Ms. Elena Chistilina (Respondent) is a Russian athlete in the sport of IPC Athletics.
On 26 June 2012, Respondent competed at the IPC Athletics European Championships in Stadskanaal, The Netherlands, where she provided a sample for doping control.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Respondent after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance N-ethylnicotinamide (a metabolite of nikethamide).
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 26 July 2012.

Respondent returned the signed Letter of Decision to the IPC in a timely fashion. In the Letter of Decision, Respondent stated that she:
- had no valid Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) justifying the presence of the prohibited substance founds in the sample;
- requested the analysis of the B sample; and
- challenged the provisional suspension.

Respondent filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the Committee. Respondent stated that two medications were not reported on the Doping Control Form obtained directly from her team doctor.
The Committee finds that no evidence was provided on how the prohibited substance entered Respondent’s body and it was not used with the intention of enhancing her sport performance.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends the following to the IPC Governing Board:
(a) Respondent’s individual results obtained at the 2012 IPC Athletics European Championships and at any other event from the date of 26 June 2012 onwards should be automatically disqualified, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes won;
(b) A two-year period of ineligibility should be imposed on the Respondent;
(c) The Respondent shall receive credit for the period of provisional suspension and should therefore be declared ineligible from 20 July 2012 (date of notification) until 19 July 2014; and
(d) a financial sanction of € 1.500,- should be imposed on Respondent.

On 9 August 2012 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

Human enhancement drugs and the pursuit of perfection /
J. McVeigh, M. Evans-Brown, M.A. Bellis. – (Adicciones 24 (2012) 3 : p. 185-190)

• PMID: 22868973

The emerging threat to public health posed by the use of human enhancement drugs has remained largely unrecognised. In attempts to become stronger, happier or smarter, or to look thinner, younger or more beautiful, people are turning to a diverse range of pharmaceuticals. The widespread availability of drugs with the potential to improve human attributes, appearance and abilities has generated a new and growing audience of users. Unlike users of drugs such as heroin, cocaine etc, users of human enhancement drugs do not necessarily perceive themselves as 'drug users'. Those attracted to these drugs may have little or no knowledge or understanding of the physical or psychological harm associated with these substances or their potential for addiction. In addition to the potent effects of many human enhancement drugs, there are considerable risks associated to the clandestine nature of the market. The growing number of untested, banned or adulterated drugs and the lack of safeguards and quality assurance in the illicit manufacturing process has resulted in serious harms and fatalities. The ease with which pharmaceuticals can be manufactured and distributed, combined with the significant profits that can be made from the illicit market, has resulted in a growing challenge for policy makers and health systems in many countries. This editorial aims to raise awareness of this emerging drugs situation and provide a brief overview of some of the drugs and their associated risks.

Related case:
ANAD Comisia de Audiere 2012_22 ANAD vs Chris-Paul-Laszlo Schlechta
August 20, 2012

In May 2012 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Chris-Paul-Laszlo Schlechta after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.
After notification the ANAD Hearing Commission decides to order a provisional suspension and the date of the hearing postponed in order to test the Athlete’s supplements.

Related case:
CAS 2013_A_3075 WADA vs Laszlo Szabolcs & ANAD
August 12, 2013

In August 2012 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Laszlo Szabolcs after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
After notification ANAD ordered a provisional suspension and the ANAD Hearing Commission postponed the date of the hearing in August 2012 due to the Athlete was out of the country.

Hereafter the Athlete file a statement in his defence and he was heard for the ANAD Hearing Commission. The Athlete stated he used a supplement provided by a person he knew. He argued that before using he researched the ingredients of the supplement on the internet and double-checked 1,3 dimethylamylamine as a prohibited substance on the ANAD and WADA website. He had no intention to enhance his performance and did not know that 1,3 dimethylamylamine is another name for methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

On 20 September 2012 the Romanian Hearing Commission decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 August 2012.

In November 2012 WADA appeals this decision with the Romanian Appeal Commission and hereafter in February 2013 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

In July 2012 Anti-Doping Singapore (ADS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete SG-4551 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances: Clenbuterol, Fluoxymesterone and Furosemide.

After notification the Athlete waived his right to be heard and he did not file a statement in his defence. Without the Athlete’s response the Panel concludes that the Athlete’s sample establish that he committed an anti-doping violation.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee decides on 6 August 2012 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete SG-4551 startting on the date of the decision.

In July 2012 Anti-Doping Singapore (ADS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete SG-4550 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances: Drostanolone and Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

After notification the Athlete failed to file a statement in his defence nor did he attend the hearing of the Singapore National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee. Without the Athlete’s response the Panel concludes that the Athlete’s sample establish that he committed an anti-doping violation.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee decides on 6 August 2012 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete SG-4550 startting on the date of the decision.

In July 2012 Anti-Doping Singapore (ADS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete SG-4549 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances: Drostanolone, Stanozolol and Trenbolone.

After notification the Athlete waived his right to be heard and he did not file a statement in his defence. Without the Athlete’s response the Panel concludes that the Athlete’s sample establish that he committed an anti-doping violation.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee decides on 6 August 2012 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete SG-4549 startting on the date of the decision.

In July 2012 Anti-Doping Singapore (ADS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete SG-4548 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances: Drostanolone, Letrozole, Mesterolone and Trenbolone.

After notification the Athlete waived his right to be heard and he did not file e a statement in his defence. Without the Athlete’s response the Panel concludes that the Athlete’s sample establish that he committed an anti-doping violation.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee decides on 6 August 2012 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete SG-4548 startting on the date of the decision.

In July 2012 Anti-Doping Singapore (ADS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete SG-4547 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances:
- stanozolol;
- clenbuterol;
- letrozole;
- furosemide;
- hydrochlorthiazide;
- chlorthiazide;
- spironolacone; and
- canrenone.

After notification the Athlete failed to file a statement in his defence nor did he attend the hearing of the Singapore National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee. Without the Athlete’s response the Panel concludes that the Athlete’s sample establish that he committed an anti-doping violation.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee decides on 6 August 2012 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete SG-4547 startting on the date of the decision.

In July 2012 Anti-Doping Singapore (ADS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete SG-4546 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances stanozolol and trenbolone.

After notification the Athlete failed to file a statement in his defence nor did he attend the hearing of the Singapore National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee. Without the Athlete’s response the Panel concludes that the Athlete’s sample establish that he committed an anti-doping violation.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee decides on 6 August 2012 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete SG-4546 startting on the date of the decision.