JADCO 2021 JADCO vs Nesta Carter

25 Nov 2021

Related cases:

  • IOC 2016 IOC vs Nesta Carter
    January 13, 2017
  • CAS 2017_A_4984 Nesta Carter vs IOC
    May 31, 2018

Previously in January 2017 the Jamaican Athlete Nesta Carter was sanctioned by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) after reanalysis of his samples, collected during the 2008 Olympic Games, revealed the presence of a prohibited substance. Thereupon the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld this IOC sanction in May 2018.

In April 2021 the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clomifene.

After notification in April 2021 the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Jamaica Independent Anti-Doping Panel. The Athlete accepted the test result, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for the imposition of a reprimand.

The Athlete explained with evidence that he underwent medical treatment for his condition with prescribed medication whereas he was retiring from athletics because of this condition. In addition he applied in May 2021 for a TUE which was dismissed by the TUE Committee in June 2021.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Panel holds that the Athlete's TUE application was dismissed and prior that he was sanctioned for an anti-doping rule violation committed in August 2008. Yet the Panel regards that this violation was not committed within the statue of limitation of 10 years for the determination of a second anti-doping rule violation in this case.

Therefore the Jamaica Independent Anti-Doping Panel decides on 25 November 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

CAS 202_A_7294 Aleksandr Shustov vs World Athletics & RusAF

23 Nov 2021

CAS 2020/A/7294 Aleksandr Shustov v. World Athletics & Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF)

Related case:

CAS 2019_O_6156 IAAF vs RusAF & Aleksandr Shustov
June 5, 2020



On 16 July 2016, Professor Richard McLaren (the Independent Person or the IP) issued a first report on the allegations of systemic doping in Russia. Some of the key findings of the First IP Report were that:

  1. the Moscow Laboratory operated, for the protection of doped Russian athletes, within a state-dictated failsafe system, described in the First IP Report as the disappearing positive methodology (DPM) and
  2. the Ministry of Sport of the Russian Federation directed, controlled, and oversaw the manipulation of athletes' analytical results or sample swapping, with the active participation and assistance of the Russian Federal Security Service, the Center of Sports Preparation of National Teams of Russia, and both Moscow and Sochi Laboratories.

On 9 December 2016, the IP elaborated on the First IP Report and released a second report on the doping allegations in Russia, together with the First IP Report. The Second IP Report confirmed the key findings of the First IP Report and described in detail the DPM and the Washout Testing.

Within the context of the Second IP Report, the IP identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered. The IP made publicly available on the IP Evidence Disclosure Package (EDP) website the evidence of the involvement of the Identified Athletes. According to the IP and the IAAF, the evidence on the EDP was retrieved from the hard-drive of Dr Rodchenkov and, after the metadata of all the documents was examined, the documents were determined to have been made contemporaneously to the events.



Mr. Aleksandr Shustov is a Russian high jumper competing in the Moscow 2013 IAAF World Championships.

In November 2017 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) - now: World Athletics - reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete based on the findings of the First and Second IP Report and the disclosed evidence.

After deliberations between the parties the case was referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in February 2019 for a Sole Arbitrator first instance hearing panel (CAS 2019/O/6156).

The Sole Arbitrator concluded that the Athlete is present in the Moscow Washout Schedules in respect of the 5 samples listed as belonging to the Athlete. Here the Athlete’s presence in the Moscow Washout Schedules are strong indication that the Athlete used the prohibited substances Methandrostenolone (Metandienone) and Methasterone in 2013 as corroborated by the evidence.

Accordingly the Sole Arbitrator decided on 5 June 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete including disqualification of his results from 8 July 2013 until 7 July 2017.



in July 2020 the Athlete appealed the CAS First Instance Decision of 5 June 2020 (CAS 2019/O/6156) with the CAS Appeal Arbitration Division. He requested the Panel to annul the Appealed Decision and not to impose a period of ineligibility, or in the alternative to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete denied the use of prohibited substances and disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by the World Athletics (IAAF), Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov. Sustained by expert witnesses, he pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence.

World Athletics contended that the Athlete (like all the other athletes on the Moscow Washout Schedules) manifestly used multiple prohibited substances in the lead-up to the Moscow World Championships. In addition, the Athlete was subject to a sophisticated protection scheme, involving washout testing to avoid detection at the event, as well as urine swapping when it ultimately transpired that his sample was positive.

Further World Athletics asserted that the Sole Arbitrator was absolutely correct to find that the Athlete had committed anti-doping rule violations and to impose a four-year period of ineligibility on him.

Despite being duly invited to do so, RusAF did not participate in the present appeal arbitration proceedings. It did not file any written briefs or prayers for relief and did not attend the hearing.

The Panel assessed the following isues in this case:

1. Did the Athlete violate Rule 32.2(b) IAAF Rules?

  • The credibility of Dr Rodchenkov' s testimony
  • The authenticity and reliability of the Moscow Washout Schedules
  • The authenticity and reliability of the email dated 2 August 2013 related to the official 31 July 2013 sample
  • Evidence of the official Sample 5 collected at the Moscow World Championships being swapped
    • Marks and scratches
    • Specific gravity
    • Conclusion with respect to swapping of Sample 5
  • Overall conclusion with respect to the alleged violation of Rule 32.2(b) IAAF Rules

2. What are the consequences of a violation of Rule 32.2(b) IAAF Rules?

The Panel finds that the evidential strands presented by World Athletics, taken individually, is sufficiently reliable. Taken together, the evidence is particularly forceful because the several individual pieces of (indirect) evidence mutually support each other and thereby make the overall body of evidence against the Athlete stronger.

All the evidence, particularly when taken together, leads the Panel to the clear conclusion that it is satisfied to its comfortable satisfaction that the Athlete used prohibited substances, more specifically Methasterone, Oxandrolone and Methandrostenolone in the period between 8 July and 17 August 2013 in the lead-up to the Moscow World Championships, thereby violating Rule 32.2(b) IAAF Rules.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 23 November 2021:

  1. The appeal filed on 20 July 2020 by Aleksandr Shustov against the decision issued on 5 June 2020 by the Court of Arbitration for Sport is dismissed.
  2. The decision issued on 5 June 2020 by the Court of Arbitration for Sport is confirmed.
  3. The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served on the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by Aleksandr Shustov.
  4. The Athlete shall bear his own costs and pay a contribution in the amount of CHF 2,000 (two thousand Swiss Francs) towards World Athletics' legal fees and other expenses
    incurred in connection with the present appeal arbitration proceedings.
  5. All other and further claims or prayers for relief are dismissed.

ITF 2021 ITF vs Teymuraz Gabashvili

18 Nov 2021

In July 2021 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian tennis player Teymuraz Gabashvili after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

After notification without a provisional suspension the Athlete admitted the violation and in an agreement he accepted the sanction acceptable to the ITF and WADA.

Therefore the ITF decides on 18 November 2021 to impose a 20 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

Annual banned-substance review: analytical approaches in human sports drug testing - [2020-2021]

17 Nov 2021

Annual banned-substance review: analytical approaches in human sports drug testing / Mario Thevis, Tiia Kuuranne, Hans Geyer

  • Drug Testing and Analysis 13 (2021) 17 November
  • PMID: 34788500
  • DOI: 10.1002/dta.3199


Contents:

  • Introduction
  • Anabolic Agent
    • Anabolic-androgenic steroids
    • Initial testing procedures: Comprehensive screening, metabolism studies
    • Steroid profiling in urine and serum
    • Confirmatory testing procedures – IRMS
    • Other anabolic agents
  • Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, Related Substances, and Mimetics
    • Erythropoietin-receptor agonists and hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) activating agents
    • Growth hormone, its fragments and releasing factors, chorionic gonadotrophin and luteinizing hormone (LH)
  • β2‐Agonists
  • Hormone and Metabolic Modulators
  • Diuretics and other Masking Agents, Stimulants
  • Glucocorticoids and cannabinoids
  • Manipulation of blood and blood components
  • Gene Doping
  • Conclusion


Abstract

Most core areas of anti-doping research exploit and rely on analytical chemistry, applied to studies aiming at further improving the test methods' analytical sensitivity, the assays' comprehensiveness, the interpretation of metabolic profiles and patterns, but also at facilitating the differentiation of natural/endogenous substances from structurally identical but synthetically derived compounds and comprehending the athlete's exposome. Further, a continuously growing number of advantages of complementary matrices such as dried blood spots have been identified and transferred from research to sports drug testing routine applications, with an overall gain of valuable additions to the anti-doping field. In this edition of the annual banned-substance review, literature on recent developments in anti-doping published between October 2020 and September 2021 is summarized and discussed, particularly focusing on human doping controls and potential applications of new testing strategies to substances and methods of doping specified in the World Anti-Doping Agency's 2021 Prohibited List. 

World Athletics Russia Taskforce Report to the Council Meeting - 2 November 2021

17 Nov 2021

Russia Taskforce Report to Council Meeting of 17 November 2021 / Rune Andersen. - Monaco : World Athletics, 2021



Chair of the Russia Taskforce, Rune Anderson, presented the Taskforce’s latest report before the Congress vote on 17 November 2021.

The World Athletics Congress has approved the World Athletics Council’s recommendation that the Russian Federation continues to be suspended while the Council oversees completion of the Russian reinstatement plan.

KazNADC Annual Report 2020 (Kazakhstan)

15 Nov 2021

Annual Report 2020 / Kazakhstan National Anti-Doping Centre (KazNADC). - Almaty : KazNADC, 2021

KazNADC Annual Report 2019 (Kazakhstan)

15 Nov 2021

Annual Report 2019 / Kazakhstan National Anti-Doping Centre (KazNADC). - Almaty : KazNADC, 2020

KazNADC Annual Report 2018 (Kazakhstan)

15 Nov 2021

Annual Report 2018 / Kazakhstan National Anti-Doping Centre (KazNADC). - Almaty : KazNADC, 2019

KazNADC Annual Report 2017 (Kazakhstan)

15 Nov 2021

Annual Report 2017 / Kazakhstan National Anti-Doping Centre (KazNADC). - Almaty : KazNADC, 2018

Effects of erythropoietin abuse on exercise performance

13 Nov 2021

Effects of erythropoietin abuse on exercise performance / Paolo Sgrò, Massimiliano Sansone, Andrea Sansone, Francesco Romanelli, Luigi Di Luigi. - (The Physician and Sportsmedicine 46 (2018) 1 (13 November); p. 105-115)

  • PMID: 29113535
  • DOI: 10.1080/00913847.2018.1402663


Abstract

The present review provides a comprehensive overview on the erythropoietic and non-erythropoietic effects of rHuEpo on human sport performance, paying attention to quantifying numerically how rHuEpo affects exercise performance and describing physiological changes regarding the most important exercise variables. Much attention has been paid to treatment schedules, in particular, to assess the effects of microdoses of rHuEpo and the prolonged effects on sport performance following withdrawal. Moreover, the review takes into account non-erythropoietic ergogenic effects of rHuEpo, including cognitive benefits of rHuEpo. A significant increase in both Vo2max and maximal cycling power was evidenced in studies taken into account for this review. rHuEpo, administered at clinical dosage, may have significant effects on haematological values, maximal and submaximal physiological variables, whereas few reports show positive effects on exercise perfomance. However, the influence of micro-dose rHuEpo on endurance performance in athletes is still unclear and further studies are warranted.

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