Welcome to DOPING.nl, the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

CAS 2022/A/9341 Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Abdullah Alrouwely & Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC)

In June 2022, the Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) reported an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) against the football player Abdullah Alrouwely after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Amfetamine.

Consequently the SAADC decided on 14 December 2022 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Panel deemed that the substance was used recreationally, out-of-competition and unrelated to sport performance.

Hereafter the International Football Federation (FIFA) appealed the SAADC Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). FIFA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 4 years on the Athlete.

The Athlete in his defence asserted that:

• The violation was not intentional.
• the concentration in his sample was very low.
• He was unaware of contamination of the tea he was drinking at a wedding.
• Adding stimulants to beverages at wedding parties is a tradition in his region, in order to help people dance.

The SAADC acknowledged that in first instance the Panel made a mistake and by misunderstanding had considered the prohibited substance a "Substance of Abuse".

FIFA disputed the conclusion that the anti-doping rule violation was the result of out-of-competition recreational use of a Substance of Abuse. Moreover the Athlete failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system, nor grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence and arguments presented by the Parties and determines that:

• The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample.
• He committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• Amfetamine is not a "Substance of Abuse", nor prohibited out-of-competition.
• The substance was detected in-competition, despite it may have been ingested out-of-competition.
• The Athlete failed to demonstrate with evidence that the ingestion occurred out-of-competition in a context unrelated to sport performance.
• He failed to establish that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 April 2024 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) on 14 December 2022 against the decision rendered on 28 July 2022 by the Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered on 28 July 2022 by the Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) is set aside.

3.) Mr Abdullah Alrouwely is declared ineligible for a period of four years from the date of the present Award. Credit is given for the period of suspension served by Mr Abdullah Alrouwely from 21 June 2022 to 20 September 2022.

4.) The costs of this arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Comi Office, shall be borne by the Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) and by Mr Abdullah Alrouwely as to 50% each. The Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) shall be jointly liable for the payment of the Mr Abdullah Alrouwely's share.

5.) Each Party shall bear the expenses it has incurred in connection with this arbitration.

6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

In August 2023 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) reported an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) against the rugby player Bevan Jay after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine).

Following notification, a provisional suspension was imposed. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied that the violation was intentional. He could not explain how the substance had entered his system and believed that a fat burner product he has used was likely the source of the substance.

UKAD contended that he Athlete failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that the violation was not intentional. UKAD ruled out contamination because of the high concentration established in his sample while the relevant supplements were also not mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

The Panel agrees that the Athlete failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. The Panel deems that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Panel decides on 18 July 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 August 2023.

In October 2023 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) reported an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) against the rugby player David Foggin-Johnston after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

Following notification, a provisional suspension was imposed. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and asserted that the Cocaine was used only recreational, out-of-competition and unrelated to sport performance. He acknowledged that he suffered from a cocaine habit and abuse of alcohol.

With friends he had consumed large amounts of alcohol and had used cocaine from the Thursday evening until the Friday evening. Although he admitted later that he continued drinking hereafter and had used more grams of cocaine then stated, he denied he had used cocaine on Saturday or on Sunday.

He stated that originally he was not scheduled to play on Sunday. Yet, when he was recovering in bed at home on Saturday he was called unexpectedly to play on Sunday where he was tested.

UKAD and its anti-doping expert deemed that the Athlete's use occurred in-competition because he also must have used cocaine on the Saturday. When he was tested the concentration found in his sample was 140 times above the threshold whereas the concentration of Benzoylecgonine in his sample was 79 time greater.

In view of the evidence the Panel concludes that the Athlete's use of cocaine was recreational and ultimately occurred in-competition when he started his binge session on the Thursday. The Panel does not accept that his first explanation of his consumption of cocaine and alcohol was inaccurate, neither that he failed to produce corroborating evidence in his defence.

Therefore the Panel decides on 1 August 2024 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 October 2023.

In June 2023 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) against the judoka Munkhjin Batdorj after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Trenbolone.

Following Notification, the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, signed an Agreement on Consequences, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the Centre. In this case the CCES accepted that the Athlete's violation was not intentional.

Therefore the CCES decides on 8 August 2024 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date the Athlete accepted the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 June 2023.

In June 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) against the French Athlete Mehdi Frère. Both the AIU and the AFLD deemed that the Athlete had 3 Whereabouts Failures recorded within a 12 month period:

• a Filing Failure on 23 February 2023;
• a Filing Failure on 18 September 2023;
• a Filing Failure on 22 February 2024.

Regarding 2 Whereabouts Failure the Athlete had submitted his explanations, whereas he requested an administrative review only for his last failure. Nevertheless his objection were rejected and the 3 Whereabouts Failures were recorded.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal.

World Athletics contended that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation due to the 3 Whereabouts Failures. As a result it requested the Panel to impose a sanction of 2 years on the Athlete.

The Athlete admitted his 2nd Whereabouts Failure and denied he acted intentionally. Further he asserted that in this case there had been several procedural failures and breaches made by the AFLD and AIU.

He demonstrated with evidence that the local circumstances and last minute changes made it difficult for him to timely update his Whereabouts in ADAMS. Moreover as a gendarme since 2018 and member of the French Republican Guard he explained that his status as an athlete is subordinate to his professional obligations. 

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and arguments presented by the Parties and determines that:

• Any procedural failure that prior occurred must be considered cured and thus are insignificant for this arbitration procedure.
• There were 3 Whereabouts Failures recorded within a 12 month period.
• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• His Whereabouts in ADAMS were inaccurate because he failed to timely update his information.
• He acted negligently and his explanations are not credible.
• He failed to attend any of the 20 education sessions organized by the AFLD in 2022 and 2023.
• The Athlete's degree of fault is very high and there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Panel decides on 15 July 2024 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 June 2024.

In August 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Salina Jebet after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). 

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete responded and filed a statement in her defence.

The Athlete explained that she underwent medical treatment for her diagnosed condition. In support she submitted medical information and a prescription issued by the Kapsabet County Referral Hospital.

Hereafter the AIU requested assistance from the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) with an investigation into the Athlete's explanations and supporting medical documents. In October 2023 ADAK's investigation revealed that the filed medical documents from the clinic were falsifications. 

The Hospital confirmed that the Athlete had only visited the hospital in August 2023. Yet, no prescription had ever been issued, nor was an injection administered, nor was the medication Nandrolone in stock in the hospital.

Consequently in May 2024 the AIU reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for:

• presence of a prohibited substance; and
• tampering with any part of the doping control.

After notification of these charges the Athlete gave a timely admission and she accepted the sanction proposed by the AIU. The AIU considers that the Athlete has failed to demonstrate that these two violations were not intentional, nor any exceptional circumstances for a reduced sanction.

Because the Athlete had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violation and Acceptance of Consequences Form in July 2024 she received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 2 July 2024 to impose a 7 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 17 August 2023.

In May 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Spanish Athlete Abderrahim Ougra for evading sample collection on 21 January 2024.

The Doping Control Officer (DCO) reported that following notification the Athlete had signed the Doping Control Form for confirmation. Escorted by a chaperone the Athlete first returned to his belongings and then took the liberty to do some cooling down activities on the track, despite the chaperone's instructions to report to the DCO immediately.

Thereupon the Athlete disappeared through an exit from the track and left the facility completely. The chaperone was unable to locate the Athlete and neither did the Athlete respond when contacted by phone and WhatsApp.

Hereafter in February 2024 the Athlete explained that he had never received anti-doping education, nor had he been tested before. The Doping Control made him feel very anxious and this anxiety had caused him to run away.

Ultimately in June 2024 the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The AIU considers that there are no exceptional circumstances in this case. Because the Athlete had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form he received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 2 August 2024 to impose a 3 year and 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 May 2024.

2020 Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) Report / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2023. - Report compiled based on decisions received by WADA before 31 January 2021

• The Report highlights 935 confirmed Anti-Doping Rule Violations in 2020 (25 of which are related to Athlete Support Personnel)

• The ADRVs involve individuals from 91 nations and 67 sports

• A total of 672 ADRVs came from Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs) and 263 from non-analytical, evidence-based intelligence

• The proportion of ADRVs confirmed to samples collected remained stable as compared to 2019 despite the drop in the number of samples collected in 2020 as a result of COVID-19

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has published its eighth annual Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) Report, which is the official set of such figures under the World Anti-Doping Code. As with previous years, the Report is available in a PDF version as well as a dynamic, Excel version that illustrates the ADRV results in an interactive fashion.

The Report illustrates doping offences committed in global sport during 2020. It includes all decisions received by WADA’s Legal Affairs Department up to 10 November 2022. It highlights that there was a total of 935 ADRVs recorded in 2020. This represents a decrease relative to the 2019 figure of 1,914. It should be noted that with very few sporting events being held due the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of samples collected in 2020 was significantly reduced, which in turn impacted the total number of ADRVs recorded. The proportion of ADRVs to samples collected remained stable.

672 of the ADRVs came out of Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs), commonly known as ‘positive’ results. The remainder were derived from investigations and evidence-based intelligence into 263 violations committed by 238 athletes and 25 Athlete Support Personnel.

The 2020 ADRV Report contains all ADRV decisions reported to WADA by Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs). These decisions include those from AAFs reported in samples collected by ADOs in 2020 as well as from non-analytical ADRV decisions rendered in 2020.

As with previous years, the beginning of the report comprises explanations and definitions, an introduction and an executive summary highlighting key data. The first and second sections present the results management outcomes (including ADRVs) of all AAFs detected by WADA-accredited laboratories for samples collected in 2020 from athletes in- and out-of-competition. They are presented by sport category (Section 1) and testing authority category (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 in 2020, which includes AAFs that resulted in an ADRV plus all non-analytical ADRVs. It presents the data by sport and nationality and is further broken down into type of samples (urine or blood), type of test (in- or out-of-competition) and athlete sex classification.

Anabolic steroids in the UK: an increasing issue for public health / Jim McVeigh, Emma Begley

• Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 24 (2017) 3 , p. 278-285
• DOI: 10.1080/09687637.2016.1245713

Abstract

Aim: The aim of the paper was to identify changes in the extent and patterns of anabolic steroid use in the United Kingdom to better understand the public health implications within the context of the current health-related evidence base. 

Methods: Using the two time points between 1995 (prior to legislation changes in the United Kingdom) and 2015, a review of the evidence related to health harms was conducted, in conjunction with needle and syringe programme (NSP) data in Cheshire & Merseyside (UK) relating to anabolic steroid users. 

Findings: Dramatic increase in the number of anabolic steroid users accessing NSPs, 553 in 1995 to 2446 in 2015, now accounting for 54.9% of clients. With the inclusion of pharmacy NSPs, this rose to 5336 individual anabolic steroid users. 

Conclusions: Key changes in our knowledge during the 20 years, in particular, in relation to HIV prevalence, changes in the market and patterns of use make anabolic steroid use a public health concern. In the context of increasing numbers of injectors, there is a need for comprehensive interventions.

Current perspectives on anabolic steroids / A. Beel, B. Maycock, N. McLean

• Drugs and Alcohol Review 17 (1998) 1 (March), p. 87-103
• PMID: 16203472
• DOI: 10.1080/09595239800187631

Abstract

Steroids are used outside the realm of competitive athletics in Australia among a wide variety of groups with different motivations and goals. This paper provides an overview of the reasons for use; rates of usage; physical and psychological side effects; and sources of steroids. Issues associated with injecting steroids; their current legal status; and drug education and prevention programmes are reviewed briefly. Research involving identified sub-populations is needed to determine user profiles and prevalence rates of users and potential users. Studies of Australian users are also needed to obtain baseline information on areas of potential harm associated with steroids use, e.g. aggressive behaviour, needle-sharing behaviour, physical side effects and potential for dependency. It is concluded that future deterrence strategies should focus more on demand reduction, rather than supply.