110 Therese Johaug v. The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (NIF)

Related case:
ADNO 2016-29 Anti-Doping Norway vs Therese Johaug
February 10, 2017

Cross-country skiing
Doping (clostebol)
Standing to be sued of the national federation
Criteria for a finding of no fault or negligence
Duty and standard of care of the athlete
Assessment of the level of fault within the “no significant fault” category
Reduction of the sanction based on proportionality

1. An appeal can be made against the national federation that made the contested decision and/or the body that acted on its behalf.

2. An athlete fails to abide by his/her duty of diligence if, with a “simple check” she could have realized the medical product he/she was using contained a prohibited substance that was indicated on both the packaging of the product and its notice of use. A finding of No Fault applies only in truly exceptional cases. In order to have acted with No Fault, an athlete must have exercised the “utmost caution” in avoiding doping. Even where the circumstances are “extraordinary” and there is minimal negligence, athletes are not exempt from the duty to maintain “utmost caution”.

3. An athlete bears a personal duty of care in ensuring compliance with anti-doping obligations; he or she cannot delegate away his or her responsibilities to avoid doping. The standard of care for top athletes is very high in light of their experience, expected knowledge of anti-doping rules, and public impact they have on their particular sport. It follows that a top athlete must always personally take very rigorous measures to discharge these obligations. The prescription of medicine by a doctor does not relieve the athlete from checking if the medicine contains forbidden substances or not. Athletes always bear personal responsibility and the failure of a doctor does not exempt the athlete from personal responsibility. Furthermore, athletes have a duty to cross-check assurances given by a doctor even where such a doctor is a sports specialist.

4. Within the “no significant fault” category, a greater degree of fault may lead to a sanction of 20 – 24 months, a normal degree of fault may lead to a sanction of 16 – 20 months, and a light degree of fault may lead to 12 – 16 months. Having determined the relevant level of “no significant fault”, a CAS panel must then turn to any subjective elements that can be used to move a particular athlete up or down within that category.

5. Considerations like stress and stigma attached to the name of the athlete, damage to the career because of provisional suspension, missing of part or entirety of a season, denial of the right to train with teammates, loss of sponsor causing a significant loss of income, or even negative impact on the chances in being selected for the national Olympic team are not relevant to warrant an additional reduction of sanction based on proportionality.

In October 2016 Anti-Doping Norway has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Norwegian Athlete Therese Johaug after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance clostebol. Considering No Significant Fault or Negligence in this case the Adjudication Committee of the Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports decided on 10 February 2017 to impose a 13 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 October 2016.

Hereafter in March 2017 the International Ski Federation (FIS) and in April 2017 the Athlete appealed the Norwegian decision of 10 February 2017 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
FIS partially accepted the circumstances in this case and requested the Panel to set aside the Norwegian decision of 10 February 2017 and to impose a sanction between 16-20 months.

The Athlete did not dispute the test results and asserted that the violation was non intentional with No Fault or Negligence.
She stated that she had a sunstroke while at a training camp in Italy in August 2016 and hereafter she developed a fever, diarrhoea and sunburst on her lip. The Athlete’s team doctor treated the Athlete’s sunburst with the pharmaceutical substance Trofodermin which he purchased at a pharmacy in Livigno, Italy, in September 2016.
The Athlete argued that she was contractually bound to follow the advice of the experienced sports doctor and he assured the Athlete that she could use the product. Also she mentioned Trofodermin on the Doping Control Form when she provided a sample for drug testing in September 2016. The Athlete requested the Panel to dismiss the FIS appeal and to eliminate or to reduce the imposed period of ineligibility.

The Panel must decide three questions in this case:
1. What is the appropriate level of fault attributable to Ms Johaug?
2. What is the sanction proportionate to Ms Johaug’s circumstances?
3. Is Ms Johaug’s cross-appeal admissible?

The Panel finds that the Athlete’s conduct does not warrant a finding of No Fault. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the majority of the Panel determines that a 18 month period of ineligibility is appropriate. The Panel has already examined the Athlete’s response to the FIS’s appeal, which comprised the same set of facts and arguments (consolidated together with her cross-appeal) and rendered its decision accordingly. In consideration of the foregoing and of the fact that FIS’s appeal is partially upheld, a decision on the admissibility of the cross-appeal is dismissed as moot.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 August 2017 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the International Ski Federation against Ms Therese Johaug and The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sport on March 6, 2017 is partially upheld.
2.) The cross-appeal filed by Ms Therese Johaug against The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sport on 27 April 2017 is dismissed.
3.) The decision rendered by the Adjudication Committee of the Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports on 10 February 2017 is amended as follows:
Ms Therese Johaug is suspended for a period of eighteen (18) months commencing 18 October 2016.
4.) (…).
5.) (…).
6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

iNADO Board Urges a Principled Approach to Russian Sanctions / Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2017

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is awaiting the reports of two commissions in order to determine further action on systemic doping in Russia. Following the evidence and findingsset out in two reports of Professor Richard McLaren(commissioned by the World Anti-Doping Agency) , the Oswald Commission is considering Russian manipulation of samples and analysis, while the Schmid Commission is considering institutional corruption among Russian government and sport organisations. These commissions are to report in October.The Board of Directors of the Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO) urges that the further action by the IOC be made with a principled approach.