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.

Initiator

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.

Goals

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.

Activities

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.

Target readers

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.

More information explaining how to use this website can be found under "help".

Read more »

UKAD 2022 UKAD vs Luc Caines

5 Aug 2022

In May 2022 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Luc Caines after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by UKAD.

The Athlete stated that he recreationally had used Cocaïn and UKAD accepts that the use of the substance occurred out-of-competition.

Because the Athlete was unable to undertake immediately a Substance of Abuse treatment program UKAD didn't reduce the sanction down to one month.

Therefore UKAD decides on 5 August 2022 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 May 2022.

CCES 2022 CCES vs Audrey Sawers

28 Sep 2022

In May 2022 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the field hockey player Audrey Sawers after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Canrenone.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by CCES.

The prohibited substance was consumed by the Athlete in a prescription medication for which a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) had not yet been granted by the CCES. The CCES has since granted the athlete a TUE for use of Canrenone.

Therefore CCES decides on 28 September 2022 to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 8 September 2022.

World Athletics 2022 WA vs Felix Kipchumba Korir

26 Sep 2022

In September 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Felix Kipchumba Korir after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

Because he signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violation and Acceptance of Consequences Form he received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 26 September 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 9 September 2022.

World Athletics 2022 WA vs Emmanuel Saina

26 Sep 2022

In September 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Emmanuel Saina after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

Because she signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violation and Acceptance of Consequences Form she received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 26 September 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 9 September 2022.

World Athletics 2022 WA vs Lilian Kasait Rengeruk

21 Sep 2022

In February 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Lilian Kasait Rengeruk after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Letrozole.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU. Hereafter the Athlete, the AIU and WADA entered into a Case Resolution Agreement.

Therefore the AIU decides on 21 September 2022 to impose a 10 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting backdated on 19 April 2022.

ST 2022_05 DFSNZ vs Taane Samuel

16 Sep 2022

In February 2022 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Sincere Harraway after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA).

DFSNZ accepted that the Athlete's consumption of MDMA occurred out-of-competition and in a context unrelated to sport performance. DFSNZ offered the Athlete a reduced sanction if he accepted to complete an approved substance of abuse treatment program.

After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and to complete an approved substance of abuse treatment program. Hereafter he managed to participate in an approved treatment program.

The case was referred to the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand and a decision was rendered based on the written submissions of the parties.

Therefore the Tribunal decides on 16 September 2022 to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete under the condition that the Athlete completed an approved treatment program to the satisfaction of DFSNZ.

World Athletics 2021 WA vs Tony Hanna

14 Jun 2022

In March 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation againt the Lebanese Athlete Tony Hanna after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Heptaminol and Octodrine (1,5-dimethylhexylamine).

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU. He signed an Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and stated that a supplement he had used was the source of the positive test. He showed with medical information that he had used prescribed medication for his gastroenteritis and also had used this supplement for his condition.

He stated that this supplement was purchased in a store in Beirut where most Lebanese athletes buy their supplements. Thereupon he had reseached the ingredients of this supplement and overlooked that the listed ingredient DMHA is another name for Octodrine.

The Athlete acknowledged that he failed to mention this supplement on the Doping Control Form. He explained that following the marathon he underwent medical treatment for exhaustion and in this situation he had attempted to mention all his prescribed medication for gastroenteritis rather than the supplement.

The AIU establishes that the Athlete was inexperienced about anti-doping as he had not received any education in this matter. Further the AIU holds that the Athlete in his physical condition following the marathon had attempted to mention his prescribed medication for his gastroenteritis and not disclosed his supplement in question.

In view of the evidence the AIU concludes that the violation was not intentional and that Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the AIU decides on 14 June 2022 to impose a 16 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 17 March 2022.

CAS 2003_A_505 UCI vis Alicia Pitts, USA Cycling & USADA

19 Dec 2003

CAS 2003/A/505 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) v. Alicia Pitts, USA Cycling, Inc. & United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)

  • Cycling
  • Doping (methadone)
  • CAS Jurisdiction
  • Presence of a prohibited substance in the athlete’s body
  • Duty of the athlete of have knowledge of the regulations
  • Determination of the sanction in view of mitigating circumstances


1. Absent any adjudication procedure consistent with the international standards in anti-doping policy provided by the competent national federation’ rules, the basis for the CAS jurisdiction can be the information on the closing of a case made by a national anti-doping agency. This information can indeed be considered to be the final ruling made at the level of the national federation asked for by UCI Anti-doping Examination Regulations (AER). UCI is therefore entitled to appeal before the CAS against such ruling according to its rules and within the meaning of article R47 of the CAS Code.

2. The presence of a prohibited substance such as methadone in the body of a rider constitutes an offence of doping. It does not matter whether the substance of methadone can be considered a performance enhancing substance or not. It is also not relevant whether the rider ingested any methadone in the three days prior to the event or during an unknown period before. Methadone is not allowed to be used for medical treatment under the UCI AER.

3. No athlete can invoke his or her unawareness of the existence of anti-doping rules or the impossibility of having knowledge of these rules. When signing the backside of his/her licence, a rider has to declare that s/he undertakes to respect the Constitution and Regulations of the UCI, its Continental Confederations and its National Federations. It is his/her responsibility to make sure that s/he knows what s/he is signing to. Being the expression of the general principle of law that “ignorance of law is no excuse”, art. 7 UCI AER rules that it is “the personal responsibility of every rider to ensure that they neither use any prohibited substance or prohibited method nor permit any such substance or method to be used”. This includes the obligation to achieve knowledge on the respective provisions.

4. The gravity of the medical condition of a rider, the well-documented prescription of methadone as pain reliever in his/her condition, his/her advanced age and the specific circumstances of the aims why s/he participated at the event, his/her role model for youths in the fight against doping in sports over years and his/her honesty and personal integrity, constitute sufficient elements under UCI AER to reduce the duration of suspension to the minimum, which is half a year. According to UCI AER, the period of inactivity will be automatically added to the period of suspension.



In May 2003 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Alicia Pitts after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methadone.

Thereupon the USADA Anti-Doping Review Panel established that the Athlete had a legitimate medical condition well documented by her physician that requred her use of Methadone. Also the Athlete had not used the substance in the preceding 3 days and therefore not mentioned on the Doping Control Form as stipulated. As a result the Review Panel ruled that no doping violation occurred.

After deliberations regarding disciplinary proceedings against the Athlete the UCI appealed the USADA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The UCI requested the Panel to set aside the UCI Decision and to impose a sanction on the Athlete.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Considering the applicable Rules the Panel holds that it does not matter whether the substance of Methadone can be considered a performance enhancing substance or not. It is also not relevant for this fact whether the Athlete ingested any Methadone in the three days prior to the event or during an unknown period before.

The Panel agrees that the USADA Doping Control Form in question only asks for declaration of medication and supplements taken during the preceding 3 days and does not provide for a place on the form to declare medications taken earlier. The Panel deems this Form is not in full line with the applicable UCI Rules.

Further the Panel determines that there are sufficient grounds for a reduced sanction, although the Panel regrets that the UCI Rules allows no exceptional circumstances for exclusion of a suspension.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 19 December 2003

1.) The appeal filed by the UCI on 21 August 2003 is upheld.

2.) The decision of USADA of 29 May 2003, 1 July 2003 and communicated on behalf of USADA on 3 July 2003 is annulled.

3.) Mrs. Pitts is sanctioned as follows:

  • disqualification from the Track World Cup Qualifier of 28 March 2003 in Hollywood, Florida, USA;
  • suspension for six months from 20th December 2003 to 31 July 2004.

(…).

World Athletics 2021 WA vs Benik Abramyan

8 Sep 2022

Mr. Benik Abramyan is a Georgian Athlete participating at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games. Previously the Athlete was sanctioned for 2 years until August 2013 after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Metandienone and Mesterolone.

In August 2021 the International Testing Agency on behalf of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone, Metandienone and Tamoxifen.

After notification in August 2021 a provisional suspension was ordered and in September 2021 the Athlete admitted the violations. One year later on 17 June 2022 the Court of Arbitration for Sport Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) ruled that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The case was also referred to the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) and after notification in August 2021 the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

Following the CAS ADD Decision on 17 June 2022 the AIU deemed that the Athlete had committed a second anti-doping rule violation. Because the Athlete signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violation and Acceptance of Consequences Form he received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 8 September 2022 to impose a 7 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 3 August 2021.

World Athletics 2021 WA vs Vane Nyaboke Nyanamba

8 Sep 2022

In November 2021 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Vane Nyaboke Nyanamba after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). Hereafter the AIU also reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for Tampering with Results Management.

In March 2022 the Athlete admitted the violations and thereupon the AIU, the Athlete and WADA entered into a Case Resolution Agreement. Considering the Athlete gave a prompt admission the Athlete received a reduction of the sanction period of 8 months.

Therefore the AIU decides on 8 September 2022 to impose a 7 year and 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 29 August 2021.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin