CAS 2005/A/925 Laura Dutra de Abreu Mancini de Azevedo v/ FINA In May 2003 the Confederação Brasileira de Desportos Aquáticos (CBDA), the Brazilian Water Sports Confederation, imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Laura Dutra de Abreu Mancini de Azevedo after her A and B samples tested positive for 3 prohibited substances. The Athlete appealed her case with the Brazilian courts and on 16 September 2003 the CBDA lifted the suspension imposed on the Athlete after the civil court in Rio de Janeiro had ordered that as a provisional measure the suspension should be lifted. On 15 January 2004 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Panel decided (CAS 2003/A/510) to uphold the 2 year period of ineligiblility imposed by the CBDA on the Athlete. Previously in December 2003 the Athlete, FINA and CBDA had signed an agreement with the conditions that the Athlete can compete when she is not sanctioned by CAS or when sanctioned she will serve the 2 year period of ineligibility. Despite the agreement and the CAS decision the Athlete did not withdraw her claim before the Brazilian courts and she continued to participate in swimming competitions in Brazil. In June 2004 the CBDA reported to the International Swimming Federation (FINA) the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation for her refusal to provide a sample for drug testing at a competition in Brazil. On 21 April 2005 the FINA Doping Panel decided to impose a liftetime ineligibility on the Athlete for her second anti-doping rule violation. Hereafter in July 2005 the Athlete appealed her case with CAS and requested the Panel to set aside the FINA decision of 21 April 2005. The Athlete argued that she did not commit the first doping offence in 2003 for which she was sanctioned by a two-year suspension; her innocence notably being established by the DNA tests relating to the May 2003 A and B samples. She asserted that she did not refuse to submit to a doping-test control during the Winter State Swimming Championships on 6 June 2004, but merely demanded that the test involve a different laboratory than LADETEC, whose previous test results she is questioning as part of her action pending in the Brazilian courts. Consequently, she cannot be deemed to have committed a second offence. Also she disputed the irregularities during the doping control in June 2004 where she refursed to provide a sample. FINA argued that the Athlete’s refusal is established and admitted by the Athlete. The Athlete has no right to to choose the laboratory and the LADETEC is a WADA accredited laboratory to conduct doping control. The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to provide a sample and having not proven “compelling justification” she has committed a doping violation under article 2.3 of the DC Rules, which is her second doping violation. Because Ms Azevedo refused to submit to the doping test control on 6 June 2004 in a situation where she was a competitor, disregarding her own written undertaking of 11 December 2003 to respect any period of ineligibility to which she might be sanctioned by CAS (CAS 2003/A/510). This is an aggravating factor which re-emphasises the panels finding that a lifetime ban is not disproportionate. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 January 2006: 1) The appeal by Ms Azevedo is dismissed. 2) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the court-office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) already paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS. 3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
Welcome to Doping.nl, the
Anti-Doping Knowledge Center.
This site has been established to host information about doping in the broadest sense of the word, and about doping prevention.
The Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands (the Dutch Doping Authority for short) established this site and maintains it. The Doping Authority was founded in 1989 and it is one of the oldest NADOs in the world. Doping.nl was developed with financial support from the Dutch Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sport.
This website was established because of the importance that the Doping Authority and the Ministry attach to the dissemination of information relevant to doping prevention. Disclosing and supplying relevant information is one of the cornerstones in the fight against doping in sport. However, in practice, a significant amount of information is still not available, or only available to a limited group of users. We therefore decided to bring together all the relevant information in a single site: Doping.nl.
The Doping Authority aims to supply as much information through this website as possible on an ongoing basis. The information will be varied but will focus primarily on: WADA documents like the World Anti-Doping Code, the International Standards like the Prohibited List, Doping Regulations, scientific articles and abstracts, decisions by disciplinary bodies (mainly CAS decisions).As well as making documents available, the Doping Authority aims to supply searchable documents when possible, and to add relevant keywords to ensure easy access.
In the future, Doping.nl will also become a digital archive containing older information that is no longer available elsewhere.
This site has been designed for use by anti-doping professionals such as National Anti-Doping Organisations and International Federations but also for students, journalists and other people interested in the subject.
Recently added documents More »
Results of the WADA monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the 2016 Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport. These substances are: In Competition Monitoring: - Mitragynine - Tramadol, In and Out of Competition Monitoring: - Telmisartan - Glucocorticoids
IAAF Taskforce Interim Report to the IAAF Council about the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF) - 8 April 2017
IAAF Taskforce : interim report to IAAF Council, 12-13 April 2017 / Rune Andersen. - International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). - Monaco : IAAF, 2017 ____________________________________________________ This IAAF Taskforce report to the IAAF Council covers three things: (i) It will explain the progress that the Russian Athletics Federation ('RusAF') has made since the Council’s last meeting in satisfying the conditions for reinstatement set by this Council; ii) It will provide a roadmap setting out the remaining milestones that RusAF needs to reach to achieve reinstatement; and iii) It will give the Taskforce’s recommendation in relation to RusAF’s request that the Council give athletes in certain age categories blanket permission to compete internationally in advance of RusAF’s reinstatement. At the last Council meeting, in February 2017, the Taskforce identified six milestones that it considers will each need to be reached before it will be able to recommend provisional reinstatement of RusAF. Explained about these six milestones what progress (if any) has been made towards reaching each of them since that meeting. The Taskforce is concerned that little progress has been made since its last report in February 2017. The six milestones are still outstanding and at present it does not look like they will be met any time soon.
IAAF Taskforce Interim Report to the IAAF Council about the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF) - 6 February 2017
IAAF Taskforce : interim report to IAAF Council, 6 February 2017 / Rune Andersen. - International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). - Monaco : IAAF, 2017 ____________________________________________________ This IAAF Taskforce report to the IAAF Council covers three things: (i) It will explain the progress that the Russian Athletics Federation ('RusAF') has made since the Council’s last meeting in satisfying the conditions for reinstatement set by this Council; ii) It will provide a roadmap setting out the remaining milestones that RusAF needs to reach to achieve reinstatement; and iii) It will give the Taskforce’s recommendation in relation to RusAF’s request that the Council give athletes in certain age categories blanket permission to compete internationally in advance of RusAF’s reinstatement. The Taskforce finds that the Council should not consider reinstatement of RusAF's membership today. However, barring any unexpected developments, the Taskforce does think that it will be able to recommend (conditional) reinstatement of RusAF to IAAF membership if and when a number of milestones are met.