In April 2019 the New Zealand powerlifter Hinewai Hausman was sanctioned for 4 years after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. In April 2023, Nine days before the Athlete's period of inelgibility was due to expire, she was tested by Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ).

Hereafter in June 2023 DFSNZ reported a new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after she tested positive for multiple prohibited substances: 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone), Drostanolone, Metenolone and Oxandrolone.

Following notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission for her second violation, waived her right for a hearing, accepted the provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by DFSNZ. Accordingly the case was referred to the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand and requested to render an appropriate decision.

The Tribunal deems that the Athlete had committed a second anti-doping rule violation. Because the Athlete gave a prompt admission and accepted her sanction she received a 1 year reduction from the Tribunal.

Therefore the Tribunal decides on 26 July 2023 to impose a 7 year period of inelgibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 June 2023.

In January 2011 the Anti-Doping Authority Portugal (ADoP) decided to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the cyclist Joao Ricardo Cardoso Benta after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Darbepoetin (dEPO). He retired from cycling in February 2022.

Hereafter in February 2023 the UCI reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after an UCI Expert Panel concluded unanimously in November 2022 in their Expert Opinion, that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping.

This conclusion of the UCI Expert Panel is based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 28 July 2015 until 16 February 2022 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).

Previously the Athlete submitted his explanations for the abnormal findings in his ABP to the UCI which were rejected by the Expert Panel in their Second Experts Opinion submitted in January 2022.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences and thereupon failed to respond to the communications of the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal. As a result the Sole Arbitrator rendered a decision based on the Parties' written submissions.

In his previous submissions the Athlete asserted that his training load and use of a hypoxic tent may have caused the relevant abnormalities. Further he disputed the validity of some samples in his ABP due to inconsistencies.

The UCI contended that the Athlete failed to establish a departure from any relevant and applicable rule that could reasonably have caused the abnormalities in the Athlete's ABP. Accordingly the UCI requested the Tribunal to impose a fine and a sanction of 8 years on the Athlete because of his second anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence and assertions of the Parties and their expert witnesses. Ultimately the Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation in the form of use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method.

The Sole Arbitrator determines that the Athlete failed to establish a departure from the relevant Standards and Rules. Neither had been established a departure that reasonably could have caused the abnormalities in the Athlete's ABP.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Panel decides on 20 July 2023 to impose a fine and an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 February 2023.

The UCI costs for the results management and the ABP documentation package shall be borne by the Athlete.

Related case:

MPTS 2854524 Dr Richard Freeman
March 19, 2021

Dr Richard Freeman is a former sports physician known for his work with British Cycling and Team Sky.

Following investigations United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) established that Dr Freeman in May 2011 had ordered 30 sachets of Testogel (Testosterone gel). These 30 sachets had been delivered to the National Cycling Centre in Manchester and were addressed to Dr Freeman.

Thereupon UKAD established that Dr Freeman had provided false statements about the purpose of the Testogel. Dr Freeman claimed that the Testogel was used as treatment for a 'non-rider' patient and that the Testogel had been returned to the supplier for destruction.

Consequently in December 2020 UKAD reported two anti-doping rule violations against Dr Freeman for possession of Testogel in 2011 and for Tampering in 2017 by providing false statements to UKAD in respect of ordering the Testogel.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. In April 2017 UKAD made a referral to the General Medical Council (GMC) in respect of UKAD's concerns relating to Dr Freeman's conduct and fitness to practise.

On 12 March 2021 the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) determined that Dr Freeman had ordered Testogel and had lied to UKAD whilst under investigation. As a result the MPTS decided to erase Dr Freeman from the General Medical Council's Medical register.

Hereafter the High Court dismissed on 16 January 2023 Dr Freeman's Appeal and confirmed the Appealed MPTS Decision. Thereupon UKAD could resume its investigations and the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) could conclude its proceedings against Dr Freeman.

The Panel is comfortably satisfied that the evidence establishes that Dr Freeman intended to make available to one or more of his athletes the Testogel delivered to the National Cycling Centre in Manchester. Also the evidence established that Dr Freeman committed the second Tampering charge by conduct that subverted Doping Control.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 20 July 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on Dr Freeman, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 22 December 2020.

In November 2022 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder Brandon Abednego Oluoch after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienonen.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and the case was referred to the Kenay Sports Disputes Tribunal.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He stated that he had duly checked the supplements and medication he had used.

ADAK contended that the Athlete had acted intentionally and requested for a sanction of 4 years. ADAK deemed that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the substance had entered his system.

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 determines that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substance. Therefore the Panel decides on 20 July 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Related case:

SAIDS 2018_36 SAIDS vs Mamorallo Tjoka
August 16, 2019

In June 2019 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Lesotho Athlete Mamorolla Tjoka for evading, refusal or failing to submit to sample collection and tampering with any part of the doping control in October 2018.

Consequently on 16 August 2019 the SAIDS Independent Doping Hearing Panel decided to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete due to her second anti-doping rule violation.

Thereupon the SAIDS Appeal Committee ruled on 17 November 2022 that SAIDS had the requisite jurisdiction to conduct out-of-competition testing.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the first instance decision. She argued that the hearing in first instance should have been held in Lesotho and not in South Africa. Also she disputed the jurisdiction of SAIDS and wished to introduce new evidence.

SAIDS contended that it had jurisdiction to test the Athlete out-of-competition and to hear the matter in first instance. Furthermore it argued that the Athlete voluntarily had decided not to attend the hearing in first instance.

The Appeal Committee confirmes that SAIDS has jurisdiction and determines that in first instance the Athlete voluntarily decided not to be present at the hearing in first instance. Accordingly in first instance she failed to introduce evidence in her defence.

Therefore on 18 July 2023 the Appeal Committee decides to confirm the sanction of 8 years and to uphold the first instance decision of the SAIDS Independent Doping Hearing Panel.

In January 2022 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swedish tennis player Mikael Ymer for 3 Whereabouts Filing Failures within a 12 month period.

Yet, on 23 June 2022 the ITF Independent Tribunal determined that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation in respect of his 3rd Whereabouts Failure.

Hereafter in July 2022 the ITF appealed the Decision of 23 June 2022 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The ITF requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 2 years on the Athlete.

The ITF holds that its appeal centres on the Athlete's 3rd Whereabouts Failure and contended that the Doping Control Officer (DCO) on 7 November 2021 attempted to test the player during the 60-minute time slot by visiting the location specified for that timeslot. 

The ITF asserted that the DCO did what was reasonable in the circumstances to locate the Athlete. By contrast the Athlete denied his negligence and claimed that the DCO failed to do what was reasonable under the circumstances to locate the Athlete.

The Athlete stated that the filing task for his Whereabouts was delegated to a third party. He was not aware that on 7 November 2021 his stay in another tournament hotel in Roanne, France, did not correspond with his whereabouts filing for that day.

Following assessment of the evidence the Panel determines that de DCO did all that was required of him to locate the Athlete at the indicated hotel. Further the Panel deems that it is not the duty of the DCO to try to find the Athlete in another location than the Athlete's specified location.

The Panel is not satisfied on a balance of probability that the Athlete's behaviour was not negligent and did not cause or contribute to his failure to be available for testing.

The Panel finds it reasonable to expect that a tennis
player in the IRTP would not have delegated the filings task entirely to a third party, but  that such an Athlete would have verified the whereabouts filing made for that day, and
would thus have realized that his stay at the tournament hotel did not correspond with his whereabouts filing for that day.

Considering the Athlete's degree of fault the majority of the Panel finds that a sanction of 18 months must be imposed on the Athlete. Furthermore the Panel deems that there are no grounds to disqualify the Athlete's results prior to this Decision.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 17 July 2023 that:

1.) The Appeal filed by the International Tennis Federation against Mr Mikael Ymer with respect to the decision of the Independent Tribunal of 23 June 2023 is partially upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the Independent Tribunal on 23 June 2023 is set aside.

3.) Mr Mikael Ymer is found to have committed an anti-doping violation under Article 2.4 of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme.

4.) Mr Mikael Y mer is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 18 ( eighteen) months, starting from the date of notification of this Award.

5.) No results occurring between the time of the third missed test on 7 November 2021 and the date of this award are disqualified.

6.) The present arbitration proceedings shall be free of charge, except for the CAS Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by the International Tennis Federation, which is retained by the CAS.

7.) Each party shall bear its own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

8.) All other applications and requests for relief are dismissed.

In January 2023 World Rugby reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Chilean rugby player Joaquin Huici Espinosa after his sample - provided in South Africa in Septermber 2022 - tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

Prior in October 2022 the South American Sports Organization (ODESUR) had also had reported that the Athlete's sample - provided in Paraguay in October 2022 - tested positive for Nandrolone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered by ODESUR. Thereupon in February 2023 the Athlete admitted to ODESUR the intentional use of the substance to aid recovery from a shoulder injury.

Hereafter in June 2023 Word Rugby commenced separate proceedings against the Athlete for the presence and use of Nandrolone. In July 2023 the Athlete timely admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing and accepted the sanction proposed by World Rugby.

World Rugby deems that the Athlete's violation was intentional and determines that he shall receive a 1 year reduction for his timely admission of the anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore World Rugby decides on 14 July 2023 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibililty on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension imposed by ODESUR, i.e. on 25 October 2023.

In February 2023 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Ludwig Amla after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Terbutaline.

Because the Athlete refused to accept the sanction of 2 years proposed by CCES the case was referred to the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that he suffered from Asthma since childhood. Prior in Europe he used a prescribed inhaler and Bricanyl (Terbutaline) and continued to use this medication after coming to Canada.

The Athlete requested for a reduced sanction and stated that when he joined the football team he underwent medical examination in July 2022. He asserted that he had been transparant and he relied on the team officials to ensure that everything was done properly.

CCES finds that the Athlete's violation was not intentional, yet deemed that the Athlete had acted negligently. Despite the Athlete had followed an anti-doping presentation in July 2022 he thereupon failed in his personal responsibility to recognize that his medication Bricanyl was a prohibited substance.

The Sole Arbitrator accepts that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and finds that the Athlete had acted negligently. The Arbitrator considers that the Athlete had used the medication for several year, yet he was unable to indentify the name of his medication and to report the name of his medication to the team physician.

Therefore the SDRCC Tribunal decides on 14 July 2023 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the notification, i.e. 4 July 2023.

2022/ADD/ 56 International Surfing Association v. Vasco Ribeiro

In May 2022 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the International Surfing Association (ISA), reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Portuguese surfer Vasco Ribeiro for his Refusal or failure to submit to sample collection.

The Doping Control Officer (DCO) reported that in April 2022 the Athlete was present at his residence for an out-of-competition sample collection. Following notification the Athlete first called his coach and then he told the DCO he was instructed to refuse sample collection because het had consumed alcohol.

Although warned by the DCO about the consequences the Athlete persisted in his refusal. Thereupon the Athlete also ignored the DCO's phone calls outside his residence and refused to sign the Notification Form.

Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. Thereupon in December 2022 the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.

The ISA contended that it was undisputed that the Athlete had refused or failed to submit to sample collection. There was no compelling justification for his refusal and the Athlete was properly warned of the consequences of his refusal.

The Athlete acknowledged that he suffered from an additiction and that the night before he had used Cannabis and Cocaïne. Confronted with the DCO he had a severe anxiety and panic reaction because of what he prior had consumed.

He explained that he acted with ignorance, had not received anti-doping education and followed the wrong advice of his coach. Further he alleged that the DCO had informed him insufficiently about the consequences of his refusal.

In view of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete had refused or failed to submit to sample collection. Moreover the DCO had informed the Athlete that his refusal would produce serious consequences.

The Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate a compelling justification for his refusal and thus his anti-doping rule violation has been established. Further he  considers that there are exceptional circumstances present in this case that justifies a reduction of the sanction based on his degree of fault.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 July 2023 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by the International Surfing Association against Vasco Ribeiro is partially upheld.

2.) Vasco Ribeiro has committed a violation of Article 2.3 of the ISA Anti-Doping Rules and is declared ineligible to compete for a period of three (3) years commencing as of the notification of the present Arbitral Award.

3.) All competitive results of Vasco Ribeiro from 17 April 2022 until the notification of the present Arbitral Award are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

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

Anti-Doping Statistics of Turkisch Anti-Doping Commission for 2021 / Turkish Anti-Doping Commission (TADC). - Ankara : Türkiye Dopingle Mücadele Komisyonu (TDMK), 2023