Doping in professional sport / Christophe Brissonneau. - 2008
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies, European Parliament. - IP/B/CULT/IC/2007-067 PE 405.404

This study examines the current and future ways in which doping can be detected by reviewing the various practices and sporting disciplines. Beyond a simple description, the study takes a wider look at the reasons behind the fight against doping, illustrating models which vary in how they address this important issue.
Suggestions are also made on how the EU should tackle doping in future, based on the various models described.

Facts
On 29 March 2014, Flora Bouchereau, the athlete, addressed an appeal against a doping sanction, dated October 15, 2013, to the WDSF Disciplinary Council (WDSF DC) by e-mail.

History
On 17 August 2013, the Athlete competed in the World Championships in Boogie Woogie Main Class, held in Stuttgart, Germany. The Athlete was selected for a doping control and was asked to refer to the check-in-desk immediately after finishing the competition. Nevertheless, the Athlete presented herself to the WDSF Anti-Doping representative more than 30 minutes after she had completed her last competition. During the test, the Athlete stated that she had health problems and therefore had used phloroglucinol the week before the competition. The Athlete did not request a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for this or other medications.
Her sample tested positive for morphine. The Athlete had stated to have taken a medication called “Dafalgan Codeine” against sore throat, common cold and headaches. The Athlete assured to the WRRC representative that she had not known that the substances contained in her medication were not allowed. the WDSF Anti-Doping Commission Chair stated that codeine is a weak opiate, which would explain the traces of morphine in the urine sample of the Athlete. The WDSF Anti-Doping Commission Chair added that she could exclude that codeine had been taken by the Athlete to enhance her performance in the competition. Morphine is regarded as a specified substance. Her suspension was set from 3 October 2013 until 2 October 2014 and not from 17 August 2013 until 16 August 2014. The athlete waived her rights for a hearing.
The athlete did not dispute her violation and period of ineligibility of one year but in her belief the sanction is 14,5 months and not on year. Also she was not informed correctly about her rights to appeal and documents were not disclosed to her.
The panel considers the athlete as experienced, she knows she has to check the ingredients of her medication. There are no exceptional circumstances, the athlete was able to explain how the prohibited substance had entered her body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility for competition for one year, starting from September 6, 2013 and ending on September 5, 2014.
2. All results obtained by the Athlete in competitions on and since August 17, 2013, until the end of the ineligibility period shall be invalidated.
3. The present formal decision is rendered without cost. The expenses of the procedure incurred by the WDSF Disciplinary Council shall be borne by the WDSF. The Athlete shall bear her own cost and expenses of the present procedure.

Facts
The International Dance Sport charges Olga Shcherbina, the dancer, for a violation of the Anti-Doping rules. On 19 August 2010, the couple Igor Kruglov / Olga Shcherbina participated in the German Open Championships DTV 2010 Youth Standard, held at Stuttgart, Germany. After competition and price ceremony (the couple was placed 1st in this championship) they were notified of the selection by the ISDF Anti-Doping Director, Mr. Ko de Mooy, for anti-doping control. The couple reported to the doping control room and completed the sample collection without any problem. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of Acetazolamide which is a prohibited substance in-competition as well as out-of-competition according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2010 Prohibited List.

History
Before the doping test on August 19th 2010, the athlete confessed that she used medicine “Diacarbium” (acetazolamide) 4 days before the competition. Due to poor health and difficult ecological situation in Moscow at the time (fires, smog, heat waves…), her doctor prescribed those medicines. She applies for exceptional circumstances with no significant fault or negligence. She admits that she was careless because she did not check the medication for prohibited ingredients, she had not the intention to enhance sport performance.
The panel disagrees, a simple search on internet with the words "Diacarb” and doping" provides sufficient response that the product Diacarb contains Acetazolamide, a prohibited substance. Therefore this panel rules out the possible application of the exculpatory clause of No fault or Negligence alleged by the legal representation of the Athlete.
This Diacarbium is considered to have negative effects for the athlete but its stimulant effects may enable reducing the sensation of fatigue in a similar way to amphetamines and in this context, any competitor may consider that its consumption will be beneficial to them.

Decision
1. Mrs. Olga Shcherbina shall be declared Ineligible for competition for 1 year, starting from September 9, 2010, date of the provisional suspension. Therefore, the Athlete will be allowed to compete again starting from September 9, 2011.
2. Her individual results in competition are disqualified, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
3. The present formal decision is rendered without costs.

Facts
The International Dance Sport (IDSF) charges Boris Maltsev & Zarina Shamsutdinova, the dancers, for a violation of the IDSF Anti-Doping rules. On Sunday, the 7th of December 2008, the 2008 IDSF Asian Championships Latin which took place at Taipei. After having completed the competition, the Athletes, as the winning couple of the competition, were notified by the Chaperons, that due to their 1st place they had been selected beforehand to be tested, and because of that they would have to report to the anti-doping control room. Both Athletes refused to countersign the notification form but agreed to go to the doping-control room being escorted by the Chaperons.
Refusing the procedure the Athletes stated:
• We did not receive an IDSF Consent Form about free will doping control passing before the start of the competition.
• We were not warned about doping control in the Asian championships.
• There was no representative of the Kazakhstan Dance Sport Federation (KDSF) present.
• We have signed no document about free will doping control passing.
The Athletes were informed by the Doping Control Officer (DCO) that the refusal may result in sanction for an anti-doping rule violation and - under witness signature - did sign the Doping Control Form including the reasons for refusal.
Additionally the Athletes were provisionally suspended from all IDSF competitions and/or national competitions until the case is decided by the IDSF.
The panel considers In contrast to the statement of the Athletes there is no obligation for a representative of the Dance Sport Federation of the participant who is going to be tested to be present at the doping control. The Athletes could not state the selection and notification to be tested as invalid.
Nevertheless the panel has its serious doubts, that the procedure at this event did fulfill the standards for doping control. The statement of the Athletes, not having been asked about a form of consent and the declaration of the Chairman K. Ukai together do show, that the procedure at least in this point has not been formally correct. A consequent and accurate handling of this rule would have had the result that the Athletes could have signed a missing form before the start of the competition and on the strength of it no anti-doping rule violation would have taken part. So this failure has to be taken into consideration substantially. Also the Anti-Doping Code was not included in the rules of the KDSF. Understanding the importance of the matter, the presidium of the KDSF had made a decision to include the AntiDoping Code obligatory into the rules of KDSF.
Although the IADC follows in general the “strict liability principle” and a respective violation of the Anti-Doping Code would have to be sanctioned with a certain period of ineligibility (min. 2 years for a first violation) the Chamber in Charge takes the view, that sanctioning the Athletes with such a period of ineligibility under the circumstances of this case would constitute an inappropriate sanction. On the other hand the Chamber in Charge clearly sees a rule violation committed by the Athletes. the period of ineligibility in such a case may be reduced, but not less than one year for first violations as given here.

Decision
1. The Athletes have been found guilty of a violation of the IDSF Anti-Doping Code.
2. The Athletes shall be declared ineligible for competition for one year (12 months), starting from 7 December 2008, date of the sample collection.
3. The Athletes shall pay the amount of CHF 200,00 (two hundred Swiss Francs) as the minimum costs for the proceedings.
4. The expenses of this procedure incurred with the IDSF Disciplinary Council shall be borne by the IDSF.
5. The Athletes shall bear their own costs and expenses of the present procedure.

Facts
The International Dance Sport Federation charges Ivan Novikov, the dancer, for a violation of the Anti-Doping rules. On August 17, 2006, the dancer participated in the German Open Championships (GOC), he won the competition and had to attend the doping control station. During the control he was unable to produce enough urine for a doing test and left the site without informing the Doping Control Officer (DCO).

History
The DCO's wanted to put the dancer on provisional suspension but this was refused by the International Dance Sport Federation. The (IDSF) Sports Director refused this request. On Saturday, 19 August 2006, the dancer and his partner participated in the IDSF Grand Slam Standard Competition and afterwards the dancer passed an anti-doping control without any problem by completing the sample collection successfully showing no positive result.

On 9 February 2006 the Athlete submitted his statement to the merits of the case. He explained that he does not know English so well and that he did not understand the doctor at the anti-doping control room saying to him that there was not enough urine for the doping test. He thought that he had given enough urine. His partner could not help him with translation because she was the first one to pass the anti-doping control on 17 August 2006 and left immediately after the test was taken. He would be terrible sorry for such a misunderstanding and would like to apologize for it.
The panel considers therefore to judge by the principle “in dubio pro reo”. No doping violation is established.

Decision
1. The Athlete has been found not guilty of a violation of the IDSF Anti-Doping Code.
2. The costs and expenses of this procedure incurred with the IDSF Disciplinary Council shall be borne by the IDSF.
3. The present formal decision is rendered without costs.

Related case:
CAS 2006_A_1175 Edita Daniute vs International Dance Sport Federation
June 26, 2007

In September 2006 the International DanceSport Federation (IDSF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Sibutramine. The Athlete stated that the violation was non intentional due to she had used a herbal slimming product and that the prohibited substance wasn't mentioned on the label.

On 17 November 2006 the IDSF Disciplinary Council decided to impose a 3 month period of inelgibilitilty on the Athlete.

Facts
The French Motorcycling Federation (Fédération Française de Motocyclisme, FFM) charges respondent M75 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a motorcycling event on June 22, 2014, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 prohibited list. It is regarded as as specified substance.

History
The respondent had been sanctioned in first instance by the disciplinary committee of the FFM with a period of ineligibility of six months. He had used cannabis in an evening during a festival. There was no intention to enhance his sport performance. The effect of cannabis would not have resulted in a better performance.
The panel however considers the use of cannabis in motorcycling more dangerous because of the safety of the respondent and the people at the event.

Decision
1. The decision is a period of ineligibility of one year in which respondent can't take part in competition and manifestation of the FFM.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduce by the period already served by the sanction of the disciplinary committee of the FFM.
3. The decision of the disciplinary committee of the FFM needs to be reformed.
4. The present decision will start on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Hockey Federation (Fédération Française de Hockey, FFHockey) charges respondent M74 for a violaton of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on June 15, 2014 a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of Amphetamine and its metabolites. Amphetamine is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent claims that he had not consumed the prohibited substance voluntary, she had only taken herbal capsules during a diet.
Anyway the respondent was unable to explain how the prohibited substance had entered her urine sample.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility lasting two years in which respondent can not take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFHockey.
2. The period of ineligibility should be reduced by the time already served by the sanction of the disciplinary committee of the FFHockey.
3. The decision of the disciplinary committee of the FFHockey needs to be modified.
4. The decision will start on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

iNADO Update #61 covers a variety of subjects, including: CCES – WADA Education Conference – Registration Closes August 21, 2015; competitive video gaming (eSports) and doping control (interview with Kory Friesen); iNADO Webinars; Anti-Doping Knowledge Centre; TUEC Training – WADA Case Study Material; CAS Outcome in ABP Case: 2012 Olympic Women’s 1500 Athletics Gold Medalist Banned Eight Years; EADA Announces New CEO.

Facts
The French Federation of Volley-ball (French Volleyball Federation, FFVB) charges respondent M73 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a Volleyball match on May 29, 2014, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent had been sanctioned by the disciplinary committee of the FFVB for two months.
Respondent had used cannabis in a difficult period or social event, but there was no intention to enhance sport performance. The respondent had stopped using cannabis and wants to help with the prevention of getting a drug addiction for youngsters in sport.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized by the FFVB.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already in served by the decision (two months period of ineligibility) of the disciplinary committee of the FFVB.
3. The decision of the disciplinary committee of the FFVB will be modified.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.