Related case:

IAAF 2019 IAAF vs Sarah Chepchirchir
November 28, 2019

In December 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Sarah Chepchirchir after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone.

Previously the Athlete had served a sanction of 4 years, until 9 February 2023, because of the abnormalities in her Athlete Biological Passport.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The AIU established that this is the Athlete's second anti-doping rule violation and that she failed at all to respond at all or to provide any information to the AIU.

Because of the Athlete's failure to respond within the set deadline the AIU in February 2024 determines that she was deemed to have waived her right to a hearing, to have admitted the anti-doping rule violation and to have accepted the consequences.

Therefor the AIU decides on 13 February 2024 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 22 December 2023.

In September 2023 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the softball player Mitchell McKay after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Pseudoephedrine in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

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

The Athlete provided an explanation for the positive test and signed an Agreement on Consequences in January 2024. CCES accepted that the violation was not intentional and considered that he acted with a degree of fault.

Therefore CCES decides on 12 February 2024 to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 September 2023.

In July 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Charles Karanja Kamau after his sample tested positive for Testosterone and its metabolites.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and he was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal.

In this case there were delays attributed to the Athlete. He failed to communicate properly with his pro bono counsel, nor did he file a statement in his defence within the set deadline.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He stated that he only had used medication and supplements which he had mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

The Athlete acknowledged that he had not checked his supplements for banned substances, nor had he consulted experts in this matter. For his supplements he followed the recommendations from his manager, a friend and a nutritionist.

The AIU requested the Tribunal to impose a sanction of 4 years and contended that the Athlete had failed to demonstrate the source of the prohibited substance. Furthermore the AIU considered that the Athlete's supplements did not contain Testosterone, neither were these supplements tested.

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

In view of the evidence and the Athlete's conduct in this case the Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate  that the violation was not intentional. He also deems that he acted negligently with the supplements.

Therefore the Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 12 February 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 July 2023.

Report of the WADA Independent Observers : 3rd European Games, Kraków-Małopolska, Poland 2023 / Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2024

iNADO Update (2024) 01/02 (5 February)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

---

Contents:

Building a Supportive Community

• Overview of Member Needs
• Recent Basecamp discussions

Improving Practice Everywhere

• Annual General Assembly (AGA) Registration Invitation (Only iNADO Members) 
• 2024 iNADO Annual Workshop Registration Invitation
• Summary Bird & Bird  webinar 
• Annual banned substance Review 2022/2023 by the Cologne Laboratory

Speaking Up For NADOs & RADO Globally

• New Head of AMADA and EGY-NADO
• iNADO Board Elections for the Term 2024 - 2027
• Resignation of iNADO CEO 
• Overview of NADO staff members in WADA working groups and committees
• EPO report & false negatives
  Guiding Principles
• New Signatories and Invitation to sign the Guiding Principles 

iNADO Sponsors & Partners

In April 2023 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Tom Curwen after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Amfetamine.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He explained that at the relevant time he had mental health issues and was coping with the difficulties and challenges through the COVID-19 pandemic.

Before the Athlete was diagnosed with ADHD in July 2022 he was unaware that he suffered from any medical or mental healt condition. However until Elvanse (Methylphenidate) had been prescribed in January 2023 he had experienced severe side effects from the previous prescribed medications that effected his mental state.

The Athlete acknowledged that when he returned to rugby in December 2022 he did not check his medication, nor made a TUE application. Yet, when he was tested in February 2023 he mentioned Elvanse on the Doping Control Form.

After the positive test in April 2023 the Athlete's application for a retrospective TUE was rejected. Moreover, pending the issue of a required psychiatric report, for months he was unable to make an application for a prospective TUE.

UKAD accepts that the Athlete's violation was not intentional. However UKAD dismissed that he had acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

In view of the evidence the Panel agrees that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that he had acted with a degree of negligence. Further the Panel determines that the Athlete has demonstrated that his ADHD led to cognitive impairment and that this was linked to the circumstances surrounding the commission of the violations.

Therefore the Panel decides on 2 Febuary 2024 to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 April 2023.

On 18 March 2023 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Richa Bhadauriya for her evasion of doping control at a competition in August 2022.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI). She requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete denied that she had acted intentionally and stated that she was unaware that she had been selected for sample collection. She explained that at the competition she suffered from her Asthma, left the venue after finishing the race and underwent medical treatment in a hospital.

INADA contended that the Athlete deliberately had evaded doping control. The Agency argued that the Athlete with her Asthma would be unable to perform a 10 km race within 38 minutes.

Furthermore there was no corroborating evidence that she suffered from her Asthma near the finish line. She indeed went to a hospitial, yet not because of her Asthma.

In view of the evidence the Appeal Panel concludes that the Athlete clearly and deliberately had evaded doping control. Also the Panel determines that there were several inconsistencies in the evidence and explanations provided by the Athlete.

Therefore the Appeal Panel decides on 31 January 2024 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal, to uphold the Appealed Decision and to confirm the imposed 4 year period of ineligibility.

In September 2023 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rower Lebone Mokheseng. Following notification the Athlete was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Tribunal. 

SAIDS contended that the Athlete had 3 Whereabouts Failures within a 12 month period:

• a Filing Failure / Missed Test on 8 June 2023;
• a Filing Failure / Missed Test on 14 June 2023; and
• a Filing Failure / Missed Test on 12 September 2023.

The Athlete denied the charges and he requested for a reduced sanction. He explained that he already had retired from rowing at the time of the first test.

He testified about his personal circumstances and the problems he had in the family whereas he was hampered by the lack of assistance from Rowing South Africa (RSA). After he officially had resigned he assumed that the RSA should have notified SAIDS about his resignation.

The Panel accepted the Athlete's explanations and finds that he acted not intentional since he offically had resigned from RSA. Further the Panel deems that there are grounds for a reduced sanction and that he can continue his current job as a rowing coach.

Therefore the Panel decides on 29 January 2024 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the 3rd Whereabouts Failure, i.e. on 12 September 2023.

• CAS 2023/A/9451 Association Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) v Ms Kamila Valieva
• CAS 2023/A/9455 International Skating Union (ISU) v Ms Kamila Valieva and The Russian Doping Agency
• CAS 2023/A/9456 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) and Ms Kamila Valieva

Related cases:

• CAS OG_2022_08 IOC, WADA, ISU vs RUSADA, Kamila Valieva & ROC
  February 17, 2022
• CAS OG_2022_11 United States Figure Skating Team vs IOC
  March 30, 2022
  
  

---

In February 2022 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva (15) after her sample, collected on 25 December 2021, 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 deemed 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 2022 Olympic Games.

Nevertheless the CAS Ad Hoc Division dismissed the appeals and decides on 17 February 2022 that the Appealed Provisional Suspension regarding the Athlete should remain lifted.

---

On 24 January 2023 the RUSADA DADC rendered its final decision and concluded that the Athlete had acted with No Fault or Negligence and without the application of a period of ineligibility. The DADC disqualified her results at the Russian 2021 National Championships, but not her results at the Beijing 2022 Olympic Games.

Hereafter in February 2023 RUSADA, ISU and WADA appealed the DADC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

RUSADA, ISU and WADA contended that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation despite that she is a Protected Person. Accordingly they requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose an appropriate sanction on the Athlete based on her degree of Fault.

The Athlete accepted the test results and argued that she is a Protected Person. Further she objected the CAS jurisdiction in this case.

She asserted that the violation was not intentional and that she acted with utmost caution to keep clean. She was unaware that her grandfather was using a prohibited substance as a heart medication, thus she was unaware of the potentional risk of a contamination.

In this case the Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and issues raised by the Parties:

• CAS jurisdiction
• The anti-doping rule violation
• The sanctions
• Protected person
• Burdens and standards of proof
• Trimetazidine

Ultimately the Panel concludes:

• The Athlete failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that she did not commit the violation intentionally.
• Under the Russian ADR it is not open to the Panel to consider grounds for a reduced sanction.
• There had been substantial delays in the analytical process and in the results managment, which was not attributed to the Athlete.
• The Athlete is a honest, straightforward and credible witness.
• She certainly is not a cheat, nor that she cheated at the Russian 2021 National Championships, nor at the Beijing 2022 Olympic Games (or at any other time).

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 January 2024 that:

1. The Appeal filed on 14 February 2023 by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is upheld.
2. The Appeal filed on 20 February 2023 by the International Skating Union against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is upheld.
3. The Appeal filed on 21 February 2023 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is partially upheld.
4. The decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is set aside.
5. Ms Kamila Valieva is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Clause 4.1 of the All-Russian Anti-Doping Rules of 24 June 2021.
6. A period of four (4) years ineligibility is imposed on Ms Kamila Valieva, starting on 25 December 2021. Any period of provisional suspension served by Ms Kamila Valieva shall be credited against the period of ineligibility imposed.
7. All competitive results of Ms Kamila Valieva from 25 December 2021 are disqualified, with all the resulting consequences (including forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, profits, prizes, and appearance money).
8. (…)
9. (…).
10. (…).
11. (…).
12. (…).
13. (…)
14. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

, to sanction the Athlete for 4 years

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.

In October 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete James Gikunga Karanja after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone Nandrolone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Thereupon the Athlete failed to respond to the communications and the AIU established that he had violated the provisional suspension through his participation into a competition in November 2023.

The AIU concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Because he did not respond within the set deadline the AIU determines that he was deemed to have admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing and accepted the consequences.

Therefore the AIU decides on 25 January 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.