CAS 2016/A/4475 World Rugby v. Luke Willmott & Rugby Football Union
CAS 2016/A/4503 WADA v. Luke Willmott & Rugby Football Union

Related case:
UKAD 2015 Luke Willmott vs UKAD – Appeal
January 11, 2016

In June 2013, UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) received notification that the International Crime Team had seized a parcel addressed to the Athlete containing vials labelled Jintopirn (Human Growth Hormone, hGH). However analysis of the substance in the vials showed they did not contain hGH. The Athlete was interviewed by UKAD one year later in July 2014 and hereafter charged for attempted trafficking.

On 2 June 2015 the RFU Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 5 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension. The Athlete appealed and on 11 january 2011 the RFU Appeal Panel decided to reduce the sanction and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 1 April 2014.

Hereafter in February and in March 2016 both World Rugby and WADA appealed the decision of the RFU Appeal Panel with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
World Rugby and WADA requested the Panel to set aside the decision of 11 January 2016 of the RFU Appeal Panel and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

After deliberations between the parties they informed CAS on 21 October 2016 that they had reached a Settlement Agreement and requested the Panel to ratify and incorporate the portion of the Settlement Agreement into a Consent Award.

Each of the parties agrees that:

1.) The decision on sanction (points 4.1.2. and 4.1.3. of the operative part of the Appeal Panel Decision) rendered by the Appeal Panel of the Rugby Football Union on 11 January 2016 is set aside.
2.) Mr Luke Willmott is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four years.
3.) The period of ineligibility shall commence on 15 August 2013, such that, for the avoidance of doubt, Mr Luke Willmott shall be entitled to return to training on 15 June 2017, and to competition on 15 August 2017.
4.) The remaining findings set out in the operative part of the Appeal Panel Decision remain in full force and effect.
5.) The costs of arbitration to be determined by the CAS Court Office shall be borne by World Rugby, the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Rugby Football Union in equal shares.
6.) The Parties shall each bear their own legal fees or other expenses incurred in connection with the CAS Appeal.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) renders on 20 January 2017:

1.) The Panel, with the consent of World Rugby, World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), Luke Willmott and Rugby Football Union, hereby ratify the relevant portion of the Settlement Agreement executed by the parties on 20 and 21 October 2016 (see Paragraph 36 of the present award) and incorporates its terms into this consent arbitral award.
2.) The arbitral procedures CAS 2016/A/4475 World Rugbyv Luke Willmott & Rugby Football Union and CAS 2016/A/4503 WADA v Luke Willmott & Rugby Football Union are terminated and deleted from the CAS roll.
3.) Each party is hereby ordered to perform the obligations and duties as per the Settlement Agreement referred to above.
4.) As per clause 5 of the Settlement Agreement signed on 20 and 21 October 2016, the costs of the arbitration, which shall be determined and separately communicated to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be paid by World Rugby, the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Rugby Football Union in equal shares.
5.) As per clause 6 of the Settlement Agreement signed on 20 and 21 October 2016, each party shall bear its/ his own legal costs and expenses.
6.) All other requests or prayers for relief are rejected.

iNADO Quarterly Report 1/2017 / Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2017

(See attached pdf-file for more information)

This communication goes to iNADO’s 67 Members.
iNADO is happy to answer any questions on your Institute’s activities.

Please send your questions to info@inado.org

Contents:

- New members
- New iNADO Partnerships
- iNADO Attendance at Anti-Doping Conferences/Meetings
- iNADO Workshop
- iNADO AGM
- NADOs visited
- NADOs Webinars
- NADOs Board Meetings
- iNADO Public Statements
- iNADO Finances
- iNADO Updates
- iNADO Member Communications
- Added Documents on iNADO Website
- Other iNADO Projects and Activities

In December 2016 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance higenamine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission about the violation, stated that he had used out-of-competition the supplement ‘The One 2.0.' purchased in Australia and showed that the prohibited substance higenamine wasn’t mentioned on the label of the supplement.

DFSNZ accepted that the Athlete’s violation was non intentional and that the supplement was contaminated as definied under the Rules establishing that his fault was not significant. Considering the circumstances in this case DFSNZ proposed a 9 month period of ineligibility.

After an adjournment requested by the parties in April 2017 a joint memorandum was filed on behalf of DFSNZ and the Athlete.
The Sports Tribunal of New Zealand considers the joint memorandum to be fair and decides on 3 May 2017 to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 22 September 2016.

Cycling Independent Reform Commission : Terms of Reference / Dick Marty, Ulrich Haas, Peter Nicholson, Brian Cookson, Martin Gibbs. - Cycling Independent Reform Commission (CIRC); International Cycling Union (UCI). - UCI, 2014

1.) The present Terms of Reference (ToR) are int~nded to set out the mandate of the UCI Cycling Independent Reform Commission (CIRC).

2.) The present ToR were drafted taking into account the Memorandum of Understanding signed between UCI and WADA on 15 January 2014 (MoU), the UCI Ad Hoe Regulations on the Cycling Independent Reform Commission adopted by the UCI Management Committee on 1st February 2014 (CIRC Regulations), the UCI AntiDoping Regulations (UCI ADR) and any other agreements entered into between the UCI and WADA concerning the CIRC and its mandate.

Hein Verbruggen - Circ / Hein Verbruggen. - 2014

Hein Verbruggen (1941-2017), former International Cycling Union (UCI), states what in his opinion has occurred:

1.) The UCI has been – since the outstart some 50 years ago – and still is one of the forerunners of anti-doping;

2.) As regards my period as President from 1992 to 2005, I guarantee that there has never been a positive doping case that has not been treated according to the rules, nor has there been a policy of favouring riders or teams. The antidoping activities of the UCI were in the hands of persons of the highest ethical standards (professionals as well as volunteers);

3.) The poor image of cycling in terms of anti-doping is based on a wrong perception rather than on facts (by which I do not mean to play down the doping problem in cycling as shown by scandals such as Festina and Puerto and the many riders found positive by the UCI). The WADA and in particular its previous President Mr R. Pound have largely contributed to shaping that negative perception by means of an ongoing smear campaign often based upon sheer lies and false allegations. It is my conviction (and not only mine!) that Mr Pound has personal reasons of revenge;

4.) Mr Pound is to a large extent personally responsible for the fact that the WADA is a poorly performing anti-doping agency with a very low success record. The WADA’s performance has come under heavy criticism within the Olympic Movement. Mr Pound and the WADA’s management follow since years a mostly unreasonable and unjustified “naming and shaming” policy to keep away the attention of the WADA’s own failures. Especially the UCI and Cycling, also in the Lance Armstrong case (!), were used as scapegoats.

These items are treated and documented in this report.

Athletes must show caution due to contaminated meat / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2011

Athletes must show caution due to contaminated meat.

Due to continuing concerns over contaminated meat in certain parts of the world, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has re-emphasized the need for athletes to exercise extreme caution with regards to eating meat when traveling to competitions in China and Mexico.

It has been shown that Mexico and China have a serious problem with meat contaminated with the prohibited substance clenbuterol, and WADA’s message to athletes competing in these countries remains the same: eat only in restaurants and cafeterias that have been approved by your federation and/or event organizer.

Furthermore, when eating outside these designated cafeteria and restaurants, always try to eat in large numbers.

“We have collected sufficient evidence to demonstrate that in some countries there is a risk of eating meat that might be contaminated so we say to athletes that they should be sensible and cautious about where they eat,” said WADA Director General David Howman.
“At the World Swimming Championships in Shanghai earlier this year, and the recent Pan American Games in Mexico, the advice from WADA was to stick to places given the all clear by event organizers. The Governments were able to give assurances to athletes at those events.
“It is the responsibility of event organizers and governments to ensure the meat available to athletes is not contaminated.
“WADA continues to give the same advice. These countries have assured WADA that they are taking steps to deal with this problem and to enforce laws that are in place to prevent steroid feeding of animals, but at the moment it is vital that athletes, coaches and team managers are aware of ways to avoid any risk.
“It is also important that those sports and organizations who are staging events in these two countries obtain guarantees from the hosting body and government that the food made available to athletes is not contaminated.”

WADA will approach and study any positive case involving clenbuterol on an individual basis.

WADA statement on clenbuterol / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2011

WADA statement on clenbuterol

Following current media interest in relation to clenbuterol, WADA wishes to clarify the following:

1.) Clenbuterol is a prohibited substance and there is no threshold under which this substance is not prohibited.
2.) At present there is no plan to introduce a threshold level for clenbuterol.
3.) It is possible that under certain circumstances the presence of a low level of clenbuterol in an athlete sample can be the result of food contamination. However, each case is different and all elements need to be taken into account.
4.) Under the World Anti-Doping Code, result management of cases foresees the opportunity for an athlete to explain how a prohibited substance entered his/her body.
5.) Next week, WADA laboratory experts will meet, as they do regularly, and amongst other issues will discuss the situation with regards to clenbuterol. No decision will be taken at this meeting and any recommendation will then be reviewed and discussed at the WADA Health, Medical and Research Committee in view of the preparation of the 2012 List.
6.) The power to take a decision and to adopt the 2012 List is vested to the WADA Executive Committee, composed equally of the Sport Movement and Governments, that will meet in September.

WADA will refrain from making any further comment regarding clenbuterol until the review process has been completed.

Mexico City 2017 : meat warning for competitors / International Paralympic Committee (IPC). - Bonn : IPC, 2017

Mexico City 2017: meat warning for competitors
Contaminated meat could lead to positive doping tests at World Championships.

World Para powerlifting and World Para swimming would like to warn athletes traveling to Mexico City about the dangers of eating contaminated meat.

Clenbuterol is a powerful drug sometimes used for performance-enhancement by athletes to increase lean muscle mass and reduce body fat. Clenbuterol is on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List and is classified under the category of other Anabolic Agents.

There have been reports of clenbuterol use to promote growth in livestock, including cattle, lamb, poultry and swine. Consistent with numerous prior reported cases globally, the issue of illicit administration of clenbuterol to animals destined for food production can result in, under specific conditions, a positive sample from an athlete. WADA has issued specific warnings about this problem in China and Mexico (see references below). Unfortunately, anti-doping authorities have no control over agricultural and food safety practices in these countries, and inadvertent ingestion remains an ongoing issue for athletes.

Both the hotels and the venues where the athletes will be staying will not serve meat (beef or pork). However fish and other low risk options (e.g. chicken) will be available. Athletes must use the utmost care and caution if eating meat while traveling abroad, and should be aware of the potential for contamination.

To reduce the risk of unintentionally ingesting clenbuterol through contaminated meat:

• Choose foods from a reputable food source.
• Avoid eating liver or liver derived products while overseas.
• Avoid eating unusual or exotic meat products.

Athletes are encouraged to keep a detailed dietary journal while travelling to Mexico and China which may be helpful in recalling the details of specific meat ingestion should it be required to assist in results management.

Under the World Anti-Doping Code, Clenbuterol is a non-threshold non-specified substance, meaning that any amount of Clenbuterol detected in an athlete urine sample is reported as a positive test. Thus, it’s important to note that strict liability dictates an athlete has ultimate responsibility for what is in his/her system, regardless of its origin.

World Para powerlifting and World Para swimming will continue to keep the teams aware of new developments regarding this issue should they develop prior to the Championships.

Sport Ireland Act 2015 / Ministry for Transport, Tourism and Sport. - Government of Ireland, 2015. - (Act No. 15 of 2015).- (Sport Ireland Bill 2014 (Bill 85 of 2014)

An Act to provide for the administration and development of sport in the State; to provide for the establishment of a body to be known in the Irish language as Spórt Éireann or in the English language as Sport Ireland; to provide for the dissolution of the Irish Sports Council and the National Sports Campus Development Authority; to update the law in relation to doping in sport; and to provide for related matters.

Contents:

PART 1 Preliminary and General

PART 2 Sport Ireland

PART 3 Dissolution of Irish Sports Council and National Sports Campus Development Authority

PART 4 Anti-Doping

- 40. Definitions for Part 4
- 41. National anti-doping organisation
- 42. Anti-doping and Irish Anti-Doping Rules
- 43. Data protection
- 44. Persons engaged in sport
- 45. Continuance of Irish Anti-Doping Rules

In March 2017 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for multiple prohibited substances: Nandrolone, Testosterone (T/E greater than 25), Metandienone, Oxandrolone, Oxymetholone, Clostebol, Boldenone, Drostanolone, Tamoxifen, Letrozole, and Cannabis (measured at 3400 +/- 500 ng/mL).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Due to the Athlete failed to dispute the asserted violation within the deadline under the Rules follows that the Athlete is deemed to have admitted the violation, to have waived his right to a hearing and to have accepted the sanction proposed by the CCES.

Therefore the CCES decides on 26 May 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 20 April 2017.