Independent Observers Report of the XXIII Olympic Winter Games Pyeongchang 2018 / McDevitt, Ben. - Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2018

2016 Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) Report / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2018.
- Report compiled based on cases received by WADA before 31 December 2017

This is the fourth year that WADA publishes the ADRVs Report. The Report illustrates doping offences committed under the World Anti-Doping Code in 2016.

The Report includes the decisions of all adverse analytical findings (AAFs) for which the samples were collected by anti-doping organizations (ADOs) in 2016 and the results are reported in ADAMS as well as non-analytical anti-doping rule violations for decisions rendered in 2016. Discrepancy from ADOs’ published statistics may occur due to different reporting criteria.

The ADRVs Report is broken down as follows:

• An Introduction and an Executive Summary, which provide an overview of the Report and highlight the key observations of the 2016 ADRVs Report.
• Sections 1 and 2 present the results management outcomes (including ADRVs) of all AAFs detected by WADA-accredited Laboratories for samples collected from athletes in- and out-of-competition in 2016. They are presented by sport, discipline (Section 1) and testing authority (Section 2).
• Section 3 includes ADRVs that resulted from non-analytical findings committed by athletes (presented by sport and nationality) and by athlete support personnel (presented by nationality).
• Section 4 indicates the total number of ADRVs from athletes in 2016, which includes AAFs that resulted in an ADRV plus all non-analytical ADRVs. The data is presented by sport and nationality. The information is further broken down into type of samples (urine or blood), type of test (in- or out-of-competition) and athlete gender.

Contents:

Introduction
Executive Summary
Section 1: Outcomes of 2016 AAFs by Sport Category
Section 2: Outcomes of 2016 AAFs by Testing Authority Category
Section 3: Report of 2016 Non-Analytical ADRVs
Section 4: Report of 20165 Total Analytical and Non-Analytical ADRVs

In March 2017 the International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation (UIAA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete Pavel Atushev after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard in April 2017.

On 11 July 2017 the UIAA finds that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides to impose a 4 year period of inelibility starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 29 March 2017.

The proceedings of the 2017 Macolin Anti-Doping Summit : a fresh look at the science, legal and policy aspects of anti-Doping / Antonio Rigozzi, Emily Wisnosky, Brianna Quinn. - Bern. - Editions Weblaw, 2017. - ISBN 9783906836966

This book sets out the proceedings of the 2017 Macolin Anti-Doping Summit.

The Summit brought together many of the most experienced and knowledgeable specialists from various disciplines, encouraging open and thought-provoking discussions on each of the major facets of anti-doping (the science aspect, the legal aspect and the policy aspect), viewed through the lens of the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code in practice.

Speakers delved into issues as diverse as whether anti-doping science and regulation are keeping pace with doping, whether the law is jeopardising anti-doping efforts, the impact of the new emphasis on intelligence operations in anti-doping cases, what anti-doping can learn from the athlete?s perspective and the ethical challenges currently faced in anti-doping efforts.

Contents:

I. Introduction comments and acknowledgments
II. The <science> aspect
- 1. Session introduction: Professor Martial Saugy
- 2. A scientist's perspective: Professor David Cowan
- 3. A lawyer's perspective: Dr Marjolaine Viret
- 4. Panel discussion - Are anti-doping science and regulation keeping pace with doping?: Baron Dr Michel D'Hooghe, Dr Matthias Kamber, Dr Francesco Botre and Dr Peter Van Eenoo
III. The <legal> aspect
- 1. Session introduction: Mr Michele Bernasconi
- 2. Legal issues with minor athletes under the Code: Mr Herman Ram
- 3. Does the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code punish the <real cheaters> more harshly?: Ms Emily Wisnosky
- 4. Shifting the focus from testing to intelligence & investigations - Lessons learned: Mr Mathieu Holz
- 5. Addressing systematic failures within an anti-doping regime designed for individuals: Professor Ulrich Haas
- 6. Panel discussion - Is the law killing anti-doping efforts: Mr Michael Beloff QC, Mr Mike Morgan, Ms Brianna Quinn, Mr Jacques Radoux and Mr Mario Vigna
IV. The <policy> aspect
- 1. Session introduction: Professor Philippe Sands QC.
- 2. Overview of a current ethical challenge in anti-doping: Professor Andy Miah
- 3. Panel discussion - What can anti-doping learn from the athlete perspective?: Mr Obadele Thompson, Mr Johannes Eder and Mr Lucas Tramer
- 4. Psychological aspects of anti-doping - The decision to dope and the impact of getting caught: Dr Mattia Piffaretti
- 5. <Independence> of the anti-doping process - From the involvement of international federations to the role of CAS: Professor Antonio Rigozzi
- 6. Panel discussion - Outlook for the future of anti-doping: Full speed ahead or back to square one?: Mr Benjamin Cohen, Dr Paul Dimeo, Dr Bengt Kayser, Professor Denis Oswald and Mr Jaimie Fuller
V. Closing remarks

In November 2015 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Mixed Martial Arts Athlete Gary Smit after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone), Drostanolone and Testosterone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied that he used these substances for enhancing his sport performance. He explained that he underwent treatment for 2 years for a severe shoulder injury and had received prescribed medication and physiotherapy. Because his shoulder didn’t recover he had to consider an operation. He stated that he was desperate and following the recommendations of friends at a gym he purchased the substances and injected these into his shoulder for several weeks.

SAIDS did not accept the Athlete’s explanation and requested the Panel to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility. SAIDS argued that the substances he took did not heal the shoulder injury, there were contradictions in his evidence and his explanation was so improbable that it must be fabricated.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional because he had admitted that he was aware at the time that the substances he used were illegal and prohibited in sport. Also the Panel finds that the Athlete’s testimony is unreliable and his evidence improbable and unreliable.

Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 17 June 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 17 November 2015.

Olympic Athlete From Russia Implementation Group Report / Olympic Athlete From Russia Implementation Group (OARIG). - Lausanne : International Olympic Committee (IOC), 2018

Contents:

1. IOC EB decision of 5 December 20173
2. Monitoring of the OAR at Games-time
2.1. Athletes and Officials
2.2. Media Operations
2.3. Hospitality House
2.4. Spectators
2.5. Payment
2.6. Anti-Doping Rule Violation
3. Additional elements for consideration
3.1. Legal challenges to IOC decisions
3.2. Reaction to CAS decisions
3.3. Feedback from athletes and IOC members
4. Conclusion
5. Annexes to the Olympic Athlete From Russia Implementation Group Report
5.1. Annex 1 - IOC EB decision of 5 December 2017
5.2. Annex 2 - OAR Conduct Guidelines
5.3. Annex 3 - OAR Integrity Declaration forms (Athletes and Officials)
5.4. Annex 4 - Additional guidelines for the Russian media (produced by OAR)

CAS anti-doping Division (OG PyeongChang) AD 18/003 International Olympic Committee (IOC) & World Curling Federation (WCF) v. Aleksandr Krushelnitckii, partial award of 22 February 2018

Related case:

CAS OG_AD_2018_03 WCF vs Aleksandr Krushelnitckii
December 3, 2018

• Curling
• Doping (meldonium)
• Jurisdiction of the CAS Anti-Doping Division
• Continuation of the proceedings

1. Pursuant to Rule 59.2.4 of the Olympic Charter, the IOC Executive Board has delegated to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (ADD) its power to decide upon any violation of the World Anti-Doping Code arising upon the occasion of the Olympic Games. Pursuant to Art. 8.1.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules (ADR): “Where the IOC decides to assert an anti-doping rule violation, the IOC shall promptly file an application with the CAS Anti-Doping Division as per the CAS Anti-Doping Rules”. Article 1 of the CAS ADD Rules states that: “[t]he CAS ADD shall be the first-instance authority to conduct proceedings and to issue decisions when an alleged anti-doping rule violation has been asserted and referred to it under the IOC ADR, and for imposition of any sanctions therefrom whether applied at the Games or thereafter. Accordingly, the CAS ADD has jurisdiction to rule as a first-instance authority in place of the IOC and/or the International Federation concerned”.

2. After the anti-doping rule violation has been determined, the IOC is no longer a party to the procedure. The proceedings shall continue by and between the international federation concerned, who joined the proceedings as Co-Applicant, and the athlete, in regard to the consequences of the anti-doping rule violation which may be imposed on the athlete. The Sole Arbitrator, after consultation with the parties, shall determine the procedural directions applicable to the remaining part of the arbitration and shall issue, at the conclusion of the proceedings following the Olympic Games, a final award, all in accordance with Article 20 of the CAS ADD Rules.

Mr Aleksandr Krushelnitckii is a Russian Athlete competing in the Curling events at the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Winter Games.

On 18 February 2018 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples - provided on 12 and 13 February 2018 - tested positive for the prohibited susbstance Meldonium.

After notification the Athlete admitted the violation and requested to be heard for the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel (CAS ADD). The World Curling Federation requested the Panel to order a provisional suspension beyond the period of the Games.

On 22 February 2018 the Athlete re-confirmed his admission of the violation, accepted a provisional suspension beyond the period of the Games, and reserved all rights accordingly to seek the elimination or reduction of any period of ineligibility based on “No Fault or Negligence” following the conclusion of the Games.
The CAS ADD accepted the parties' respective positions and cancelled the hearing.

The Athlete expressly accepts the adverse analytical findings against him and therefore the Sole Arbitrator confirms the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that he is provisionally suspended until such time a final decision is rendered on his violations, or otherwise informed.

Therefore the CAS ADD Panel decides on 22 February 2018 that:

a.) The Athlete is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.1 of the IOC ADR.

b.) The individual results obtained by the Athlete in the Mixed Doubles Curling event at the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018 are disqualified with all resulting consequences including forfeiture of the medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes.

c.) The results obtained by the team of the Olympic Athletes from Russia in the Mixed Doubles Curling event at the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018 are disqualified with all resulting consequences including forfeiture of the medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes.

d.) The Athlete is excluded from the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018.

e.) To the extent not yet done so, the Athlete shall leave the Village and return his accreditation (number 3043371-01) immediately.

CAS 2017/A/4927 Misha Aloyan v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)

Related case:
CAS OG_AD_2016_11 IOC vs Misha Aloian
December 8, 2016

Boxing
Doping (tuaminoheptane)
Interpretation of the statutes and rules of a sport association
Discretion with regard to automatic disqualification of results
Withdrawal of medals

1. Under Swiss law, the interpretation of the statutes and rules of a sport association has to be rather objective and should always start with the wording of the rule, which falls to be interpreted. The adjudicating body will have to consider the meaning of the rule, looking at the language used, and the appropriate grammar and syntax. In its search, the adjudicating body will have further to identify the intentions (objectively construed) of the association which drafted the rule, and such body may also take account of any relevant historical background which illuminates its derivation, as well as the entire regulatory context in which the particular rule is located.

2. The wording of Article 9 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) leaves no room for any form of discretion to verify whether a finding of an anti-doping rule violation should not trigger the “Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results”: it refers to the “automatic” disqualification of results and does not mention any way to avoid such “automatic” consequence of an anti-doping rule violation. Automatic meaning “following necessarily”, what follows “necessarily” is not by definition subject to any discretional evaluation or flexibility. This conclusion is supported by the entire regulatory context in which Article 9 of the IOC ADR operates. Indeed, the “Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results” appears to be nothing else than an objective consequence of an objective fact, i.e. of the finding of an anti-doping rule violation, and an effect of a retroactive assessment of a condition of ineligibility: no athlete using a prohibited substance (unless authorized on the basis of a valid TUE) can compete; if an athlete is later found having competed while a prohibited substance was in his/her body, his/her individual results are disqualified. The disqualification is not a sanction, but only the reinstatement of an objective condition, which explains why its application is “automatic”. On the other hand, the other consequences deriving from the finding of an anti-doping rule violation have the character of a sanction, and therefore engage consideration of the athlete’s fault, which falls to be assessed by the adjudicating body according to the rules.

3. It is not possible to allow an athlete to keep a silver medal (and all related honours) on the basis of the argument that the medal was secured following his/her victory in the Semi-final, and therefore that the disqualification of his/her result at the Final would not entail the withdrawal of the medal already won. Medals are awarded only after a competition has been concluded so that disqualification from the Final carries with it as a necessary concomitant loss of any medal which would otherwise have been awarded as a result of victory in the Semi-final.

Mr. Misha Aloian is a Russian Athlete competing in the Men’s -52kg boxing event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 7 September 2016 the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance tuaminoheptane. As a result the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel (CAS ADD) decided on 8 December 2016 to disqualify the Athlete’s results obtained at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games including forfeiture of any medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes.

Hereafter in December 2016 the Athlete appealed the CAS ADD Panel decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete admitted the anti-doping violation and that he had duly demonstrated how the prohibited substance entered into his system, not enhancing his sporting performance at all. The Athlete asserted that in this appeal the Panel has to determine whether the automatic disqualification of the result obtained by the Athlete was proportionate or disproportionate in the unique circumstances of the specific case.

The Panel concludes that Article 9 of the IOC ADR leaves no room for any form of discretion to verify whether a finding of an anti-doping rule violation should not trigger the “Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results”. As a result, there is no need to consider the Second Issue, and more specifically whether the Athlete’s situation is such as to avoid the triggering of the mentioned “Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results”.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 June 2017 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 29 December 2016 by Mr Misha Aloyan against the award rendered on 8 December 2016 by the Sole Arbitrator of the CAS Anti-Doping Division for the Rio 2016 Olympic Games is dismissed.
(…)
4.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.