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.

The World Anti-Doping Agency: Guardian of Elite Sport's Credibility

1 Jan 2021

The World Anti-Doping Agency : Guardian of Elite Sport's Credibility / Maarten van Bottenburg, Arnout Geeraert, Olivier de Hon

Published in: Guardians of Public Value : How Public Organisations Become and Remain Institutions / Arjen Boin (ed), et al. - Springer, 2020. - Chapter 8; p. 185-210

  • ISBN: 978-3-030-51700-7
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-51701-4
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-51701-4


Contents:

  • Introduction
  • A Moral Crisis in Elite Sport
  • A Global Public–Private Body
  • Establishing Performance and Reputation
  • Mission Mystique in a Challenging Environment
    • Mission
    • Passion and Commitment
    • Transparency, Autonomy and Renewal
  • An Institutional Crisis
  • Challenges to Institutional Resilience
  • WADA’s Experience in Perspective
  • Questions for Discussion

The methyl-5 alpha-dihydrotestosterones mesterolone and drostanolone; gas chromatographic/mass spectrometric characterization of the urinary metabolites

1 Dec 2020

The methyl-5 alpha-dihydrotestosterones mesterolone and drostanolone; gas chromatographic/mass spectrometric characterization of the urinary metabolites / Douwe de Boer, E.G. de Jong, R.A. Maes, J.M. van Rossum. - (Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 42 (1992) 3-4 (May); p. 411-419)

  • PMID: 1606052
  • DOI: 10.1016/0960-0760(92)90146-a


Abstract

Before including the detection of the methyl-5 alpha-dihydrotestosterones mesterolone (1 alpha-methyl-17 beta-hydroxy-5 alpha-androstan-3-one) and drostanolone (2 alpha-methyl-17 beta-hydroxy-5 alpha-androstan-3-one) in doping control procedures, their urinary metabolites were characterized by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Several metabolites were found after enzymatic hydrolysis and conversion of the respective metabolites to their trimethylsilyl-enol-trimethylsilyl ether derivatives. The major metabolites of mesterolone and drostanolone were identified as 1 alpha-methyl-androsterone and 2 alpha-methyl-androsterone, respectively. The parent compounds and the intermediate 3 alpha,17 beta-dihydroxysteroid metabolites were detected as well. The reduction into the corresponding 3 beta-hydroxysteroids was a minor metabolic pathway. All metabolites were found to be conjugated to glucuronic acid.

Cathinonen in webshops: vrij verkrijgbare experimentele harddrugs

18 Nov 2020

Cathinonen in webshops : vrij verkrijgbare experimentele harddrugs = Cathinones in web shops : Freely available experimental hard drugs / Michiel Olijhoek, Willem Koert, Edwin van den Worm. - (TSG - Tijdschrift voor gezondheidswetenschappen (2020) 18 November; p. 1-6)

  • Abstract in English
  • DOI: 10.1007/s12508-020-00287-3


Samenvatting

Webwinkels die zich richten op Nederlandse consumenten van recreatieve drugs, verkopen een snelgroeiend assortiment van synthetische drugs die door hun experimentele karakter op dit moment legaal kunnen worden verkocht. In een verkennend onderzoek, dat zich beperkte tot de onder de stimulantia vallende cathinonen, werden in deze winkels 26 cathinonen aangetroffen. Van geen van deze middelen is de toxiciteit goed onderzocht. Een trendanalyse van de cathinonen die onlangs in dit circuit zijn gelanceerd doet vrezen dat de bedenkers van deze middelen, in hun streven om nieuwe drugs te produceren die de regelgeving ontwijken, waarschijnlijk onbedoeld steeds verslavender drugs op de markt brengen.

Abstract

Web shops targeting Dutch consumers of recreational drugs sell a fast-growing range of synthetic drugs which can currently be legally sold due to their experimental nature. In an exploratory study, limited to the cathinones – a group of drugs with stimulant biological effects – 26 cathinones were found in these stores. The toxicity of none of these agents has been properly studied. A trend analysis of the cathinones recently launched in this circuit suggested that the inventors of these drugs, in their quest to manufacture new drugs that avoid regulation, may introduce substances with an increasingly addictive potential.

CAS A1_2020 Shayna Jack vs Swimming Australia & ASADA

16 Nov 2020

CAS A1/2020 Shayna Jack v. Swimming Australia & Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority

In July 2019 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the swimmer Shayna Jack after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance LGD-4033 (Ligandrol). Consequently the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel decided on 19 December 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. 

Hereafter in January 2020 the Athlete appealed the Decision of 19 December 2019 with the Oceania Registry Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). 

ASADA contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the prohibited substance entered her system and that there are nog grounds for a reduced sanction. It acknowledged that there was no evidence that the Athlete intentionally had used the substance to enhance performance nor was there evidence of long-term use of the substance. 

The Athlete accepted that she committed an anti-doping rule violation and denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance. She acknowledged that she did not know how the substance entered her system. She could only provide possible explantions: contaminated supplements; contamination through mixing supplements in a blender used by other persons; and contact or ingestion of the substance at training facilities she had visited. 

The Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete could not demonstrate how the prohibited substance entered her system but is willing to accept that the violation was not intentional.

Based on the Athlete’s evidence and presentation and the evidence and presentations of those who know her best, the Athlete presented to the Sole Arbitrator as a person who was inherently very unlikely to intentionally or recklessly ingest a Prohibited Substance. The history of testing is also consistent with the Athlete’s evidence of a lack of intention to cheat. Futher the found concentration of the prohibited substance in her sample was low and insufficient to enhance performance. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 November 2020 that: 

1.) The appeal filed by Ms. Shayna Jack on 2 January 2020 is partly upheld.

2.) Ms. Shayna Jack has committed a violation of Article 2.1 the Swimming Australia Limited Anti-Doping Policy 2015 and as a result, is suspended for a period of two (2) years commencing as from the date of her provisional suspensions (i.e. 12 July 2019).

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

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

CAS 2020_A_6978 Andrea Iannone vs FIM | WADA vs FIM and Andrea Iannone

10 Nov 2020

CAS 2020/A/6978 Andrea Iannone v. FIM
CAS 2020/A/7068 WADA v. FIM and Andrea Iannone

On 31 March 2020 the Disciplinary Court of the International Motorcycling Federation (FIM) decided to impose a reduced 18 month period of ineligibility on the Italian motorcycle racer Andrea Iannone after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Drostanolon.

Here the Disciplinary Court accepted that the positive test was the result of contaminated meat he had ingested in Malaysia prior to the 2019 Sepang FIM World Championship MotoGP. 

Hereafter the Athlete, in April 2020, and WADA, in May 2020, appealed the FIM Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Both parties seeked to set aside the FIM Decision of 31 March 2020: the Athlete requested the Panel for a further reduced sanction while WADA requested the Panel for the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility. 

The Athlete asserted, supported by expert witnesses, that there are grounds for No Fault or Negligence to impose a further reduced sanction. He argued that the violation was not intentional; the source of the prohibited substance was contaminated meat; he was tested before without issues; he voluntarily underwent a hair test; and he made any possible and reasonable efforts to prevent the contested anti-doping violation.

FIM supported the Athlete’s assertations that the violation was not intentional and that he demonstrated on a balance of probability that the presence of Drostanolone was the result of his consumption of contaminated meat. 

WADA contended that the Athlete failed to establish on the balance of probability that the origin of the prohibited substance was contaminated meat, nor did he demonstrate that there are grounds to reduce the sanction. 

The Panel deems that the Athlete failed to establish neither the precise type of meat he had consumed nor the origin of the meat in question. It finds that the Athlete nor his expert witnesses were able to establish specifically that there was an issue of meat contamination by Drostanolone in Malaysia. 

The Panel concludes that the Athlete has not established on a balance of probabilities that the violation was not intentional and thus it upholds WADA’s Appeal and sets aside the FIM Decision of 31 March 2020.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 10 November 2020 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Iannone on 21 April 2020 against the decision rendered by the International Disciplinary Court of the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme dated 31 March 2020 is rejected.

2.) The appeal filed by WADA on 12 May 2020 against the decision rendered by the International Disciplinary Court of the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme dated 31 March 2020 is upheld.

3.) The decision rendered by the International Disciplinary Court of the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme dated 31 March 2020 is set aside.

4.) Mr. Iannone is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four years commencing on 17 December 2019.

5.) All competitive results obtained by Mr. Iannone within from and including 1 November 2019 through the commencement of his suspension are disqualified, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

6.) (…)

7.) (…)

8.) (…)

9.) All other or further requests or motions for relief are dismissed.

World Athletics 2019 WA vs Elijah Manangoi

10 Nov 2020

In July 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics has reported an an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Elijah Managoi for his Whereabouts Filing Failures resulting in 3 Missed Tests within a 12 month period, beginning in July 2019.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The AIU’s finds in this case that the Athlete's degree of risk is significant. It holds that there is an inherent and increased risk of inaccuracies and delays to filing and updating Whereabouts information in circumstances where an athlete delegates those responsibilities to a third-party.

The Athlete accepted that he simply ‘trusted’ the Delegate to maintain his Whereabouts information and to make updates on his behalf. This was done without any oversight and without the Athlete checking whether the information in his Whereabouts Filing (and any updates made to that information) was accurate. As a result the Athlete failed to exercise any care or investigation in relation to what should have been the perceived significant level of risk in these circumstances.

Therefore the AIU decides on 10 November 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting backdated on the date of third Whereabouts Faulure, i.e. 22 December 2019.

SAIDS 2020_03 SAIDS vs Minor Athlete

6 Nov 2020

In May 2020 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Athlete (15) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Enobosarm, LGD-4033 and RAD140. The minor Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SAIDS Disciplinary Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation, he disputed SAIDS jurisdiction to conduct Doping Control at his High School and claimed that his rights as a Minor had been violated.

The Panel establishes that SAIDS has jurisdiction, that the sample collection at het High School was valid and that the minor Athlete's rights were not infringed. The Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional nor how the substances entered his system. He provided no evidence that showed that contaminated supplements were the source of the positive test.

The Panel finds that the presence of 3 prohibited substances in the system of the 15 year old Athlete is alarming. It assums that the Minor had been assisted by an adult and recommends further investigation in this matter. Finally the Panel considers that there were delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Panel decides on 6 november 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 26 February 2020.

ADAK 2020 ADAK vs Boniface Mbuvi Muema

5 Nov 2020

In December 2019 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Boniface Mbuvi Muema after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He stated that he only had used a painkiller for his injury and requested for a reduced sanction.

The Panel holds that the Athlete different statement's were not substantiated by any evidence and deems that he failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor how the substance entered his system.

Therefore the Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 5 November 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 December 2019.

ADAK 2019 ADAK vs Beatrice Jepkorir Rutto

5 Nov 2020

In May 2019 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Beatrice Jepkorir Rutto after her sample, provided in Kenya in April 2019, tested positive for the prohibited substances Heptaminol and Enobosarm. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered

In August 2019 ADAK reported a new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her sample, provided in Rwanda in June 2019, tested positive for Heptaminol and Enobosarm. After notification again a provisional suspension was ordered.

The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and denied that she waived her right to test her B sample. She stated that she sufffered from asthmatic symptoms and chest pain and had used prescribed medication. She mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form and provided medical information about the severe asthmatic attacks she had.

The Panel accepts that the violations were not intentional since the Athlete mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form when tested in April and in June 2019.

Further the Panel establishes that the Athlete was duly notified in May 2019 about her first anti-doping rule violation and that she was well aware that a provisional suspension was ordered. Nevertheless she participated in the Marathon in Rwanda in June 2019 where she again tested positive. As a result the Athlete committed a second anti-doping rule violation and she also failed to apply for a TUE.

Therefore the Sports Disputed Tribunal decides on 5 November 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility for the Athlete's First Anti-Doping Rule Violation and a 4 year period for her second anti-doping rule violation. The Tribunal deems that the Athlete has to serve the 2 and 4 year period of ineligibility consecutively.

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