CAS 2017/A/5015 International Ski Federation (FIS) v. Therese Johaug & The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (NIF) CAS 2017/A/5110 Therese Johaug v. The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (NIF) Related case: ADNO 2016-29 Anti-Doping Norway vs Therese Johaug February 10, 2017 In October 2016 Anti-Doping Norway has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Nowegian Athlete Therese Johaug after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance clostebol. Considering No Significanct Fault or Negligence in this case the Adjudication Committee of the Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports decided on 10 February 2017 to impose a 13 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 October 2016. Hereafter in March 2017 the International Ski Federation (FIS) and in April 2017 the Athlete appealed the Norwegian decision of 10 February 2017 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). FIS partially accepted the circumstances in this case and requested the Panel to set aside the Norwegian decision of 10 February 2017 and to impose a sanction between 16-20 months. The Athlete did not dispute the test results and asserted that the violation was non intentional with No Fault or Negligence. She stated that she had a sunstroke while at a training camp in Italy in August 2016 and hereafter she developed a fever, diarrhoea and sunburst on her lip. The Athlete’s team doctor treated the Athlete’s sunburst with the pharmaceutical substance Trofodermin which he purchased at a pharmacy in Livigno, Italy, in September 2016. The Athlete argued that she was contractually bound to follow the advice of the experienced sports doctor and he assured the Athlete that she could use the product. Also she mentioned Trofodermin on the Doping Control Form when she provided a sample for drug testing in September 2016. The Athlete requested the Panel to dismiss the FIS appeal and to eliminate or to reduce the imposed period of ineligibility. The Panel must decide three questions in this case: 1. What is the appropriate level of fault attributable to Ms Johaug? 2. What is the sanction proportionate to Ms Johaug’s circumstances? 3. Is Ms Johaug’s cross-appeal admissible? The Panel finds that the Athlete’s conduct does not warrant a findig of No Fault. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the majority of the Panel determines that a 18 month period of ineligibility is appropriate. The Panel has already examined the Athlete’s response to the FIS’s appeal, which comprised the same set of facts and arguments (consolidated together with her cross-appeal) and rendered its decision accordingly. In consideration of the foregoing and of the fact that FIS’s appeal is partially upheld, a decision on the admissibility of the cross-appeal is dismissed as moot. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 August 2017 that: 1.) The appeal filed by the International Ski Federation against Ms Therese Johaug and The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sport on March 6, 2017 is partially upheld. 2.) The cross-appeal filed by Ms Therese Johaug against The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sport on 27 April 2017 is dismissed. 3.) The decision rendered by the Adjudication Committee of the Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports on 10 February 2017 is amended as follows: Ms Therese Johaug is suspended for a period of eighteen (18) months commencing 18 October 2016. 4.) (…). 5.) (…). 6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
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 »
iNADO Board Urges a Principled Approach to Russian Sanctions / Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2017 _____________________________________________________ The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is awaiting the reports of two commissions in order to determine further action on systemic doping in Russia. Following the evidence and findingsset out in two reports of Professor Richard McLaren(commissioned by the World Anti-Doping Agency) , the Oswald Commission is considering Russian manipulation of samples and analysis, while the Schmid Commission is considering institutional corruption among Russian government and sport organisations. These commissions are to report in October.The Board of Directors of the Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO) urges that the further action by the IOC be made with a principled approach.
IAAF Taskforce Report to the IAAF Congress about the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF) - 3 August 2017
IAAF Taskforce report to IAAF Congress, 3 August 2017 / Rune Andersen. - International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). - Monaco : IAAF, 2017 ____________________________________________________ Since the Taskforce's appointment in December 2015 to oversee RusAF's efforts to meet these requirements, Taskforce members have met with RusAF and the Russian authorities in person eleven times (seven times in Moscow), have met with various other interested parties (see Appendix for a full list of meetings), and have liaised closely with WADA (which is overseeing RUSADA's efforts to achieve reinstatement as a Code-compliant NADO) and the International Paralympic Committee (which is overseeing the Russian Paralympic Committee's efforts to achieve reinstatement as an IPC member). The Taskforce considers that material progress has been made towards reaching several of the conditions established by Council for reinstatement of RusAF to IAAF membership, but those conditions have not yet been met in full, and several important steps remain outstanding. For these reasons, the Taskforce unanimously recommends that Congress resolve, pursuant to Article 15.1(a) of the IAAF Constitution, to continue the suspension of RusAF's membership of the IAAF until all of the conditions set by Council for the cure of RusAF's breaches of the Objects of the IAAF and for the consequent reinstatement of RusAF's membership have been met.
Annual Report 2016 Slovak Anti-Doping Agency (SADA). - Bratislava : SADA, 2017 Contents: 1. Information on changes of agency regulations 2. Information on bodies, their changes and activities 3. Activities of SADA in 2016 – evaluation 3.1. Overview of performed doping controls 3.2. Evaluation of year plan of doping controls 3.3. Adams 3.4. Granting of therapeutic use exemptions 3.5. Education 4. Budget of SADA and its implementation 4.1. Implementation of revenues 4.2. Expenses from the point of view of financial classification 4.3. Assessment of management from the point of view of costs, revenues and economic result 4.4. Assessment of meeting of tasks under the contract 4.5. Other tasks of the organization 4.6. Organization receivables and payables