In August 2015 UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Gavin Duffy after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete admitted the out-of-competition use of the substance without intention to enhance his performance. The Athlete told the Panel, sustained by expert witnesses, that he suffered from a depression with increased alcohol consumption after his relationship broke down in January 2015. He lost his job, injured his shoulder and stopped attending the rugby training. The Athlete stated that in the six weeks before the competition he had drunk alcohol and used cocaine each weekend.

The Panel accepts the Athlete’s evidence and concludes that the anti-doping violation was not intentional and that he bears no significant fault or negligence.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 9 February 2016 to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 August 2015.

1.) UKAD 2014 RFU vs Luke Willmott
Decision RFU Anti-Doping Panel
April 13, 2015

2.) UKAD 2015 RFU vs Luke Willmott
Decision RFU Anti-Doping Panel on sanction
June 2, 2015

3.) UKAD 2015 RFU vs Luke Willmott - Appeal
Decision RFU Appeal Panel
January 11, 2016

Related case:
CAS 2016_A_4475 World Rugby vs Luke Willmott & RFU - Settlement
January 20, 2017

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The Athlete was interviewed by UKAD one year later in July 2014 and hereafter charged for attempted use (later withdrawn) and attempted trafficking.

After notification of the anti-doping rule violation the Rugby Football Union (RFU) ordered a provisional suspension. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he waived his right to be heard for the RFU Anti-Doping Panel.
The Athlete denied the charge of attempted trafficking and admitted that he had provided the delivery address to a Person (Mr X) he knew from the gym they both used. The Person had asked the Athlete for an address to which he could have delivery parcels addressed and sent.

On 13 April 2015, the RFU Anti-Doping Panel ruled that the Athlete committed the anti-doping rule violation of Attempted Trafficking. On 2 June 2015 the RFU Anti-Doping Panel ruled about the sanction and decided to impose a 5 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the decision of the RFU Anti-Doping Panel with the RFU Appeal Panel.
The Athlete disputed with several arguments the analysis that he was involved in transporting, sending, delivering or distribution of a Prohibited Substance by the Athlete to the Person.
The Appeal Panel concludes that the facts admitted by the Athlete are consistent with attempted trafficking.

The Panel observes that the seizure of the parcel alone was not sufficient for the RFU to charge the Athlete with any violation. The RFU only charged him after the UKAD interview and, even then, it was in relation to an anti-doping rule violation that the RFU no longer pursues (i.e. “Use or Attempted Use”). It was only after the RFU received a witness statement from the Athlete reaffirming what he had already said in his UKAD interview that it decided to charge him with “Attempted Trafficking”. The RFU could not have charged the Athlete, less still secured a conviction against him, but for the Athlete’s candid Admission.

The Panel considers the facts and circumstances in this case and determines that the Athlete is entitled to a reduction of the imposed sanction. The RFU admitted that the Athlete complied fully with the proceedings and that there have been substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of Doping Control not attributable to the Athlete or other person.

Therefore on 11 january 2011 the RFU Appeal Panel decides that the appeal of the Athlete is partially granted and partially denied as follows:

1.) The Panel has determined that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rules violation pursuant to IRB Regulation 21.2.7;
2.) The Panel has determined to impose a two-year period of ineligibility on the Athlete pursuant to IRB Regulation 21.22.7;
3.) The start date for Mr. Willmott’s period of ineligibility shall commence at 12:01AM on 1 April 2014, and expires at midnight on 31 March 2016;
4.) The Athlete’s period of ineligibility shall be credited for the time he has served his provisional suspension since 23 July 2014 to the present in accordance with IRB 21.22.12(c); and
5.) The Athlete’s status during the period of ineligibility is as provided by IRB Regulation 21.22.13.
6.) (…)
7.) (…)

Related case:

CAS 2016_A_4803 Ekaterina Gnidenko vs IOC & UCI | Maria Abakumova vs IOC | Tatyana Lebedeva vs IOC & WADA
July 25, 2018

Ms. Tatiana Lebedeva is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women’s triple jump athletics event in the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2008.

In July 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol).

After notification the Athlete submitted that she raised legal questions regarding the application of the Rules and the ISL. The Athlete filed a statement with arguments in her defence and she waived her right to be heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.
The Athlete did not dispute the validity of the test results. Her arguments were of legal and procedural nature and did not relate to factual or analytical issues.

The Commission finds that the argument that the possibility to conduct further analysis and the establishment of the anti-doping rule violation based on the split B-samples would not have existed in 2008 is incorrect and is also not a retroactive application of rules. The Athlete’s retirement has no relevance whatsoever in connection with the application of the Rules.

Considering the statute of limitation under the Rules and the Athlete’s sample collection on 18 Augustus 2008 the Commission observes that the notification of the anti-doping violation to the Athlete on 29 July 2016 was valid and in any event without merits.
The cancellation of the Athlete’s results in the Long Jump event are a consequence of the proceedings conducted on the basis of the analytical results of the sample collected on 18 August 2016.

The Commission finds that the Athlete does not bring forth any element challenging the validity of the analytical results and concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation consistent with the intentional use of a prohibited substance specifically ingested to deliberately improve performance. The fact that the metabolite of a doping substance, which is a “classical” doping substance was found, supports this consideration.

The IOC Disciplinary Commission has now handled multiple cases arising out of the re-analysis of samples collected upon the occasion of the 2008 Olympic Games. The presence of metabolites of the specific substance at stake in this case has also been established in a remarkably high number of these cases. This constitutes an indication that such substance has been widely used by athletes, who were doping at that time.

Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 25 January 2017 that the Athlete, Tatiana Lebedeva:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in Beijing in 2008 (presence and/or use, of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen),
2.) is disqualified from the events in which she participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games Beijing 2008, namely, the Women’s triple jump event and the Women’s long jump event in which she twice ranked 2nd and for which she was consequently awarded in each case the silver medal, and
3.) has both silver medals, diplomas and medallist pins obtained in the Women’s triple jump event and the Women’s long jump event withdrawn and is ordered to return the same.
4.) The IAAF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
6.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the silver medals, the diplomas and the medallist pins awarded in connection with the Women’s triple jump event and the Women’s long jump event to the Athlete.
7.) This decision enters into force immediately.

Related cases:

• CAS 2017_A_4984 Nesta Carter vs IOC
  May 31, 2018
• JADCO 2021 JADCO vs Nesta Carter
  November 25, 201
  
  

Mr. Nesta Carter is a Jamaican Athlete competing in the Men’s 4x100m athletics event in the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2008.

In May 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
After notification the Athlete filed a statement with arguments in his defence and he was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

The Disciplinary Commission notes that the Athlete did not provide any real evidence that the supplements he used might have been the likely source of the positive test results.
Not challenging the validity of the test results the Athlete challenged the fact that his samples could be re-analysed in connection with the Prohibited Substance in question and/or, once such re-analysis had been conducted, that any consequence could be drawn thereform against him.

The Commission finds that under the Rules the scope of further analysis is not limited. Further analysis may include the search of any Prohibited Substance through any method. The Rules gave the IOC the discretion to manage further analysis and that it must do so adequately, including with regard to timing.

The fact that the Lausanne Laboratory performed on the A-Sample does not affect the validity of the decisive results obtained on the B-Sample. To the contrary, it reinforces them.
The Commission concludes that the arguments raised in connection with the instructions to the Laboratory, like all the other arguments submitted by the Athlete, do not undermine the validity of the analytical results.

The Commission rules that the test results are valid and properly establish the presence of the Prohibited substance in the Athlete's samples. Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 13 January 2017 that the Athlete, Nesta Carter:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in Beijing in 2008,
2.) is disqualified from the Men’s 4x100m relay event in which he participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games Beijing 2008,
3.) has the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma obtained in the Men’s 4x100m relay event withdrawn and is ordered to return same.
4.) The Jamaican Team is disqualified from the Men’s 4x100m relay event. The corresponding medals, medallist pins and diplomas are withdrawn and shall be returned.
5.) The IAAF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
6.) The Jamaica Olympic Association shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
7.) The Jamaica Olympic Association shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the medals, the medallist pins and the diplomas awarded in connection with the Men’s 4x100m relay event to the Athlete and his teammates.
8.) This decision enters into force immediately.

Related case:
ISR 2016 KNKF Decision Disciplinary Committee 2016006 T
October 3, 2016

On 3 October 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.

The ISR-KNKF Disciplinary Committee concluded that the test results were valid and that the Person did not produce any evidence for his assumptions and arguments and therefore failed to explain how the prohibited substance came into his body.

Hereafter in November 2016 the Person appealed the decision of the ISR-KNKF Disciplinary Committee with the ISR-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 after testing positive for the prohibited substance.

The Appeal Committee considers in this appeal whether there are grounds to reduce the imposed sanction and whether the violation was without intention to enhance his sport performance.
The Appeal Committee establish that the Athlete only provide assumptions about how the prohibited substance came into his body. He failed to produce additional evidence about the pills he had used, nor was further investigation conducted on the content of these pills.

Without grounds to reduce the sanction the ISR-KNKF Appeal Committee decides on 13 December 2016 to confirm the imposed 4 year period of ineligibility on the Person.

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

iNADO Update (2017) 78 (24 January)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

- iNADO Workshop 2017 - Registration Open for Non-Members and Government Representatives (as well as for iNADO Members)
- NADO Leaders Continue to Press for Anti-Doping Reform
- Why Must Clean Russian Athletes Pay the Price for a Corrupt National Anti-Doping System?
- Polish Anti-Doping Agency Call for International DCOs
- WADA ADO Symposium Issues Special Welcome to Athletes
- Strategic Planning for NADOs
- Conference: Doping and Public Health (June 7-9, Oslo)
- Jobs at IPC
- Summit: 2017 Macolin Anti-Doping Summit (April 28-29, Macolin)
- Doping Documentary “Icarus”
- Research Articles in German Journal of Sport Medicine
- New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Centre

NADO Leaders Advance Urgent Reforms in Wake of Second McLaren Report : media release / Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2017

January 10, 2017

Dublin, Ireland

Special leadership Summit held in Dublin, Ireland

- In light of the second McLaren Report, leaders call for the exclusion of Russian sports organizations at all international competitions – with a uniform process for athletes to compete as neutrals until substantive progress in reform efforts are made

- Leaders also call for the removal of all major international competitions, as well a moratorium on the awarding of new competitions to Russia

- Leaders endorse WADA as global regulator and offer support for ongoing reform efforts

- Leaders reject concept of a new one size fits all, global “Independent Testing Authority” controlled by sport and consider guidelines for development of independent testing authorities to manage anti-doping responsibilities formerly conducted by International Federations (IFs)

DUBLIN, IRELAND (January 10, 2017) – Following the devastating evidence of wide-spread systemic corruption exposed by the second McLaren Report, leaders from 19 National Anti-Doping Organisations (NADOs) came together for a special summit, hosted by Sport Ireland, with hopes to restore the faith of clean athletes and to ensure that the integrity of sport is never again brought into such disrepute.

“With the best interests of clean athletes at heart, it is our hope that these proposals will help sport move past these dark times and pave a path towards a brighter future – one where the promise of clean competition is fulfilled.” said the leaders in a joint statement. “But in order to do so, steps must be taken, and it is imperative that those responsible for Russia’s state-supported system are held accountable, that calls for a truly independent anti-doping model are finally heeded and those athletes affected by this abhorrent behavior are given back at least some of what was taken from them.”

Meeting for the third time in six months, the NADO leadership group once again reaffirmed commitment to the Copenhagen Reform Proposals, a series of urgent reforms brought forth last August following the release of the initial McLaren Report, while calling on the international sport community to bolster anti-doping efforts and restore athlete’s faith in fair competition around the globe.

With new, irrefutable evidence of Russia’s institutionalized doping system uncovered by McLaren and his team, the leadership group has called for the exclusion of Russian sport organizations from all international competition until the sport and anti-doping systems in Russia are brought into full compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code.

However, in line with the approach taken by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), and with the understanding that there may be some Russian athletes who have been subject to the robust anti-doping practices of other countries, the leadership group has offered to help in applying standardized criteria by which athletes can be assessed in order to compete as neutrals.

The leaders have also called for IFs and other major event organizers to remove all international competitions currently set to take place in Russia, as well as a moratorium on awarding any new competitions to the country.

In an attempt to prevent the type of malfeasance seen in Russia, NADO leaders advocate for a more independent global anti-doping model. The leadership group re-affirms its position that all anti-doping organisations, including the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), should be independent and adopt the necessary reforms, including a proposal that no decision-maker within an anti-doping organization hold a policy-making position within a sport or event organizer.

While there was continued recognition of the value in maintaining close collaboration with sport – especially in regard to anti-doping education, funding and intelligence sharing – the leaders stand firm that investigatory, testing and results management functions be separate from sports organisations. These reforms would help prevent the inherent conflict of interest that exists when a sports organisation is tasked with both promoting and policing itself.

NADO leaders also recognize the need for a system of checks and balances with greater transparency for anti-doping efforts in international sport. International athletes should be subject to harmonized and robust testing from independent national anti-doping organizations and anti-doping organizations overseen by WADA in order to ensure fairness.

Lastly, with many IF’s now facing extensive evidence of doping and cover-ups following the publication of McLaren’s efforts, the NADO leaders look to WADA, the global regulator, to monitor and act – as required by the Code and UNESCO Treaty Against Doping in Sport – to ensure evidence is investigated and appropriate consequences are applied.

While those affected athletes can never reclaim the moments that were stolen from them, the international community must do everything in its power to honour these victims and ensure justice for them. Including, if it is the athlete’s wish, the opportunity to have a formal medal ceremony conducted at the Olympic Games or World Championship following the approval of medal re-allocation.

Former Irish international race walker Olive Loughnane was one of those affected athletes, having seen her 2009 World Championship medal upgraded from silver to gold in 2016. Today she backed the NADOs work in bringing about change to the anti-doping system: “As an athlete, I was shocked and appalled following the revelations in the McLaren Report that those tasked with the protection of clean athletes and the integrity of sport were in fact aiding and abetting deception of a seismic nature. I welcome the important work of the National Anti Doping Organisations and their calls for reform. Strong action needs to be taken to ensure a message is sent out to all that doping is sport is completely unacceptable.”

The proposals were written and endorsed by anti-doping leaders from around the world, including: Australia, Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Puerto Rico, Slovenia, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland and USA.

Related case:
UKAD 2014 UKAD vs Vahid Hosseinpoor
August 6, 2014

On 6 August 2014 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Vahid Hosseinpoor - starting on 3 June 2014 until 3 June 2016 - after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Tamoxifen.

In 2015 and 2016 UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) received reports that the Athlete trained several times at a Wrestling Club despite being banned. After igonoring several warnings UKAD submitted on 12 August to the Athlete the decision to impose a new 2 year period of ineligibility starting on the date that the first sanction will end, i.e. on 2 June 2016 until 2 June 2018.

Hereafter in August 2016 the Athlete appealed the UKAD decision to impose a new sanction with the National Anti-Doping Panel.
The Athlete admitted and accepted that by training he was in breach of the initial decision but in circumstances where he did not know that he was not allowed to train at Club affiliated to the Britisch Wrestling Associaton (BWA). The Athlete stated that he acted with some degree of fault and he argued that some circumstances mitigated the level of fault shown by him.

The Panel establish that the Wrestling Club was an affiliated member of the BWA at the time the Athlete trainined there in 2015 despite being banned. Also the Panel finds that the Athlete’s fault is no reason to reduce the imposed 2 year sanction.
However the Panel determine that the Athlete’s previous admission to UKAD in an interview in June 2016 is a significant circumstance as reason for reduction of the standard sanction by half.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 13 January 2017 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete in addition to the original period of ineligibility, starting on 2 June 2016 until 2 June 2017.

In January 2016 UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Kurt Clabby for evading or failing to submit to sample collection.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he waived his right to attend the hearing of the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete was selected at a training in December 2015 by UKAD to provide a sample for drug testing. Attempts were made to locate the Athlete and to contact him by phone but the Athlete failed to report to the doping control station and did not provide a sample.

The Athlete confirmed that he was present at the training and stated that he needed to leave the training immediately in order to fulfill his employment obligations. He had believed that he had not other option but to leave to attend to work and that he was not able to ignore or fail to comply with an instruction to attend the emergency call out.

The Tribunal concludes that the Athlete knew that he had been selected to provide a sample for testing; deliberately avoided the doping control station; and did so to evade being tested.
Without grounds to reduce the sanction the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 20 December 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 28 January 2016.

In November 2015 UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jonathan Slowey after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine.

Previously in July 2010 a 4 month period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete for the use of cannabis. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission to UKAD for the cocaine violation and stated that he had used alcohol and cocaine out-of-competition in the weeks before the competition in September 2015 without intention to enhance his performance.
The Athlete explained, sustained by evidence and expert witnesses, that he suffered from severe personal problems; struggled with cocaine and alcohol; and was involved in a court case having been charged with an attempted assault. Also the Athlete underwent a medical treatment in a rehabilitation centre but wished to continue to respond to the charges and to attend the hearings.

UKAD accepted that the Athlete did not use cocaine to enhance his sport performance and that the Athlete has established when and how the substance entered his system.
The Sole Arbitrator accepts the Athlete’s explanation and finds considering the circumstances in this case that the Athlete bore No Significant Fault or Negligence for the committed anti-doping violation.

Therefore based on the Athlete’s degree of fault the Sole Arbitrator of the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 9 September 2016 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 26 September 2015.