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.

Prohibited List January 2017 : The World Anti-Doping Code International Standard / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2016.

- The official text of the Prohibited List shall be maintained by WADA and shall be published in English and French. In the event of any conflict between the English and French versions, the English version shall prevail.
- This List shall come into effect on 1 January 2017

iNADO Update (2016) 77 (21 December)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

- iNADO Workshop 2017 - Open for Registrations
- McLaren Report Evidentiary Disclosure Package
- Upcoming Changes to ISTI 2017
- LGC Informed Choice in Japan
- Registration Open: PCC Conference 2017 (April 11-12, New York)
- Update: IOC Sanctions as Result of Retest of Olympic Games Samples
- New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Centre

Legal Opinion on the Conformity of Article 10.6 of the 2007 Draft World Anti-Doping Code with the Fundamental Rights of Athletes / G. Kaufmann-Hohler, A. Rigozzi. - World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2007

Contents:

I. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
1. Qualifications of the Authors of this Opinion
2. Independence and Disclaimer
3. The Question Posed, the Document(s) Reviewed, and the Issues Addressed
II. THE INTERACTION BETWEEN ANTI-DOPING RULES AND THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ATHLETES
1. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the World Anti-Doping Code (WADA Code)
1.2 The Structure and the Mission of WADA
1.3 The Adoption and the Implementation of the WADA Code.
1.4 The Rationale of the WADA Code.
1.5 The Main Features of the WADA Code
2. Fundamental Rights of Athletes: Concept, Sources
2.2 Human Rights
2.3 General Principles of Criminal Procedure
2.4 Private Law Protection of Fundamental Rights, in particular Personality Rights
2.5 EC Competition Law
III. IS ARTICLE 10.6 OF THE CODE COMPATIBLE WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ATHLETES?
1. Are “Aggravating Circumstances” Defined with Sufficient Precision?
1.2 No Crime nor Punishment without (clear) Law
1.3 Should “Aggravating Circumstances” be Indicated in Article 10.6 itself?
1.4 Is an Open List of “Aggravating Circumstances” Admissible?
1.5 Does the (Open) List of “Aggravating Circumstances” Ensure Foreseeability?
2. Is the Role of Admission Compatible with the Privilege against Self-Incrimination and the Right to Remain Silent?
2.2 Threat of an Autonomous Sanction
2.3 Plea Bargain
3. Is an Ineligibility Period of More Than Two Years Compatible with the Fundamental Rights of Athletes?
3.2 The Unproblematic Condition: Legitimate Aim
3.3 The Real Issue: The Proportionality Test
aa) Capacity
bb) Necessity
cc) Proportionality stricto sensu
IV. GENERAL CONCLUSION AND ANSWER TO THE QUESTION POSED

Legal Opinion on whether Article 10.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code is compatible with the Fundamental Principles of Swiss Domestic Law / Claude Rouiller. - World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2005

Contents:

I. THE EXPERT
II. THE FRAMEWORK OF THE MANDATE
1. The mandate
2. The documents provided
3. Customary disclaimer
III. THE OVERALL LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE CONSULTATION
1. Preamble
2. The European Convention of November 16, 1989
3. The World Anti-Doping Agency and the World Anti-Doping Code
(a) The World Anti-Doping Agency
(b) The World Anti-Doping Code
4. The UNESCO Convention of October 19, 2005
(a) The adoption of the Convention and its preamble
(b) The Convention and the World Anti-Doping Code
IV. DISCUSSION
1. Preamble
(a) The rules under discussion
(b) The status quaestionis
2. The interpretation of Article 10.2 of the Code and the legal nature of the sanctions it provides for
(a) The interpretation of Article 10.2 of the Code
(b) The legal nature of the sanctions provided for
3. The content of the fundamental rights and general principles of autonomous Swiss law that could be applied by arbitrators reviewing the application of Article 10.2 of the Code and that could come into play in the context of a limited review by the Federal Tribunal
(a) Introductory note
(b) Personal liberty
(c) Economic liberty
(d) Brief outline of fundamental rights practice
(e) The relative practical similarities between the modalities of application of Article 36 Cst. and the modalities of application of Article 27 SCC
(f) Informal examination of the compatibility of Article 10.2 of the Code with fundamental rights and the concrete standard of Article 27, paragraph 2 Cst.
4. The scope of the means of defence available to persons seeking to allege that a sanction based on Article 10.2 of the Code and its confirmation by arbitrators is injurious to their interests legally
protected by these rights and principles of autonomous Swiss law, and the definition in Swiss law of the concepts of arbitrariness and public policy
(a) The right of appeal to an arbitral tribunal
(aa) The ordinary appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
(bb) Appeals to arbitral tribunals established on an ad hoc basis pursuant to Article 13.2.2 of the Code or to the CAS acting as a domestic arbitrator
(b) The subsequent recourse to the Swiss Federal Tribunal to quash an arbitral award (recourse available under public law)
(aa) Introductory note concerning the recourse available under public law in an arbitration matter
(bb) Appeal from an award rendered by a domestic arbitrator
(cc) Appeal from an “international” arbitral award
(dd) The capacity to challenge an award before the Federal Tribunal
(ee) The concept of arbitrariness under Article 36, letter f of the Intercantonal Concordat on Arbitration
(ff) The concept of public policy under Article 190, paragraph 2, letter e PILS
(c) The consequence of the limits of the Swiss Federal Tribunal’s power of substantive review of arbitral awards for the question at hand
V. THE ANSWER

Legal Opinion on the Conformity of Certain Provisions of the Draft World Anti-Doping Code with Commonly Accepted Principles of International Law / Gabrielle Kaufmann-Hohler, Antonio Rigozzi, Giorgio Malinverni. - World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2003

Contents:

I. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
1. Professional Qualifications of the Authors of this Opinion
2. The Questions Addressed in this Opinion and Documents Reviewed
3. Human Rights: Concept and Sources
II. THE POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ANTI-DOPING REGULATION
1. The Policy Rationale for Anti-Doping Regulation
2. The Implementation of Anti-Doping Regulation
Ill. THE ROLE OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW IN DOPING DISPUTES
1. The Human Rights and General Principles of Law at Issue in Doping Disputes
2. Applicability of Human Rights and General Principles of Law in Doping Disputes
3. Admissibility of human rights restrictions
4. Conclusion: the paramount role of proportionality
IV. ARTICLE 2.1: CONFORMITY OF STRICT LIABILITY DOPING OFFENCES WITH HUMAN RIGHTS AND GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES
1. Nullum crinem sine lege certa: The Need for Certainty
2. The Presumption of Innocence
3. Conclusion
V. ARTICLES 9 AND 10.1: CONFORMITY OF DISQUALIFICATION WITH HUMAN RIGHTS AND GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES
1. The Expression of a General Consensus
2. Some Issues of Concern
3. Disqualification of All Results obtained during a Multi-Competition Event
VI. ARTICLE 10.2: CONFORMITY OF DOPING SUSPENSIONS WITH HUMAN RIGHTS AND GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES
1. The Principle of nu/la poena sine culpa
a. The applicability of the principle of nulla poena sine culpa to doping disputes
b. Does the Code comply with the principle nu Ila poena sine culpa?
2. Presumption of Fault versus Presumption of Innocence
3. Compatibility of the Length of the Suspension with Athletes' Fundamental Rights
4. Compatibility of Fixed Mandatory Sanctions with Athletes' Fundamental Rights
5. Conclusion
VII. OTHER PROVISIONS
1. Article 8: The Right to an Interpreter
2. Athlete's Consent to Binding Effect

Legal Opinion on the Conformity of the Exclusion of « Team Athletes » from Organized Training during their Period of Ineligibility with Swiss Law, including the General Principles of Proportionality and Equal Treatment / Rigozzi, Antonio. - World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2008

Contents:

I. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
1. Qualifications of the Author of this Opinion
2. Independence and Disclaimer
3. The Question Posed, the Document(s) Reviewed, and the Issues Addressed
II. THE INTERACTION BETWEEN ANTI-DOPING RULES AND THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SWISS LAW
1. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the World Anti-Doping Code (WADA Code)
1.2 The Adoption and the Implementation of the WADA Code
1.3 The Rationale of the WADA Code
1.4 The Main Features of the WADA Code
1.5 Status During Ineligibility
a. Under the 2003 WADA Code
b. Under the 2009 WADA Code
2. Protection of Personality Rights
2.1 Protection from excessive commitments (Article 27(2) CC)
a. Excessive Duration?
b. Excessive Object or Scope?
c. Conclusion
2.2 Protection against infringements of personality rights by third parties (Article 28 CC)
a. Legal or Statutory Provision
b. Consent
c. Overriding Private or Public Interest
d. Conclusion
2.3 Due process
a. Compliance with the principle of legality
b. Fair Trial
2.4 Fundamental Principles of Law
a. Proportionality
b. (Un)equal Treatment..
3. The Argument of Public Policy
Ill. GENERAL CONCLUSION AND ANSWER TO THE QUESTION POSED