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".

CCES 2023 CCES vs Joao Morelli

11 Jun 2024

In August 2023 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian football player Joao Morellin after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clomifene. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete's provided an explanation for the presence of Clomifene in his sample. Hereafter in April 2024 he failed to provide additional explanations to the CCES.

In view of the Athlete's explanation and based on his degree of fault CCES proposed a reduced sanction. Thereupon in May 2024 the Athlete failed to dispute the violation within the timelines specified in the CADP and the Notice of Charge.

Therefore the CCES decides on 11 June 2024 to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 8 May 2024.

ADAK 2024 ADAK vs Alex Kiprop Lagat

14 Feb 2024

In December 2023 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Alex Kiprop Lagat after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Following notification the Athlete timely admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by ADAK. 

Therefore the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 14 February 2024 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 December 2023.

ADAK 2024 ADAK vs Kevin Nash Kipkemoi

5 Feb 2024

In January 2024 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Kevin Nash Kipkemoi after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Following notification the Athlete timely admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing and accepted the sanction proposed by ADAK. 

Therefore the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 5 February 2024 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

ADAK 2023 ADAK vs Victor Koskey

14 Feb 2024

In January 2023 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Victor Koskey after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Salbutamol and Trimetazidine.

Following notification the Athlete timely admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by ADAK. 

Therefore the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 14 February 2024 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 February 2023.

World Athletics 2023 WA vs Rhonex Kipruto

28 May 2024

In April 2022 an Expert Panel of the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) concluded unanimously in their Joint Expert Opinion that the hematological profile of the Kenyan Athlete Rhonex Kipruto “highly likely” showed that he had used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping. 

This conclusion of the AIU Expert Panel was based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 9 July 2018 until 15 March 2022 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP). 

After notification the Athlete submitted multiple explanations with documentation for the abnormal values in his ABP. However after consideration the Expert Panel rejected the Athlete’s explanations and arguments in their 2nd (August 2022), 3rd (May 2023) and 4th (February 2024) Joint Expert Opinions.

Consequently in May 2023 the AIU, on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete. A provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal. 

The AIU deems that the abnormalities in the Athlete's ABP were caused by a prohibited method and that he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Further the AIU contended that there are aggravating circumstances present in this case because the Athlete had used blood doping for more than 3 years and he had been engaged in a deliberate and sophisticated doping regime.

The Athlete denied the charges and claimed that the abnormalities in his ABP are due to natural and specific characteristics of his body and other circumstances like alcohol consumption and medical conditions. Moreover he relied on de validity of sample 2; genetic disorder; alcohol abuse; and the model presented by his expert witness.

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and issues raised by the Parties and determines:

  • World Athletics has discharged its burden of proof and established that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation.
  • The abnormalities in the Athlete's ABP are more likely caused by blood manipulation, rather than from evironmental or medical factors.
  • There was evidence that the Athlete was engaged in a deliberate and sophisticated doping regime.
  • There are aggravating circumstances present in this case that justifies the imposition of a more severe sanction.

Therefore the Panel decides on 28 May 2024 to impose a 6 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 May 2023.

CAS 2023_A_9926 Kanak Jha vs USADA

28 Nov 2023

CAS 2023/A/9926 Kanak Jha v. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)


Related case:

AAA 2022 No. 01 22 0005 2588 USADA vs Kanak Jha
March 15, 2023

In December 2022 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the table tennis player Kanak Jha for this 3 whereabouts filing failures and 3 missed tests within a 12 month period.

Consequently the AAA Tribunal decided on 15 March 2023 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 1 December 2022.

Additionally USADA reported in May 2023 that the Athlete had violated his provisional suspension. This would effect the starting date of the period of ineligibility imposed on the Athlete.

Thereupon in August 2023 the Athlete appealed the AAA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete denied the violation and requested to receive credit for the time he was provisionally suspended.

The Athlete denied that his participation into an exhibition on 14 December 2022 should be considered a violation of the provisional suspension. He argued that his appearance at the exhibition was not a prohibited, nor was he aware that this event was affiliated with USA Table Tennis (USATT).

USADA contended that the Athlete was explicitly warned that he was prohibited from participating in activities authorized or organized by WADC signatories. Nevertheless he violated his provisional suspension when he participated into an exhibition on 14 December 2022.

USADA asserted that the Athlete accordingly shall not receive credit for the time he spent provisionally suspended. As a result his period of ineligibility shall start on the date of the AAA decision, i.e. on 15 March 2023.

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

  • The Athlete took part in the event on 14 December 2022 and as a result he violated his provisional suspension.
  • Accordingly the Athlete can not receive credit for the time he was provisionally suspended, i.e. the period from 1 December until 15 March 2023.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 28 November 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 23 August 2023 by Kanak Jha against the United States Anti-Doping Agency with respect to the decision taken by the United States Anti-Doping Agency on 19 Mary 2023 is admissible.

2.) The appeal filed on 23 August 2023 by Kanak Jha against the United States Anti-Doping Agency with respect to the decision taken by the United States Anti-Doping Agency on 19 Mary 2023 is dismissed.

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

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

CAS 2022_A_8895 WADA vs RUSADA & Ilya Bogatyrev

5 Sep 2023

CAS 2022/A/8895 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) & Ilya Bogatyrev

In September 2021 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Boxer Ilya Bogatyrev for 3 whereabouts filing failures and 3 missed tests within a 12 month period.

On 4 April 2022 the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in May 2022 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the DADC Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to sanction the Athlete for 2 years.

Both WADA and RUSADA contended that the Athlete had admitted the violation and acknowledged that he had acted negligently. Although the Athlete did not sought any mitigation it was the sole initiative of the DADC to reduce the standard sanction.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence in this case and determines that:

  • WADA established that the Athlete had a combination of 3 missed tests and 3 filing failure within 12 months.
  • The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.
  • He is a young inexperienced athlete suffering from a great degree of stress and overwhelmed with his multiple duties.
  • He acted with a higher level of fault and there are some grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 September 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) on 18 May 2022 against the decision rendered by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) on 4 April 2022 in the matter concerning Ilya Bogatyrev is partially upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) on 4 April 2022 in the matter concerning Ilya Bogatyrev is amended as follows:

(i) Ilya Bogatyrev shall serve a period of ineligibility of twenty (20) months as from the date of this award, with credit given for the period of ineligibility already served from 7 October 2021 until and including 6 October 2022.

(ii) All competitive results achieved by Ilya Bogatyrev from 30 April 2021 through 7 October 2021 shall be disqualified with all resulting Consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes.

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

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

CAS 2022_A_8886 WADA vs ADoP & Daniel Eduardo Moreira Silva

5 Jul 2023

CAS 2022/A/8886 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Portuguese Anti-Doping Authority & Daniel Eduardo Moreira Silva

In March 2021 the Anti-Doping Authority Portugal (ADoP) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Daniel Eduardo Moreira Silva after an Expert Panel concluded that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he had used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method.

Previously the Athlete was sanctioned for 2 years from May 2016 after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxandrolone.

Nevertheless the ADoP Anti-Doping Disciplinary College (ADDC) decided on 10 January 2022 to acquit the Athlete. The College deemed that the charge against the Athlete was null and void due to the violation was considered committed by the Athlete not intentional, nor negligently.

Hereafter in May 2022 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the ADoP decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

WADA contended that the ADDC erroneously applied Portuguese criminal and administrative procedures to the anti-doping proceedings. Furthermore the Athlete's right of defence in the proceedings had been manifestly safeguarded.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence and the issues raised by the Parties and determindes that:

  • An anti-doping rule violation occurred in the form of an irregular ABP.
  • The Athlete failed to demonstrate that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.
  • He committed a second anti-doping rule violation.
  • ADoP was correctly cited as a Respondent in this case.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 July 2023:

1.) The Appeal filed by WADA on 13 May 2022 against the decision of 10 January 2022 of the Anti-Doping Disciplinary College of the Portuguese Anti-Doping Authority is admissible.

2.) The decision of 10 January 2022 of the Anti-doping Disciplinary College of the Portuguese Anti-Doping Authority is set aside.

3.) Mr Daniel Eduardo Moreira Silva is sanctioned with an eight-year period of ineligibility starting on the date on which this Award enters into force. Any period of ineligibility effectively served by Daniel Eduardo Moreira Silva before the entry into force of the CAS Award shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Daniel Eduardo Moreira Silva from and including 28 May 2018 up to the expiry of the period of ineligibility shall be invalidated, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes.

5.) (…).

6.) (…).

CAS 2022_A_8809 WADA vs RUSADA & Alexey Slepov

5 Sep 2023

CAS 2022/A/8809 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) & Alexey Slepov

In January 2021 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Biathlete Alexey Slepov for 3 whereabouts failures and 2 missed tests within a 12 month period.

During the 1st and 2nd whereabouts failures the Athlete was included in the Registered Testing Pool (RTP) of the International Biathlon Union (IBU). During his 3rd whereabouts failure he was included in the RTP of RUSADA since 1 May 2020.

On 11 February 2022 the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete without disqualification of his results.

Hereafter in April 2022 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the DADC Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to sanction the Athlete for 2 years.

Both WADA and RUSADA contended that the Athlete had admitted the violation and acknowledged that he had acted negligently. Although the Athlete did not sought any mitigation it was the sole initiative of the DADC to reduce the standard sanction.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence in this case and determines that:

  • WADA established that the Athlete had a combination of 2 missed tests and 1 filing failure within 12 months.
  • The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.
  • The Athlete is higly experienced, provided whereabouts information for many years and has been subject to doping control since 2012.
  • His degree of fault is high and there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 September 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) on 12 April 2022 against the decision rendered by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) on 30 September 2021 in the matter concerning Alexey Slepov is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) on 30 September 2021 in the matter concerning Alexey Slepov is amended as follows:

(i) Alexey Slepov shall serve a period of ineligibility of twenty-four (24) months as from the date of this award, with credit given for the period of ineligibility already served from 30 September 2021 until and including 29 September 2022.

(ii) All competitive results achieved by Alexey Slepov from 1 July 2020 through 30 September 2021 shall be disqualified with all resulting Consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes.

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

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

CAS 2022_A_8802 Nijat Rahimov vs IWF | IWF vs Nijat Rahimov

20 Sep 2023
  • CAS 2022/A/8802 Nijat Rahimov v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)
  • CAS 2022/A/9048 International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Nijat Rahimov

Related case:

CAS 2021_ADD_21 IWF vs Nijat Rahimov
March 22, 2022



Mr. Nijat Rahimov is an elite weightlifter, competing for Kazakhstan and previously represented Azerbaijan. In November 2013 the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) sanctioned the Athlete for 2 years after he tested positive for 2 prohibited substances.

In September 2019 WADA instigated an investigation known as “Operation Arrow” into the existence of urine substitution at the time of sample collection in the sport of Weightlifting. As part of that investigation, negative samples provided by weightlifting athletes since 1 January 2012 were, where available, subjected to DNA testing to discover whether any of the negative samples supposedly provided by a particular athlete were in fact provided by another person, as indicated by differences in the DNA between the various samples attributed to that athlete.

As a result of the WADA investigations the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IWF, reported in January 2021 an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for the use of a prohibited method. Consequently the Court of Arbitration Anti-Doping Division (CAS-ADD) decided on 22 March 2022 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in April 2022 the Athlete, and in July 2022 the IWF, appealed the CAS-ADD Decision with the CAS Appeal Division. The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision, whereas the IWF requested to uphold this Decision.

The IWF contended that 4 samples collected in 2016 were collected from doubles impersonating the Athlete. Moreover DNA analysis and evaluation of his ABP confirmed that these 4 samples did not belong to the Athlete.

The Athlete denied any wrongdoing: he was not notified of such doping control by the coaches or by the DCO, nor was he present at the doping controls. Further he alleged that there had been departures from the ISTI.

By contrast the IWF deemed that the Athlete provided misleading Whereabouts Information and did not attend the doping controls on 15 March, 10 June, 17 July and 18 July 2016.  Accordingly the Athlete allowed for sample substitution to occur thus commiting and anti-doping rule violation.

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

  • The Athlete's explanation that he could not have contributed to the anti-doping rule violation as he ignored everything about the ongoing doping controls is not convincing.
  • He facilitated the sample substitution through the use of doubles at the doping controls.
  • The Athlete knew or should have known that sample substitution would be performed through the use of doubles at the doping controls.
  • The Athlete is responsible for the use of a prohibited method on 4 occasions which constitutes the anti-doping rule violation of use of a prohibited method.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 September 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Nijat Rahimov on 12 April 2022 against the Award rendered by the CAS Anti-Doping Division in the matter CAS 2021/ADD/21 International Weightlifting Federation v. Nijat Rahimov on 22 March 2022, is dismissed.

2.) The appeal filed by the International Weightlifting Federation against the Award rendered by the CAS Anti-Doping Division in the matter CAS 2021/ADD/21 International Weightlifting Federation v. Nijat Rahimov on 22 March 2022, is dismissed.

3.) The Award issued on 22 March 2022 by the CAS Anti-Doping Division in the matter CAS 2021/ADD/21 International Weightlifting Federation v. Nijat Rahimov is confirmed.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

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

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