AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY 2011:12 ANNUAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of transmittal 3
About this report 4
Message from the CEO 10

Chapter 1: Organisational overview 17
About ASADA 18
Legislative basis 18
Role and functions 18
Goals 19
Australia’s anti‑doping structure 19
Outcome and program structure 21
Highlights of 2011–12 22

Chapter 2: Report on performance 25
Program 1.1 – Deterrence, detection and enforcement 26
Deliverables 26
Key performance indicators 28
Building awareness 30
Digital marketing 30
Communication campaigns 31
Media 32
Printed resources 34
Education 35
Partnerships 38
Assisting sporting organisations 39
Sports forums 39
Liaison with national sporting bodies 39
International engagement 39
Review of the World Anti‑Doping Code 41
Review of draft Prohibited List 41
WADA Symposium for Anti‑Doping Organisations 41
Institute of National Anti‑Doping Organisations (iNADO) 42
International Anti‑Doping Arrangement (IADA) 42
Monitoring Group for the Council of Europe 42
Third Session of the Conference of Parties to the International Convention Against Doping in Sport 43
Oceania Regional Anti‑Doping Organisation (ORADO) 43
International visitors 43
Detection 44
National testing and sport operations program 45
Sample collection 45
Pure Performance programs 45
User‑pays tests 46
Long‑term storage facility 47
Accreditation of Doping Control Officers and Chaperones 47
Investigations and intelligence 48
Athlete whereabouts 48
Enforcement 49
Athlete counselling service 51

Chapter 3: Management and accountability 53
Corporate governance 54
Corporate and operational planning 54
Organisational structure and senior executive arrangements 55
Governance committees 56
Risk management 57
Ethical standards 59
Internal audits 60
Records management 60
Quality management 61
External scrutiny 62
Significant developments 62
Decisions and reports 62
Management of human resources 62
Workforce planning 63
Attraction and retention 63
Employment agreements 63
Section 24(1) determinations 64
Non‑salary benefits 64
Performance management system 64
Australia Day medallion 64
Peer recognition 65
Staff consultation 65
Survey 65
Learning and development 65
Workplace diversity 66
Commonwealth Disability Strategy 66
Work health and safety 67

Chapter 4: Financial information 69
Summary of financial performance 2011–12 70
Grant programs 70
Asset management 70
Purchasing 71
Engagement of consultants and contractors 71
Consultants 71
Competitive tendering and contracting 72
Auditor-General access 72
Exempt contracts 72

Chapter 5: Financial statements 75

Chapter 6: ASADA Advisory Group 129
Overview 130
Members 130
Resources 131

Chapter 7: Anti‑Doping Rule Violation Panel 133
Overview 134
Functions 134
Members 134
Resources 135

Chapter 8: Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee 137
Overview 138
Functions 138
Clause 5.01 NAD scheme – functions of ASDMAC 138
Therapeutic approvals for prohibited substances 139
Members 139
Resources 141
Therapeutic Use Exemptions granted 141
Freedom of information – ASDMAC 145

Chapter 9: Appendixes 147
Appendix A: Doping control statistics 2001–02 to 2011–12 148
Appendix B: Publicly announced anti‑doping rule violations 2011–12 149
Appendix C: International anti‑doping and doping control 151
Appendix D: Powers of the Minister to give directions to the ASADA CEO 152
Appendix E: ASADA and CEO functions, powers and delegations 153
Appendix F: Staffing statistics at 30 June 2012 155
Appendix G: Work health and safety 157
Appendix H: Advertising and market research 158
Appendix I: Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance 159
Appendix J: Freedom of information 160
Appendix K: Expenses and resources for Outcome 1 161
Appendix L: ASADA Resource Statement 2011–12 162

Chapter 10: Abbreviations and glossary 165
List of abbreviations 166
Glossary 168
Chapter 11: Indexes 173
Compliance index 174
Alphabetical index 178

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Australia’s anti‑doping framework 20
Figure 2: Outcome and program structure 2011–12 21
Figure 3: Number of athletes and support personnel recording anti‑doping rule violations 50
Figure 4: Organisational structure at 30 June 2012 56

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Program 1.1 qualitative deliverables 26
Table 2: Program 1.1 quantitative deliverables 27
Table 3: Program 1.1 qualitative key performance indicators 28
Table 4: Program 1.1 quantitative key performance indicators 29
Table 5: Education activities undertaken during 2011–12 37
Table 6: Satisfaction with ASADA education 38
Table 7: Anti‑doping tests conducted by ASADA in 2011–12 46
Table 8: Doping control facts and figures 2011–12 47
Table 9: Substances involved in anti‑doping matters 2011–12 49
Table 10: Breakdown of anti‑doping rule violations 2011–12 50
Table 11: Trends in consultancies 71
Table 12: Advisory Group attendance 2011–12 131
Table 13: Advisory Group expenses 2011–12 131
Table 14: ADRVP attendance 2011–12 135
Table 15: ADRVP expenses 2011–12 135
Table 16: ASDMAC members 141
Table 17: ASDMAC expenses 2011–12 141
Table 18: Therapeutic Use Exemptions granted 141
Table 19: Substances and methods approved for therapeutic use 2011–12 144
Table 20: ASDMAC freedom of information statistics 145
Table 21: Doping control statistics 148
Table 22: Publicly announced anti‑doping rule violations 149
Table 23: Entries on Register of Findings 2010–11 where the outcomes were to be advised 150
Table 24: Government‑to‑government arrangements 151
Table 25: Full‑time, part‑time and casual staff at 30 June 2012 155
Table 26: On‑going, non‑ongoing and casual staff by classification groups and location at 30 June 2012 155
Table 27: SES staff at 30 June 2012 155
Table 28: Staff in equal employment opportunity groups at 30 June 2012 156
Table 29: Salary ranges of employees 156
Table 30: Number of staff in the collective agreement or section 24(1) determinations 156
Table 31: Advertising and market research 158
Table 32: ASADA freedom of information statistics 160
Table 33: Expenses and resources for Outcome 1 161
Table 34: ASADA Resource Statement 162

CAS 2011/A/2605 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Confederacão Brasileira de Futebol (CBF), Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD) & Mr Vinicius Sarturi Hess

Football
Doping (fenproporex)
Jurisdiction of CAS over decisions passed by a justice body which is an integral part of the organisational structure of the national federation
Admissibility of an appeal before the entire case file has been received by the appellant
Use of plastic bottles as container for the samples
Proof of the use of plastic bottles as a cause for the Adverse Analytical Finding
Starting date of the suspension
Credit for the period already served even if such period was not served as provisional suspension

1. The STJD is a justice body which is an integral part of the organisational structure of the CBF, with no legal personality of its own: its independence and autonomy in adjudicating the disputes brought before it does not entail that the STJD is a body which could legally stand alone if the CBF did not exist. The decisions rendered by the STJD, although independently adopted by the STJD, must be considered to be decisions of the CBF. Therefore, the CAS has jurisdiction ratione materiae over decisions rendered by the STJD but does not have jurisdiction rationae personae to hear an appeal against the STJD.

2. The fact that a statement of appeal is lodged before the entire case file has been received by the appellant does not imply its inadmissibility. Nothing in the FIFA system prevents the lodging of an appeal immediately upon receipt of the challenged decision and parts of the case file, or sanctions such “early” appeal with the inadmissibility thereof. However, the rights of the respondent(s) must not be impaired by such an “early” filing of the appeal. They are not impaired if the respondent has been given the possibility to state his case after the filing by the appellant of its appeal brief, lodged upon receipt and consideration of the entire disciplinary file.

3. The relevant provisions of the FIFA ADR provide for the use of collection equipment that complies with the requirements stipulated in the WADA International Standard for Testing; the latter, then, does not set, within the minimum criteria that the sample collection equipment must meet, the fact that it is composed by glass containers.

4. The mere submission that the plastic nature of the bottle containing the sample makes a sabotage theoretically possible, since the bottle could be pierced by a needle, without offering any evidence or making any submission of an actual sabotage of the sample, is not enough to establish, even on a balance of probability, that the use of plastic bottles could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding. Indeed, mere speculation regarding a fact is not proof that such fact did actually occur.

5. The period of suspension should start, in principle, as soon as the decision providing for ineligibility is communicated to the athlete concerned. However, substantial delays occurring in the arbitration proceedings, which are not attributable to the athlete, but are caused by the length of the appeals proceedings before the previous instance, the time taken to transmit the complete file of the case to the next instance and the time taken to forward the decision to the International Federation allow a CAS panel to set the starting date of the ineligibility period at an earlier date. A delay of eleven months in the proceedings is to be considered as substantial.

6. As long as an athlete was not eligible to play for six months after the finding of his commission of an anti-doping rule violation, it would be unfair and result de facto in a total suspension of two years and six months not to give him credit for that period. The fact that such prior period was not served as a provisional suspension is no impediment to that conclusion. Article 53 para. 1 of the FIFA ADR, while providing for the obligation to give credit for periods of provisional suspension, does not exclude (but logically requires) credit for periods of suspension imposed and served on the basis of “final” disciplinary decisions subsequently set aside.

In November 2010 the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Vinicius Sarturi Hess after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Fenproporex.

On 7 December 2010 the Disciplinary Commission of the Brazilian High Sports Court for Football (STJD) decided to impose on the Athlete a 1 year period of ineligibility. The Athlete appealed and on 7 April 2011 the STJD decided to reduce the sanction to a 6 month period of ineligibility.

Hereafter in October 2011 the International Football Federation (FIFA) appealed the STJD decision of 7 April 2011 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

FIFA requested the Panel to set aside the STJD decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Regarding the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation and the appropriate sanction FIFA contended that the FIFA Status and Rules are applicable to Brazilian Sport and any that any athlete registered with a Brazilian federation is accordingly bound by the international rules accepted by that federation.

The CBF indicated that it would not participate in the arbitration and that the STJD was the administrative body in cours. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance, disputed the admissibility of the appeal and argued that it is based on an incomplete case file.
The STJD acknowledged that CAS has jurisdiction over this case (ratione materiae) but asserted that CAS has no jurisdiction over the STJD as party (ratione personae) to these arbitration proceedings.

Considering the relevant Rules the Panel establish that the FIFA appeal is admissible and that CAS has jurisdiction to hear this appeal against the CBF and the Athlete. On the other hand, CAS establish that it does not have jurisdiction rationae personae on the STJD.

In this case the Panel determine that there are two main questions to examine:
1.) the first is whether the Athlete can be found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation;
2.) the second, to be addressed in the event the Athlete is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation, concerns the sanction to be imposed on him, with respect to its duration and starting date.

The Panel finds that there was no departure from the IST and no actual sabotage of the Athlete’s sample was proven and thereby the Adverse Analytical Finding is confirmed. As a result thereof, the Athlete is responsible of the anti-doping rule violation contemplated by Article 5 ADR. Consequently the Panel finds that a sanction of 2 years must be imposed on the Athlete. Here the Panel considers that there were substantial delays in the proceedings of 11 months not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 October 2012 that:

1.) The CAS has jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione personae to entertain the appeal of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) in respect of the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) and Mr Vinicius Sarturi Hess, while it has no jurisdiction ratione personae in respect of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD).
2.) The appeal filed by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) on 22 December 2011 against the decision taken by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol of the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol on 7 April 2011 is upheld.
3.) The decision taken by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol of the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol on 7 April 2011 is set aside.
4.) A suspension of 2 (two) years is imposed on Mr Vinicius Sarturi Hess commencing on 1 October 2011, with credit given for any period of suspension at that time already served.
(…)
7.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

Role and application of Article 6 of the European Convention on human rights in CAS procedures / Ulrich Haas. - (International Sports Law Review 12 (2012) 3 : p. 43-60)

Contents:

1.) Introduction
2.) Are arbitral tribunals covered by the ratio materiae of art.6(1) of the ECHR?
3.) Are arbitral tribunals covered by the ratio personae of art 6(1) of the ECHR?
4.) The nature of the dispute and the ECHR-standards applicable to it
5.) The individual rights enshrined in Article 6(1) of the ECHR
6.) Implementing the system of values with respect to arbitral jurisdiction

Summary:

( 1) Private arbitral jurisdiction is not excluded from the scope of application of art.6(1) of the ECHR on the basis of the wording alone. The distinction that is sometimes made regarding the term "tribunal" under art.6(1) of the ECHR - which is to be interpreted autonomously - depending on whether the arbitral jurisdiction has been prescribed by statute or whether it is due to agreement between the parties is not convincing as the transitions between both forms of arbitration are fluid.

(2) Even if the ECHR has no direct third-party effect in legal relations between private individuals, it does not follow from this that the ECHR is of no relevance to arbitral proceedings before the CAS. In proceedings relating to arbitration, the state courts remain addressees of the ECHR and, thus, bound by its provisions. The points of contact between state jurisdiction and arbitral jurisdiction therefore constitute the openings for the ECHR to apply in relation to arbitration proceedings.

(3) In proceedings relating to arbitration, the state courts are under a duty to guarantee that the inalienable values of the ECHR that form part of public policy (ordre public) are observed. From this it follows that the arbitral tribunals like the CAS are at least indirectly bound by this system of values under the ECHR.

(4) Not all of the basic procedural rights under art.6(1) of the ECHR are part of the inalienable system of values which must be observed by arbitral tribunals. The conclusion of the arbitration agreement - usually - constitutes a waiver of the right of access to the state courts and the right to a public hearing enshrined in art.6(1) of the ECHR. In contrast, the right to an independent and impartial judge as well as the right to a speedy and fair hearing are part of procedural public policy (ordre public), which arbitral tribunals such as the CAS must observe.

(5) According to the constant jurisprudence of the ECHR, a waiver of one of the procedural rights forming part of art.6(1) of the ECHR must be "voluntary" and without compulsion in order to be valid. In many of the cases pertaining to sports arbitration this prerequisite will not be met.
However, it does not follow from this that a legal system which allows (private) compulsory arbitration is in breach of art.6(1) of the ECHR. On the contrary - subject to the principle of proportionality - (private) compulsory arbitration is admissible as long as it is in the interest of the good administration of justice. Arbitration proceedings before the CAS, in principle, meet this requirement. However, provisions in the statutes and regulations of the federation limiting the access to the CAS or limiting its mandate to fully review the facts and the law of the case will generally be viewed with scepticism.

(6) The right to a fair trial enshrined in art.6(1) of the ECHR forms part of the procedural public policy and must be observed by the arbitral tribunal at all levels and stages of the procedure.

(7) When modelling the crossroads between state court proceedings and arbitration proceedings, the national legislator has a wide scope of discretion. However, it follows from the ECHR that a Contracting State must reserve for itself a certain degree of supervision in relation to arbitration in order to ensure that the inalienable rights of the Convention are not violated. Whether this supervision is exercised during the arbitration proceedings or only in the post-arbitral phase is for the national legislator to decide. If, however, there is a danger that there is no such supervision at all, a Contracting State of the ECHR will be in breach of its protective duty, which ensues from art.6(1), to guarantee the inalienable procedural rights also with respect to arbitration.

Results of the WADA monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the 2011 Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport. These substances are:
- Caffeine
- Pseudoephedrine
- Bupropion

Anti-Dope Testing in Sport : The History and the Science / Larry D. Bowers. - (FASEB Journa l 26 (2012) 10 (October) : p. 3933-3936)

Brief history about developments in doping tests, starting from the 1900s till the XXX modern Olympic Games and de XIV Paralympic Games in London. Also how the Anti-Doping Agencies originate starting from concerns regarding the effects of anabolic steroids on athletes in the U.S. congressional hearings in 1988. Programs for testing where developed, but athletes altered their drug abuse behaviors to avoid detection. This resulted in more innovation for test methods and strategies and expanded the scientific disciplines. More collaboration in research enhances the rate of discovery of innovative approaches to solve doping problems.
There are numerous opportunities for members of the scientific community to assist in the fight against the use of performance-enhancing drugs and cheating.

Clinical pharmacology of tramadol / Stefan Grond, Armin Sablotzki

• Clinical Pharmacokinetics 43 (2004) 13, p. 879–923
• PMID: 15509185
• DOI: 10.2165/00003088-200443130-00004

Abstract

Tramadol, a centrally acting analgesic structurally related to codeine and morphine, consists of two enantiomers, both of which contribute to analgesic activity via different mechanisms. (+)-Tramadol and the metabolite (+)-O-desmethyl-tramadol (M1) are agonists of the mu opioid receptor. (+)-Tramadol inhibits serotonin reuptake and (-)-tramadol inhibits norepinephrine reuptake, enhancing inhibitory effects on pain transmission in the spinal cord. The complementary and synergistic actions of the two enantiomers improve the analgesic efficacy and tolerability profile of the racemate. Tramadol is available as drops, capsules and sustained-release formulations for oral use, suppositories for rectal use and solution for intramuscular, intravenous and subcutaneous injection. After oral administration, tramadol is rapidly and almost completely absorbed. Sustained-release tablets release the active ingredient over a period of 12 hours, reach peak concentrations after 4.9 hours and have a bioavailability of 87-95% compared with capsules. Tramadol is rapidly distributed in the body; plasma protein binding is about 20%. Tramadol is mainly metabolised by O- and N-demethylation and by conjugation reactions forming glucuronides and sulfates. Tramadol and its metabolites are mainly excreted via the kidneys. The mean elimination half-life is about 6 hours. The O-demethylation of tramadol to M1, the main analgesic effective metabolite, is catalysed by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6, whereas N-demethylation to M2 is catalysed by CYP2B6 and CYP3A4. The wide variability in the pharmacokinetic properties of tramadol can partly be ascribed to CYP polymorphism. O- and N-demethylation of tramadol as well as renal elimination are stereoselective. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic characterisation of tramadol is difficult because of differences between tramadol concentrations in plasma and at the site of action, and because of pharmacodynamic interactions between the two enantiomers of tramadol and its active metabolites. The analgesic potency of tramadol is about 10% of that of morphine following parenteral administration. Tramadol provides postoperative pain relief comparable with that of pethidine, and the analgesic efficacy of tramadol can further be improved by combination with a non-opioid analgesic. Tramadol may prove particularly useful in patients with a risk of poor cardiopulmonary function, after surgery of the thorax or upper abdomen and when non-opioid analgesics are contraindicated. Tramadol is an effective and well tolerated agent to reduce pain resulting from trauma, renal or biliary colic and labour, and also for the management of chronic pain of malignant or nonmalignant origin, particularly neuropathic pain. Tramadol appears to produce less constipation and dependence than equianalgesic doses of strong opioids.

Report of the Independent Observers Games of the XXX Olympiad, London 2012 : Executive Summary / Rene Bouchard. - Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2012

Affaire Ressiot et autres c. France (Requêtes nos 15054/07 et 15066/07) : Arrêt / European Court Of Human Rights (ECHR). - Strasbourg : Council of Europe (CoE), 2012. - (Requêtes nos 15054/07 et 15066/07)

Searches and seizures carried out at "L'Equipe" and "Le Point"
newspapers were disproportionate to the interest of democratic
society in ensuring and maintaining a free press

In the Chamber judgment in the case of Ressiot and Others v. France (application no. 15054/07) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned investigations carried out at the premises of L’Equipe and Le Point newspapers and at the homes of journalists accused of breaching the confidentiality of a
judicial investigation. The authorities wanted to identify the source of the leaks in an investigation into possible doping in cycle racing. Searches were carried out at the newspaper offices and the journalists’ homes: equipment was seized and lists of telephone calls were placed under seal. The five journalists were released for lack of evidence.

The Court found that the Government had not shown that a fair balance had been struck between the various interests involved. It reiterated that “the considerations to be taken into account by the Convention institutions for their review under paragraph 2 of Article 10 tip the balance of competing interests in favour of the interest of democratic society in securing a free press” (see Goodwin v. the United Kingdom). The measures taken were not reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, having regard to the interest of a democratic society in ensuring and maintaining the freedom of the press.

2011 Laboratory Testing Figuress : Reported by Accredited Laboratories / WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency). - Montreal : WADA, 2012

2011 Anti-Doping Organization Activity Summary : Reported by Code Signatory Anti-Doping Organizations / WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency). - Montreal : WADA, 2012