Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisation (iNADO) board of directors's response to International Olympic Committee (IOC) Declaration of March 16, 2017 / Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2017

Contents:

- Strengthening WADA requires giving it true independence
- If malevolent "National Interests" exist, confront them
- Independent testing authority: a global testing bureaucracy?
- Sanctioning authority should not rest soleley with the Court of Arbitration for Sport

Policy for long term storage and targeted deterrence / Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2017

Contents:

- Scope of retesting
- Selection of samples to be placed into long term storage
- Selection of samples to be retested
- Criteria for the selection of samples
- Duration of long term storage
- Transfer of samples from WADA-Accredited Laboratory to third party storage
- The retesting process
- Notification regarding stored samples and retesting
- Results management for test results on stored samples
- Announcement of retesting outcomes

Related case:
ST 2017_13 DFSNZ vs Travell Ngatoko (2)
March 16, 2018

In December 2016 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent Travell Ngatoko after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold (189ng/ml).
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 Respondent gave a prompt admission of the violation, he co-operated with the case and stated that the use of the substance was recreational and not to enhance sport performance. DFSNZ and the Tribunal accepted the Repondent’s statement and that he was without significant fault.

Considering the Respondent’s prompt admission and cooperation the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 3 February 2017 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting backdated on 3 November 2016.

In November 2016 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent Stacey Mikara after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis in a 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 Sports Tribunal of New Zealand.

The Respondent admitted the violation and stated that he smoked cannabis during the 2016 season for recreational purposes in social settings as an alternative to drinking alcohol and without intention to enhance sport performance. He acknowledged that he was informed about the prohibited substances, including cannabis, but it had been difficult to stop his habitual cannabis use.

DFSNZ accepts the Respondent’s statement that the use of cannabis was recreational and without intention to enhance. Also the Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence and having regard to the similar position taken by both counsel on these issues, that the Respondent’s use of cannabis was not intended to enhance his sporting performance and, further, that there was no significant fault in his having infringed the WADA limits on the use of cannabis during a period of competition.

Considering the circumstances in this case the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 17 February 2017 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. backdated on 18 January 2017.

in August 2016 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent Mendrado Catoto after his sample 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 Sports Tribunal of New Zealand.

The Respondent gave a prompt admission and argued that it was the result of the unintentional ingestion of a contaminated supplement. He stated that he had used a pre-workout supplement Dust v2 purchased from a supplements retailer near a gym he attended. The Respondent assumed that this supplement is the source of the prohibited substance and he asserted that he researched the ingredients of the supplement before using.

With the parties’ co-operation, a tub of Dust v2 was purchased from the same retailer and sent to the accredited laboratory for testing. The result confirmed that the supplement contained methylhexaneamine. Following this analysis, DFSNZ accepted that the contaminated supplement Dust v2 was the source for the prohibited substance being in the Respondent’s system at the time of the positive test.

Considering the evidence the Tribunal accepts that the Respondent has established how the prohibited substance entered his system and finds that he was not at significant fault in testing positive for methylhexaneamine.

Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 19 December 2016 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 6 August 2016.

Related case:

• ST 2017_02 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray
  October 13, 2017
• CAS 2017_A_4937 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray
  December 15, 2017
• ST 2017_02 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray - Decision on Jurisdiction
  March 14, 2018
• ST 2017_02 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray - Decision on Sanction
  May 8, 2018
  
  

On 8 April 2014 the Commission for the Fight against Doping of New Caledonia decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent Karl Murray after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone) and Testosterone.

Previously the imposed sanction was restricted to New Caledonia only but afterwards adopted by the UCI in March 2015 and automatically extended to New Zealand. The Athlete's ban would end on 7 April 2016.

In April 2016 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Respondent for violating the imposed period of ineligibility and for tampering.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Respondent was heard for the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand.

DFSNZ asserted that the Respondent in the period of ineligibility had written, provided and discussed training plans with two competitive cyclists on several occasions. When interviewed in March 2016 he provided false, misleading and incorrect (and hence) fraudulent information to DFSNZ.

Considering the evidence in this case the Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that DFSNZ has proven that the Respondent coached the cyclists while banned. While there is certainly evidence to this effect and having heard and seen all the witnesses the Tribunal does not find that the evidence is of the requisite “strong” quality to establish proof of what are serious allegations. Much of it is of the nature of suspicion, hearsay or supposition.

Therefore the Tribunal decides on 20 December 2016 to dismiss the allegations against the Respondent.

In August 2016 Sport Ireland (Spórt Éireann) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete IS-4505 after his sample tested positive for cocaine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete admitted the violation. Hereafter the Athlete failed to file a statement in his defence nor did he attend the hearing of the Irish Sport Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ISADDP).

Without the Athlete’s response the ISADDP decides on 25 January 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete IS-4505 starting on the date of the sample collection.

Proposals for WADA Governance to Ensure Independence / Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2017

This paper summarises what independence means in principle and in practice for WADA, and makes proposals for enhancing it. It argues that WADA needs to be independent from any force, vested interest or stakeholder seeking to influence decisions in favour of anything other else than clean sport.

Contents:

1. What does it Mean for WADA to be “Independent?”
2. Why is WADA Independence Needed?
- Recent Events / The Need for a Restart
- Sport Cannot Police Itself
- WADA’s Mandate
- Protecting Clean Athletes and Whistleblowers
- Protecting Sport without Fear or Favour
- Conflicts of Interest
- Dedicated Expertise
- Optimised Use of WADA Resources
- Enhancing Public Confidence
- Justifying Government Contributions to WADA
3. Limits on WADA Independenct that Need Compromise it
- Transparancy and Public Reporting
- Compliance with Global Norms and External Oversight and Auditing
- Observance of National Laws
- Judicial Oversight
- Legislative Oversight and Code Revision Process
- Funding
4. Proposals for Enhanced WADA Independence
- Independent Governance
- Independent Oversight
- Legislative or Policy Independence
- Operational Independence
- Interdependencies

Related case:
- ISR 2006 KNKF Decision Disciplinary Committee 2006127 T
November 2, 2006
- ISR 2016 KNKF Decision Disciplinary Committee 2016010 T
November 10, 2016
- CND 2019 Dopingautoriteit Decision Compliance Commission 2016010 N
July 8, 2019
- Dopingautoriteit 2019 Decision Complaint 201610 AB
August 27, 2019
- CND 2019 Dopingautoriteit Decision Compliance Appeal Commission 2016010 NB
January 21, 2020

On 10 November 2016 the ISR Disciplinary Committee of the Dutch Royal Strength Sport and Fitness Federation (KNKF) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Person after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

Hereafter in December 2016 the Person appealed the decision of the ISR KNKF Disciplinary Committee with the KNKF Appeal Committee.
The Appeal Committee upholds the conclusion of the Disciplinary Committee that the evidence showed that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation for testing positive for the prohibited substance.

The Appeal Committee considers whether there are grounds for reduction of the imposed sanction and whether the violation was without intention to enhance his sport performance.

The Athlete asserted that the meat he consumed and had purchased in the stores of two large Dutch supermarkets was possibly contaminated due to the meat was supplied by a meat wholesale involved in the sale of large numbers of contaminated meat to European firms. The Athlete admitted that he had no evidence for his assumption.

The Committee establish that the Athlete only provide assumptions about how the prohibited substance came into his body. The Person failed to produce additional information about the meat he had consumed, nor was further investigation conducted to prove whether the meat was supplied by this wholsale to the two stores.

Without grounds to reduce the sanction the ISR KNKF Appeal Committee decides on 2 February 2017 to confirm the imposed 4 year period of ineligibility on the Person.

Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the Person.

De Wet uitvoering antidopingbeleid: de gespannen relatie tussen antidopingmaatregelen en gegevensbescherming. Deel 1: de antidopingwereld / B. van der Sloot, M. Paun LLM, R. Leenes. - (Privacy & Informatie (P&I) (2017) 1 (feb) : p. 2-16)

antidoping,
gegevensbescherming
Wet uitvoering antidopingbeleid

Samenvatting:

Sporters kunnen worden onderworpen aan zeer verregaande maatregelen in verband met de strijd tegen doping. Zo kunnen zij worden verplicht per dag hun verblijfplaatsen door te geven en kunnen er bloed- en urinemonsters worden verzameld en opgeslagen in het geval zij worden onderworpen aan een dopingtest. Deze gegevens worden gedeeld met partijen in het buitenland, die onder andere gevestigd zijn in Zwitserland en Canada, maar ook daarbuiten. Deze maatregelen treffen vooral professionele atleten, maar kunnen onder omstandigheden ook worden opgelegd aan amateursporters. De vraag is of deze grootschalige gegevensverwerking en -doorvoer legitiem en proportioneel is in het kader van het recht op privacy en gegevensbescherming. De Nederlandse regering heeft onlangs een wet naar de Kamer gestuurd om deze gespannen relatie in te kaderen en bij wet te regelen. Dit artikel beschrijft de antidopingwereld, de betrokken partijen en de gegevensverzameling en -doorvoer die plaatsheeft.