In October 2017 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Romanian tennis player Adrian Barbu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Metenolone and Nandrolone. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted the test result and a provisional suspension. He indicated his wish to avoid a hearing and that there are grounds for a reduced sanction. The Athlete stated that in 2016 he was was not active as tennis player and that he had used Deca Durabolin (Nandrolone) and Primobolan (Metenolone) until December 2016 without intention to enhance his sport performance. He registered with the ITF in April 2017 en returned to competition in May 2017 and wasn’t aware that the prohibited substances he used in 2016 might still be in his system when he was tested in August 2017. The ITF argued that the Athlete is not entitled to any reduction of the period of ineligibility and that his conduct was clearly significant negligent. However the ITF accepted that it can not rule out the possibility that the Athlete tested positive as a result of his use of these substances until December 2016. After deliberations between the Parties a settlement was reached in which the ITF accepts that the Athlete gave a prompt admission for his use of the prohibited substances without intention to enhance his sport performances. The Athlete accepts a 2 year period of ineligibility with disqualification of his results. The Athlete's period of ineligibility starts backdated on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 16 August 2017. Therefore the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 9 February 2018 to terminate the proceedings against the Athlete on the basis as agreed between the parties.
In January 2018 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Turkish minor tennis player Zeynep Sönmez after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Modafinil. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted the test result and a provisional suspension and waived her right to be heard. The Athlete explained that the violation was not intentional and that she had used prescribed medication as treatment for her narcolepsy to help her with her study and she was not aware that it contained a prohibited substance. The ITF accepted the Athlete’s explanation and evidence and establish that the violation was not intentional. Further it considers the Athlete’s prompt admission and that she bears no significant fault or negligence. Therefore the ITF decides on 3 April 2018 to impose 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 24 October 2017.
The proceedings of the 2017 Macolin Anti-Doping Summit : a fresh look at the science, legal and policy aspects of anti-Doping / Antonio Rigozzi, Emily Wisnosky, Brianna Quinn. - Bern. - Editions Weblaw, 2017. - ISBN 9783906836966 __________________________________________________ This book sets out the proceedings of the 2017 Macolin Anti-Doping Summit. The Summit brought together many of the most experienced and knowledgeable specialists from various disciplines, encouraging open and thought-provoking discussions on each of the major facets of anti-doping (the science aspect, the legal aspect and the policy aspect), viewed through the lens of the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code in practice. Speakers delved into issues as diverse as whether anti-doping science and regulation are keeping pace with doping, whether the law is jeopardising anti-doping efforts, the impact of the new emphasis on intelligence operations in anti-doping cases, what anti-doping can learn from the athlete?s perspective and the ethical challenges currently faced in anti-doping efforts. __________________________________________________ Contents: I. Introduction comments and acknowledgments II. The <science> aspect - 1. Session introduction: Professor Martial Saugy - 2. A scientist's perspective: Professor David Cowan - 3. A lawyer's perspective: Dr Marjolaine Viret - 4. Panel discussion - Are anti-doping science and regulation keeping pace with doping?: Baron Dr Michel D'Hooghe, Dr Matthias Kamber, Dr Francesco Botre and Dr Peter Van Eenoo III. The <legal> aspect - 1. Session introduction: Mr Michele Bernasconi - 2. Legal issues with minor athletes under the Code: Mr Herman Ram - 3. Does the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code punish the <real cheaters> more harshly?: Ms Emily Wisnosky - 4. Shifting the focus from testing to intelligence & investigations - Lessons learned: Mr Mathieu Holz - 5. Addressing systematic failures within an anti-doping regime designed for individuals: Professor Ulrich Haas - 6. Panel discussion - Is the law killing anti-doping efforts: Mr Michael Beloff QC, Mr Mike Morgan, Ms Brianna Quinn, Mr Jacques Radoux and Mr Mario Vigna IV. The <policy> aspect - 1. Session introduction: Professor Philippe Sands QC. - 2. Overview of a current ethical challenge in anti-doping: Professor Andy Miah - 3. Panel discussion - What can anti-doping learn from the athlete perspective?: Mr Obadele Thompson, Mr Johannes Eder and Mr Lucas Tramer - 4. Psychological aspects of anti-doping - The decision to dope and the impact of getting caught: Dr Mattia Piffaretti - 5. <Independence> of the anti-doping process - From the involvement of international federations to the role of CAS: Professor Antonio Rigozzi - 6. Panel discussion - Outlook for the future of anti-doping: Full speed ahead or back to square one?: Mr Benjamin Cohen, Dr Paul Dimeo, Dr Bengt Kayser, Professor Denis Oswald and Mr Jaimie Fuller V. Closing remarks
In November 2015 the New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority (Medsafe) informed DFSNZ about the results of Medsafe’s investigation into an internet drug supplier NZ Clenbuterol and provided DFSNZ details about the internet purchases of prohibited substances made by the rugby player Jacob Nield. Hereafter in December 2017 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Respondent Jacob Nield for the use, attempted use and possession of the prohibited substance clenbuterol. The Respondent gave a prompt admission for possession and use of clenbuterol in 2014 and 2015 and accepted the provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by DFSNZ. He didn’t file a statement in his defence nor did he attend the hearing of the New Zealand Rugby Union Judicial Committee. DFSNZ and The Committee establishes that the Respondent gave a prompt admission and that there were substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Respondent. Therefore the Judicial Committee decides in February 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting backdated on 5 February 2017.
In November 2015 the New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority (Medsafe) informed DFSNZ about the results of Medsafe’s investigation into an internet drug supplier. Details about the internet purchases of prohibited substances made by the rugby player Kalib Hamiora Whakataka were provided to DFSNZ. Hereafter in November 2017 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Respondent Hamiora Whakataka for the use, attempted use and possession of the prohibited substance clenbuterol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Respondent filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the New Zealand Rugby Union Judicial Committee. The Respondent admitted the possession and use of clenbuterol in 2014 and 2015. He stated that he used the substance to lose weight and not to enhance his sports performance while he wasn’t aware that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. He challenged the jurisdiction of the Committee and argued that he is entitled for a reduced sanction on the basis of substantial delays in this case and his prompt admission. DFSNZ rejected the Respondent’s arguments and asserted that the Respondent knew that the Clenbuterol was a prohibited substance or that he knew there was a significant risk that by using the Clenbuterol he might be committing an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk. The Committee concludes that the Respondent wasn’t aware that the Rules applied on him and that he established that he didn't know that there was a significant risk. The Committee considers that there were substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Respondent and that he didn’t gave a prompt admission due to he challenged the violation in this case. Therefore the Judicial Committee decides in 2 April 2018 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting backdated on 17 July 2017.
Related cases: - ST 2017_13 DFSNZ vs Travell Ngatoko (1) February 3, 2017 - ST 2017_12 DFSNZ vs Nohorua Parata March 16, 2018 On 3 February 2017 the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the the rugby player Travell Ngatoko for testing positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis. His ineligibility started on 3 November 2016 and ended on 3 May 2017 Hereafter Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) reported that the Respondent Travell Ngatoko had played in a pre-season rugby league match in 18 March 2017 while he was still serving the imposed period of ineligibility. After notification a new provisional suspension was ordered in November 2017. the Respondent filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand. The Respondent admitted the violation and he explained that he was encouraged and assured by his coach and the Board member that he could play. The Respondent asserted that he didn't knew that he could not play in a pre-season game under the terms of his ineligibility. The Tribunal considers the Respondent's degree of fault in this case and finds that there are grounds for a reduced sanction. Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 16 March 2018 to impose a proportional sanction of 4 months on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 29 November 2017 until 31 March 2018.
Related case: ST 2017_13 DFSNZ vs Travell Ngatoko (2) March 16, 2018 In November 2017 the Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby team coach Nohorua Parata for complicity. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Coach filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand. DFSNZ alleged that the Coach encouraged and assisted the player Travell Ngatoko to compete in a pre-season rugby match on 18 March 2017. At that time the player Ngatoko was still serving a 6 month period of ineligibility imposed on him on 3 February 2017 after he tested positive for the use of Cannabis. The Coach gave a prompt admission and acknowledged that he included the player in the team knowing that he was suspended because he was short of players. The Tribunal considers the Coach’s conduct, his degree of fault and the delays in the proceedings not attributed to him. Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 16 March 2018 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Coach starting backdated on 28 February 2018.
Related cases: - CAS 2017_A_4937 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray December 15, 2017 - ST 2016_03 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray December 20, 2016 - ST 2017_02 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray October 13, 2017 In May 2017 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. On 13 October 2017 the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand concluded that the Athlete committed the anti-doping rule violation. A decision about the sanction was adjourned and scheduled for 2018 after the release on 15 December 2017 of the CAS Award (CAS 2017/A/4937) regarding his previous committed violation. Before the sanction hearing was scheduled the Athlete raised an issue about the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Athlete argued that at the time of the sample collection he was not a subject of the Cycling NZ Anti-Doping Rules. He asserted that he provided a sample on 18 March 2017, while his issued cycling licence was dated 11 April 2017, some weeks after the sample collection. The Tribunal establishes that the Athlete applied for membership of the Manukau Club and Cycling NZ on 24 February 2017. The application was in accordance with the UCI Rules and also acknowledged by email on the same day. Further the Tribunal establishes that the date of 11 April 2017 mentioned on the Athlete’s cycling licence was erroneous and should have been the date of the application: 24 February 2017. Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand concludes on 14 March 2018 that the Tribunal has jurisdiction and that the sanction hearing can be scheduled.
Related cases: - CAS 2017_A_4937 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray December 15, 2017 - ST 2016_03 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray December 20, 2016 - ST 2017_02 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray - Decision on Jurisdiction March 14, 2018 Previously the New Zealand cyclist Karl Murray was sanctioned on 8 April 2014 by the New Caledonian Anti-Doping Commission for 2 years after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Nandrolone and Testosterone. Before the Athlete's sanction ended on 7 April 2016 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) alleged the Athlete for breaching the ineligiblility. The violaton of sanction (case 2016_03) was initially rejected by the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand on 20 December 2016. However when appealed by DFSNZ in January 2017 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ultimately decided on 15 December 2017 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. During the appeal proceedings with CAS in 2017 DFSNZ reported in May 2017 a new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete (case 2017_02) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand. The Athlete argued that during the Doping Control there were departures of the ISTI. He asserted that he was wrongly deprived of his right to have a representative present during the sample collection process. Also he was not given the opportunity to select a sample collection beaker and instead was provided with an unsealed collection beaker chosen by the Doping Control Officer (DCO). The Tribunal observes that there was a direct conflict of evidence on several issues between the Athlete’s support person, and the DCO and the testing process chaperone. The Tribunal considers objectively the evidence in this matter and concludes that it is comfortably satisfied that the appropriate process was followed during the sample collection process and that the Athlete committed the anti-doping rule violation. In this case the pending CAS Award against the Athlete was not yet released (CAS 2017/A/4937, rendered 15 December 2017). Accordingly the Tribunal decides on 13 October 2017 to adjourne the proceedings in order to rule about a sanction after the release of the CAS Award. The decision from the Sport Tribunal about the appropriate sanction for the Athlete’s second anti-doping violation is to be expected in 2018.
Code Compliance by Signatories : World Anti-Doping Code International Standard / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2018. - (International Standard for Code Compliance by Signatories (ISCCS) effective on 1 April 2018) The International Standard for Code Compliance by Signatories is a mandatory International Standard that forms an essential part of the World Anti-Doping Program. It was developed in consultation with Signatories, public authorities, and other relevant stakeholders. It was approved by the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) Executive Committee on 15 November 2017 and came into effect on 1 April 2018, and will apply to all cases of Signatory non-compliance arising after that date. ________________________________________________ The ISCCS, which was adopted by WADA’s Executive Committee in November 2017, will reinforce the Agency’s Code Compliance Monitoring Program. It was refined via a two-phase stakeholder consultation process that ran from 1 June to 14 October 2017 and was overseen by WADA’s independent Compliance Review Committee (CRC); during which, stakeholders were asked to comment on development of the ISCCS that outlines: - Code Signatories’ rights and responsibilities; - the ways WADA supports Signatories in achieving, maintaining and, where applicable, regaining Code compliance; and - a range of graded, predictable and proportionate sanctions for cases of non-compliance by Signatories; and, a process for determining non-compliance and consequences. WADA thanks all stakeholders who submitted feedback during the consultation process. We believe that, together, we have developed a Standard that holds Signatories worldwide to the same high standards under the Code as is expected of athletes. It should be noted that, under the revised Code, the following articles apply to those Signatories that are declared non-compliant with the Code on or after 1 April 2018 under the ISCCS: - Under article 20.3.11, which relates to Roles and Responsibilities of IFs, the revised Code stipulates ‘To accept bids for World Championships and other International Events only from countries where the government has ratified, accepted, approved or acceded to the UNESCO Convention and the National Olympic Committee and National Anti-Doping Organization are in compliance with the Code.’ - Under article 20.6.6, which relates to Roles and Responsibilities of MEOs, the revised Code stipulates ‘To accept bids for Events only from countries where the government has ratified, accepted, approved or acceded to the UNESCO Convention and the National Olympic Committee and National Anti-Doping Organization are in compliance with the Code.’