CAS 2010/A/2090 Finnish Ski Association & Aino-Kaisa Saarinen v. FIS On 20 December 2009, the FIS disqualified Ms Saarinen after a World Cup 15 km race at Rogla, Slovenia for a violation of the ICR Article 392.5 (intentional obstruction during a race). On 22 December 2009, the Appeals Commission of the FIS dismissed her appeal. On 5 March 2010, the FIS Court dismissed her further appeal against the decision of the Appeals Commission, that this appeal is brought. On 1 April 2010, Ms Saarinen and the FSA filed their statement of appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS Panel has no means (any more than the FIS Court did) of comparing Ms Saarinen's case with others of necessity unexplored before it. It is in any event axiomatic that reasonable people (including sporting bodies) may reasonably have different views as to the gravity of different breaches of the rules of the sports and the sanctions appropriate to them. While CAS enjoys the power to form its own view on the proportionality of any sanction, it ought not to ignore the expertise of the bodies involved in the particular sport in determining what sanctions are appropriate to what offence. It is notable that in this case three separate ski bodies reached the same conclusion as to penalty even if by different routes. The Panel considers that the FIS Court had a margin of appreciation not exceeded in this case. The Panel finds that Ms Saarinen can at least be consoled by this that on the finding of the FIS Court she was not guilty of a deliberate effort to frustrate in an improper manner a competitor. She was guilty only of an offence of lesser seriousness. She is an experienced, successful and well respected cross country skier. This incident has caused, the Panel trusts, only a transient blow to her reputation. The Court of Arbitration for Sport rules on 7 February 2011 that: 1. The appeal filed by the Finnish Ski Association & Aino-Kaisa Saarinen on 1 April 2010 is dismissed. 2. The decision rendered by the FIS Court on 5 March 2010 is confirmed. 3. (...)
The 2012 Prohibited List International Standard : The World Anti-Doping Code / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2011. - The official text of the Prohibited List shall be maintained by WADA and shall be published in English and French. In the event of any conflict between the English and French versions, the English version shall prevail. - This List shall come into effect on 1 January 2012
Doping Dokumente : Von der Forschung zum Betrug / Birgit Berendonk. - Berlin : Springer Verlag, 1991 ISBN 3-540-53742-2 ISBN 0-387-53742-2 First edition of the book on East German Anti-doping.
The 2011 Prohibited List International Standard : The World Anti-Doping Code / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2010. - The official text of the Prohibited List shall be maintained by WADA and shall be published in English and French. In the event of any conflict between the English and French versions, the English version shall prevail. - This List shall come into effect on 1 January 2011
World Anti-Doping Code 2003 / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2003 ________________________________________________ The World Anti-Doping Code (Code) is the core document that harmonizes anti-doping policies, rules and regulations within sport organizations and among public authorities around the world. It works in conjunction with six International Standards which aim to foster consistency among anti-doping organizations in various areas: testing; laboratories; Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs); the List of Prohibited Substances and Methods; the protection of privacy and personal information; and Code Compliance by Signatories. This unified approach addresses problems that previously arose from disjointed and uncoordinated anti-doping efforts, including, among others: a scarcity and splintering of resources required to conduct research and testing; a lack of knowledge about specific substances and procedures being used and to what degree; and an inconsistent approach to sanctions for those athletes found guilty of doping. Ever since it entered into force on 1 January 2004, the Code has proven to be a powerful and effective tool in the harmonization of anti-doping efforts worldwide. This has been demonstrated by the overwhelming support of governments and sports in accepting the Code, in addition to the growing body of jurisprudence from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in supporting the principles of the Code. The adoption of the Code led to several significant advances in the global fight against doping in sport, including the formalization of certain rules and the clarification of stakeholder responsibilities. This new approach to anti-doping brought consistency to a previously disjointed system. The Code has also been instrumental in introducing the concept of “non-analytical” rule violations. Non-analytical rule violations have allowed anti-doping organizations to apply sanctions in cases where there is no positive doping sample, but where there may still be evidence that a doping violation has occurred (e.g. through a combination of three missed tests / whereabouts failures; longitudinal testing; evidence brought forward through an investigation).
CAS 2001/A/328 F. / International Sports Organization for the Disabled (ISOD), International Paralympic Committee (IPC), Disabled Sports USA (DS/USA) Doping (nandrolone) Stay of the execution of a sanction _________________________________________________ The Appellant, an athlete affiliated to Disabled Sports USA (DS/USA), underwent a doping control on the occasion of the 11th Paralympic Summer Games in Sydney. The Appellant provided two urine samples on 21 October 2000 (“A” sample) and on 25 October 2000 (“B” sample). The doping control performed by the Australian Drug Testing Laboratory (ADTL) revealed a prohibited trace amount of nandrolone metabolites. The report of the testing laboratory concerning this doping control does not mention the exact concentration of nandrolone metabolites found in Appellant's urine. On 29 October 2000, the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), upon the recommendation of the IPC medical Commission decided to suspend the Appellant from all competitions for 4 years, including the 12th Paralympic Summer Games in 2004. The CAS Panel finds that in the instant case a hearing of the Appeal cannot take place prior to the 10 August 2001 because the IPC’s offices will be closed and the IPC representatives will not be able to respond and/or participate until that date. The Panel finds that if the Appellant’s request for provisional relief is denied, he will be ineligible to compete in the International Challenge Track and Field Championship even if he is successful in his appeal of the decision of DS/USA; The interests of the Respondents in maintaining the suspension would appear to be minimally affected by the granting of limited interim relief. The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 3 August 2001: 1.) Grants the request for a stay of the suspension of F. until the final award. 2.) States that the present order is pronounced without costs.
CAS 2010/A/2296 Simon Vroemen v/ Koninklijke Nederlandse Atletiek Unie & Anti-Doping Autoriteit Nederland Athletics (steeplechase) Doping (methandienone) Burden and standard of proof regarding departures from International Standards Validity of sample collection and storage Minor documentation defect Transportation of sample “Different analyst” rule CAS scope of review regarding the validation of a detection method Delivery of the Laboratory’s standard operating procedures (SOPs) Purpose of the analysis of the B sample for a non-threshold substance 1. According to the applicable provisions of the Dutch Institute for Sports Law (ISR) Doping Regulations, when an adverse analytical finding is reported by a WADA-accredited laboratory, there is a presumption that the applicable International Standards were respected throughout the whole anti-doping process. The burden is thus on the athlete to establish, by a balance of probability, a departure from the International Standard for Testing (IST) or International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) either during the collection, handling and transport of the samples or during the analysis, custodial and review procedures in the laboratory. If the athlete does prove any such departure, the burden shifts back to the anti-doping organization to prove – to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made – that the departure did not cause the adverse analytical finding. 2. Where on the balance of probability, an athlete’s allegations concerning the sample collection and storage procedure have not been proven, it must be concluded that the anti-doping test performed by the Doping Control Officer (DCO) on the athlete was properly carried out and that the samples were properly stored in accordance with the applicable collection procedures. 3. A declaration signed by an athlete that s/he was satisfied with the sample collection procedure cures any minor documentation defect such as the absence on the Doping Control Form of the athlete’s address and sport discipline, which, as a consequence and in terms of the applicable rules, cannot even be regarded as a true “departure” from the IST. 4. Three and half days between the end of the sample collection and the arrival of the sample at an accredited Lab does not constitute an unacceptable period of transport and certainly cannot be characterized as being “too long” in terms of the IST. This time-frame is arguably not ideal but it is in line with common testing practice, especially when sample collection occurs far away from a WADA-accredited laboratory. 5. No departure from ISL relating to the “different analyst rule” prohibiting the same person to participate in the A and B sample analysis can be retained if an athlete did not satisfy his/her burden of proof in this respect on the balance of probability. 6. A CAS panel cannot place in question whether an ISO accreditation was correctly attributed to a laboratory, because this would render the whole international standardization and certification system meaningless and because, notoriously, compliance with ISO accreditation requirements is regularly checked by external auditors. However, a CAS panel may certainly verify whether a given method used by a laboratory is covered by the accreditation or not. In any event, it is for an athlete to establish on a balance of probability, that either method is not validated for specificity. 7. No rule obliges an accredited Lab to deliver the Laboratory’s standard operating procedures (SOPs). In fact, pursuant to the WADA Technical Document TD2003LDOC, the Laboratory is not required to support an Adverse Analytical Finding by producing SOPs, general quality management documents (e.g., ISO compliance documents) or any other documents not specifically required. However, the above WADA provision does not and may not preclude a CAS panel, if the conditions set forth by article R44.3 of the CAS Code are met, from ordering an anti-doping organization to produce specified and relevant extracts from the SOPs of a WADA-accredited laboratory. 8. ISL provisions make clear that, in the case of a non-threshold substance, the laboratory method for analyzing the B sample is not aimed at having identical analytical results or at gaining information on the background or the quantification, but only at confirming the presence of the prohibited substance. In other terms, the ISL only requires the identification in the B sample of the same prohibited substance that was found in the A sample. _________________________________________________ In June 2008 the Royal Dutch Athletics Association (Koninklijke Nederlandse Atletiek Unie, KNAU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Dutch Athlete Simon Vroemen after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methandienone. In his defence the Athlete disputed the irregularities in the sample collection procedure, the chain of custody and the competence and capability of the laboratory. The KNAU Decision Disciplinary Committee accepted the Athlete's arguments and decided, after two interim decisions, on 28 January 2010 for acquittal of the Athlete. However the Dopingautoriteit (Anti-doping Authority Netherlands) appealed the KNAU decision and on 22 September 2010 the KNAU Appeal Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Hereafter in November 2010 the Athlete appealed the decision of 22 September 2010 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the CAS Panel to set aside the decision, acquit him of the anti-doping violation and to lift the suspension. The Panel holds that the Appellant has not satisfied his burden of proving, in accordance with the balance of probability standard, that his adverse analytical finding derived from his legitimate ingestion of budesonide before the anti-doping control. As a result the Panel, in evaluating the evidence submitted by the parties, holds that the Respondents have discharged their burden of proving to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel, hearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation, that a metabolite of methandienone was present in the Athlete's urine samples. Methandienone and its metabolites are prohibited substances as evidenced by their inclusion in the Prohibited List in force at the time of the offence. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport rules on 12 September 2011: 1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Simon Vroemen against the decision issued on 10 November 2010 by the Appeal Committee of the Dutch Institute for Sports Law is dismissed. 2.) The decision issued on 10 November 2010 by the Appeal Committee of the Dutch Institute for Spoils Law is hereby confirmed. 3.) Mr. Simon Vroemen is declared ineligible for a period of two years, starting from 10 November 2010, whereby the period of ineligibility already seived by Mr. Vroemen on the basis of the decision of the KNAU dated 21 July 2008 shall be credited to this sanction. 4.) The costs of the present arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Conit Office, shall be boiiie by Mr, Simon Vroemen. 5.) Mr. Simon Vroemen is ordered to pay to the Anti-Doping Autoriteit Nederland an amount of CHF 10,000 (ten thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution towards the latter's costs incnn'ed in connection with the present arbitration. 6.) All other requests, motions or prayers for relief are rejected.
Dopingautoriteit jaarverslag 2010 / Dopingautoriteit. - Capelle aan de IJssel, 2011 Annual Report 2010 This is the fifth Annual Report from the Anti-Doping Authority of the Netherlands. In several respects, 2010 was a transitional year. First of all because it became clear during the course of the year that the Doping Authority will not escape government cutbacks. As a result, in the years to come, we can expect to get smaller rather than grow. 2010 was also a transitional year: the basic principles were drawn up for changes in the national doping policy and they will affect the work of the Doping Authority in 2011, and later, in several respects. We look back with satisfaction at a fruitful year and we hope that this annual report will provide you, once again, with a clear picture of the work of our organisation.
Dopingautoriteit jaarverslag 2009 / Dopingautoriteit. - Capelle aan den IJssel, 2010 This is the fourth Annual Report from the Anti-Doping Authority of the Netherlands. In recent years, our organisation has proven increasingly able to fulfil effectively the responsibilities delegated to us by the government and organised sports. At the same time, it undeniable that this increased efficacy – and our associated reputation and high profile – are powering opposing forces in our society as a whole and in the world of sports in particular. In 2009, there was a broad – and necessary –public discussion about the anti-doping policy and the way it is implemented. A range of groups in society criticised the global policy and – albeit to a lesser extent – the way in which that policy is implemented in the Netherlands. In a number of complex and high-profile cases, that policy and that implementation have been, and continue tobe, tested. These developments will all contributeto our ultimate objective: clean, fair sport. Despite the efforts that went into dealing with doping violations, our organisation continues to focus to an important extent on preventing cases of this kind. Prevention and education continue to be of undiminished importance. We hope that this annual report will provide you, once again, with a clear picture of the work of our organisation. The board of management
This is the third Annual Report from the Anti-Doping Authority of the Netherlands. The organisation was established on 23 June 2006 with the merger of the Netherlands Centre for Doping Affairs and Doping Control Netherlands. The Doping Authority has now proven that housing Prevention and Control in a single organisation was an important step. The merger has allowed us to operate more effectively. Public awareness of the organisation and the organisation’s profile also received a major boost. Changes in policy were introduced in 2008 in areas where the Doping Authority is active, largely as a result of the decisions taken in late 2007 by the General Meeting of the NOC*NSF. Those decisions constituted the basis for the formation of the ‘registered testing pool’ and the obligations incumbent upon the people included in that testing pool. As a result, it was possible to conduct doping controls in a more targeted and effective way and our educational activities reached many more elite athletes than in previous years. The changes in the regulations have resulted in an increasing number of protracted follow-up investigations so that it can sometimes take more than six months before definitive decisions can be made about the result of a doping control. That is one of the reasons it was not possible to publish this annual report earlier. We hope that this annual report will provide you with a clear picture of the work of our organisation. The board of management