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".

UKAD 2020 UKAD vs Morgan Jones

12 Apr 2021

In March 2020 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Morgan Jones after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and testified with evidence that he was coping with his personal circumstances and sought release through alcohol and drugs. He is still under care of a consultant in substance misuse and psychiatry. He acknowledged that he had used Cocaine 3 times that night and had consumed a considerable amount of alcohol.

In this case there were deliberations between the Parties about the applicability of lex mitior since the WADC 2021 and the 2021 ADR had come into force with the option for the imposition of a 3 month period of ineligibility when the ingestion of the substance occurred Out-Of-Competition and was unrelated to sport performance.

UKAD accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete bears No Significant Fault of Negligence. However UKAD denied the applicability of lex mitior. It contended that the use of Cocaine occurred not Out-Of-Competition since the Athlete had admitted that he had used the substance between 00:00 en 01:00 on the day of the competition while he knew he was due to be playing there.

The Panel established that the Athlete had admitted the violation and that the use of the Cocaine was unrelated to sport performance. The Panel rejected UKAD's contentions and considered that UKAD already had accepted the applicability of lex mitior in respect of six other cases.

Based on lex mitior the Panel deems that the Athlete should be able to benefit from a lower sanction that had become available. Further the Panel regards that there were delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete and that he had respected the imposed provisional suspension.

Therefore on 12 April 2021 the National Anti-Doping Panel decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete which he has already served during the provisional suspension. Accordingly the Athlete is free to resume alle sporting activities with immediate effect.

UKAD 2020 UKAD vs Carl Hone

6 May 2021

In October 2020 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Carl Hone after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Boldenone in a low concentration. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that the only possible source of the Boldenone was horse waste with which he must have come into contact when doing carpentry work at a barn adjacent to some stabling.

The London Lab confirmed that the concentration found in the Athlete's system was very low and it could no exclude the possibility of the Athlete's theory being correct.

UKAD contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional on the balance of probability based on the contamination with horse waste theory.

The Panel considers it very unlikely that the Athlete as a low level amateur player had injected himself with the substance for performance enhancing. Nevertheless the Panel concludes that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and that he failed to provide sufficient evidence that on the balance of probability horse waste was in fact the source of the prohibited substance in his system.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 6 May 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 6 February 2020.

UCI-ADT 2020 UCI vs Román Villalobos Solís

21 Oct 2020

In April 2019 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Costa Rican cyclist Román Villalobos Solís after his sample teste positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone and blood transfusions.

Previously in 2013 the Athlete was sanctioned in Costa Rica for 18 months after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Ostarine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences. In his submission to the UCI he disputed the irregularities that occurred during the doping controls in Costa Rica.

The Sole Arbitrator of the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal rendered a decision based on the Parties' written submissions due to the Athlete hereafter failed to respond nor filed a statement in his defence.

Based on the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance and blood transfusions had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that the he had committed 2 anti-doping rule violations, to be considered as one single violation.

The Sole Arbitrator holds that this is the Athlete's second anti-doping rule violation and deems that he failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 21 October 2020 to impose a fine and an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 2 April 2019.

The UCI's costs for the results management and the laboratory documentation package shall be borne by the Athlete.

UCI-ADT 2020 UCI vs Jérôme Pulidori

31 Mar 2021

In July 2018 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French cyclist Jérôme Pulidori after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Presnisolone and Prednisone without a valid TUE. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substances. With medical information he demonstrated that he had used prescribed medication as treatment for his condition.

The Athlete made an application for a retroactive TUE which was rejected by the AFLD in January 2019 and, when appealed by the Athlete, again rejected in April 2019.

The Athlete made several requests for extention of the proceedings while he rejected and Acceptance of Sanction with a proposed sanction of 12 months. Further he complained that the UCI had imposed moral harassment, psychological violence and financial blackmail, and any other form of pressure on him.

UCI accepted that the violation was not intentional, that the substances were used for medical treatment, and that the Athlete had established how these substances had entered his system.

The Sole Arbitrator agrees that the violation was not intentional but deems that the Athlete had acted negligently since he had failed to research his medication for prohibited substances before using.

The Tribunal considers that there were substantial delays in the proceedings and backdated the commencement of the sanction while the Athlete had in fact already served the sanction during the period of the provisional suspension.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 31 March 2021 to impose a fine and a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting backdated on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 29 March 2018.

Costs of the UCI for the results management, the sample analysis and the documentation packages shall be borne by the Athlete.

UCI-ADT 2020 UCI vs Domingos Gonçalves

28 Jan 2021

In December 2019 the UCI reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Portuguese cyclist Domingos Gonçalves after an UCI Expert Panel concluded unanimously, in August 2019 in their Expert Opinion, that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping.

This conclusion of the UCI Expert Panel is based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 28 July 2015 until 1 February 2019 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).

Previously the Athlete submitted his explanations for the abnormal findings in his ABP to the UCI which were rejected by the Expert Panel in their #2 and #3 Experts Opinion Report submitted in November 2019 and February 2020.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences and filed a statement in his defence. The Sole Arbitrator of the UCI Anti-Doping Panel rendered a decision based on the Parties' written submissions.

The Athlete denied the use of prohibited substances and disputed the reliability of the ABP. He suggested that mishandling of samples, altitude training and use of supplements could explain the abnormalities in his ABP. In addition he submitted numerous independent blood analyses (by non-WADA accredited laboratories) that would contradict the abnormalities found in his ABP.

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied to conclude that abnormalities did exist in the Athlete's haematological profile and that he committed an anti-doping rule violation of Article 2.2 ADR in the form of Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.

The Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete's altitude training and his use of supplements could not explain the abnormalities in his ABP. Further the Sole Arbitrator finds that none of the private analysis results submitted by the Athlete can affect the otherwise valid and reliable analysis of the Athlete's ABP.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Panel decides on 28 January 2021 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 December 2019.

The UCI costs for the results management and the ABP documentation package shall be borne by the Athlete.

UCI-ADT 2019 UCI vs Jarlinson Pantano Gómez

15 May 2020

In April 2019 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Colombian cyclist Jarlinson Pantano Gómez after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Recombinant Erythropoietin (RhEPO).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences, filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete denied the use of the prohibited substance and alleged, with support of expert witnesses, that elevated levels of EPO in his system was endogenously produced due to his illnesses he suffered, kidney failure, or liver failure. Further he asserted that his ABP showed no abnormalities als clear indication that had not used RhEPO.

After consultation of scientific and medical experts the UCI rejected the Athlete's explanations for the presence of RhEPO in his samples and contended that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of RhEPO had been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator did not accept the Athlete's explanations an arguments on the alleged endogenous origin of the EPO found in his samples and concludes that he failed to establish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 15 May 2020 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 April 2019.

Costs of the UCI for the results management, the sample collection, the laboratory analysis, and the documentation packages shall be borne by the Athlete.

UCI-ADT 2019 UCI vs Rémy Di Gregorio

30 Apr 2020

In April 2018 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French cyclist Rémy Di Gregorio after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Darbepoetin (dEPO). Without a hearing the Sole Arbitrator of the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal rendered a decision based on the Parties' written submissions.

The Athlete rejected and Acceptance of Consequences offered by the UCI and disputed the jurisdiction of the Anti-Doping Tribunal. He argued that due to substantial delays the proceedings should be anulled.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and could not explain how it had entered his system. He challenged the validity of the sample collection, the chain of custody and the testing results and asserted that several departures had occurred.

The Sole Arbitrator holds that under the applicable Rules it has jurisdiction and it dismissed the Athlete's objections regarding the delays in the proceedings.

The Tribunal establishes that the Athlete's samples were analyzed in an accredited laboratory in accordance with the ISL. Further the presence of the prohibited substance had been established in his samples and accordingly the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Tribunal deems that the Athlete only made uncorroborated allegations regarding the sample collection and the analysis procedure while he failed to demonstrate that departures could have caused the positieve test result. Although there are no grounds for a reduced sanction the Tribunal agrees that there were substantial delays not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the UCI-Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 30 April 2020 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting backdated on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 8 March 2018.

Costs of the UCI for the results management, the sample analysis and the documentation packages shall be borne by the Athlete.

UCI-ADT 2019 UCI vs Roberto Pinheiro

3 Feb 2020

In April 2018 the UCI reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian cyclist Roberto Pinheiro after an UCI Expert Panel concluded unanimously in July 2017 in their Expert Opinion, that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping.

This conclusion of the UCI Expert Panel is based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 29 September 2015 until 23 June 2016 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).

Previously the Athlete submitted his explanations for the abnormal findings in his ABP to the UCI which were rejected by the Expert Panel in their Second Experts Opinion submitted in April 2018.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences and failed to respond to the communications of the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal. As a result the Sole Arbitrator rendered a decision based on the Parties' written submissions.

The Athlete submitted with evidence that in June 2015 he suffered from the medical condition rhabdomyolysis and was hospitalized for treatment. He argued that his medical condition and altitude training in 2015 caused the fluctuations in his blood markers. He also disputed the validity of sample 10 in his ABP which was analysed in the suspended Rio Lab in 2016.

The UCI contended that the Rio Lab was suspended from 22 June 2016 until 20 July 2016 while sample 10 was analysed by the Lab. However WADA confirmed that it had approved the Rio Lab the analysis of sample 10 in accordance with the ABP Operating Guidelines.

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied to conclude that important abnormalities did exist in the Athlete's haematological profile and that he committed an anti-doping rule violation of Article 2.2 ADR in the form of Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that it is very unlikely that the abnormalities in the Athlete's ABP were caused by the medical condition rhabdomyolysis, nor by training at an altitude of 1800 m.

Further the Sole Arbitrator deems that analytical data of sample 10 must stand because the Athlete failed to establish a departure from the ISL, let alone a departure that could reasonably have caused a misreading of the analysis.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Panel decides on 3 February 2020 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 April 2018.

The UCI costs for the results management and the ABP documentation package shall be borne by the Athlete.

CAS 2020_A_6695 Nicole Walker vs PANAM Sports | Equestrian Canada vs PANAM Sports | PANAM Sports vs Nicole Walker & Equestrian Canada

22 Apr 2021
  • CAS 2020/A/6695 Nicole Walker v. PANAM Sports
  • CAS 2020/A/6700 Equestrian Canada v. PANAM Sports
  • CAS 2020/A/7386 PANAM Sports v. Nicole Walker and Equestrian Canada

Related case:

FEI 2019 FEI vs Nicole Walker
June 4, 2021



In August 2019 the Pan American Sports Organization (PASO) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Canadian Athlete Nicole Walker after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

On 11 December 2019 the Panam Sports Disciplinairy Commission decided to disqualify the Athlete and her results. Consequently under the PANAM Rules Team Canada's 4th place result in the Team Competition was also disqualified.

Hereafter in January 2020 the Athlete and Equestrian Canada appealed the PANAM Sports Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). PANAM Sports filed a Cross-Appeal in March 2020. Each of the appeals was heard together and all are dealt with collectively in this one single award.

In these appeals also the Canadian Olympic Committee (COC), the International Equestrian Federation (FEI), the Argentinian Equestrian Federation (FEA) and the Argentinian Olympic Committee (COArg) particpated and filed their positions in this matter.

The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the PANAM Sports Decision and to reinstate her results obtained at the PANAM Games. Equestrian Canada appealed only in relation to the issue of the substraction of the Athlete's scores from Team Canada's results. It adopted, in writing and orally, all arguments and submissions made on behalf of the Athlete.

The Athlete demonstrated with corroborating evidence that the positive test was the result of her ingestion of tea at the hotel where she stayed at the occasion of the Pan American Games. She was not aware at that time that the green tea she took was in fact coca tea.

The Athlete did not challenge the disqualification of her individual results obtained on 7 and 9 August 2019 but did challenge the disqualification of her results she had obtained on 6 and 7 August 2019 for the team competition which consequently resulted in disqualification of Team Canada's 4th place result.

PANAM Sports contended that the Athlete had failed to establish that the anti-doping rule violation was the result from the consumption of tea containing Cocaine at the relevant time. Further PANAM Sports asserted that under the PANAM Rules it was clearly mandated to automatically disqualify the results of the Athlete and Team Canada because of the Athletes anti-doping rule violation.

Considering the evidence in this case the Panel:

  • (a) Accepts that the Athlete did not intentionally ingest Cocaine at any relevant time on or prior to 7 August 2019;
  • (b) Accepts that there was no unintentional ingestion of cocaine by the Athlete at any relevant time prior to 7 August 2019;
  • (c) Finds that the AAF was the result, and only the result of, the unintentional ingestion of cocaine by the Athlete on the morning of 7 August 2019 as a result of her using a teabag containing cocaine which she took from the breakfast service area of the Los Incas Lima Hotel.

The Panel deems that PANAM Sports was mandated under the Rules to disqualify the results of Team Canada obtained on 7 August 2019. However the Panel finds that there is no basis for the automatic disqualification of the Athlete's results obtained on 6 August 2019.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 April 2021 (Operative Part 12 January 2021) that:

1. The appeals filed by Ms Nicole Walker and Equestrian Canada on 2 January 2020 against PANAM Sports with respect to the decision rendered by the PANAM Sports Disciplinary Commission on 11 December 2019 are dismissed.

2. The appeal filed by PANAM Sports on 14 March 2020 against Ms Nicole Walker and Equestrian Canada with respect to the decision rendered by the PANAM Sports Disciplinary Commission on 11 December 2019 is partially upheld.

3. The results for Team Canada in the jumping competition at the 2019 Pan Am Games are disqualified, which includes forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

4. The costs of the arbitration to be determined and served separately to the Parties by the CAS Court Office shall be borne by ¼ by Ms Nicole Walker, ¼ by Equestrian Canada and ½ by PANAM Sports.

5. Each Party shall bear its own costs and expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

6. The amici curiae, Canadian Olympic Committee (COC), Federation Internationale Equestre (FEI), the Argentinian Equestrian Federation (FEA) and the Argentinian Olympic Committee (COARG), shall each bear their own costs and expenses incurred in connection with these proceedings.

7. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.


The Athlete's anti-doping rule violation was referred to FEI in November 2019. Both the Athlete and FEI agreed that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete bears No Significant Fault or Negligence with a light degree of Fault or Negligence. The Athlete accepted the proposed FEI sanction and agreed to fulfil the Education Requirement within 1 year.

Therefore the FEI Tribunal decides on 4 June 2021 in accordance with the mutual consent of the Parties to impose a fine and a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 26 September 2019.

Performance Cultures and Doped Bodies: Challenging Categories, Gender Norms, and Policy Responses

24 May 2021

Performance Cultures and Doped Bodies : Challenging Categories, Gender Norms, and Policy Responses / Jesper Andreasson, April Henning. - Champaign, IL : Common Ground Research Networks, 2021. - 103 p.

  • ISBN (hbk): 978-0-949313-99-7
  • ISBN (pbk): 978-1-86335-241-3
  • ISBN (pdf): 978-1-86335-242-0
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.18848/978-1-86335-242-0/CGP


Abstract

Why has doping, both as a practice and a social phenomenon, been approached largely as a question of context: sport or fitness? Individuals may use substances to enhance sporting performance or within the framework of gym and fitness culture to create a perfect body. But clearly, people who dope are not bound to a singular context. It is quite the opposite, as individuals weave between and move across various settings in their trajectories to and from doping, as goals, identities, ambitions, and lifestyles change over time. Still, these stark categorizations often made in public discourse – and reinforced by scholars – have continued to ignore these lived experiences and limited our understanding of doping. Building on data gathered through ethnographic fieldwork, studies of online doping communities, and in-depth case studies, this book embraces the challenge of moving beyond traditional and historical doping dichotomies – such as those of sport or fitness, online or offline, pleasure or harm, masculinity or femininity, and health or harm – and, in a sociologically informed analysis, it develops new terminology to understand trajectories to and from doping. It argues there are multiple ways to understand doped bodies and doping practices, and that we must approach these questions from the perspective of both/and rather than either/or. By imploding these divisions, it offers updated and nuanced ways of both empirically and theoretically rethinking doping use and experiences attached to the practice.

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