FIM 2016 FIM vs Anastasiy Nifontova - Settlement

13 Mar 2919

In November 2016 the International Motorcycling Federation (FIM) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian rider Anastasiy Nifontova after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

The Athlete demonstrated with medical evidence that the violation was not intentional because she underwent treatment for her health problems and had used prescribed medication which she mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

FIM accepts that the violation was not intentional due to the prescribed medication for a legitimate medical condition but deems that there are no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The parties in this case reached a settlement agreement and accordingly on 13 March 2019 a 2 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 November 2016.

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Dzmitry Nabokau

1 Sep 2020

In October 2019 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics has reported an an anti-doping rule violation against the Belarussian Athlete Dzmitry Nabokau after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal. 

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and accepted the test result. He believed that the food parcel he had received from his grandmother might have been the source of the positive test. He explained with evidence that his grandmother used prescribed Furosemide as treatment for her condition and that she inadvertently had contaminated the food parcel she had provided. 

Further he asserted that analysis of his supplements and medication he had used tested negative and a sample of a hairtest showed no presence of Furosemide. Also he referred to an experiment in the Belarus Anti-Doping Lab that demonstrates that Furosemide could be transmitted on surfaces and in foods. However the Athlete could only provide his grandmother’s recent prescription for Furosemide but not the previous prescriptions at the relevant time nor any other medical document. 

The AIU contended that there were flaws and inconsistencies in the Athlete’s explanation due to he failed to establish with evidence that his grandmother was using Furosemid at the relevant time. Also he failed to establish that the the scenario he described in his explanation would have led to the level of concentration found in his sample. 

The Panel concludes that the Athlete’s explantion was speculative, that he failed to establish that his explantion was more likely than not and that he is unable to rely on any reduction or elimination of the period of ineligibility.

The Panel finds that in order to establish how the prohibited substance entered his body it is not enough to posit one possible explanation; it is necessary to demonstrate that the explanation is probable and that it is more likely than not. 

Therefore the Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 1 September 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 28 October 2019.

Use of anabolic-androgenic steroids and other substances prior to and during imprisonment

29 Aug 2020

Use of anabolic-androgenic steroids and other substances prior to and during imprisonment - Results from the Norwegian Offender Mental Health and Addiction (NorMA) study / Ingrid Amalia Havnes, Anne Bukten, Eline Borger Rognli, Ashley Elizabeth Muller. - (Drug and Alcohol Dependence 217 (2020) 108255 (1 December); p. 1-7)

  • PMID: 32949884
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108255

Abstract:

Background: Anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) use is associated with health problems and substance use.
Substance use is common among inmates. This study aims to estimate lifetime and prison use of AAS and other
substances, compare characteristics of groups of inmates, and describe factors associated with AAS use in a
national prison population.
Methods: Data from the Norwegian Offender Mental Health and Addiction (NorMA) Study, a cross-sectional
survey of people in prisons, included sociodemographic variables and lifetime and prison use of AAS and other
substances. Altogether 1,499 inmates, including 96 (6.4%) women, were divided into three mutually exclusive
groups according to lifetime AAS use, non-AAS substance use and no substance use.
Results: Lifetime AAS use was reported by 427 (28.5%) inmates; 6 women and 421 men. Non-AAS substance use
was reported by 593 (39.6%) and 479 (31.9%) had never used AAS or non-AAS substances.
Compared to the non-AAS substance group, the AAS group reported younger debut ages for nearly all non-AAS
substances, higher mean number of non-AAS substances used in their lifetime (8.9, 6.6, p < 0.001), during the six
months prior to incarceration (5.2, 3.1, p < 0.001), and during (2.3, 1.3, p < 0.001) imprisonment. Although 120
(8.0%) inmates used AAS during the six months prior to incarceration, only ten continued during imprisonment.
Conclusions: Lifetime AAS use is common among inmates and may be an indicator of more severe substance use
problems. Screening for previous and present AAS use at incarceration and increased staff awareness are needed
to tailor treatment approaches appropriately.

A level playing field in anti‑doping disputes? The need to scrutinize procedural fairness at first instance hearings

28 Aug 2020

A level playing field in anti‑doping disputes? The need to scrutinize procedural fairness at first instance hearings / Shaun Star, Sarah Kelly. - (International Sports Law Journal (2020) 28 August; p. 1-24)

  • DOI: 10.1007/s40318-020-00176-6

Abstract


The WADA Code upholds the virtues of procedural fairness. Minimum procedural guarantees have been strengthened under the 2021 WADA Code and the International Standard for Results Management. However, implementation of these guarantees by National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs) and domestic anti-doping panels are critical in ensuring that athletes are afforded procedural fairness. While some countries have enacted reforms in anti-doping dispute resolution infrastructure, other jurisdictions are arguably lagging behind. Since few doping disputes are heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), a strong domestic dispute resolution framework should encourage independence, efficiency and cost-effectiveness, as well as promote consistency and procedural fairness at all levels of hearing. First instance hearings are particularly significant given that CAS is not considered a practical option for many athletes, especially those from developing countries, predominately due to challenges of access to justice and affordability. Irrespective of procedurally unfair decisions at first instance, CAS has the de novo right of review to correct any such irregularities. However, this approach alone is inadequate, especially given that most athletes do not appeal to CAS. CAS, WADA and NADOs all have significant roles to play in ensuring procedural fairness for athletes. WADA and NADOs need to do more to ensure compliance with procedural guarantees at first instance. This paper advances the debate on the importance of procedural fairness and proposes a research agenda to support future reform, arguing that the current anti-doping model needs to reconsider how these important standards are upheld, from first instance until final appeal.

Keywords Anti-doping · Procedural fairness · Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) · National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs) · World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) · Sports law

World Athletics 2019 WA vs Cheruiyot Kangogo

28 Aug 2020

In June 2019 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics has reported an an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Philip Cheruiyot Kangogo after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Higenamine. 

After notification the Athlete failed to respond substantively to the charge against him but finally on 31 July 2020 he gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension, the test result and the sanction proposed by the AIU. 

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and assumed that a contaminated supplement or local herbs had caused the positive test result. However the Athlete nor Athletics Kenya were able to identify these herbs.

Therefore the AIU decides on 28 August 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 31 July 2020.

Acute Myocardial Infarction in a Young Bodybuilder: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

27 Aug 2020

Acute Myocardial Infarction in a Young Bodybuilder : A Case Report and Review of the Literature / Abrão José Melhem Jr., Amélia Cristina Araújo, Felipe Nathan S. Figueiredo, David Livingstone A. Figueiredo. - (American Journal of Case Reports (2020) 21:e924796 (August 27); p. 1-8)

  • PMID: 32848124
  • DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.924796

Abstract

BACKGROUND Misuse of androgenic anabolic steroids (AAS) is a current practice associated with vigorous bodybuilding for muscular hypertrophy, especially among gym practitioners and bodybuilders, influenced by the culture of body image. In addition to liver, psychiatric, genital, urinary, dermatological, and musculoskeletal complications, AAS misuse reportedly can lead to development of cardiovascular complications, such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, cardiac hypertrophy, and early coronary disease, and potentially acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and sudden death.

CASE REPORT A 26-year-old male farmer who was also an amateur bodybuilder developed an extensive Killip Class I AMI in the anterior wall while using AAS. A few days before the acute event, his lipid and hormone levels were measured and found to be significantly elevated. The patient was asymptomatic after left anterior descending branch angioplasty, but he had significant electrocardiographic sequelae and ventricular dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS We describe the case of a young male bodybuilder using AAS who presented with AMI and was treated with primary angioplasty. Documentation of high levels of lipids and hormones 1 week before the acute event suggests some relationship between AAS and cardiovascular disease. The main effects of using these steroids on the cardiovascular system are reviewed. It is time for a new global warning about the risks of misusing AAS to obtain muscle hypertrophy. Based on current medical knowledge, these hormones should not be prescribed without a clear indication for their use.

IOC 2019 IOC vs Erol Bilgin

26 Aug 2020

Mr Erol Bilgin is a Turkish Athlete competing the 62 kg Weightlifting event at the London 2012 Olympic Games. 

In 2018, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012.

In December 2019 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IOC, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2012 A and B sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol) and Stanozolol. 

After notification the Athlete submitted that he did not accept the test results, he waived his right to be heard and refrained to file a statement in his defence. 

The IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that the test result established the presence of the prohibited substances in the Athlete’s samples and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

The Commission holds that the substances found in the Athlete's sample correspond to substances which have very commonly been used as a doping substances. The use of these substances are clearly consistent with and indicative of the intentional use of Prohibited Substances specifically ingested to deliberately improve performance. 

Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 26 August 2020 that the Athlete, Erol Bilgin: 

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXX Olympiad in London in 2012 (presence, and/or use, of Prohibited Substances or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen),

2.) is disqualified from the event in which he participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games London 2012, namely the Men’s 62 kg weightlifting event, in which he ranked 8th and for which he was awarded a diploma,

3.) has the diploma obtained in the Men’s 62 kg weightlifting event withdrawn and is ordered to return the same.

4.) The IWF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.

5.) The Turkish Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.

6.) The Turkish Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the diploma awarded in connection with the Men’s 62 kg weightlifting event to the Athlete

7.) The decision enters into force immediately.

iNADO Update #2020-08

25 Aug 2020

iNADO Update (2020) 8 (25 August)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)



Contents:

iNADO Community

  • Upcoming Webinar
  • iNADO Live Chat - New Episodes available

From our Members

  • Leaving on a high Note

Research

  • Chronic Low Dose Carbon Monoxide Exposure might increase Endurance Performance
  • Registration for UNESCO Master Programme in Doping Studies reopens
  • NCSC Manual on Cyber Threats to Sport Organisations and how to avoid them

Testing

  • What Dietary Supplement Certification means to Athletes and Health Practitioners

Vacancies

New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

FINA 2019 FINA vs Mauricio Fiol Villanueva

19 Aug 2020

Related cases:

FINA 2016 FINA vs Mauricio Fiol Villanueva
March 14, 2016

CAS 2016_A_4534 Mauricio Fiol Villanueva vs FINA
March 16, 2017

On 14 March 2016 the FINA Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Peruvian swimmer Mauricio Fiol Villanueva after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. The Athlete appealed however on 16 March 2017 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decided to dismissed the Athlete's appeal and to confirm the FINA decision.

In 2019 FINA reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the swimmer after his 6 samples - collected between June 2019 and September 2019 - tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete failed to respond to the FINA communications, nor did he file a statement in his defence.

Considering the evidence in this case the FINA Doping Panel finds that the Athlete committed the reported anti-doping rule violations and that these multiple violations shall be considered as a single anti-doping rule violation. The Doping Panel holds that the Athlete was duly notified of the proceedings but failed to establish that the violation was not intentional.

Since this is the Athlete's second anti-doping rule violation the FINA Doping Panel decides on 19 August 2020 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 3 August 2019.

The FINA costs of the analysis of the Athlete's A and B samples and Documentation Packages for all 6 samples shall be borne by the Athlete.

Implementation of the HIF activator IOX-2 in routine doping controls - Pilot study data

17 Aug 2020

Implementation of the HIF activator IOX-2 in routine doping controls - Pilot study data / Christian Görgens, Sven Guddat, Christina Bosse, Andre Knoop, Hans Geyer, Mario Thevis. - (Drug Testing and Analysis (2020) 18 August)

  • PMID: 32809277
  • DOI: 10.1002/dta.2914

Abstract

Early in 2020, racehorse doping cases revolved around the hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) activator IOX-2. While the composition of IOX-2 has also been known and monitored in human doping controls for several years, the testing capability of routine sports drug testing methods was revisited for this newly surfaced doping agent. IOX-2 and the analytically well-established HIF activator roxadustat (FG-4592) share identical precursor/product ion pairs, enabling their co-detection in existing initial testing procedures in routine doping controls for the intact unconjugated analytes. In addition, hydroxylated IOX-2 and the corresponding glucuronic acid conjugates were identified as major metabolites in a microdose elimination study, contributing to enhanced initial testing and confirmation procedures.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin