Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-019 Appeal Decision - Football
September 15, 2021

In December 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clostebol.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete requested to lift the provisional suspension and refused the ABCD's proposal for an Acceptance of Consequences. He filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and asserted that there are grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

He stated that cross contamination had caused the positive test and explained with evidence that his wife daily used the prescribed medication Novaderm - containing Clostebol - for her cervix. Through sexual intercourse thereupon the substance was transferred to his system whereas he was unaware that his wife was using this medication.

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

Previously the TJD-AD already had lifted the Provisional Suspension and the TJD-AD Rapporteur considers that the Athlete was tested before without issues while there were similar contamination cases of male athletes in this matter.

The Rapporteur accepts the Athlete's explanation and evidence; he concludes that the violation was not intentional; and that the Athlete demonstrated how the substance entered his system. Further he deems that the violation occurred in a context unrelated to sport performance and that the Athlete established No Fault or Negligence and Exeptional Circumstances.

Therefore on 1 July 2021 the TJD-AD decides not to impose any sanction on the Athlete.

Related case:

SAIDS 2020_10 SAIDS vs Thapelo Phora
June 18, 2021

On 18 June 2021 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decided to impose a reduced 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete Thapelo Phora after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

Analysis of the Athlete's sealed and unsealed supplement containers in two accredited laboratories revealed contradictory results as in some batches contamination was detected, yet not in some other containers. As a result two experts of SAIDS reported that the posibility of contamination could not be excluded.

In first instance the Panel accepted that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that he established on the balance of probabilities how the prohibited substance had entered his system.

Hereafter the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) appealed the Decision of 18 June 2021 with the Anti-Doping Appeal Board of South Africa. SAIDS requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a more severe sanction on the Athlete.

SAIDS contended that contamination of the Athlete's supplement was not proven on a balance of probabilities. It disputed the credibility of the Athlete and his witness statements and contended that he acted without utmost caution. 

Further SAIDS contended that in first instance the conclusions reached by the two experts and the Tribunal were erroneous regarding proving the source of the prohibited substance and the imposed sanction.

Considering the circumstances and evidence in this case the Appeal Panel concludes that the Athlete has established on a balance of probabilities that the contaminated supplement he used was the source of Stanozolol in his samples. Also there are no grounds to dismiss the Athlete's testimony as having been false, because after it was supported by objective facts.

Finally the Appeal Panel deems that the Athlete bears No Significant Fault or negligence, that his objective degree of fault is still to be light and that the imposed sanction is appropriate.

Therefore the Anti-Doping Appeal Board decides on 1 July 2021 to dismiss SAIDS' Appeal, to uphold the Appealed Decision of 18 June 2021 and to confirm the imposed sanction of 8 months.

An enzyme immunoassay to determine human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) in serum and urine samples using an ultra-microanalytical system / Ruben Del Valle García, Juliette M. Cazanave Mora, Nancy L. Carrazana San Martín, Orlando Zulueta Rodríguez, Antonio Melchor Rodríguez, Liliana Hernández Pérez, Raquel López Cisneros, Evelyn D. Gato Orozco, Delia Benítez Gordillo, Adriana González Quintero, Iria García de la Rosa , Remigio Coto Rodeiro. - (Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 104 (2021) 10 September; 114239)

• PMID: 34252818
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2021.114239

Abstract

The determination of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) in biological fluids is of great interest in the early pregnancy diagnostics, the evaluation of pregnancy disorders, as a tumor marker, as a screening procedure for anti-doping control, and many other purposes. A simple sandwich-type UltraMicro Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent Assay (UMELISA) has been developed for the measurement of HCG in serum and urine samples. Strips coated with a high affinity MAb directed against HCG are used as solid phase, to ensure the specificity of the assay. The HCG assay was completed in 1.5 h, with a measuring range of 0.76-400 mIU/mL. The intra- and inter-assay coefficients of variation were lower than 10 %, depending on the HCG concentrations evaluated. Recovery percentages were 96.43-97.16 % (serum) and 98.10-99.04 % (urine). The assay detected intact HCG, nicked HCG, HCG β, and nicked HCG β, and did not recognize any of the interfering molecules tested. Regression analysis showed a good correlation with Elecsys in serum (n = 1459, r = 0.952, ρc = 0.948) and urine (n = 869, r = 0.988, ρc = 0.978). A good correlation was also found with 84 RIQAS samples analyzed with the kits Elecsys (r = 0.969, ρc = 0.957), Architect (r = 0.982, ρc = 0.970), Dimension (r = 0.989, ρc = 0.977), and Bioscience (r = 0.992, ρc = 0.980), all with a p < 0.01. Comparison with transvaginal ultrasonography in early pregnancy detection showed a specificity and a sensitivity of 100 % (n = 2385, κ = 1). The analytical performance characteristics of UMELISA HCG endorse its use for the quantification of HCG in serum and urine samples. This assay will make a cost-effective diagnostic kit accessible to low-income countries and is now available in the Cuban Public Health System.

CAS 2021/A/7983 Brianna McNeal v. World Athletics (WA) & CAS 2021/A/8059 WA v. Brianna McNeal

Related case:

World Athletics 2021 WA vs Brianna McNeal
April 21, 2021

• Athletics (hurdles)
• Doping (tampering with any part of the doping control)
• Applicable law and lex mitior
• Assessment of the evidence
• Conduct to be considered tampering
• Sanction for a tampering ADRV as a first offence and exceptional circumstances
• Degree of fault
• Applicable sanction to multiple violations
• Application of the principle of proportionality

1. An exception to the principle of application of the law at the time of the facts exists if lex mitior doctrine applies. The principle of lex mitior occupies a central place in sports law. There is no discretion on the application of the lex mitior principle once it is found that the case appropriately falls within its scope. Lex mitior principle is relevant and applicable when and if the new rules (i) provide for a reduced sanction; and/or (ii) redefine the disciplinary offense. The 2021 WA Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) that enshrines the lex mitior principle offers more favourable terms to athletes with respect to the imposition of sanctions for violations of tampering offences. Equally, the new rules afford considerably greater flexibility in connection with the consequences to be drawn from a finding of multiple anti-doping rule violations.

2. The “evaluation of the evidence” concept refers to the judicial process of weighing/assessing the evidence on the record (appréciation des preuves). Under Swiss arbitration law, the deciding body is free in its evaluation of the evidence (libre appréciation des preuves). This principle is expressly recalled by Article 9(1) of the IBA Rules of Evidence. The assessment of the evidence contributes significantly to the decision-making. CAS panels need to have strong evidence that certain facts occurred in a given manner and the evidence also has to satisfy CAS panels in the same sense. The relevant circumstances of the case assessed individually and/or combined, commonly known as the context, are major elements to reach this conclusion.

3. It is not necessary for a Doping Control Process to be actually subverted, in order for a tampering offence to exist (violation of Rule 2.5 2021 WA ADR). It suffices, for that purpose, that the conduct in question could, in theory, subvert the said process. The commission of a tampering offence always requires satisfactory proof that the offender intended to subvert the investigation, even if the latter was unaware that he was violating an anti-doping provision. In the specific context of the rules, intent does not need to be direct in the sense that subverting the doping control process was the sole and only driving motive behind the athlete’s actions. Rather, it is sufficient for there to be intent that the athlete recognises the consequences of his or her actions and accepts that such consequences have the potential to subvert the process. A violation of Rule 2.5 2021 WA ADR cannot be established merely by reference to the examples included in the rule. Therefore, a finding that the offence has actually been committed must include consideration of the subjective aspects of the case. In this respect, the alteration by an athlete of the dates of medical notes issued by a clinic that is intended to explain a missed test cannot only be considered to be falsification of a document under WA ADR, but also to a conduct that tends to/is capable of subverting the Doping Control Process.

4. Under Rule 10.3.1 2021 WA ADR, a reduction of the 4 years period of ineligibility applicable for a first tampering offence in a range from 2 years to 4 years is possible if the athlete can establish exceptional circumstances depending on the athlete’s degree of fault. The specific meaning of “exceptional circumstances” is not defined in said rule. Yet, some examples of what can be considered to be “exceptional circumstances” are provided in the context of other rules. The interpretation of the expression “exceptional circumstances” must be restrictive so as only to include very unusual or abnormal situations. In this respect, the conduct of an athlete that without any doubt failed to prove that he did not intend to subvert the Doping Control Process, can nevertheless betray a certain level of psychological disturbance, which does not, however, alter the seriousness of his acts and the fact that he committed an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV). In this regard, psychological factors may amount to an abnormality that is “not within the bounds of normal conduct” and therefore to exceptional circumstances that justify that the penalty imposed on the athlete for the Tampering ADRV, when fixed on a first offence basis, varies according to the athlete’s degree of fault.

5. In order to determine into which category of fault – significant, normal or light – a particular case might fall, it is helpful to consider both the objective and the subjective level of fault. The objective element describes what standard of care could have been expected from a reasonable person in the athlete’s situation. The subjective element describes what could have been expected from that particular athlete, in light of his personal capacities. In this respect, an athlete who acted, in objective terms, with a “significant degree of fault” can, due to the existence of exceptional circumstances closely linked to the subjective aspects of the case, have his degree of fault reduced from a “significant degree of fault” to a “normal degree of fault”.

6. In the context of a second ADRV, the minimum level of the penalty to be imposed is the sum total of the period imposed for the athlete’s first ADRV and the period of ineligibility that would be imposed on the athlete for the second ADRV, on a first offence basis. The maximum limit is twice the period of ineligibility that would be imposed on the athlete for the second ADRV. The specific penalty applicable must be fixed within this range, by reference to all the circumstances and the athlete’s degree of fault with regard to the second offence.

7. The period of ineligibility sanction to be imposed on the athlete may not be further reduced under the principle of proportionality if the elements of such principle have already been dully considered in the context of the second ADRV as per the 2021 WADC. Moreover, only the most extreme and rare cases, where sanctions are clearly disproportionate and unfair, allow for an autonomous consideration of the principle of proportionality.

On 21 April 2021 the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decided to impose a 5 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for Tampering.

In this matter the AIU had established that the Athlete had provided false statements and in support had produced falisified documents in order to explain her missed test on 12 January 2020. When interviewed in August 2020 the Athlete admitted that she had altered documents.

In First Instance the Disciplinary Tribunal Panel regarded that the subjective elements of this case are very specific and exceptional. The Panel considered that the personal circumstances and trauma the Athlete was suffering at the time she committed her Tampering violation justify a reduction of her degree of Fault and reduction of the period of ineligibility for her second anti-doping rule violation.

Hereafter both the Athlete and World Athletics appealed the Decision of 21 April 2021 with the Court of Arbitratration for Sport (CAS).

After assessment of the case the CAS Panel dismissed the appeal filed by the Athlete Brianna McNeal and partially upheld the appeal filed by World Athletics. The Challenged Decision is confirmed, with one additional element.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 July 2021 that:

1. The appeal filed by Ms Brianna McNeal on 21 May 2021 against the decision of the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal dated 21 April 2021 is dismissed.
2. The appeal filed by World Athletics on 17 June 2021 against the decision of the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal dated 21 April 2021 is partially upheld.
3. The decision of the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal dated 21 April 2021 is confirmed in full, with the following additional item:
   
   

   "All competitive results obtained by Ms. Brianna McNeal between 13 February 2020 and 14 August 2020 shall be disqualified with all resulting consequences includingforfeiture of any medals, titles, points, prize money and prizes."
   
   

4. This Award is pronounced without costs, except for the CAS Court Office of CHF 1 '000 (one thousand swiss francs) paid by Ms Brianna McNeal and World Athletics which is retained by the CAS.
5. Each Party shall bear its own legal and other costs incmTed in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

The use of RNA-based 5'-aminolevulinate synthase 2 biomarkers in dried blood spots to detect recombinant human erythropoietin microdoses / Francesco Loria, Holly D, Cox, Sven C. Voss, Angela Rocca, Geoffrey D. Miller, Nathan Townsend, Costas Georgakopoulos, Daniel Eichner, Tiia Kuuranne, Nicolas Leuenberger. - (Drug Testing and Analysis (2021) 3 July)

• PMID: 34216436
• DOI: 10.1002/dta.3123

Abstract

The hematological module of the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) is used for indirect detection of blood manipulations; however, the use of this method to detect doping, such as with microdoses of recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO), is problematic. For this reason, the sensitivity of ABP must be enhanced by implementing novel biomarkers. Here, we show that 5'-aminolevulinate synthase 2 (ALAS2) mRNAs are useful transcriptomic biomarkers to improve the indirect detection of rhEPO microdosing. Moreover, the sensitivity was sufficient to distinguish rhEPO administration from exposure to hypoxic conditions. Levels of mRNAs encoding carbonate anhydrase 1 (CA1) and solute carrier family 4 member 1 (SLC4A1) RNA, as well as the linear (L) and linear + circular (LC) forms of ALAS2 mRNA, were monitored for 16 days after rhEPO microdosing and during exposure to hypoxic conditions. ALAS2 mRNAs increased by 300% compared with the baseline values after rhEPO microdosing. Moreover, ALAS2 mRNAs were not significantly increased under hypoxic conditions. By contrast, CA1 mRNA was increased after both rhEPO microdosing and hypoxia, whereas SLC4A1 mRNA did not significantly increase under either condition. Furthermore, the analyses described here were performed using dried blood spots (DBSs), which provide advantages in terms of the sample collection, transport, and storage logistics. This study demonstrates that ALAS2 mRNA levels are sensitive and specific transcriptomic biomarkers for the detection of rhEPO microdosing using the hematological module of the ABP, and this method is compatible with the use of DBSs for anti-doping analyses.

In July 2021 and in August 2021 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of World Triathlon, reported anti-doping rule violations against the Ukrainian Athlete Yulia Yelistratova. The ITA established that her samples, provided in June 2021 in Ukrain and in July 2021 in Japan, tested positive for the prohibited substance Recombinant Erythropoietin (RhEPO).

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and did not accept the sanction proposed by the ITA.

Thereupon the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure. The Athlete requested for a reduced sanction, whereas the ITA requested for the imposition of a 6 year period of ineligibility.

At first the Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and assumed that the Covid-19 vaccination could have effected her heamatological profile. After the second notification in August 2021 she admitted the violations and accepted the test results.

The Athlete alleged that she most likely had been a victim of sabotage by a Russian person claiming to be a doctor. She acknowledged that she had injected herself with supplements 35 times during 7 weeks.

The ITA contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that these violations were not intentional, nor did she prove with evidence that she was the victim of fraud or sabotage. The ITA deemed that she acted highly recklessly and negligently with grounds for aggravating circumstances.

After assessment of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator determines that:

• The Athlete wanted to improve her sporting performance in relation to the Tokyo Olympics;
• The violation happened 35 times in terms of multiple use and the circumstances of the case;
• Her samples tested positive for a prohibited substance and accordingly she committed multiple anti-doping rule violation;
• There is no corroborating evidence that proves that she is the victim of fraud or sabotage;
• She failed to demonstrate that these violations were not intentional;
• There are aggravating circumstances present in this case that justifies the imposition of a more severe sanction;
• There are no grounds that she provided substantial assisstance in this case.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 July 2023 that:

1.) The Request for arbitration filed by the International Testing Authority (ITA) on behalf of the World Triathlon on 14 September 2022 against Ms. Yulia Yelistratova is partially upheld.

2.) Ms. Yulia Yelistratova committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation in accordance with the Article 2.1 of the TRI Anti-Doping Rules.

3.) In accordance with the Articles 10.9.3., 10.2. and 10.4. of the TRI Anti-Doping Rules, Ms. Yulia Yelistratova is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of five (5) years starting from the date of this Award.

4.) Ms. Yulia Yelistratova shall receive credit for period of Provisional Suspension served from 25 July 2021 against the period of ineligibility imposed by this Award.

5.) Ms. Yulia Yelistratova’s results from the 2021 Europe Triathlon Cup Dnipro are disqualified, along with all other consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

6.) (…).

7.) (…).

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

Between November 2018 and July 2021 four Vietnamese weightlifters affiliated with the Vietnam Weightlifting Federation (WFV) tested positive for prohibited substances and a sanction of 4 years was imposed. These four violations occurred during the Qualification Period of the upcoming Tokyo Olympic Games.

Consequently the International Testing Agency (ITF), on behalf of the IWF, charged the WFV of breaching Article 4(a) of the IWF Olympic Qualification System (OQS) regarding the Tokyo Olympic Games. The case was referred to the IWF Independent Member Federations Sanctioning Panel.

The IWF contended that 4 anti-doping rule violations had been established during the Qualification Period and that the WFV as Member Federation had violated the IWF OQS Rules. The IWF requested the Panel to reduced the WFV's quota places from participation in the Tokyo Olympic Games.

The WFV asserted that due to limited funding it had not control of the four athletes at the time they committed the anti-doping rule violations. Further the WFV argued that allowing the WFV to compete at the Olympic Games would result in more funding for the development of weightlifting in Vietnam.

Considering the evidence the IWF Panel concludes that the WFV has breached Article 4(a) of the IWF OQS due to 4 anti-doping rule violations occurred during the Qualification Period. The Panel finds that the WFV should not be suspended from participation in the Olympic Games, yet to reduce the WFV's quota places.

Therefore the IWF Paneld decides on 4 July 2021:

1. The Weightlifting Federation of Vietnam has committed a breach of Article 4(a) of the IWF OQS.
2. The Weightlifting Federation of Vietnam’s quotas for the Tokyo Olympic games shall be reduced from six to two (one 1 male and 1 female).

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2021-004 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
  May 6, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-021 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
  October 1, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-029 Appeal Decision - Swimming
  December 16, 2021

In First Instance on 6 May 2021 a warming was imposed by the TJD-AD on the parathlete swimmer after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Ostarine. 

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the TJD-AD decision and requested the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal to annul the Appealed Decision.

The Rapporteur establishes that in First Instance the TJD-AD Panel was divided about the sanction and that a majority voted for the imposition of a warning whereas faults in the proceedings had created a dubious decision. 

At the hearing in First Instance the Arbitrator as Rapporteur advocated for the acquittal of the Athlete or alternatively for the imposition of a warning. Yet in the Appealed Decision was only mentioned his vote for a warning without remarks about the validity of the complaint and the acquittal or warning of the Athlete. 

Because of the established failures the TJD-AD Appeal Panel concludes that the Appealed Decision is not accomplished in accordance with the stipulations of the Brazilian Anti-Doping Code (CDA). Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 5 July 2021 to refer the case back to the TJD-AD Disciplinary Panel and to annul the parathlete's provisional suspension.

Between November 2018 and July 2021 three Colombian weightlifters affiliated with the Colombian Weightlifting Federation (FEDEPESAS) tested positive for prohibited substances and a sanction of 4 years was imposed. These three violations occurred during the Qualification Period of the upcoming Tokyo Olympic Games.

Consequently the International Testing Agency (ITF), on behalf of the IWF, charged the FEDEPESAS of breaching the IWF ADR and the IWF Olympic Qualification System (OQS) regarding the Tokyo Olympic Games.

The FEDEPESAS did not challenge the alleged breaches in June 2021 and agreed on the consequences without the need for a dispute before the IWF Independent Member Federations Sanctioning Panel. In July 2021 the ITA and the FEDEPESAS reached a settlement Agreement and they requested the IWF Panel to issue a consent Decision.

Therefore the IWF Panel decides on 5 July 2021:

1. Member Consequences applicable to the FEDEPESAS are as follows:

• Withdrawal of 5 out of the 8 quotas for the Tokyo Olympic Games, leaving the FEDEPESAS with 2 male quotas and 1 female quota.
• For the duration of one year (starting on 29 June 2021 when the terms have been agreed and until 29 June 2022):
• withdrawal of the right to organize IWF Events, IWF Congress, IWF Executive Board meetings, meetings of IWF Commissions and Committees (if the right to organize such event taking place during the period of sanction has been allocated to the Member Federation prior to the notification of the sanction, the event shall be considered as revoked);
• exclusion from participation in the IWF Congress with voting rights;
• withdrawal of the right to submit proposals for inclusion on the Agenda of the IWF Congress;
• withdrawal of the right to take part in and benefit from the IWF Development program apart from Education and anti-doping seminars.

2. The FEDEPESAS ensures that its Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel attend two anti-doping education sessions hosted by the ITA (in Spanish) within the next 12 months and to bear the ITA’s related costs and the costs of ensuring that the Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel are available, if any;

3. The FEDEPESAS makes its Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel aware of the ITA’s Reveal confidential reporting platform, the FEDEPESAS posts a link on its website to the ITA’s Reveal platform, and the FEDEPESAS Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel download the ITA’s Reveal reporting app (once available);

4 The FEDEPESAS ensures that it shares the dates and locations of training camps of the National Team’s Athletes with the ITA on a timely basis;

5. The FEDEPESAS makes its Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel available for an interview with the ITA, upon ITA’s simple request;

6. The FEDEPESAS cannot apply for a conditional lifting of the suspension as per 12.6.1 Article IWF ADR.

7. No fine is to be imposed against the FEDEPESAS given the cost saving of this settlement procedure and absence of appeal procedure.

8. The FEDEPESAS accepts to waive any and all rights or claims for damages in the scope of this proceeding.

iNADO Update (2021) 07 (5 July)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

iNADO Community

• Drug Free Sport New Zealand supported to deal with new Doping Challenges
• Germany adds Leniency Program to Anti-Doping Law
• Annual Reports 2020
• WADA invites Stakeholders to nominate Candidates for 2022 Standing Committee Member Vacancies

Bulletin Board

• iNADO Webinar: Best Practices in Social and Scientific Research with Guest Speakers from PCC and UKAD
• Interactive Visualization of Capability Register Results v2.0 (Power Bi)
• Vacany at Commonwealth Games 2022

Athlete's Voice

• "Anti-Doping can only benefit from independent and professional Athlete Representations"

People

• Allison Wagner, new Director of Athlete & International Relations of USADA introduces herself
• Kum Pyoung Kim joins KADA as Secretary-General

Science

• New Paper investigates Attitudes towards and susceptibility to doping in Spanish Elite and National Standard Track and Field Athletes
• Autobiographies of Cyclists sanctioned for Performance-Enhancing Drug Use analysed for deceptive Communication Techniques

Practical Development in Anti-Doping

• WADA announces further Rise in Global Testing Figures in lead-up to Tokyo 2020

Feature of the Month

• iNADO's #MembersWednesday on Twitter

iNADO Partners & Sponsors

• New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center