In January 2019 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Bernhard Kiplangat Kibilo after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete waived his right for a hearing and the case was settled by the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal based on the written submissions of the Parties. 

The Athlete admitted the violation and alleged that a substance had been injected in a local clinic as treatment for his muscle injury. The Athlete was unable to indicate the location of the clinic that had been shut down due to operating without a license. 

The Tribunal finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete’s sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Tribunal holds that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor how the substance had entered his system. He could not show with any evidence the location of the clinic where he underwent medical treatment. 

Therefore the Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 4 February 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 January 2019.

RUSADA Compliance Court of Arbitration for Sport Decision of 17 December 2020: Questions and Answers / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2021

---

Following the publication of the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS’s) 186-page full reasoned decision regarding its 17 December 2020 ruling in favor of WADA to declare the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) non-compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code for a period of two years, WADA has developed a question and answer document to assist with stakeholder understanding of the matter.

This is in response to a number of queries received from Anti-Doping Organizations, athletes, members of the media and other stakeholders seeking clarity on some of the award’s finer points and their implications. The Q&A document is in addition to the Agency’s publication of a legal note on 14 January 2021, which outlines the background that led to the CAS proceedings, provides a summary of the parties’ key arguments, and summarizes the decision.

Report Annuale Attivita' Antidoping Anno 2020 / National Anti Doping Organization San Marino (NADO San Marino). - San Marino, 2021

Related case:

NADO Flanders 2020 Disciplinary Commission 20207516
October 20, 2020

On 20 October 2020 the NADO Flanders Disciplinairy Commission decided to impose a 2000 euro fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Drostanolone, Tamoxifen and Trenbolone.

The Athlete objected to the decision rendered in absentia and the case was reopened. Nevertheless the Disciplinary Commission decided on 8 December 2020 to impose a 1000 euro fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 2 April 2020.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision of 8 December 2020 with the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Council.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and requested to annul the Appealed Decision because it was disproportional. He requested for the imposition of only a suspended sanction on the basis of No Significant Fault or Negligence and ne-bis-in-idem. He argued that as amateur sportsman he previously already had admitted the use of the substances whereas he had mentioned these on the Doping Control Form.

Further the Athlete asserted that he had not received the requested test result of his sample; the Disciplinary Commission had no jurisdiction due to expired time limits; the Appealed Decision was ill-founded; and his personal details had been shared with third parties.

NADO Flanders contended that after the Athlete had objected the Decision of 20 October 2020 the Disciplinary Commission had timely reopenend the case and issued a new Decision on 8 December 2020 after a de novo hearing.

NADO Flanders rejected the Athlete's claim regarding his personal details and deemed that there are no grounds for the imposition of a reprimand or a suspended sanction since he clearly had used the prohibited substances intentionally.

The Disciplinary Council establishes that the Athlete indeed had received the test results from the Lab and that there had been no invalid use of the Athlete's personal details. There are no grounds for ne-bis-in-idem nor had the Athlete provided a timely admission of use before the sample collection.

The Council further establishes that there had been an prevented attempt to evade Doping Control and the Athlete mentioned on the Doping Control Form only the prohibited substances he previously had used in the summer of 2019, yet not the substances he tested positive for in this case. 

Finally the Disciplinary Council concludes that the Athlete had committed the anti-doping rule violation and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction, only for a reduced fine.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Council decides on 5 February 2021 to impose a 500 euro fine and to uphold the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 2 April 2020.

Fees and expenses for Commisson and the Council shall be borne by the Athlete.

Mass spectrometric identification and characterization of urinary metabolites of isopropylnorsynephrine for doping control purposes / Oliver Krug, Andreas Thomas, Mario Thevis. - (Analytical Science Advances (2021) 5 February;  p. 1-8)

• DOI: 10.1002/ansa.202100004

---

Abstract

Isopropylnorsynephrine (isopropyloctopamine, deterenol, 4‐(1‐hydroxy‐2‐(isopropylamino)ethyl)phenol), a beta‐selective and direct‐acting adrenergic agonist, has been reported in the past as declared as well as non‐declared ingredient of dietary supplements. The proven biological activity and the structural similarity of isopropylnorsynephrine to substances classified as prohibited compounds according to the World Anti‐Doping Agency's (WADA's) regulations could necessitate the inclusion of this sympathomimetic amine into routine doping control analytical assays. Therefore, information on urinary metabolites is desirable in order to allow for an efficient implementation of target compounds into existing multi‐analyte testing procedures, enabling the unequivocal identification of the administration of isopropylnorsynephrine by an athlete. In a pilot study setting, urine samples were collected prior to and after the oral application of ca. 8.7 mg of isopropylnorsynephrine, which were subjected to liquid chromatography‐high resolution/high accuracy (tandem) mass spectrometry. The intact drug, hydroxylated and/or glucurono‐ or sulfo‐conjugated isopropylnorsynephrine were detected up to 48 h post‐administration, with isopropylnorsynephrine sulfate representing the most abundant urinary target analyte. No relevant amounts of the dealkylation product (octopamine) were observed, indicating that merely moderate adaptations of existing test methods (or data evaluation strategies) are required to include isporpoylnorsynephrine in antidoping analytics, if required.

Disruption and recovery of testicular function during and after androgen abuse : the HAARLEM study / D.L. Smit, M.M. Buijs, O. de Hon, M. den Heijer, W. de Ronde. - (Human Reproduction (2021) deaa366; p. 1-11)

• PMID: 33550376
• DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaa366

---

Abstract

Study question: What is the speed and extent by which endogenous testosterone production and spermatogenesis recover after androgen abuse?

Summary answer: Testosterone concentrations normalized within 3 months after discontinuation of androgen abuse in most subjects but recovery of spermatogenesis took longer-approximately 1 year.

What is known already: An estimated 4-6% of amateur strength athletes use androgens. Abuse of supraphysiological doses of androgens completely suppresses endogenous testosterone production and spermatogenesis.

Study design, size, duration: Prospective and observational cohort study in which 100 male amateur athletes participated for 1 year.

Participants/materials, setting, methods: Subjects (≥18 years) were included if they had not used androgens for at least 3 months and intended to start an androgen cycle within 2 weeks. Clinic visits took place before (T0), at the end (T1), and 3 months after the end of the cycle (T2), and 1 year after start of the cycle (T3), and included a blood test for gonadotrophins and sex hormones, and semen analysis.

Main results and the role of chance: During androgen abuse, 77% of subjects had a total sperm count (TSC) below 40 million. Three months after the end of the cycle (T2), total (-1.9 nmol/l, CI -12.2 to 8.33, P = 0.71) and free (-38.6 pmol/l, CI -476 to 399, P = 0.86) testosterone concentrations were not different compared to baseline, whereas mean TSC was 61.7 million (CI 33.7 to 90.0; P < 0.01) lower than baseline. At the end of follow-up (T3), there was no statistically significant difference for total (-0.82 nmol/l, CI -11.5 to 9.86, P = 0.88) and free (-25.8 pmol/l, CI -480 to 428, P = 0.91) testosterone compared to baseline, but there was for TSC (-29.7 million, CI -59.1 to -0.39, P = 0.05). In nine (11%) subjects, however, testosterone concentrations were below normal at the end of follow-up (T3), and 25 (34%) subjects still had a TSC below 40 million.

Limitations, reasons for caution: The follow-up period (after the cycle) was relatively short, especially considering the long recovery time of spermatogenesis after discontinuation of androgens.

Wider implications of the findings: Endogenous testosterone production and spermatogenesis recover following androgen abuse in the vast majority of users. Nevertheless, not all users achieve a normalized testicular function. This may especially be the case for athletes with a high past exposure to androgens.

Study funding/competing interest(s): There is no conflict of interest. The study was funded by the Spaarne Gasthuis academy.

Trial registration number: N/A.

Keywords: anabolic steroids; androgens; bodybuilding; post-cycle therapy; semen analysis; testosterone.

Related case:

NADDP 2019 ADC vs Alwyn Cassar
November 24, 2020

On 24 November 2020 the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the powerlifter after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone.

In first instance the Disciplinairy Panel accepted that the prescribed Testosterone was used for a legitimate medical treatment. However the Athlete and his doctor failed in their responsibility to apply in advance for a TUE. Also the Panel dismissed the Athlete's request not to disclose his identity.

Hereafter in December 2020 the Athlete appealed this Decision with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel. The appeal was settled by the Appeal Panel based on the written submissions of the Parties.

The Appeal Panel establishes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and that the imposed sanction was undisputed. However the Athlete requested again prohibition of disclosure of his personal details due to the sensitive nature of the case.

Following assessment of the Anti-Doping Regulations the Appeal Panel concludes that public disclosure of the anti-doping rule violation and the name of the Athlete is mandatory and not discretionary. Further the Panel deems that there are insufficient grounds to prohibit public disclosure of his identity.

Therefore the Appeal Panel decides on 8 February 2021 to dismiss the Athlete's Appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision regarding public disclosure of the anti-doping rule violation and the name of the Athlete.

• Mr Artur Karamyan is an Executive Board Member from the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF)
• Mr Dmitry Shlyaktin is the President of RusAF

In August 2018 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of the IAAF (now: World Athletics) has reported an anti-doping rule violation of Tampering against the high jumper Danil Lysenko after the AIU had opened an investigation against the Athlete regarding his Whereabouts Failures. 

With the assistance of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) the AIU discovered that the Athlete had forged medical documents to the AIU. The AIU also concluded that RusAF officials had been involved in the provision of false explanations and forged documents to the AIU in order to explain whereabouts failures by the Athlete.  

As a result in November 2019 the AIU issued charges against Mr Artum Karamyan, Dmitry Shlyakhtin, RusAF and several other RusAF officials for committing multiple anti-doping rule violations: 

• Tampering or Attempted Tampering
• Complicity
• Refusal or failure to report an Anti-Doping Rule Violation
• Refusal or failure to cooperate with investigations.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Mr Karamyan and Shlyakhtin filed a statement in their defence and they were heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal. 

The AIU contended that both sports offials were involved in the conspiracy to fabricate expanations and documents for the Whereabouts Failures of the Athlete Danil Lysenko. Also they concerted and co-ordinated attempts by RusAF officials to obstruct the AIU’s efforts to investigate the matter. Both sports offials denied the charges and their involvement in the alleged scheme. 

The Panel concludes that there is overwhelming evidence of Mr Karamyan’s involvement in the fraudulent scheme. The Panel also finds that:

• he failed to co-operate with the AIU’s investigation;
• he deleted documents from his computer to prevent them being accessed;
• he lied to the AIU in claiming he had not been involved in the conspiracy.

Considering the evidence against Mr. Shlyakhtin the Panel concludes that the charges are proved regarding Tampering and Complicity. The Panel establish that he lied to the AIU about his own involvement and failed to co-operate with the AIU investigation. 

Therefore on 8 February 2021 the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decides that: 

• Mr Karamyan and Mr Shlyakhtin were party to a conspiracy to provide false documents and evidence and in particular:

1. was guilty of Tampering within ADR 2.5
2. was guilty of Complicity within ADR 2,9
3. was guilty of failing to report an Anti-Doping Rule Violation within ADR 5.10.2
4. was guilty of failing to co-operate with the AIU investigation under ADR 5.10.3

• to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on Mr Karamyan and Mr Shlyakhtin starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 November 2019.

Doping Attitudes, Beliefs, and Practices among Young, Amateur Croatian Athletes / Ivan Miskulin, Danijela Stimac Grbic, Maja Miskulin. - (Sports 9 (2021) 2 (9 February); p. 1-10)

• PMID: 33572386
• PMCID: PMC7916256
• DOI: 10.3390/sports9020025

---

Abstract

Recent studies revealed that amateur athletes, especially young ones, have an increasing tendency of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) usage. The aim of this study was to explore PEDs attitudes, beliefs, and practices among young, amateur Croatian athletes. This cross-sectional study using a specially designed questionnaire as a research tool was done during the August 2019 to January 2020 period among a convenient sample of 400 amateur athletes of median age 18 (interquartile range 15 to 21) years. The prevalence of current PEDs usage was 1.3%, while past PEDs usage prevalence was 3.3%. Current PEDs usage was more frequent among young adults (p = 0.048) and athletes playing individual sports (p = 0.001). Athletes who were engaged in sports from one to five years had more permissive attitudes toward PEDs (p < 0.001) as measured by the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale. Female athletes had more positive beliefs about PEDs usage (p = 0.008). The study did not establish any correlation between current or past PEDs usage and attitudes toward PEDs as well as beliefs about PEDs usage. However, there was a weak positive correlation between attitudes toward PEDs and athletes' beliefs about PEDs usage (rs = 0.465, p < 0.001). PEDs usage is present among young Croatian amateur athletes. There is a need for interventions directed toward the prevention of PEDs usage in an observed subgroup of athletes.

CAS 2018/A/6069 André Cardoso v. Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI)

Related case:

UCI-ADT 2018 UCI vs André Cardoso
November 15, 2018

• Cycling
• Doping (recombinant EPO)
• Application of the CAS rules in case of a dispute before the CAS
• Dinstinct means of establishing an ADRV
• Confirmation by a B sample in “use” cases
• Hierarchy of norms
• Burden and standard of proof in “use” cases

---

1. By agreeing to hold a UCI licence, a rider consents to the jurisdiction of the CAS, which necessitates the application of the CAS rules in case of dispute. Within the CAS Code, it is not possible for a person not on the mandatory list of arbitrators to be appointed as an arbitrator in a CAS panel or for CAS rules not to apply.

2. Both the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) and the UCI Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) differentiate, deliberately, between “presence” cases and “use” cases in their provisions. While not infrequently responsible bodies may bring charges of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) under both provisions, it does not follow that a charge cannot be made good under one, but not the other.

3. There is no indication in the language of Article 2.2 of the UCI ADR that confirmation of the presence of a prohibited substance in the A sample by analysis of the B sample is essential in a charge of “use”. In addition, the comment to Article 2.2 (i) indicates that such a charge may be established by ‘any reliable means’ and (ii) expressly states that “Use may be established based upon the reliable analytical data from the analysis of an A Sample” (without confirmation from an analysis of a B Sample) or from the analysis of a B Sample alone where the Anti-Doping Organization provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample”. The provision in which the parenthesis appears is clear both in its intent and in its effect. Where the analysis of the A sample provides reliable analytical data to establish the use, there is no need for confirmation by a B sample assuming that the lack of confirmation is sufficiently explained by the Anti Doping Organization.

4. When creating new rules and regulations, the relevant organs are bound by the limits imposed on them by higher ranking norms, in particular the association’s statutes. This follows from the principle of legality. According to this principle, regulations of a lower level may complement and concretize higher ranking provisions, but not amend nor contradict or change them. The WADC is a regulation of a higher ranking than the International Standard for Laboratories; accordingly it is not possible to allow any provision of the latter to trump a provision of the former.

5. Where only a “use” case can be advanced, the anti-doping authority has to prove both that: (a) the A sample positive result is reliable; and (b) there is a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the B sample and (c) on both issues to the standard of “comfortable satisfaction”.

---

In June 2017 the International Cycling Union (UCI) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Portuguese Rider André Cardoso after his A-sample tested positive for the prohibited substance rhEPO. However the Rider’s B-sample did not confirm the test result of the A-sample, nor the analysis of his blood sample provided on the same day as the urine sample on 18 June 2017. 

Nevertheless in first instance the Sole Arbitrator was comfortably satisfied by the assessment of the evidence at hand that the conditions established by Article 2.2 of the UCI ADR (and the comment thereto) which allow a Use Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) to be established based upon (a) reliable analytical data from the analysis of an A-sample alone (without confirmation from an analysis of a B-sample) and (b) where the prosecuting authority provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of onfirmation in the other sample, are satisfied in this matter. 

Moreover, the Sole Arbitrator in first instance deemed that the Rider failed to substantiate that the presence of rhEPO in his A-sample resulted from an accidental swap of samples or a congenital / ethanol-induced disorder or a microbial activity. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Rider had committed an ADRV under Article 2.2 of the UCI ADR. Consequently the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal decided on 15 november 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, including disqualification of his results, a fine and payment of costs. 

Hereafter in December 2018 the Athlete appealed the UCI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to acquit him of any anti-doping rule violation.

Further the Athlete raised procedural claims regarding the CAS legal aid system and process. He claimed damages and raised also substantive claims regarding the Appealed Decision. 

The Athlete’s position was that an ADRV on the basis of the analysis of urine is exclusively governed by Article 2.1 of the UCI ADR, which concerns the presence of a Prohibited Substance in an athlete's sample and that, on the facts of the case, the conditions set forth in Article.2.1 to conclude to an ADRV are not satisfied. The Athlete also denied that the requirements of Article 2.2 UCI ADR (even if applicable, quod non) are met. 

The UCI's contended that the UCI ADR expressly provides for an ADRV for use, which is based solely on the analytical data of the analysis of the A-sample governed by Article 2.2 of the UCI ADR, and that, on the facts of the case, Article 2.2 is satisfied. 

Following assessment the Panel rejects the Athlete's argument regarding the overall fairness of the CAS proceeding and CAS rules. The Panel finds that it has jurisdiction and that the appeal is admissible. 

Considering the expert evidence in this case generally the Majority of the Panel finds the UCI's experts more persuasive than those of the Athlete, who appeared to be sceptical about the generally accepted methodology used to identify exogenous EPO which is a matter beyond the scope of the Panel's deliberations. 

Overall, the Panel deems that the Athlete's experts did not seriously challenge the presence of rhEPO but rather attempted to provide explanations for the Adverse Analytical Finding, none of which convinced the Panel. 

The Panel concludes that the UCI has established the existence of an ADRV under Article 2.2 of the UCI ADR based on the reliable analytical data from the A sample of the Athlete and the UCI experts' evidence to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel.

In light of this conclusion, the Panel does not need to turn either, whether as a matter of jurisdiction or of the merits, to the question of the damages sought by the Athlete, which has become moot. 

The Panel finds that the Athlete’s sanction could not be reduced on the basis of "No Fault or Negligence" or "No Significant Fault or Negligence," which was in any event not argued by him.

Finally the Panel holds that the fine ordered in the Appealed Decision failed to take into consideration the financial situation of the Athlete, resulting from his provisional suspension and accordingly reduces it by 50%. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sports decides on 10 February 2021 that:

1.) The Panel has jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by Mr. André Cardoso on 14 December 2019.

2.) The appeal filed by Mr. André Cardoso against the decision rendered by the UCI AntiDoping Tribunal on 15 November 2018 is partially granted.

3.) The fine imposed on Mr. André Cardoso in the decision rendered by the UCI AntiDoping Tribunal on 15 November 2018 is reduced to EUR 26,000; the decision rendered by the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal on 15 November 2018 is confirmed in all other respects.

4.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Comi Office fee of CHF 1000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr. André Cardoso, which is retained by the CAS.

5.) Each Party will bear their own costs incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

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