Investigation report for the attention of World Anti-Doping Agency (hereinafter WADA), Montreal as part of the investigation carried out on behalf of the World Anti-Doping Agency in relation to 28 positive tests for Trimetazidine involving 23 Chinese swimmers between 1 and 3 January 2021 / Eric Cottier. - Montreal : WADA, 2024

• This is an English translation of the French original Report.
• The appendices referenced within the Report were made available to WADA Executive Committee members present for its 12 September meeting and, for reasons of data privacy, are not being published.

Findings:

• Report finds no bias towards China and reaffirms WADA’s decision not to appeal cases was reasonable 

• Report includes findings as to how anti-doping rules and WADA’s administrative processes can be further strengthened 

• Executive Committee agrees to establish a Working Group that will focus on recommendations that can be reviewed and approved by the ExCo 

In September 2024 the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA’s) Executive Committee (ExCo) met in Belek, Republic of Türkiye, where it discussed the final reasoned report presented virtually by Independent Prosecutor, Mr. Eric Cottier, regarding his review of WADA’s handling of the China Anti-Doping Agency’s (CHINADA's) no-fault contamination cases involving 23 swimmers from China in 2021.   

In his opening remarks to the ExCo, Mr. Cottier said: “I am pleased to confirm that my conclusions, which were published via my interim report on 9 July, have not changed. The information in the file shows that WADA has done its work autonomously, independently and professionally, and that there is no evidence to the contrary. WADA has applied the rules to which its activity is subject.” 

Mr. Cottier then noted that his final reasoned report went beyond the two questions that he was posed for the review, offering a number of findings, including that:  

1. Clarification of certain anti-doping rules should be considered as part of the World Anti-Doping Code and International Standards Update Process that is currently underway, in particular with the regards to specific situations of group contamination; and  

2. Formalization of certain administrative processes should be considered within WADA. 

Mr. Cottier then turned his attention to CHINADA and, consistent with WADA’s previously stated view, said: “As far as the Chinese agency is concerned, it is clear that certain rules of the World Anti-Doping Code have not been applied. This is regrettable, but in the end, it does not change the outcome of the cases and the acceptance of the contamination hypothesis.” 

In June 2024, the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Mongolian Athlete Shintsetseg Chuluunkhuu after her sample includes the prohibited substance Meldonium.

Following notification a provisional suspension was imposed and the Athlete filed a statement in her defence. She explained with medical documents that she underwent medical treatment in a hospital.

The AIU found that these medical documents were insufficient to explain the Athlete's positive test result. In August 2024, a Notice of Charge was issued and thereupon the Athlete failed to respond to the communications of the AIU .

Because the Athlete did not respond within the deadline, the AIU determined in September 2024 that the Athlete was deemed to have waived her right for a hearing and accepted the consequences. In addition, the AIU established that the Athlete had failed to sign and submit the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form.

Therefore the AIU decided, on 11 September 2024, to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 June 2024.

In August 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf on World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violations against the Ukrainian Athlete Nataliya Lehonkova after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Recombinant Erythropoietin (RhEPO).

Following notification the Athlete timely admitted the violation, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU. She could not explain how the substance had entered her system.

The AIU deems that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. Because she had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form she received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 11 September 2024 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 August 2024.

In June 2024, the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Eritrean Athlete Nazret Weldu. The AIU deemed that the Athlete had 3 Whereabouts Failures recorded within a 12 month period:

• a Missed Test and/or Filing Failure dated 9 November 2023;
• a Missed Test and/or Filing Failure dated 8 December 2024; and
• a Missed Test and/or Filing Failure dated 22 May 2024.

The Athlete's representative submitted only an explanation to the AIU about the 3rd Whereabouts Failure. No administratieve review was requested and the Whereabouts Failures were recorded.

Following notification the Athlete explained that her representative had not updated her Whereabouts on two occasions. She herself was unable to communicate in English, had not received anti-doping education, had limited access to internet and was completely dependent of her coach and her representative.

The representative confirmed in his submission that the 2nd and 3rd Whereabouts Failure were entirely his fault. He acknowledged that he had forgotten to update the Whereabouts information in ADAMS.

Thereupon the Athlete gave a timely admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU. Furthermore she signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violation and Acceptance of Consequences Form.

The AIU accepted the Athlete's explanation and concludes that she acted with some degree of Fault or Negligence. The AIU considers that the she has established that she was impaired by the circumstances in updating her Whereabouts information.

Therefore the AIU decides on 11 September 2024 to impose a 20 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 17 June 2024.

In April 2023 the ice skater Kamryn Lute (19) underwent medical treatment for her diagnosed condition. One of the prescribed supplements she used was HG Healthgevity.

The Athlete was added to the Registered Testing Pool since October 2021 and she was subjected to multiple sample collections between April 2023 and February 2024. On the Doping Control Form she mentioned the use of her supplement as HG Healthgevity BPC+PEA 500, 1 Capsule, once daily.

In March 2024 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) requested additional information regarding the Athlete's use of the HG Healthgevity supplement. The Athlete submitted to USADA her medical records and two bottles of the supplement.

In April 2024 the Salt Lake City Laboratory analysed the supplement and established that it contained the prohibited substances BPC-157 and Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA). BPC-157 was listed on the product label whereas DHEA was not listed as ingredient.

Consequently in April 2024 USADA reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for her use of the two prohibited substances. 

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the New Era Arbitration Tribunal.

The Athlete had admitted the violation for her use of BPC-157 and DHEA. She denied that the violation was intentional and argued that she acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

USADA deemed that:

• The Athlete's violation was not intentional.
• The HG Healthgevity capsules were contaminated with DHEA.
• The Athlete mentioned the use of her supplement on the Doping Control Form.
• She suffered from several health issues.
• She acted negligently with her supplements.

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

• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation because of her use of the HG Healthgevity supplement containing BPC- 157 and DHEA.
• The violation was not intentional and the DHEA would not effect the length of the sanction.
• Although tested repeatedly the Athlete never tested positive for BPC-157 and DHEA.
• The Athlete never received a Declaration Courtesy Letter from USADA regarding her use of BPC+PEA 500 mentioned on the Doping Control Form.
• The Athlete acted with Significant Fault or Negligence regarding the prescribed supplements.
• There are particular circumstances present in this case for the imposition of a reduced sanction.
• Fairness requires that the Athlete's results shall not be disqualified.

Therefore the Arbitration Tribunal decides on 20 August 2024 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 April 2024.

In April 2024 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) against the Athlete Erriyon Knighton after his A and B sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Trenbolone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was imposed. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the New Era Arbitration Tribunal.

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. He asserted that previously he was tested without issues and that he acted with No Fault or Negligence. 

With evidence and his expert witnesses the Athlete demonstrated that meat contamination had caused the positive test after his consumption of oxtail from a local restaurant. He also produced the results of a negative hairtest and a polygraph examination.

USADA's investigation established that the oxtail came from a meat supplier in Mexico and originated from a meat processing facility in Nicaragua. A piece of oxtail from the restaurant was shipped by USADA to the UCLA Laboratory for analysis.

Hereafter the UCLA Laboratory reported that the presence of Trenbolone contaminants had been detected in the oxtail. Moreover another analysis in a laboratory of the Athlete's protein powder in question tested negative for Trenbolone contaminants.

USADA contended that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and failed to demonstrate the source of the prohibited substance. It deemed that the Athlete failed to establish the critical causal link between the oxtail he consumed in March 2024 and the positive test in March 2024 for several reasons.

The Athlete argued that it is imposible to prove the source of the prohibited substance with scientific certainty, nor to prove the source of meat contamination by a mathematical certainty. Under de Code he only had to prove on a balance of probability how the Trenbolone had entered his system. 

He demonstrated that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. Moreover he had no reason to believe that the oxtail he was consuming from the restaurant contained Trenbolone.

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

• The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples.
• He committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• He could not reasonably have known that the oxtail meal was contaminated.
• There is sufficient evidence that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.
• The Athlete ate contaminated meat that caused the positive test.
• Meat contamination caused, on a balance of probabilities, the concentration of Trenbolone in the Athlete's samples.

Therefore the Arbitration Tribunal decides on 18 July 2024 that:

• USADA met its burden of proving the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation under Articles 2.1 and 2.2 the Code for use and presence of a prohibited substance.
• The Athlete has sustained his burden of proof under Article 10.5 of the Code that he bore No Fault or Negligence in connection with the use and presence of a Prohibited Substance. Therefore, the Athlete shall have no period of Ineligibility.
• The Parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this Arbitration. The administrative fees and expenses of the arbitration administrator, and the compensation and expenses of the Sole Arbitrator, shall be borne entirely the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee as provided in the relevant arbitration rules.
• This Award is in full settlement of all claims submitted in this arbitration. All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby denied.

In June 2024 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) against the swimmer Calista Liu after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dorzolamide.

Following notification a provisional suspension was imposed. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. She explained that the source of the positive test was her father's prescribed Dorzolamide eyedrop medication and that she was repeatedly exposed to this medication.

USADA accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete demonstrated the source of the substance. USADA deemed that the Athlete showed with corroborating evidence that she was repeatedly exposed to a home environment contamination with Dorzolamide residue from her father's prescribed eyedrop medication.

Further, USADA determines that she could not reasonably have known or suspected that her actions could have caused a positive test. Moreover the concentration in her sample was extremely low whereas Dorzolamide is not available in any other formulation other than eyedrop form in de United States or anywhere else in the world.

The Parties went into a settlement and requested the New Era Arbitration Tribunal to render an Award. Therefore the Arbitrator determines on 3 July 2024:

• The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample.
• She committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• The violation was not intentional.
• The Athlete established No Fault or Negligence.
• No period of ineligibility shall be imposed.

CAS OG 24/12 David Sánchez López v. Turkish Weightlifting Federation

In May 2024 the Independent Panel of the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) opened proceedings against the Turkish Weightlifitng Federation (TWF) because of 3 anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs) within a 12 month period committed by 3 Turkish weightlifting athletes. 

Consequently the independent Panel deemed it proportionate to impose a fine on the TWF. In this matter it was considered disproportionate and not applicable to cancel the single Olympic quota place earned by the Turkish weightlifters.

On 5 July 2024 the IWF Independent Panel rendered its decision regarding the TWF. On 8 July 2024 the weightlifting entries for the Paris Olympic Games were published, including the Turkish weightlifter in the 73kg weight class.

Hereafter on 2 August 2024 the Spanish weightlifter David Sánchez López filed an application with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division. The Athlete requested the Panel to replace the TWF's entry in the 73kg weight class with his entry.

The Athlete argued that the IWF had established three ADVRs by persons affiliated with the TWF. Consequently under the Rules the IWF was obligated to bar the TWF and all its affiliated athletes from competition in the 2024 Paris Olympic Games.

The TWF requested the Panel to confirm the participation of the TWF athletes into the 2024 Paris Olympic Games. The TWF, IWF and IOC contended that the Athlete lacks standing to pursue his claim and that the TWF lacks standing to be sued.

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

• The CAS Ad Hoc Division has jurisdiction to entertain this case.
• Under the Rules the Athlete is not one of the enumerated persons entitled to challenge the Appealed Decision.
• He was no participant in that proceedings and lacks standing to appeal.
• The TWF did not render the Appealed Decision.
• The IWF Independent Panel has jurisdiction and the Appealed Decision cannot be said to have been an abuse of its discretion or unreasonable.

Therefore the CAS Ad Hoc Division decides on 7 August 2024 to dismiss the application of Mr. David Sánchez López.

CAS OG 24/05 Livia Avancini v. World Athletics
CAS OG 24/06 Max Batista v. World Athletics
CAS OG 24/07 Hygor Bezerra v. World Athletics

In December 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, released the Rules Road to Paris 2024 regarding the qualification period for individual events for the Paris Olympic Games 2024. However, in February 2024 the AIU established that the Brazilian Athletics Confederation (DBAt) had failed to meet its testing obligations for 2022.

In order to meet the testing requirements the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) started testing a group of 102 athletes based on the criteria pursuant the AIU Additional Testing Requirements including for the athletes Livia Avancini, Max Batista and Hygor Bezerra.

Unexpectedly very late on 27 June 2024 and 5 July 2024 the 3 Athletes were qualified for the Paris Olympic Games 2024 whereas the Olympic Qualification period concluded on 30 June 2024. As a result none of the 3 Athletes fulfilled the Additional Testing Requirements imposed on the CBAt.

Thereupon the CBAt requested twice the AIU for an exception to the testing requirements due to truly exceptional and objectively proven circumstances. However the AIU Board rejected these two applications on 7 July and on 24 July 2024.

Hereafter on 23 July 2024, and amended on 24 July 2024, the 3 Athletes appealed the AIU Decisions with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division. The Athletes requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decisions and to grant an exception of the testing requirements.

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

• The Additional Testing Requirements were implemented in a 3 month period, instead of a 10 month period.
• Available resources, including additional resources, were allocated to conduct the 6 tests on other athletes in the priority pool.
• The testing of the 3 Athletes was not completed because they were not in the priority group and were not reached in time.
• Two of the Athletes were the subject of a number of tests but not the necessary number in the mandated time.
• There was no suggestion that any of the Athletes was other than a clean athlete.
• Truly exceptional circumstances resulted in the failure to complete the Additional Testing Requirements for the 3 Athletes.

Therefore the CAS Ad Hoc Division decides on 1 August 2024 that:

1.) The amended application filed by Livia Avancini, Max Batista and Hygor Bezerra on 24 July 2024 is upheld.

2.) The decisions rendered by the Athletics Integrity Unit’s Board on 23 July 2024 concerning each individual Applicant are set aside.

3.) The Applicants are entitled to participate in the Paris 2024 Olympic Games.

iNADO Update (2024) 07/08 (30 August)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

Speaking Up for NADOs & RADO Globally

• Athlete Representation Survey
• Athlete Representation Survey

Building a Supportive Community

• 2025 iNADO Workshop 
• iNADO and WAADS Collaborate to Strengthen Anti-Doping Efforts
•  AMADA Webinar for iNADO Members

Improving Practice Everywhere

• Reminder: iNADO's Legal Assistance Partnership with Bird & Bird
• Enhance Collaboration: Share Your Events and Newsletters in Basecamp

Guiding Principles

• New Signatories of The Guiding Principles

Monthly Features

• Welcome Papua New Guinea Sports Anti-Doping Organization (PNGSADO)
• Sport Integrity Commission Te Kahu Raunui and Welcome to CEO Rebecca Rolls

iNADO Sponsors & Partners