ITF 2022 ITF vs Igor Marcondes

15 Mar 2022

In February 2022 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian tennis player Igor Marcondes for his whereabouts filing failures and 2 missed tests within a 12 month period.

After notification the Athlete initially denied the charge or that he had attempted to cheat. He provided detailed explanations regarding the circumstances of each of the three Whereabouts Failures. Subsequently he admitted the anti-doping rule violation.

The ITF deems that the Athlete acted with a high degree of fault and considers that this is his second anti-doping rule violation. Further the ITF regards that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete. The Athlete waived his right for a hearing and accepted the sanction proposed by the ITF.

Therefore the ITF decides on 15 March 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 4 March 2022.

iNADO Update #2022-03

9 Mar 2022

iNADO Update (2022) 03 (9 March)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)


iNADO Community

  • Provisional Suspensions to protect the Integrity of Competitions
  • Larry D. Bowers Award for Excellence in Anti-Doping Science
  • Goodbye to Solenne Zandronis, Capacity Building Manager at INADO
  • Welcome Kaitlyn Schäfer, as the new Program Manager of iNADO
  • NADA Germany translates Prevention Videos into Sign Language
  • Registrations are open for Play the Game 2022 – is there a cure for sport?

Bulletin Board

  • INADO Member-only Webinar: "New Ways of Working for N/RADOs, learning from a pandemic"
  • iNADO Live Chat: Nara Kim from KADA
  • Call for Event Submissions - iNADO Calendar

Athlete's Voice

  • Athlete's Rights - Safeguarding Minors


  • Una May, New Chief Executive Officer of Sport Ireland
  • Goodbye to Doug MacQuarrie, Chief Operating Officer of CCES


  • Low Level Contamination of Pharmaceuticals

Practical Development in Anti-Doping

  • iNADO Survey Regarding Users' Experience with ADAMS

Feature of the Month

  • True Athlete Challenge

iNADO Partners & Sponsors

  • New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

WADA - Testing Guidance for Anti-Doping Organizations regarding Ukraine, Russia and Belarus

8 Mar 2022

WADA Testing Guidance for Anti-Doping Organizations regarding Ukraine, Russia and Belarus / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2022

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) continued to be appalled by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the devastating war that is ongoing. 

In order to maintain the integrity of the global anti-doping system as much as possible given the circumstances, today WADA is issuing Testing Guidance for Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs), with specific instructions and advice when it comes to anti-doping in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus.

WADA will continue to monitor developments and update this Guidance as necessary as the situation evolves.

ANAD Annual Report 2021 (Romania)

7 Mar 2022

Raport de Activitate 2021 / National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania. - Bucharest : Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), 2022

CCES 2021 CCES vs Keenan Simpson

4 Mar 2022

In December 2021 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the canoe kayak athlete Keenan Simpson for 3 Whereabouts Failures within a 12 month period.

After a notification a provisional suspension was ordered and accepted by the Athlete in January 2022. Previously in October 2021 the Athlete indicated that he had retired from sport, yet CCES received no retirement form during the relevant period.

Hereafter CCES establishes that the Athlete failed to dispute the asserted anti-doping rule violation within the set deadline. Accordingly the CCES finds that the Athlete has deemed the asserted violation, waived his right to a hearing and accepted all proposed consequences.

Therefore the CCES decides on 4 March 2022 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the accepted provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 January 2024.

ITF 2021 ITF vs Varvara Lepchenko

3 Mar 2022

In August 2021 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Uzbek American tennis player after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Adrafinil and Modafinil in a low concentration.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the ITF Independent Tribunal.

The Athlete accepted the test results, denied the intentional use of the substances and attempted to find the source of the positive test. Yet she could not explain how the substances had entered her system. Following the notification of the positive samples the conducted analysis in a laboratory of the supplements in her possession revealed no prohibited substances.

The Athlete argued that she had been tested nearly 60 times in her career, and prior to the positive test she also had been tested without issues. Since she tested positive for Meldonium in 2016 - establishing No Fault Or Negligence - she asserted that she became extremely careful about what she ingested.

ITF contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the prohibited substances had entered her system and failed to mention any medication or supplement on the Doping Control Form.

ITF finds that the Athlete's explanations were very vague about what she had consumed, and also vague about the reseach she conducted on the products before using. Further ITF questioned the qualifications of her holistic nutritionist who had recommended and provided some supplements and then used by the Athlete without being tested in a laboratory.

The Panel agrees that the Athlete provided a vague account of supplement use, non of which was disclosed on the Doping Control Form, which raises more questions than answers. The Panel holds that there is in fact no evidence whatsoever that the supplements in question were the source of the prohibited substances.

Considering the lack of corroborating evidence the Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate the source of the prohibited substances. Neither did the Athlete demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor established grounds for a reduced sanction on the basis of proportionality.

Therefore the ITF Independent Tribunal decides on 3 March 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional  suspension, i.e. on 19 August 2021.

NADO Italia Annual Report 2021 (Italy)

1 Mar 2022

Report Attività Antidoping NADO Italia Anno 2020  / Organizzazione Nazionale Antidoping (NADO Italia). - Roma : NADO Italia, 2021

LAA Annual Report 2021 (Lithuania)

21 Feb 2022

2021 activity report / Lithuanian Anti-Doping Agency (LAA). Vilnius : Lietuvos Antidopingo Agentūra, 2022

HZTA Annual Report 2021 (Croatia)

18 Feb 2022

Croatian Institute for Toxicology and Anti-Doping annual report 2021 / Croatian Institute for Toxicology and Anti-Doping (CITA). - Zagreb : Hrvatski zavod za toksikologiju i antidoping (Antidoping HZTA), 2022


  1. Legal Framework Implementation And Improvement
  2. Doping Controls, Investigations And Results Management
  3. Doping Prevention
  4. International Cooperation
  5. Therapeutic Use Exemptions
  6. Medicine And Science
  7. Premises And Equipment Maintenance

CAS OG_2022_08 IOC, WADA, ISU vs RUSADA, Kamila Valieva & ROC

17 Feb 2022

CAS OG 22/08 - CAS OG 22/09 - CAS OG 22/10 International Olympic Committee (IOC), World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) & International Skating Union (ISU) v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA), Kamila Valieva, Russian Olympic Committee (ROC)

In February 2022 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva (15) after her sample, collected on 25 December 2025, tested positive for the prohibited substance Trimetazidine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered on 8 Februay 2022 and consequently the Athlete was prohibited from participation in the 2022 Beijing Olympic Games.

Yet the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) decided on 9 February 2022 to lift the Athlete's provisional suspension as it established that under the Russian ADR and the WADC 2021 the minor Athlete is a Protected Person.

The DADC accepted the explanation and evidence that the prohibited substance entered the Athlete's system through the use of a contaminated product, i.e. the medication used by her grandfather.

Hereafter on 11 and 12 February the IOC, WADA and ISU appealed the DADC Decision of 9 February with the CAS Ad Hoc Division at the Beijing Olympic Games. IOC, WADA and ISU requested the Ad Hoc Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to re-instate the Provisional Suspension imposed by RUSADA on 8 February 2022.

The Athlete in her defence argued that:

  • The source of the inadvertent contamination has been established by the DADC after careful analysis, in connection with her interacton with her grandfather, who regularly takes the medicine Trimetazidine.
  • The DADC correctly had acknowledged that the Athlete is a Protected Person due to her age;
  • The DADC accepted that the Athlete would not have any competitive advantages by consuming the Trimetazidine based on the medical experts' testimonies.
  • Under the Rules the conditions are met in order to lift the Provisional Suspension.

RUSADA contended that the analysis in the Stockholm Lab was delayed due to pandemic-related staff shortages and is confident that the Athlete will be able to complete her submission with respect of evidenc in the proceedings before CAS whereas she has a lesser burden of proof as a Protected Person.

The ROC asserted that in the present case concrete evidence showing the source of the contamination is not required (as the Athlete is a Protected Person) and are not available (due to the undue delay in the reporting of the adverse analytical finding by the Anti-Doping Laboratory). As a result the Panel must rely on circumstantial evidence and decide to confirm the Appealed Decision if the scenario submitted by the Athlete with regard to contamination with the Prohibited Substance is more likely that the different scenario of a voluntary ingestion.

The CAS Ad Hoc Panel holds that it is uncontested that the Athlete is clearly a Protected Person under the Russian ADR and that the WADC 2021 intends to give special treatment to the Protected Persons like the Athlete.

The Panel finds that in cases involving Protected Persons, their Provisional Suspensions should be evaluated as optional Provisional Suspensions under WADC 2021 Article 7.4.2 and its progeny.

The Panel determines that the Athlete was entitled to benefit from being subject to an optional Provisional Suspension as a Protected Person and that, under the facts and circumstances, the option not to impose a Provisional Suspension should have been exercised so that she would not be prevented to compete in the Games.

Further the Panel considers in this case:

  • the length of time it took for the laboratory to submit its report of an AAF involving the Athlete;
  • the timing of that relative to the conduct of the Women’s Single Skating event at the Games;
  • the difficulty to be faced in the Athlete not being able in
    the current situation, right in the middle of the Games, to muster proof to support her defence of the ADRV being asserted against her;
  • the relatively low level of the prohibited substance found
    in her sample;
  • the fact that she has tested negative in multiple tests before;
  • after the test in question the case she has attempted to muster on contamination whether in a product or through domestic contamination, and the likely low level of sanction
    she will face if found to have committed an ADRV.

The Panel deems that athletes should not be subject to the risk of serious harm occasioned by anti-doping authorities’ failure to function effectively at a high level of performance and in a manner designed to protect the integrity of the operation of the Games. Accordingly the Panel finds that the Provisional Suspension should remain lifted.

Therefore the CAS Ad Hoc Division decides on 17 February 2022:

  1. The Ad Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction to determine the Applications filed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and International Skating Union (ISU).
  2. The Applications filed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and International Skating Union (ISU) are dismissed.
  • 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