Related cases:
- IOC 2016 IOC vs Lei Cao
January 10, 2017
- IOC 2016 IOC vs Xiexia Chen
January 10, 2017
- CAS 2017_A_4973 Chunhong Liu vs IOC
July 31, 2017

Ms. Chunhong Lia is a Chinese Athlete competing in the Women’s 69 kg weightlifting event at 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 Growth Hormone Releasing Peptide substance Pralmorelin (GHRP-2) and the substance sibutramine.

After notification the Athlete submitted that she did not accept the test results; she denied that she committed an anti-doping violation arguing that the substance GHRP-2 only appeared on the WADA 2015 Prohibited List. The Athlete further did not file a statement in her defence nor did she attend the hearing of the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

The Disciplinary Commission finds that the argument that the Athlete could not fund her defence cannot be raised to obtain a sine die postponement of the proceedings. This is even less the case in relation with proceedings which the outcome may affect the results of competition and the interests of other athletes.

The Commission also observes that the argument of lack of funding was raised only at the last moment, a few days before the hearing and after numerous requests were submitted by the Athlete’s counsels without any mention of such issue.

The Disciplinary Commission observes that releasing factors of hGH are expressly mentioned in the WADA 2008 Prohibited List (under S2) and in all subsequent lists. This clearly covered the substance at stake. The Disciplinary Commission finds that the substance GHRP-2 clearly falls within the category described in the Prohibited List 2008 and that is sufficient to find that it was a Prohibited Substance in 2008. The second substance detected, sibutramine is a stimulant. It is listed in the WADA 2008 Prohibited List and in all subsequent lists (under S6).

The Commission notes that three cases of female Chinese weightlifters were heard. All three tested positive (after re-test) in Beijing with the same prohibited substance (Growth Hormones). This suggests a possible involvement of the athlete’s entourage in these cases and the IWF is invited to investigate that situation and, if adequate, to take action against relevant people in the athlete’s entourage.

Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 10 January 2017 that the Athlete, Chunhong Lia:

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 all the events in which she participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games Beijing 2008, namely, the Women’s 69 kg weightlifting event, and
3.) has the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma obtained in the Women’s 69 kg weightlifting event withdrawn and is ordered to return the same.
4.) The IWF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The Chinese Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
6.) The Chinese Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma awarded in connection with the Women’s 69 kg weightlifting event to the Athlete.
7.) This decision enters into force immediately.

Related cases:
- IOC 2016 IOC vs Lei Cao
January 10, 2017
- IOC 2016 IOC vs Chunhong Liu
January 10, 2017

Ms. Xiexia Chen is a Chinese Athlete competing in the Women’s 48 kg weightlifting event at 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 Growth Hormone Releasing Peptide substance Pralmorelin (GHRP-2).

After notification the Athlete submitted that she did not accept the test results and denied that she committed an anti-doping rule violation arguing that the substance GHRP-2 only appeared on the WADA 2015 Prohibited List. The Athlete further did not file a statement in her defence nor did she attend the hearing of the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

The Disciplinary Commission finds the argument that the Athlete could not fund her defence cannot be raised to obtain a sine die postponement of the proceedings. This is even less the case in relation with proceedings which the outcome may affect the results of competition and the interests of other athletes.

The Commission also observes that the argument of lack of funding was raised only at the last moment, a few days before the hearing and after numerous requests were submitted by the Athlete’s counsels without any mention of such issue.

The Disciplinary Commission finds that releasing factors of hGH are expressly mentioned in the WADA 2008 Prohibited List (under S2) and in all subsequent lists. This clearly covered the substance at stake.

The Commission notes that three cases of female Chinese weightlifters were heard. All three tested positive (after re-test) in Beijing with the same prohibited substance (Growth Hormones). This suggests a possible involvement of the athlete’s entourage in these cases and the IWF is invited to investigate that situation and, if adequate, to take action against relevant people in the athlete’s entourage.

Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 10 January 2017 that the Athlete, Xiexia Chen:

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 all the events in which she participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games Beijing 2008, namely, the Women’s 48 kg weightlifting event, and
3.) has the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma obtained in the Women’s 48 kg weightlifting event withdrawn and is ordered to return the same.
4.) The IWF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The Chinese Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
6.) The Chinese Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma awarded in connection with the Women’s 48 kg weightlifting event to the Athlete.
7.) This decision enters into force immediately.

Related cases:
- IOC 2016 IOC vs Xiexia Chen
January 10, 2017
- IOC 2016 IOC vs Chunhong Liu
January 10, 2017
- CAS 2017_A_4974 Lei Cao vs IOC
July 31, 2017

Ms. Lei Cao is a Chinese Athlete competing in the Women’s 75 kg weightlifting event at 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 Growth Hormone Releasing Peptide substance Pralmorelin (GHRP-2).

After notification the Athlete submitted that she did not accept the test results; she denied that she committed an anti-doping violation arguing that the substance GHRP-2 only appeared on the WADA 2015 Prohibited List. The Athlete further did not file a statement in her defence nor did she attend the hearing of the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

The Disciplinary Commission finds the argument that the Athlete could not fund her defence cannot be raised to obtain a sine die postponement of the proceedings. This is even less the case in relation with proceedings which the outcome may affect the results of competition and the interests of other athletes.

The Commission also observes that the argument of lack of funding was raised only at the last moment, a few days before the hearing and after numerous requests were submitted by the Athlete’s counsels without any mention of such issue.

The Disciplinary Commission finds that releasing factors of hGH are expressly mentioned in the WADA 2008 Prohibited List (under S2) and in all subsequent lists. This clearly covered the substance at stake.

The Commission notes that three cases of female Chinese weightlifters were heard. All three tested positive (after re-test) in Beijing with the same prohibited substance (Growth Hormones). This suggests a possible involvement of the athlete’s entourage in these cases and the IWF is invited to investigate that situation and, if adequate, to take action against relevant people in the athlete’s entourage.

Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 10 January 2017 that the Athlete, Lei Cao:

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 all the events in which she participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games Beijing 2008, namely, the Women’s 75kg weightlifting event, and
3.) has the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma obtained in the Women’s 75kg weightlifting event withdrawn and is ordered to return the same.
4.) The IWF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The Chinese Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
6.) The Chinese Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma awarded in connection with the Women’s 75kg weightlifting event to the Athlete.
7.) This decision enters into force immediately.

Related cases:

- Dutch District Court 2009 Athlete 2009005 vs KNSB and Dopingautoriteit
June 9, 2009
- KNSB 2009 KNSB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 TU1
September 8, 2009
- Dutch District Court 2010 Athlete 2009005 vs KNSB
September 30, 2009
- KNSB 2009 KNSB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 TU2
October 15, 2009
- KNSB 2009 KNSB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 TU3
December 2, 2009
- KNSB 2010 KNSB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 T
March 12, 2010
- KNSB 2010 KNSB Decision Appeal Committee 2009005 B
November 26, 2010
- CAS 2010/A/2311 Stichting Anti-Doping Autoriteit Nederland (NADO) & the Koninklijke Nederlandsche Schaatsenrijders Bond (KNSB) vs W.
August 22, 2011

In February 2009 the Royal Netherlands Skating Association (KNSB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance norandrosterone (Nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered by the KNSB.

In this 4# preliminary case proceeding the Athlete argued that the costs for an expert investigation under the Rules shall be borne by the KNSB due to the T/E ratio wasn't subject of the investigation.
The KNSB Appeal Committee accepted the Athlete's argument and ruled on 6 July 2010 that the costs for the expert investigation shall be borne by the KNSB.

Full Case History:

Between 2009 and 2011 a number of proceedings and appeals followed in the dispute between the Athlete, the KNSB and Dopingautoriteit about the anti-doping violation and the Athlete seeking annulment of the disciplinary proceedings and sanctions.

- On 9 June 2009 the Dutch District Court dismissed the Athlete’s objections about the validity of the sample collection and violation of his rights.
- On 8 September 2009 the KNSB ruled in the 1# Preliminary Decision about the validity of the sample collection and the validity of the test results for which a independent expert is appointed and the Dopingautoreit is ordered to provide additional information about the laboratory procedures and protocols.
- On 30 September 2009 the Dutch District Court dismissed the Athlete’s request to lift the provisional suspension.
- On 15 October 2010 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee ruled in the 2# Preliminary Decision about the possibility for lifting the provisional suspension for which a new hearing is ordered.
- On 2 December 2009 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee ruled in the 3# Preliminary Decision that the imposed provisional suspension will expire in February 2010 when the KNSB has not rendered a final decision against the Athlete.
- On 12 March 2010 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee dismissed the Athlete’s arguments about the validity of the test results and decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete and 1 year probationary period until November 2011.
- On 6 July 2010 the KNSB Appeal Committee ruled in the 4# Preliminary Decision that under the Rules the costs for an expert investigation shall be borne by the KNSB.
- On 26 November 2010 the KNSB Appeal Committee decides to annul the KNSB Disciplinary Committee decision of 12 March 2010 because of the KNSB’s refusal to provide additional documentation to verify the validity of the laboratory testing method as violation of the Athlete’s right of defence.

Hereafter the Dopingautoriteit and the KNSB appealed the decision the KNSB Appeal Committee of 26 November 2010 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete’s samples tested positive for the prohibited substance norandrosterone (Nandrolone) and that no departure from the ISL occurred in this case. Therefore the CAS Panel upholds the decision of the 12 March 2010 of the KNSB Disciplinary Committee and decides to set aside the decision of the KNSB Appeal Committee of 26 November 2010.

Related cases:

- Dutch District Court 2009 Athlete 2009005 vs KNSB and Dopingautoriteit
June 9, 2009
- KNSB 2009 KNSB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 TU1
September 8, 2009
- Dutch District Court 2010 Athlete 2009005 vs KNSB
September 30, 2009
- KNSB 2009 KNSB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 TU2
October 15, 2009
- KNSB 2010 KNSB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 T
March 12, 2010
- KNSB 2010 KNSB Preliminary Decision Appeal Committee 2009005 TU4
July 6, 2010
- KNSB 2010 KNSB Decision Appeal Committee 2009005 B
November 26, 2010
- CAS 2010/A/2311 Stichting Anti-Doping Autoriteit Nederland (NADO) & the Koninklijke Nederlandsche Schaatsenrijders Bond (KNSB) vs W.
August 22, 2011

In February 2009 the Royal Netherlands Skating Association (KNSB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance norandrosterone (Nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered by the KNSB.

In this 3# preliminary case proceeding the Athlete argued that his provisional suspension dragged on endlessly due to the advancing proceedings against him.
Therefore on 2 December 2009 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee decides that the Athlete's provisional suspension will expire in February 2010 when the KNSB has not rendered a final decision against the Athlete.

Full Case History:

Between 2009 and 2011 a number of proceedings and appeals followed in the dispute between the Athlete, the KNSB and Dopingautoriteit about the anti-doping violation and the Athlete seeking annulment of the disciplinary proceedings and sanctions.

- On 9 June 2009 the Dutch District Court dismissed the Athlete’s objections about the validity of the sample collection and violation of his rights.
- On 8 September 2009 the KNSB ruled in the 1# Preliminary Decision about the validity of the sample collection and the validity of the test results for which a independent expert is appointed and the Dopingautoreit is ordered to provide additional information about the laboratory procedures and protocols.
- On 30 September 2009 the Dutch District Court dismissed the Athlete’s request to lift the provisional suspension.
- On 15 October 2010 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee ruled in the 2# Preliminary Decision about the possibility for lifting the provisional suspension for which a new hearing is ordered.
- On 2 December 2009 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee ruled in the 3# Preliminary Decision that the imposed provisional suspension will expire in February 2010 when the KNSB has not rendered a final decision against the Athlete.
- On 12 March 2010 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee dismissed the Athlete’s arguments about the validity of the test results and decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete and 1 year probationary period until November 2011.
- On 6 July 2010 the KNSB Appeal Committee ruled in the 4# Preliminary Decision that under the Rules the costs for an expert investigation shall be borne by the KNSB.
- On 26 November 2010 the KNSB Appeal Committee decides to annul the KNSB Disciplinary Committee decision of 12 March 2010 because of the KNSB’s refusal to provide additional documentation to verify the validity of the laboratory testing method as violation of the Athlete’s right of defence.

Hereafter the Dopingautoriteit and the KNSB appealed the decision the KNSB Appeal Committee of 26 November 2010 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete’s samples tested positive for the prohibited substance norandrosterone (Nandrolone) and that no departure from the ISL occurred in this case. Therefore the CAS Panel upholds the decision of the 12 March 2010 of the KNSB Disciplinary Committee and decides to set aside the decision of the KNSB Appeal Committee of 26 November 2010.

Related cases:

- Dutch District Court 2009 Athlete 2009005 vs KNSB and Dopingautoriteit
June 9, 2009
- KNSB 2009 KNSB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 TU1
September 8, 2009
- Dutch District Court 2010 Athlete 2009005 vs KNSB
September 30, 2009
- KNSB 2009 KNSB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 TU3
December 2, 2009
- KNSB 2010 KNSB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 T
March 12, 2010
- KNSB 2010 KNSB Preliminary Decision Appeal Committee 2009005 TU4
July 6, 2010
- KNSB 2010 KNSB Decision Appeal Committee 2009005 B
November 26, 2010
- CAS 2010/A/2311 Stichting Anti-Doping Autoriteit Nederland (NADO) & the Koninklijke Nederlandsche Schaatsenrijders Bond (KNSB) vs W.
August 22, 2011

In February 2009 the Royal Netherlands Skating Association (KNSB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance norandrosterone (Nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered by the KNSB.

In this 2# preliminary case proceeding the Athlete argued that under the Rules there are grounds to lift the provisional suspension.
Therefore on 15 October 2009 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee decides that additional information is necessary to rule about this matter and ordered a new preliminary hearing.

Full Case History:

Between 2009 and 2011 a number of proceedings and appeals followed in the dispute between the Athlete, the KNSB and Dopingautoriteit about the anti-doping violation and the Athlete seeking annulment of the disciplinary proceedings and sanctions.

- On 9 June 2009 the Dutch District Court dismissed the Athlete’s objections about the validity of the sample collection and violation of his rights.
- On 8 September 2009 the KNSB ruled in the 1# Preliminary Decision about the validity of the sample collection and the validity of the test results for which a independent expert is appointed and the Dopingautoreit is ordered to provide additional information about the laboratory procedures and protocols.
- On 30 September 2009 the Dutch District Court dismissed the Athlete’s request to lift the provisional suspension.
- On 15 October 2010 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee ruled in the 2# Preliminary Decision about the possibility for lifting the provisional suspension for which a new hearing is ordered.
- On 2 December 2009 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee ruled in the 3# Preliminary Decision that the imposed provisional suspension will expire in February 2010 when the KNSB has not rendered a final decision against the Athlete.
- On 12 March 2010 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee dismissed the Athlete’s arguments about the validity of the test results and decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete and 1 year probationary period until November 2011.
- On 6 July 2010 the KNSB Appeal Committee ruled in the 4# Preliminary Decision that under the Rules the costs for an expert investigation shall be borne by the KNSB.
- On 26 November 2010 the KNSB Appeal Committee decides to annul the KNSB Disciplinary Committee decision of 12 March 2010 because of the KNSB’s refusal to provide additional documentation to verify the validity of the laboratory testing method as violation of the Athlete’s right of defence.

Hereafter the Dopingautoriteit and the KNSB appealed the decision the KNSB Appeal Committee of 26 November 2010 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete’s samples tested positive for the prohibited substance norandrosterone (Nandrolone) and that no departure from the ISL occurred in this case. Therefore the CAS Panel upholds the decision of the 12 March 2010 of the KNSB Disciplinary Committee and decides to set aside the decision of the KNSB Appeal Committee of 26 November 2010.

Related cases:

- Dutch District Court 2009 Athlete 2009005 vs KNSB and Dopingautoriteit
June 9, 2009
- Dutch District Court 2010 Athlete 2009005 vs KNSB
September 30, 2009
- KNSB 2009 KNSB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 TU2
October 15, 2009
- KNSB 2009 KNSB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 TU3
December 2, 2009
- KNSB 2010 KNSB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 T
March 12, 2010
- KNSB 2010 KNSB Preliminary Decision Appeal Committee 2009005 TU4
July 6, 2010
- KNSB 2010 KNSB Decision Appeal Committee 2009005 B
November 26, 2010
- CAS 2010/A/2311 Stichting Anti-Doping Autoriteit Nederland (NADO) & the Koninklijke Nederlandsche Schaatsenrijders Bond (KNSB) vs W.
August 22, 2011

In February 2009 the Royal Netherlands Skating Association (KNSB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance norandrosterone (Nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered by the KNSB.

In this 1# preliminary case proceeding the Athlete disputed the validity of the sample collection and the validity of the test results.
Therefore the KNSB Disciplinary Committee decides on 8 September 2009 to appoint an independent expert and orders the Dopingautoriteit to provide additional information about the laboratory procedures and protocols.

Full Case History:

Between 2009 and 2011 a number of proceedings and appeals followed in the dispute between the Athlete, the KNSB and Dopingautoriteit about the anti-doping violation and the Athlete seeking annulment of the disciplinary proceedings and sanctions.

- On 9 June 2009 the Dutch District Court dismissed the Athlete’s objections about the validity of the sample collection and violation of his rights.
- On 8 September 2009 the KNSB ruled in the 1# Preliminary Decision about the validity of the sample collection and the validity of the test results for which a independent expert is appointed and the Dopingautoreit is ordered to provide additional information about the laboratory procedures and protocols.
- On 30 September 2009 the Dutch District Court dismissed the Athlete’s request to lift the provisional suspension.
- On 15 October 2010 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee ruled in the 2# Preliminary Decision about the possibility for lifting the provisional suspension for which a new hearing is ordered.
- On 2 December 2009 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee ruled in the 3# Preliminary Decision that the imposed provisional suspension will expire in February 2010 when the KNSB has not rendered a final decision against the Athlete.
- On 12 March 2010 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee dismissed the Athlete’s arguments about the validity of the test results and decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete and 1 year probationary period until November 2011.
- On 6 July 2010 the KNSB Appeal Committee ruled in the 4# Preliminary Decision that under the Rules the costs for an expert investigation shall be borne by the KNSB.
- On 26 November 2010 the KNSB Appeal Committee decides to annul the KNSB Disciplinary Committee decision of 12 March 2010 because of the KNSB’s refusal to provide additional documentation to verify the validity of the laboratory testing method as violation of the Athlete’s right of defence.

Hereafter the Dopingautoriteit and the KNSB appealed the decision the KNSB Appeal Committee of 26 November 2010 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete’s samples tested positive for the prohibited substance norandrosterone (Nandrolone) and that no departure from the ISL occurred in this case. Therefore the CAS Panel upholds the decision of the 12 March 2010 of the KNSB Disciplinary Committee and decides to set aside the decision of the KNSB Appeal Committee of 26 November 2010.

Related cases:
- KNSB 2016 KNSB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2016012 TU2
February 16, 2017
- KNSB 2016 KNSB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2016012 T
April 21, 2017
- KNSB 2018 KNSB Decision Appeal Committee 2016012 B
May 25, 2018

In February 2016 the Royal Netherlands Skating Association (KNSB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Person filed a statement with evidence and objections in his defence and he was heard for the KNSB Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete denied the use of prohibited substances and supported by an expert witness he disputed the validity of the test results. The Person asserted that there were irregularities in the laboratory procedures and complained that the laboratory file was incomplete. The Person invoked the principle of equality of arms due to these matters are harmful for his defence and requested that an independent expert will review this case. The person also argued that his medical condition could have caused a false positive test result.

The Dutch Dopingautoriteit and the KNSB argued that no departure from the ISL occurred in this case and that the Person failed to produce evidence for his arguments.

The Disciplinary Committee finds that the test results are valid and rejects the Person’s arguments about a false positive. The Committee upholds the Person’s request to appoint an independent expert in order to investigate the case file and the suggested departure of the ISL in the accredited laboratory.

Therefore on 20 December 2016 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee rules in this preliminary decision:

1.) The Dopingautoriteit wil provide additional information about the laboratory procedures and protocols for the independent expert.
2.) To invite the parties to respond about this matter within two weeks.
3.) To assign the parties to nominate an independent expert for this matter.
4.) To adjourn any further decision.

In August 2016 the Royal Dutch Baseball and Softball Federation (KNBSB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances prednisone and prednisolone. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the ISR KNBSB Disciplinary Committee.

The Person stated that he was surprised about the violation and he could not explain the positive test result assuming that it was caused by the self medication he used previously. He didn't use supplements or medication and without inflamed injuries he stated that he had not used anti-inflammatory products containing these substances.

The ISR KNBSB Disciplinary Committee concludes that the Person failed to explain how the prohibited substances came into his body and decides therefore on 6 December 2012 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on the date of the decision.

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

Story behind Meldonium - from pharmacology to performance enhancement: a narrative review / Wolfgang Schobersberger, Tobias Dünnwald, Günther Gmeiner, Cornelia Blank. - (British Journal of Sports Medicine 51 (2016) 1 (July 27) : p. 22-25). - PubMed: 27465696. - DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096357

Abstract:

Recent reports from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) indicate an alarming prevalence in the use of meldonium among elite athletes. Therefore, in January 2016, meldonium was added to WADA's prohibited list after being monitored since 2015. Meldonium has been shown to have beneficial effects in cardiovascular, neurological and metabolic diseases due to its anti-ischaemic and cardioprotective properties, which are ascribed mainly to its inhibition of ß-oxidation and its activation of glycolysis. Despite its widespread use, there are only a few clinical studies or clinical trials available. Meldonium is registered in most Baltic countries and is easily accessible through the internet with no serious adverse effects reported by the manufacturer so far. Among athletes, meldonium is used with the purpose of increasing recovery rate or exercise performance. The benefit of taking meldonium in view of performance enhancement in athletes is quite speculative and is discussed without sound scientific evidence. This narrative review provides a detailed overview of the drug meldonium, focusing on the main topics pharmacology and biochemical actions, clinical applications, pharmacokinetics, methods of detection and potential for performance enhancement in athletes.