CAS 2020/A/7377 El Mahjoub Dazza v. World Athletics

Related case:

World Athletics 2020 WA vs El Mahjoub Dazza
July 24, 2020

In January 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Moroccan Athlete El Mahjoub Dazza after an AIU Expert Panel concluded unanimously in October 2019 in their Joint Expert Opinion that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping.

Consequently the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decided on 24 July 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in August 2020 the Athlete appealed the Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Without a hearing the Panel rendered an Award based on the Parties' written submissions.

The Athlete denied the violation and supported by an expert witness he disputed the validity of the ABP. He asserted that the values in his ABP could be explained as a result of high altitude and his training regime.

Further the Athlete argued that in First Instance several of his procedural rights were violated and that these violations should lead to the annulment of the Appealed Decision and the four-year period of ineligibility imposed on him.

The Panel holds that even in case the Athlete's procedural rights had been violated in the proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal, any such violation was in any event cured in the present arbitration before CAS under its de nova competence.

Considering the evidence in this case the Panel deems that the values detected in the Athlete's ABP were highly abnormal and indicated a high probability of doping while the Athlete had not submitted any contradictory evidence.

On that account the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the abnormal values were caused by a blood doping scenario.  Accordingly the Panel concludes that the Athlete had committed and anti-doping rule violation without grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 23 April 2021 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 19 August 2020 by Mr El Mahjoub Dazza with the Court of Arbitration for Sport against the decision rendered on 24 July 2020 by the World Athletics (IAAF) Disciplinary Tribunal is dismissed.

2.) The decision rendered on 24 July 2020 by the World Athletics (IAAF) Disciplinary Tribunal is confirmed.

3.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the CAS Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr El Mahjoub Dazza, which is retained by the CAS.

4.) Mr El Mahjoub Dazza is ordered to pay to World Athletics (IAAF) the amount of CHF 3,000 (three thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution towards its the legal fees and expenses incurred in relation to the present proceedings.

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

CAS 2020/A/7250 Gomathi Marimuthu v. World Athletics

Related case:

World Athletics 2019 WA vs Gomathi Marimuthu
May 26, 2020

In June 2019 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete Gomathi Marimuthu after her A and B samples, provided during four competitions in March and April 2019, tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Consequently the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decided on 26 May 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In First Instance the Disciplinary Panel deemed that the Athlete had failed to explain how exactly the alleged departures in sample collection, handling and analysis could potentially influence the outcome of the laboratory analysis.

Further the Panel deemed that the Athlete failed to produce evidence that she suffered from a medical condition nor demonstrated with evidence how this medical condition or her physical activity could have effected the 19-norandrosterone level in her system.

Hereafter in June 2020 the Athlete appealed the Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Decision of 26 May 2020 and for the imposition of a reduced sanction.

The Athlete asserted that there had been several departures from the ISTI and ISL regarding the chain of custody and the storage of the samples. Also she claimed that her miscarriage and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) could explain the high concentration of endogenous 19-Norandrosterone in her system.

World Athletics contented that the alleged discrepancies regarding the Athlete's samples are not significant departures of the ISL and ISTI and they would not invalidate the test results. Also the Athlete's alleged miscarriage and PCOS cannot explain the presence of the prohibited substance 19-Norandrosterone in her system.

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete's PCOS, her pregnancy and miscarriage cannot explain the high concentration of 19-Norandrosterone in her samples. Regarding the sampling and the testing process the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the alleged discrepancies were significant departures that could have caused the positive test results.

Finally the Sole Arbitrator holds that the Athlete failed to show the absence of guilt or negligence. Conversely from the beginning she has expressed consternation and disbelief, and cannot account for the presence of the prohibited substance.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 23 April 2021 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 22 June 2020 by Ms Gomathi Marimuthu against World Athletics with respect to the Decision issued on 26 May 2020 by World Athletics' Disciplinary Tribunal is rejected.

2.)The Decision of the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal on 26 May 2020 is upheld.

3.) This arbitral award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Ms Gomathi Marimuthu, which is retained by CAS.

4.) Each party shall bear their own legal and other costs.

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

Fighting and doping : Professional mixed martial artists experience and exposure to performance-enhancing substances and supplements / Julian (Jules) R. Woolf, Hyunseo (Violet) Yoon, Kaushik Perkari. - (Performance Enhancement & Health 9 (2021) 1 (May); 100190)

Abstract

In the last few decades, mixed martial arts (MMA) has grown to become a mainstream sport, broadcasted worldwide. The increased commercialization, structure, and physical requirements of the sport arguably make the use of performance-enhancing drugs (PED) attractive to MMA fighters. In contrast, cultural aspects within MMA and diverse expressions of masculinity may temper PED use. Yet, the sport has received little empirical inquiry. This exploratory study sought to understand MMA fighters’ experience and exposure to PED and sport supplements. Specifically, how fighters learn about, use, and rationalize the use of these substances was explored, along with cultural aspects of the sport that may influence use. Furthermore, given the rapid rise of this sport, generational differences between veterans and early-career fighters were examined. Seventeen semi-structured interviews with professional MMA fighters were conducted and analyzed using a two-cycle coding method. The presentation of results was organized into four categories: learning and conversing, supplement and PED use, rationalization of use, and MMA contextual factors. Multiple misconceptions existed and the use of both supplements and performance-enhancing substances followed similar justifications linked to recovery, performance enhancement, and deficiency correction. Marijuana emerged as a debated performance-enhancing substance. Experimentation was common and knowledge acquisition strategies differed based on career stage and standing within the fighting and doping community. Fighters acknowledged the pressure to dope. However, cultural aspects of the sport and a purity perspective provide deterrents to both supplement and PED use. The implications of these findings, along with recommendations for future research are discussed.

Årsrapport 2020 Stiftelsen Antidoping Norge / Antidoping Norge (ADNO). - Oslo : ADNO, 2021

Related case:

ISR 2018 KNKF Decision Disciplinary Committee 2018001 T
March 26, 2018

On 26 March 2018 the ISR-KNKF Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Person after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Clenbuterol, Testosterone and 17α-methyl-5β-androstane-3α,17β-diol.

Hereafter in February 2021 the Dopingautoriteit has reported  that the Person had breached the imposed period of ineligibility through his participation in Germany into 2 powerlifting competitions.

After notification by the Doping Sanction Compliance Commission (CND) the Person failed to respond nor filed a statement in his defence. The CND renders a decision without a hearing based on the Parties' written submissions.

In support of the charges the Dopingautoriteit filed 2 online results lists as evidence showing that the Person had participated into the 2 powerlifting competitions in Germany in 2018 and in 2019.

Considering the evidence in this case the CND establishes that the Person through his participation into the 2 competitions in question indeed had breached the imposed period of ineligibility. Consequently a new period of ineligibility will be imposed on the Person without grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Doping Sanction Compliance Commission decides on 27 April 2021 to impose a new 4 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on the date the current period of ineligibility shall end, i.e. on 4 January 2022.

The Person has not to pay the fees and expenses for this commission.

Annual Report 2020 / Anti-Doping Switzerland. - Bern : Antidoping Schweiz, 2021

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-005 Disciplinary Decision - Athletics
March 9, 2021

On 9 March 2021 the TJD-AD decided to impose a 4 year period on an Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Canrenone, Modafinil and Oxandrolone. Also a 4 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete's sports Doctor for the administration of these substances.

Hereafter the Doctor appealed the TJD-AD decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal.

The Doctor denied that he had acted intentionally and that the substances were used as prescibed medication for the treatment of the Athlete as an amateur in order to recover from his injuries. Yet ABCD's medical team deemed that Oxandrolone is an invalid medication for the treatment of injuries and Canrenone is only allowed with a TUE when other effective medications were unavailable.

The Rapporteur finds that the Doctor only sought a medical justification for the administration of the substances and that he ignored the breaches of anti-doping rules. Further the Rapporteur observes that the Doctor repeatedly failed to attend the hearings without a jusitification or due to unsubstantiated Covid-19 contraction.

In view of the anti-doping rules the Rapporteur rejected the Doctor's arguments for annulment of the Appealed Decision and concludes that the Doctor intentionally had administered the prohibited substances. There was also no medical justification for the application of these prohibited substances.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal decides on 29 April 2021 to dismiss the Doctor's appeal and to uphold the sanction of a 4 year period of ineligibility imposed in the Appealed Decision.

NADA Annual Report 2020 / National Anti Doping Agency of Germany. - Bonn : Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA), 2021
NADA Material No. 89

Prevalence and profile of users and non-users of anabolic steroids among resistance training practitioners / Ericson Pereira, Samuel Jorge Moyses, Sérgio Aparecido Ignácio, Daniel Komarchewski Mendes, Diego Sgarbi D.A. Silva, Everdan Carneiro, Ana Maria Trindade Grégio Hardy, Edvaldo Antônio Ribeiro Rosa, Patrícia Vida Cassi Bettega, Aline Cristina Batista Rodrigues Johann. - (BMC Public Health 19 (2019) 1650 (9 December)

• PMID: 31818274
• PMCID: PMC6902556
• DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-8004-6

Abstract

Background: To verify the prevalence and profile of users and non-users of anabolic steroid (AS) among resistance training practitioners.

Methods: An observational, cross-sectional survey was performed in 100 gyms in Curitiba city, involving 5773 individuals and self-administered questionnaires. The chi-square and z-tests of proportions were used for comparison between the groups (p < 0.05).

Results: 83.2% did not use, 9.1% formerly used, 3.4% currently used, and 4.3% intended used AS. The prevalence of former or current AS users was 16.9 and 6.5% among men and women, respectively. The prevalence ratios were as follows: 1) 2.6 male users for each woman; 2) 3.3 individuals aged 30-44 years and 2.8 individuals aged 18-29 years for each individual aged over 45 years. Beginners were not interested in using AS, but individuals who had trained longer had higher prevalence of AS use.

Conclusions: The gym environment encouraged the use of AS owing to aesthetic appeal. Thus, suggesting the need for actions to prevent abusive use of AS considering the practitioners profile (practitioners were young, university and single).

2019 Annual Report / Sri Lanka Anti-Doping Agency (SLADA). - Colombo : SLADA, 2020