In April 2016 the the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances: Amphetamine, Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone, Drostanolone and Mesterolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with arguments in his defence and he was heard for the Commercial Arbitration Tribunal of the American Arbitration Association. The Athlete argued that USADA does not have the authority to bring a case against him under the USADA Protocol and IWF Anti-Doping Policy regarding the results of the testing conducted on his sample collected at the Weightlifting event on 5 March 2016. Therefore the Panel should dismiss the case. The Athlete contended that in fact his sample was collected by USA Powerlifting (USAPL) and not by USADA, the applicable rule in this matter should be the USAPL Technical Rules, not those of the IWF. USADA contended that in this case the IWF Anti-Doping Policy and the USADA Protocol apply to the Athlete. USADA explained that USA Weightlifitng (USAW) contracted with USAPL (which then subcontracted with the company Sportcheque) to collect the samples for testing at the event under USAW’s authority. USADA argued that it is uncontested that the Athlete was a USA Weightlifting member on 5 March 2016 when his sample was collected at the weightlifting event under the IWF Rules. Also the Athlete expressly agreed to the IWF Anti-Doping Policy applying because his license agreement states that he agreed not to commit a doping violation as defined by the IWF. Considering the circumstances in this case the Panel finds that the Athlete was not adequately informed by USAW about the USOC Policy or the USADA Protocol in the USAW Membership Form and is not subject to the results management authority of USADA in this case by virtue of signing that document. The Panel establish that USAW was the organization that initiated the drug testing process, delegated sample collection to USAPL, and, when it received the results of the testing on the Athlete's sample, asked USADA to manage the results of such testing. Although the Panel finds that USADA has results management authority in this instance, the Panel notes that USADA has barely met its burden of proof of doing so to the Panel's comfortable satisfaction in this regard. The Panel is of the view that United States athletes would be better served by having clear documentation implemented at each event sanctioned by an National Governing Body (NGB) and in the NGB membership application process that informs all athletes of the legal obligations they have and their rights to resolve any disputes arising thereunder; whether this responsibility lies with WADA, the IWF, the USOC, USAW, or USADA is something that is outside of this Panel's purview. On 10 May 2017 the AAA Tribunal decides that: 1.) USADA has the authority to manage the results of the testing conducted on Respondent's sample that was collected at the 2016 Arnold Weightlifting Championships. Accordingly, arbitral jurisdiction is proper here. 2.) The Athlete shall not be responsible for any costs related to the testing or analysis conducted on his sample and that USADA shall bear any administrative costs related to the testing or management of Respondent's sample. 3.) The parties ordered to proceed to share their dates of availability over the next 30 days for the Panel to conduct a proper preliminary hearing to set a hearing date and the procedural order for the case. Hereafter on 31 May 2017 USADA announced that the Athlete Robert Dosterschill has accepted a 4 year period of ineligibility after testing positive for multiple prohibited substances.
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 »
In 2016 the Paralympic Athlete SG-4684 was arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced to prison for 5 years by the Singapore’s District Court for consumption and possession for the purpose of trafficking methamphetamine. As a consequence of his conviction Anti-Doping Singapore (ADS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete in February 2017 for trafficking the prohibited substance methamphetamine. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission of the violation and was unable to attend the hearing due to his imprisonment. The Athlete admitted the violation and pleaded for leniency regarding the sanction to be imposed. Considering the facts and circumstances in this case the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee (NADC) decides on 18 April 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete SG-4684 starting on the date he was convicted in court in 2016.
In January 2017 Anti-Doping Singapore (ADS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Sri Lankan Athlete SG-4683 after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methandienone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered, the Athlete submitted a response in his defence and failed to attend the hearing of the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee NADC). In his submission the Athlete denied the use of of the prohibited substance and failed to provide an explanation as how the prohibited substance entered his system. Considering the evidence the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides on 17 April 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ingeligibility on the Athlete SG-4683 starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 January 2017.
iNADO Update (2017) 83 (14 June) Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO) _________________________________________________ Contents: - Bart Coumans, Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands, has died - New Member (Italy) - 60% of Global Testing is accredited to iNADO Members - OCALUDS hosts UNESCO-Funded Anti-Doping Seminar in Cameroon - International Conference on Doping and Public Health, Oslo, Norway - NADA Germany Annual Press Conference - An Example of Best Practice - Reporting ADO Failure as Important as Reporting Athlete Doping? - Independence of hearing panels: Conclusions from CoE Seminar Vilnius - Nutritional Supplements on the Radar of the IOC - CAS Award on Russian Olympic Committee et al vs. IAAF - Conclusion of IOC Reanalysis of Olympic Games Samples from Beijing and London - New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center