In February 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 the prohibited substances Dexamphetamine (d-amphetamine, dextroamphetamine) and Levoamphetamine (l-amphetamine).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and het was heard for the Doping Tribunal of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC).

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he had used a ‘study pill’ provided by a friend and only after the notification he heard from his friend that the ‘study pill’ was a capsule of Adderall containing the prohibited substances. The Athlete requested for a reduced sanction as the violation was non intentional.

The CCES argued that the Athlete failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, how the substances entered his system. The CCES explained that the Athlete initially reported that it was through consuming C4 pre-workout powder that the substance entered his body but he then changed his story explaining that he took his friend’s Adderall pill. According to the CCES, the Athlete has not provided sufficient evidence to prove any of these two explanations.

The Athlete filed a sequence of declarations, first by not indicating anything on his doping control form at collection time, then by stating that he consumed C4, and then by submitting that he had instead consumed a ‘study pill’. The Athlete’s first declaration was a fabricated lie, which misdirected the doping authorities’ resources in their legal and clinical analysis and research. It leaves the Sole Arbitrator with no reason to trust the Athlete’s last version.

Therefore the SDRCC Anti-Doping Tribunal concludes that he bears Significant Fault or Negligence and decides on 27 April 2017 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In June 2016 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (DHCMT).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Doping Tribunal of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC).

The Athlete gave a prompt admission of the violation and argued that it was a non intentional violation and the result of the use of a contaminated supplement AminoX with grounds for a reduced sanction. Analysis reports of the WADA Accredited Laboratory in Montreal of the content of the Athlete’s bottle AminoX confirmed very high levels of DHCMT.

The CCES contested that there are no valid grounds for the Athlete to claim that his AminoX supplement was contaminated with DHCMT during the manufacturing process or before he purchased it.

For the CCES Professor Ayotte stated that the Athlete’s explanation is not supported by scientific evidence due to the DHCMT substance detected in the AminoX bottle is not the same as the DHCMT substance detected in the Athlete’s samples.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the DHCMT in the Athlete’s samples was neither inadvertent nor an innocent mistake due to the DHCMT, and did not come from a contaminated AminoX supplement. The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the only explanation is that the Athlete deliberately and intentionally used the DHCMT.

Therefore the SDRCC Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 23 November 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 24 April 2016.

In November 2016 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the 68 year old cyclist after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone with a T/E ratio in a high concentration above the WADA threshold.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Doping Tribunal of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC).

The Athlete claimed that he did not commit an anti-doping rule violation and stated that he is very careful with his diet as well as his vitamins and supplement intake. He didn't understand how the prohibited substance entered his body since he never took doping substances. He believed his age may have impacted his T/E ratio.

Professor Ayotte dismissed as expert witness the Athlete’s age as potentially influcencing the T/E ratio and reiterated that IRMS clearly demonstrated the isotopic signature of exogenous testosterone.

The Sole Arbitrator could not determine the Athlete’s intent nor could the Athlete establish how the exogenous testosterone entered his system and concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the SDRCC Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 22 March 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 October 2016.

In March 2016 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Taylor Findlay after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance clenbuterol.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Doping Tribunal of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC).

The Athlete did not contest the test results and asserted that she did not commit an anti-doping rule violation as she did not use clenbuterol intentionally, but that the finding was due to the ingestion of contaminated meat. In support she filed the results of a polygraph examination she voluntarily underwent and a number of press articles dealing with the presence of veterianary drugs in horse meat in Canada.

The CCES requested the Sole Arbitrator to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete due the she failed to prove, by a balance of probabilities, how the clenbuterol has entered her system.

Professor Ayotte stated as expert witness that it is unlikely that the presence of clenbuterol results from the consumption of clenbuterol contaminated meat in Canada. Also the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) stated that al tests carried out between 2014 and 2016 to detect clenbuterol in Canadian meat were all negative, including all tests carried out in 2015-2016 on meat imported in Canada.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete has not provided any concrete evidence of the specific circumstances in which the unintentional ingestion of contaminated meat would have occurred and concludes that her doping violation must be deemed to be intentional.

Therefore the SDRCC Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 13 March 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 March 2016.

In April 2016 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances: Amphetamine, Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone, Drostanolone and Mesterolone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with arguments in his defence and he was heard for the Commercial Arbitration Tribunal of the American Arbitration Association.

The Athlete argued that USADA does not have the authority to bring a case against him under the USADA Protocol and IWF Anti-Doping Policy regarding the results of the testing conducted on his sample collected at the Weightlifting event on 5 March 2016. Therefore the Panel should dismiss the case. The Athlete contended that in fact his sample was collected by USA Powerlifting (USAPL) and not by USADA, the applicable rule in this matter should be the USAPL Technical Rules, not those of the IWF.

USADA contended that in this case the IWF Anti-Doping Policy and the USADA Protocol apply to the Athlete. USADA explained that USA Weightlifitng (USAW) contracted with USAPL (which then subcontracted with the company Sportcheque) to collect the samples for testing at the event under USAW’s authority.
USADA argued that it is uncontested that the Athlete was a USA Weightlifting member on 5 March 2016 when his sample was collected at the weightlifting event under the IWF Rules. Also the Athlete expressly agreed to the IWF Anti-Doping Policy applying because his license agreement states that he agreed not to commit a doping violation as defined by the IWF.

Considering the circumstances in this case the Panel finds that the Athlete was not adequately informed by USAW about the USOC Policy or the USADA Protocol in the USAW Membership Form and is not subject to the results management authority of USADA in this case by virtue of signing that document.
The Panel establish that USAW was the organization that initiated the drug testing process, delegated sample collection to USAPL, and, when it received the results of the testing on the Athlete's sample, asked USADA to manage the results of such testing.

Although the Panel finds that USADA has results management authority in this instance, the Panel notes that USADA has barely met its burden of proof of doing so to the Panel's comfortable satisfaction in this regard. The Panel is of the view that United States athletes would be better served by having clear documentation implemented at each event sanctioned by an National Governing Body (NGB) and in the NGB membership application process that informs all athletes of the legal obligations they have and their rights to resolve any disputes arising thereunder; whether this responsibility lies with WADA, the IWF, the USOC, USAW, or USADA is something that is outside of this Panel's purview.

On 10 May 2017 the AAA Tribunal decides that:

1.) USADA has the authority to manage the results of the testing conducted on Respondent's sample that was collected at the 2016 Arnold Weightlifting Championships. Accordingly, arbitral jurisdiction is proper here.
2.) The Athlete shall not be responsible for any costs related to the testing or analysis conducted on his sample and that USADA shall bear any administrative costs related to the testing or management of Respondent's sample.
3.) The parties ordered to proceed to share their dates of availability over the next 30 days for the Panel to conduct a proper preliminary hearing to set a hearing date and the procedural order for the case.

Hereafter on 31 May 2017 USADA announced that the Athlete Robert Dosterschill has accepted a 4 year period of ineligibility after testing positive for multiple prohibited substances.

In 2016 the Parathlete SG-4684 was arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced to prison for 5 years by the Singapore’s District Court for consumption and possession for the purpose of trafficking methamphetamine.

As a consequence of his conviction Anti-Doping Singapore (ADS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete in February 2017 for trafficking the prohibited substance methamphetamine.
After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission of the violation and was unable to attend the hearing due to his imprisonment.

The Athlete admitted the violation and pleaded for leniency regarding the sanction to be imposed. Considering the facts and circumstances in this case the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee (NADC) decides on 18 April 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete SG-4684 starting on the date he was convicted in court in 2016.

In January 2017 Anti-Doping Singapore (ADS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Sri Lankan Athlete SG-4683 after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance metandienone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered, the Athlete submitted a response in his defence and failed to attend the hearing of the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee NADC).

In his submission the Athlete denied the use of of the prohibited substance and failed to provide an explanation as how the prohibited substance entered his system.
Considering the evidence the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides on 17 April 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ingeligibility on the Athlete SG-4683 starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 January 2017.

In February 2017 the Netherlands Basketball Federation (NBB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

The NBB attempted to contact the Person for notification and established that he didn’t reside anymore in the Netherlands. Therefore the Person failed to attend the hearing of the ISR-NBB Disciplinary Committee, nor did he file a statement in his defence.
Without the Person’s response the ISR-NBB Disciplinary Committee decides on 8 June 2017 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on de date of the decision.

iNADO Update (2017) 83 (14 June)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

- Bart Coumans, Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands, has died
- New Member (Italy)
- 60% of Global Testing is accredited to iNADO Members
- OCALUDS hosts UNESCO-Funded Anti-Doping Seminar in Cameroon
- International Conference on Doping and Public Health, Oslo, Norway
- NADA Germany Annual Press Conference - An Example of Best Practice
- Reporting ADO Failure as Important as Reporting Athlete Doping?
- Independence of hearing panels: Conclusions from CoE Seminar Vilnius
- Nutritional Supplements on the Radar of the IOC
- CAS Award on Russian Olympic Committee et al vs. IAAF
- Conclusion of IOC Reanalysis of Olympic Games Samples from Beijing and London
- New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

CAS OG 12/06 Ángel Mullera Rodriguez (Spain) vs the Royal Spanish Athletics Federation (Real Federación Española de Atletismo – RFEA), the Spanish Olympic Committee (Comité Olímpico Español – COE) & Superior Sports Council (Consejo Superior de Deportes – CSD)

Mr Ángel Mullera Rodriguez is a Spanish Athlete competing at international level as runner in the 3000m Steeplechase and he was selected for the Spanish Olympic athletics to compete at the London 2012 Olympic Games.

On 20 July 2012 the Technical Committee of the Royal Spanish Athletics Federation (RFEA) decided to exclude the Athlete to be part of the Spanish Athletics Team and his participaton at the London 2012 Olympic Games.

Reason for this decision was that the RFEA and CSD had received emails exchanged between the Athlete and an unnamed trainer concerning doping practices. In those emails, Mr Mullera and the trainer were explicit in asking and giving advice on some very specific doping protocols and on how to come out clean in any anti-doping controls. Also a Spanish newspaper published in July 2012 about these emails.
The RFEA and CSD had anonymously received those emails about six months earlier and because of the emails’ content they had subjected the Athlete to several out-of-competition anti-doping tests, with no adverse analytical findings.

The Athlete stated to the RFEA that the emails had been partially manipulated. He admitted that some parts of the emails were authentic and that he had in fact inquired about some doping protocols. However, he denied he followed the trainer’s advice or ever doped.

On 23 July 2012 the RFEA Disciplinary Committee rejected an application to open disciplinary proceedings against the Athlete for an anti-doping rule violation. The RFEA Disciplinary Committee stated that the evidence was not sufficient to ascertain an anti-doping rule violation.
Requested by the CSD the RFEA Disciplinary Committee opened on 26 July 2012 a new disciplinary procedure against the Athlete for his possible violation of “notorious and public acts going against the dignity and decorum of sports”.

Hereafter on 29 July 2012 the Athlete filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad hoc Division at the same time the latest RFEA disciplinair procedure was still pending.
The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the decision to exclude him and to order the RFEA to re-admit him to the Spanish Athletics Teams for his participation at the London 2012 Olympic Games. The Athlete argued that the RFEA decision to exclude him was wrong and breaching the applicable laws and regulations.

The CAS Panel has seen no evidence of a true technical reason behind the Athlete’s exclusion, the Panel finds that the RFEA arbitrarily excluded Mr Mullera from the Spanish team and thus violated its own selection criteria. Indeed, the discretion that a national federation can exert in selecting or de-selecting an athlete may not go as far as to become arbitrary. The Panel points out that this is not to be taken to mean that a national federation or a National Olympic Committee shall always be prevented from excluding an athlete from the national team if he or she is suspected of having doped, as is the case here. However, this precautionary exclusion of an athlete for ethical reasons, prior to any disciplinary sanction, must be provided by the pertinent selection rules. It is, of course, a matter for the RFEA to consider whether it wishes to amend its own rules in order to have the right to exclude an athlete from the Spanish national team if he or she is suspected of having behaved improperly with regard to doping matters.

The Panel wishes to express in clear terms that it does not intend to condone Mr Mullera’s inappropriate behaviour and that it fully understands the position of sports bodies which genuinely wish to fight against doping and, therefore, take appropriate measures in cases where one of their athletes behaves inappropriately. The Athlete’s exchange of emails asking how to dope and how to escape anti-doping controls strikes at the very heart of the fight against doping. Whether such behaviour is simply reproachable, or an "attempted use" in the meaning of the World Anti-Doping Code or a "notorious and public act against the dignity and decorum of sports" in the meaning of the Spanish Sports Disciplinary regulation, is not for this Panel to decide.
In any case, as accepted by the Athlete himself, his enquiries regarding doping methods were entirely inappropriate, and the Panel relies on the disciplinary proceedings that the RFEA’s Disciplinary Committee has commenced against the Applicant in order that the matter be investigated and, as appropriate, pursued through the proper channels.

The Panel holds that many will consider Mr. Mullera to be extremely fortunate to be the beneficiary of the RFEA’s improper procedural course and of the lacuna in the RFEA’s selection criteria. However, under the current rules and considering the explanation given by the RFEA, the RFEA may not exclude Mr. Mullera from the Spanish team for the London Olympic Games.

Therefore the Ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 August 2012 that:

1.) The application filed by Mr Ángel Mullera Rodriguez is partially upheld.
2.) The CAS does not have jurisdiction ratione personae over the Superior Sports Council (Consejo Superior de Deportes).
3.) The decision of the Royal Spanish Athletics Federation of 20 July 2012 to exclude Mr Ángel Mullera Rodriguez is set aside.
4.) The selection of Mr Ángel Mullera Rodriguez in the Spanish Olympic team is confirmed.
5.) The Royal Spanish Athletics Federation and the Spanish Olympic Committee are ordered to take all arrangements necessary to enable Mr Ángel Mullera Rodriguez to participate in the 3000m Steeplechase discipline at the XXX Olympic Games in London.
6.) All other requests or motions for relief are rejected.