Related cases:
- CAS 2011_A_2566 Andrus Veerpalu vs International Ski Federation
March 25, 2013 - CAS 2020_ADD_7 ISF vs Andrus Veerpalu
March 17, 2021 - CAS 2020_A_6781 Andrus Veerpalu vs FIS
July 21, 2020
In February 2011 the International Ski Federation (FIS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Estonian skier Andrus Veerpalu after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant Human Growth Hormone (hGH) at the same time that the Athlete announced his retirement from professional cross-country skiing.
After notification the Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the FIS Doping Panel.
Supported by an expert witness the Athlete disputed the circumstances of collecting and handling of the samples and the reliability and suitability of the method used to verify the existence of recombinant hGH.
The FIS Doping Panel went on to reject the Athlete’s argument that the delay between the analyses of the A- and B-samples affected the accuracy of the Test. The Doping Panel instead accepted the submissions of WADA that any effects from the delay would have led to a false negative result, rather than a false positive. In relation to the collection and handling of the samples, the FIS Doping Panel found that the crucial question was whether the Laboratory found any irregularities in the samples that prevented it from carrying out the Test. As no such irregularities were noted, the Doping Panel rejected the Athlete’s argument that the samples were no longer fit for testing at the time they had arrived at the Laboratory.
The Athlete submitted that “long and hard training” prior to the collection of the samples could affect the results. However, the Doping Panel noted that the Athlete’s experts did not contest that hGH levels would return to normal within two hours of exercise. As there were two hours and ten minutes between the training and blood sample collections, the Doping Panel held that the training could not have affected the results either.
The Doping Panel questioned whether the samples were actually collected under hypobaric conditions, as argued by the Athlete. The Athlete had alleged that the samples were collected in such high altitude conditions and that this had the potential to affect the results of an hGH test. The FIS Doping Panel ultimately left this issue open, but nevertheless stated that it was not convinced that such conditions would have had a decisive impact on the Test results.
The FIS Doping Panel was satisfied that the Laboratory was WADA-accredited and that the LDOC contained all data required by WADA to constitute sufficient evidence for establishing an AAF. As to the possibility of the Athlete’s genetic profile to affect the outcome of the analysis, the Doping Panel found that such an argument was unsubstantiated and was not supported by specific evidence. With regard to the labeling of the Test kits as “for scientific use only”, the Doping Panel held, first, that Dr. Laasik had signed the witness protocol at the opening of the B sample without any reservations; and second, that the Athlete’s experts had not explained how the labeling of the Test kit could have affected the Test results.
The Panel concludes that the Adverse Analytical Finding of hGH in the Athlete’s blood had been proven in violation of the FIS ADR. Therefore on 21 August 2011 the FIS Doping Panel decides to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of his retirement, i.e. 23 February 2011.
