CAS 2012/A/2859 Alexander Ruoff v. Vlaams Basketballiga v.z.w. (VBL), award of 12 September 2012 (operative part of 24 August 2012)

• Basketball
• Doping (4-Methyl-2-Hexanamine)
• Starting date of the period of ineligibility
• Substantial delay in the disciplinary proceedings

1. To asses specifically if there are substantial delays not attributable to the player, the judging body has to take into account the following circumstances:
(i) the total duration of the disciplinary proceedings, starting from the date of sample collection till the date of notification of the decision by the disciplinary authorities;
(ii) the lapse of time of each separate phase of the disciplinary proceedings;
(iii) the complexity of the case, including the scope of the investigations;
(iv) the way in which the competent authorities have dealt with the case, including the extent to which the competent authorities did proceed expeditiously and
(v) the influence of the player on the course of the proceedings.

2. In general, a total duration of eight months in disciplinary proceedings with regard to an anti-doping violation does not constitute a substantial delay by itself. However, established multiple delays in separate phases of the judging process, such as the stay of the proceedings and the fact that the competent authorities could have proceeded in a more expeditious manner, whereas the case was not complex and the player

In October 2011 the Flanders Basketball Federation (VBL) has reported an anti-doping rule violation after the Athlete's sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

As a result on 27 June 2012 the Disciplinaire Commissie voor Elitesporters (DCE) decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.
Here the DCE considered that there have been no substantial delays in the disciplinary proceedings or other aspects of the doping control and previously no provisional suspension was imposed on the Athlete.

Hereafter in July 2012 the Athlete appealed the DCE decision of 27 June 2012 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete did not contest the anti-doping violation or the duration of the imposed sanction. He argued that there were substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of doping control not attributeable to the Athlete and that the DCE failed to bring forward the commencement of the period of ineligibility under the Rules.

The Sole Arbitrator observes that in general a total duration of 8 months in disciplinary proceedings with regard to an anti-doping violation does not constitute a substantial delay by itself.
However, the Sole Arbitrator is of the opinion that there are multiple delays in separate phases of the proceedings, which constitute the substantiality of the delay.
Accordingly, the Sole Arbitrator holds that, in view of all the circumstances of the case, the 6 months period of suspension must start on 26 April 2012, which is the date of the first assigned hearing in the VBL Internal proceedings.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 12 September 2012 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Alexander Ruoff on 12 July 2012 against the decision of the “Disciplinaire Commissie voor Elitesporters” dated 28 June 2012 is partially upheld.
2.) The decision of the “Disciplinaire Commissie voor Elitesporters” of the “Vlaams Doping Tribunaal” dated 28 June 2012 is set aside only with respect to the starting point of the period of ineligibility imposed on Mr Alexander Ruoff.
3.) The six-month period of ineligibility imposed on Mr Alexander Ruoff shall start on 26 April 2012.
(…)
6.) All other and further claims or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Limited (“UK Anti-Doping”) charged Ali Adams (the “Athlete”) for commission relating to an Anti-Doping Rule Violation arising from the British Boxing Board of Control (“BBBofC”) Anti-Doping Rules (the “Anti-Doping Rules” or “ADR”). His sample showed the presence of 3-hydroxystanozolol, a metabolite of stanozolol, had been detected in the Sample. Stanozolol and its metabolites are Prohibited Substances and are included in the WADA 2012 Prohibited List. The Athlete was also provisionally suspended with immediate effect. On July 5, 2012, the Athlete admitted the violations.

History
By way of mitigation, the Athlete claimed that he had suffered from an ongoing neck injury for which he had received medical treatment and massage. The Athlete claimed that a massage therapist had injected him on two separate occasions with an unknown substance that he was told was an anti-inflammatory. The Athlete postulated that these injections must have been the cause of the positive test.

Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation in accordance with ADR 2.1 and ADR 2.2 has been established in relation to stanozolol;
2. A period of Ineligibility of two years shall be the consequences imposed pursuant to ADR 10.2;
3. That period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced as from June 13, 2012 and will expire at midnight on 12 June 2014; and
4. The Athlete’s status during this period of Ineligibility shall be as set out in ADR 10.10.
During the period of Ineligibility, in accordance with ADR 10.10.1, the Athlete shall not be permitted to participate in any capacity in a competition or other activity (other than authorised anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) related to his sport.

Ablauf einer Urinkontrolle (Dopingkontrollfilm der NADA Deutschland)

This video shows a doping control in which an urine sample is obtained.
This video is made by NADA Germany.

CAS 2012/A/2822 Erkand Qerimaj v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)

• Weightlifting
• Doping (methylhexaneamine)
• Criteria to reduce the period of ineligibility for specified substances (Art. 10.4 IWF ADP)
• Distinction between direct intent, indirect intent and the various form of negligence
• Degree of fault of the athlete
• Relevant factors to be considered in reducing the period of ineligibility

1. Whether or not the behaviour of the athlete as such is intended to enhance his sport performance is not a sufficient criteria to establish the scope of applicability of Art. 10.4 IWF ADP. This is all the more true since nutritional supplements are usually taken for performance-enhancing purposes which is not per se prohibited. The characteristic of “performance-enhancing” as such is neutral. An athlete is entitled to consume any substance that seems useful to enhance his sport performance as long as this substance is not listed on WADA’s Prohibited List. Therefore, the primary focus can obviously not be on the question whether or not the athlete intended to enhance his sport performance by a certain behaviour (i.e. consuming a certain product), but moreover if the intent of the athlete in this respect was of doping-relevance. As a result, Art. 10.4 IWF ADP is applicable if the athlete is able to produce corroborating evidence in addition to his word that establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel the absence of an intent to enhance sport performance through consuming the specified substance.

2. Art. 10.4 IWF ADP remains applicable, if the athlete’s behaviour was not reckless, but “only” oblivious. Of course the distinction between indirect intent (which excludes the applicability of Art. 10.4 ADP IWF) and the various forms of negligence (that allow for the application of Art. 10.4 ADP IWF) is difficult to establish in practice. In this respect, it can be admitted that an athlete was not aware that a specified substance not labelled on the product was contained in the latter. Therefore, the athlete had no direct intent to enhance his sports performance through the Specified Substance contained in the product. The athlete’s indirect intent can only be determined by the surrounding circumstances of the case. An athlete who wrongly trusted a personal trainer’s word and listed the supplement on the doping control forms is admitted to have no indirect intent.

3. According to Art. 10.4 IWF ADP the athlete’s degree of fault (e.g. light or gross negligence) is the decisive criterion in assessing the appropriate period of ineligibility. In this respect, it has no influence on the athlete’s degree of fault that it is established to the satisfaction of the hearing panel that he did not intend to enhance his sport performance through the specified substance, as this aspect was considered in the athlete’s favour when assessing whether or not Art. 10.4 IWF ADP was applicable at all. It cannot be taken into account twice.

4. It is appropriate to reduce the sanction imposed on an athlete who never received any education or information in anti-doping matters by his federation or the anti-doping agency of his country. Further, the fact that the athlete did not use prohibited/specified substances deliberately and intentionally is relevant. However, the athlete’s poor judgment in blindly trusting a personal trainers’ advice and not doing further research does not allow for a further reduction.

In May 2012 the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Albanian weightlifter Erkand Qerimaj after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (1,3-dimethylamylamine).

It is undisputed in this case is that the prohibited substance in question can be traced back to a food supplement called Body Surge that the Athlete took prior to sample collection.

Consequently on 22 May 2012 the IWF Doping Hearing Panel imposed on the Athlete the maximum sanction of two years of ineligibility. The IWF Hearing Panel deemed that the Ahtlete had not produced corroborating evidence that he had not taken the supplement with the intent to enhance his performance.

Hereafter in June 2012 the Athlete appealed the IWF Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that he had no access to anti-doping information or education. He asserted that he had purchased his supplement from a reliable source and that he took the necessary steps to ensure that the product he used was clean.

In the case at hand, it is the Panel’s task to balance the two conflicting positions of the parties, i.e. the IWF’s interest in creating equal conditions for competitions and the Athlete’s limited access to information in anti-doping matters.

The Panel deems it appropriate to reduce the sanction imposed on the Athlete for the reason that he never received any education or information in anti-doping matters by his federation or the anti-doping agency of his country. This explains that the Athlete’s awareness of the dangers of prohibited/specified substances being contained in food supplements was not as high as it should have been.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 12 September 2012:

1.) The Appeal filed by Erkand Qerimaj against the decision of the IWF Doping Hearing Panel dated 22 May 2012 is partially upheld.

2.) The decision of the IWF Doping Hearing Panel dated 22 May 2012 is set aside and replaced with the following:
Erkand Qerimaj is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of fifteen months, commencing on 12 April 2012.

(…)

5.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.
After the notification a provisional suspension was ordered and hereafter the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the Committee.

Considering the presented evidence the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee concludes that the Athlete has violated the SAIDS rules and decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the notification, i.e. 19 July 2012 to 18 January 2013.

Psychological and Physical Impact of Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Dependence / Eric J. Ip, Debbie H. Lu, M.P.H. Mitchell, J. Barnett, Michael, J. Tenerowicz, Justin, C. Vo, Paul, J. Perry. - Pharmacotherapy 32 (2011) 10 (October); p. 910-919).

• PMID: 23033230.
• DOI: 10.1002/j.1875-9114.2012.01123

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE:
To contrast the characteristics of two groups of anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) users-those with versus those without AAS dependence.

DESIGN:
Subanalysis of data from the Anabolic 500, a cross-sectional survey.

PARTICIPANTS:
One hundred twelve male AAS-dependent users and 367 AAS-nondependent users who completed an online survey between February 19 and June 30, 2009.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:
Respondents were recruited from the Internet discussion boards of 38 fitness, bodybuilding, weightlifting, and steroid Web sites. The respondents provided online informed consent and completed the Anabolic 500, a 99-item Web-based survey. Self-reported data included demographics, exercise patterns, use of AAS and other performance-enhancing agents, adverse effects of AAS use, behavior consistent with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for AAS dependence, history of illicit drug and alcohol use, history of sexual or physical abuse, and psychiatric conditions diagnosed according to the DSM-IV-TR. Behavior consistent with AAS dependence was identified in 23.4% of the survey participants. These AAS-dependent users were more excessive in their AAS use (e.g., higher doses, higher quantity of agents, longer duration of use), more likely to report a history of illicit heroin use in the last 12 months (5.4% vs 1.9%, p=0.049), and more likely to report a diagnosis of an anxiety disorder (16.1 vs 8.4%, p=0.020) or major depressive disorder (15.2% vs 7.4%, p=0.012) than AAS-nondependent users.

CONCLUSION:
Data from the Anabolic 500 survey showed that almost one quarter of AAS users were dependent on these drugs. These AAS-dependent users had a higher rate of heroin use as well as anxiety and major depressive disorders compared with AAS-nondependent users. These findings can help clinicians and researchers better understand and address the potential illicit drug use and psychiatric comorbidities that may be present among AAS-dependent users.

The 2013 Prohibited List International Standard : The World Anti-Doping Code / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2012.

- The official text of the Prohibited List shall be maintained by WADA and shall be published in English and French. In the event of any conflict between the English and French versions, the English version shall prevail.
- This List shall come into effect on 1 January 2013

Mr. Vadim Rakitin (Respondent) is a Russian athlete in the sport of IPC Powerlifting. Respondent competed at the London 2012 Paralympic Games where he provided a sample for doping control.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Respondent after his blood samples showed an adverse analytical finding classified as S2. Growth Hormone on de WADA 2012 Prohibited List.
The IPC notified Respondent of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension. The notification letter enclosed a letter “Letter of Decision” for the Respondent to complete and return to IPC by no later than 5 September 2012.

Respondent returned the signed Letter of Decision to the IPC. Respondent admitted he has committed an anti-doping rule violation and that he accepts the consequences.
Respondent stated he purchased from the internet 10 units of growth hormone for recovering from his shoulder injury. Respondent did not tell his personal coach nor did he discuss the use of the product with any other person.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends to the IPC Governing Body:
(a) to impose a two-year period of ineligibility from 23 August 2012 (date of the notification);
(b) to impose a financial sanction of € 1500,- on Respondent.

On 8 September 2012 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

Mr. Nikolay Marfin (Respondent) is a Russian athlete in the sport of IPC Powerlifting. Respondent competed at the London 2012 Paralympic Games where he provided a sample for doping control.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Respondent after his blood samples showed an adverse analytical finding classified as S2. Growth Hormone on de WADA 2012 Prohibited List.
The IPC notified Respondent of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension. The notification letter enclosed a letter “Letter of Decision” for the Respondent to complete and return to IPC by no later than 5 September 2012. Respondent returned the signed Letter of Decision to the IPC.

Respondent admitted he has committed an anti-doping rule violation and that he accepts the consequences. The team doctor and NPC Russia confirmed that the substances declared on the doping control forms did not contain the prohibited substance.
Respondent stated that he had injected the prohibited substance himself. He had suffered serious injuries prior to the competition. To assist with the recovery from his injuries, he researched the internet and found a product containing the prohibited substance.
Respondent had provided a sample before and tested negative at the Paralympic Pre-Games Camp on 1 August 2012 in Russia. The Russian Anti-Doping Agency did not conduct blood testing due to the high costs connected with such testing.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends to the IPC Governing Body:
(a) to impose a two-year period of ineligibility from 23 August 2012 (date of the notification);
(b) to impose a financial sanction of € 1500,- on Respondent.

On 8 September 2012 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

Mr. Shota Omarashvili (Respondent) is a Georgian athlete in the sport of IPC Powerlifting.
Respondent competed at the London 2012 Paralympic Games where he provided a sample for doping control.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Respondent after his sample showed an adverse analytical finding related to the prohibited substance 5α-androstane-3α,17α-diol. The IPC notified Respondent of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension.
The notification letter enclosed a letter “Letter of Decision” for the Respondent to complete and return to IPC by no later than 6 September 2012. Respondent returned the signed Letter of Decision to the IPC.

Respondent stated that he admits that he has committed an anti-doping and that he accepts the consequences.
Respondent stated that he was unsure of how the prohibited substance entered his body, but suspects that it may have been contained in one of the nutritional supplements he used prior to the competition. He had purchased these supplements at supermarkets an pharmacies in Georgia, therefore he searched the internet and studied the product labels and did not note any prohibited substances on the label. Respondent had no doctor or a sports nutritionist that advised him on medication or nutrition. He has been advised by friends on what supplements to use and did not, but did not inform his coach about the supplements he was taking.

The Committee noted that in this particular case, the current system op NPC Georgia had not worked. NPC Georgia responded that it is working on putting in place an anti-doping program and that cases like this one highlighted the need for a more structured system.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends to the IPC Governing Body:
(a) to impose a two-year period of ineligibility from 6 September 2012 (date of the notification);
(b) to impose a financial sanction of € 1500,- on Respondent.

On 8 September 2012 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.