IAAF Taskforce report to IAAF Congress, 3 August 2017 / Rune Andersen. - International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). - Monaco : IAAF, 2017

Since the Taskforce's appointment in December 2015 to oversee RusAF's efforts to meet these requirements, Taskforce members have met with RusAF and the Russian authorities in person eleven times (seven times in Moscow), have met with various other interested parties (see Appendix for a full list of meetings), and have liaised closely with WADA (which is overseeing RUSADA's efforts to achieve reinstatement as a Code-compliant NADO) and the International Paralympic Committee (which is overseeing the Russian Paralympic Committee's efforts to achieve reinstatement as an IPC member).

The Taskforce considers that material progress has been made towards reaching several of the conditions established by Council for reinstatement of RusAF to IAAF membership, but those conditions have not yet been met in full, and several important steps remain outstanding. For these reasons, the Taskforce unanimously recommends that Congress resolve, pursuant to Article 15.1(a) of the IAAF Constitution, to continue the suspension of RusAF's membership of the IAAF until all of the conditions set by Council for the cure of RusAF's breaches of the Objects of the IAAF and for the consequent reinstatement of RusAF's membership have been met.

Annual Report 2009 / Slovak Anti-Doping Agency (SADA). - Bratislava : Antidopingová Agentúra Slovenskej Republiky (ADA SR), 2010

Activity report of the Anti-Doping department of State Sports Medicine Centre of Latvia 2016 / Valsts sporta medicīnas centrs (VSMC). - Riga : VSMC, 2017

iNADO Update (2017) 85 (9 August)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

- The Selection of RUSADA’s New Director General
- Vacancies at WADA Commissions
- Save the Date: CoE T-DO Education Meeting in Minsk (Sept. 8-9)
- The Science Behind Lying and Cheating
- International Tennis Federation and Athletics Integrity Unit publish Anti-Doping Reports
- Francophone Games Anti-Doping Rules
- Integrity Programme at Women´s Rugby World Cup 2017
- ARD Articles and Documentaries on Doping (in German and in English)
- New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

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.) (…)