De Nederlandse topsporter en het anti-dopingbeleid 2014-2015 / Erik Duiven en Olivier de Hon. - Capelle aan de IJssel, 2015

Athletes must comply with the doping regulations adopted by the sports organisations. There is also some resistance among some athletes to the implementation of the anti-doping policy. The Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands (ADAN) periodically surveys Dutch elite athletes to determine their views of this policy.

The goals of this study were:
1. to establish a picture of the efficacy, and the perception, of the current anti-doping policy and procedures within the total field of Dutch elite sports;
2. to evaluate the anti-doping policy of ADAN;
3. to establish concrete recommendations with the aim of making doping detection methods more effective and developing educational resources that will prevent unnecessary pressure on the athletes.

In line with previous years, the ‘elite-status athletes’ were the main target group. These are athletes who have been granted the official elite status by the Netherlands Olympic Committee*Netherlands Sports Confederation (NOC*NSF) and as such they have shown to be able to place in the top-8 in world championships in their respective disciplines, or can be expected to reach this level in the near future.
For the first time, the group surveyed also included elite Track & Field (T&F) athletes, elite cyclists and a group of other elite athletes, all competing at the highest national level in their respective disciplines.

The doping prevalence questions were established using the ‘Randomised Response’ method. This method uses randomisation to produce more honest answers to questions that are socially sensitive. This was the first time this method had been used in a study of doping in elite sports in the Netherlands.

Dutch elite sport is not doping-free. The best available estimate is that 4.2% of elite-status athletes use doping. The estimate of the number of doping users in Dutch elite sports is higher than the estimates from previous studies of Dutch elite athletes. This is most probably due to the use of the ‘Randomised Response’ method.

CAS 2014/A/3866 United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) v. Mohamed Trafeh

Related case:

AAA No. 01 14 0000 4694 USADA vs Mohamed Trafeh
December 2, 2014

• Athletics (long distance)
• Doping (rhEPO)
• Possibility of the parties to request the review of a part of the appealed decision
• Justifications for starting the period of ineligibility earlier than the start date of the hearing decision

1. A party appealing a decision before the CAS may request the CAS panel to review only a part of the decision appealed against and not seek a de novo review of the entire appealed decision.

2. Comment to Article 10.9 of the WADA Code expressly states there are only two justifications for starting the period of ineligibility earlier than the start date of the hearing decision: substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of doping control not attributable to the athlete. In accordance with CAS jurisprudence, it is appropriate to consider official comments when interpreting the provisions of the WADC and anti-doping rules based on the WADC.

On 2 December 2014 the American Arbitration Association (AAA) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Mohamed Trafeh for committing multiple anti-doping rule violations:

1.) Purchase of recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO);

2.) Possession and transport of rhEPO from Morocco to the United States;

3.) Intentionally providing USADA with false or misleading information regarding his whereabouts in order to avoid having to submit to testing;

4.) Refusal to accept full responsibility for his past doping offense or take redemptive measures to help stem future occurrences of prohibited doping activity in sport, and refusal to participate in these proceedings.

Hereafter in December 2014 USADA appealed the AAA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and requested the Panel to start the period of ineligibility on the date of the hearing decision, i.e. on 2 December 2014.

The Sole Arbitrator determines that there is no evidence establishing that the Athlete promptly and unequivocably admitted his anti-doping rule violations after being confronted with evidence of their occurrence by USADA. The Athlete could have raised this issue as well as any other potential defenses by participating and testifying in this proceeding by video or telephone conference, but he choose not to do so.

Nevertheless, even if the Athlete had done so, pursuant to Article 10.9.2 of the WADC (the period of Ineligibility may start as early as the date on which another anti-doping rule violation last occurred), the latest possible start date of his period of ineligibility would be 1 January 2014 based on credible and undisputed evidence he admitted purchasing EPO in January 2014.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 August 2015 that:

1. The appeal filed by the United States Anti-Doping Agency on 23 December 2014 is upheld.
2. The 2 December 2014 decision by the American Arbitration Association/North American Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “Appealed Decision”) determining that Mr. Mohamed Trafeh committed multiple anti-doping rule violations; aggravated circumstances exist justifying an enhanced period of ineligibility of four (4) years; and all benefits, awards, titles, medals, points, or remuneration from his participation in sport from 1 January 2012 through and including 2 December 2014 are invalidated is affirmed.
3. The Appealed Decision’s determination that the start date for Mr. Mohammed Trafeh’s four (4) year period of ineligibility is 1 January 2012 is vacated, and its start date is amended to 2 December 2014.
4. (…).
5. (…).
6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

RUSADA Annual statistics and reporting 2010 / Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA). - Moscow : Российское антидопинговое агентство (РУСАДА), 2011

Contents
1. Introduction. RUSADA Priorities and Goals in 2010 2
2. Report on RUSADA Activities in 2010 3
2.1. Structural and Organizational Transformations 3
2.2 Doping controls 4
2.3 Results Management 5
2.4 Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (TUEC) 6
2.5 Working out and Implementation of Information and Education Programs 7
2.6 Cooperation with Major Events Organization Committees 12
2.7 Regional Cooperation and Cooperation with Physical Culture and Sports Organizations 13
2.8 International Liaisons 14
2.9 Cooperation with Anti-Doping Norway and WADA as Part of ISO 9001 Certification Program 15
3 RUSADA Priority Activities in 2011 16
Appendixes
1_1 2010 Tests Distribution by Types of Tests 17
1_2 Samples Collected by Types of Tests and Types of Sports 18
1_3 2010 Samples Collected by Sports 19
1_4 Samples Collected in Summer and Winter Olympic Sports 20
1_5 Samples Collected from Athletes with Disabilities 21
1_6 Samples Collected by Age of the Athletes 22
1_7 Samples Distribution by Regions of the Russian Federation 24
1_8 Samples Distribution by Cities of the Russian Federation 26
1_9 Samples Collected in Moscow Region 27

NADA Jahrbuch 2009 / Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA). - Aachen : Meyer & Meyer Verlag, 2010. -
ISBN 978-3-89899-620-4

Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA) Jahresbericht 2008 / Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA). - Bonn : NADA, 2009

Nationalen Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA) Jahresbericht 2007 / Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA). - Bonn : NADA, 2008

Jahresbericht 2006 der Nationalen Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA) / Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA). - Bonn : NADA, 2007

Doping-Bilanz der NADA für den Deutschen Sport 2005 / Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA). - Bonn : NADA, 2006

Doping-Bilanz der NADA für den Deutschen Sport 2004 / Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA). - Bonn : NADA, 2005

Annual Report 2010 / Anti-Doping Switzerland. - Bern : Antidoping Schweiz, 2011