CAS 2020_A_7510 Daniel Kinyua Wanjiru vs World Athletics

1 Feb 2022

CAS 2020/A/7510 Daniel Kinyua Wanjiru v. World Athletics

Related case:

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Daniel Kinyua Wanjiru
October 8, 2020



In April 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of the IAAF (now: World Athletics) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Daniel Kinyua Wanjiru after an AIU Expert Panel concluded unanimously in September 2019 in their Joint Expert Opinion that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping. 

After notification the Athlete submitted several explanations and objections to the AIU about the circumstances surrounding the collected samples. However after consideration the Expert Panel rejected the Athlete’s explanations and objections in their 2nd (March 2020), 3rd (June 2020) and 4th (August 2020) joint report. A provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal. 

Based on the formidable scientific evidence the Disciplinary Tribunal Panel was comfortably satisfied that the AIU has discharged its burden that blood manipulation is the irresistible explanation for the abnormal HB and OFF-score values in sample 14 in the Athlete’s ABP. The Panel deemed that the AIU and the Expert Panel established that the presented doping scenario caused the abnormalities in the Athlete’s ABP and that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Consequently the Disciplinary Tribunal decided on 8 October 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

Hereafter in November 2020 the Athlete appealed the Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

World Athletics relied on the Joint Expert Reports submitted by the Expert Panel and the subsequent opinions they have provided in addition to their testimony during the hearing; it contended that there is no pathological or physiological explanation for the HGB value in Sample 14.

The principal abnormality in the Athlete’s passport – the extraordinarily high HGB value of 19.4 g/dL in Sample 14 – is a concentration so high that it would according to Prof. d’Onofrio represent a serious danger to the Athlete’s health, including the risk of thrombosis.

The Athlete’s case had evolved considerably as time has passed and he has consulted different experts who have considered the likelihood of there being innocent explanations for the adverse passport finding.

The Athlete submited that this case is about one single suspect HGB value in sample 14 and that one suspect ABP value is in itself insufficient to prove an anti-doping rule violation.

The Athlete argued that World Athletics must put the value in sample 14 in some context and present a credible doping scenario; and the case against him must be dismissed if World Athletics fails to do so even if the Panel was to find the Athlete’s explanation of inadequate mixing unlikely.

the Panel finds that the ABP is a reliable means that may assist in establishing an anti-doping rule violation, and although not definitive, it is highly convincing when supported by Joint Expert Reports such as those presented in this case.

The Panel finds that WA and the experts have provided plausible scenarios, consistent with scientific literature, which support the finding that the Athlete did transfuse himself, most likely on 7 or 8 March 2019.

In sum, considering (i) the values detected in Sample 14 of the Athlete’s ABP were highly abnormal and indicated a high probability of doping; (ii) the absence of any indication of improper handling of the Sample or failures to follow the laboratory protocol and (iii) the absence of contradictory evidence (i.e. that the Athlete has not provided any objective, physiological or pathological reason or condition to explain the abnormality in the ABP values); the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the abnormal ABP values were caused by a transfusion.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 February 2022 that:

  1. The appeal filed by Mr Daniel Kinyua Wanjiru on 9 November 2020 against the decision rendered by the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal on 8 October 2020 is dismissed.
  2. This Award is made without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 paid by Mr Daniel Kinyua Wanjiru, which is retained by CAS.
  3. Mr Daniel Kinyua Wanjiru is ordered to pay World Athletics a contribution of CHF 2,000 (two thousand Swiss Francs) towards its legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with these proceedings.
  4. All other and further applications for relief are dismissed.

ITF 2021 ITF vs Elizavetka Koklina

1 Feb 2022

Related case:

ITF 2017 ITF vs Elizaveta Koklina
April 16, 2018

In October 2021 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian tennis player Elizavetka Koklina after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrocholothiazide.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted the provisional suspension and the decision rendered by the ITF.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and explained with evidence that the day before the sample colleciton she became ill and underwent medical treatment for an emergency hypertensive crisis. At the clinic her neurologist prescribed a tablet of Captopril and she used her mobile telephone to check to whether the medication contained any prohibited substance before ingestion of this medication.

Yet unknown to the Athlete or the doctor, the nurse by mistake had substituted the Captopril tablet for a tablet of Capozide (containing 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide). Both the doctor and the nurse ware aware that the Athlete was a professiona tennis player. They confirmed in their statements that the Athlete suffered from an emergency hypertensive crisis and that Captopril was prescribed as treatment.

Following internal investigations thereupon in October 2021 the clinic established that the nurse by mistake had brought to the consultation room a tablet of Capozide, instead of the prescribed Captopril tablet. In addition the Montreal Lab confirmed that the concentration found in the Athlete's sample could be consistent with the Athlete's recent use of a Capozide tablet.

The ITF concludes that the Athlete has established that it is more likely than not that the presence of Hydrochlorothiazide found in her sample  was due to her ingestion of a Capozide tablet (containing 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide). The Athlete was administered at the Clinic on 15 August 2021, whereas she believed the tablet to be Captopril, which she was prescribed to treat an emergency hypertensive crisis, but that had, unknown to the Athlete or the Doctor who prescribed it, been substituted by the Nurse for a tablet of Capozide.

Further the ITF accepts, in the exceptional circumstances of this case and in light of all of the evidence provided by the Player, that the Player acted with No Fault or Negligence in relation to her violation because she has established that she did not know or suspect and could not reasonably have known or suspected even with the utmost caution that she had ingested or was at risk of ingesting Hydrochlorothiazide.

The ITF regards that this is the Athlete's second anti-doping rule violations. Yet, where a finding of No Fault or Negligence is made, TADP Article 10.5 provides that any otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated entirely.

Therefore the ITF decides on 1 February 2022 that the otherwise applicable calculation in respect of a second Anti-Doping Rule Violation is not engaged, and that the Athlete will not serve any period of Ineligibility for her violation. Fairness requires that the Athlete's will retain the results obtained between the date of the sample collection and the date of this Decision.

ITF 2021 ITF vs Timur Mukhtarulin

1 Feb 2022

In November 2021 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Ukrainian tennis player Timur Mukhtarulin after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Amfetamine (126 ng/mL). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

In this case there were delays in the proceedings attributed to the Athlete as he failed repeatedly to apply for a TUE within the set deadline, as requested by the ITF. He also failed to respond timely to the ITU communications, nor provided any substantial evidence in his defence.

In his submissions the Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and stated that he had decided to retire from tennis. He asserted that he was unaware that his medication caused the positive test result and claimed that his doctor had not submitted the documentation for his TUE application.

The ITF finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional nor how the substance had entered his system.

Without a valid request for a TUE, nor a request for a hearing the ITF deemed that the Athlete has waived his right for a hearing, admitted the anti-doping rule violation and accepted the consequences thereupon.

Therefore the ITF decides on 1 February 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 22 November 2022.

CAS 2021_A_7833 Raúl Alarcón García vs UCI

28 Jan 2022

Related case:

UCI-ADT 2020 UCI Raúl Alarcón García
March 8, 2021


On 8 March 2021 the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Spanish cyclist Raúl Alarcón García due to the abnormal values in his Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).

In First Instance the Sole Arbitrator concluded that the Athlete failed to establish a departure from the ISL, the ISTI or any other applicable Rule. Furthermore there was no departure that could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, nor did the Athlete set forth any other potential legal basis on which his arguments may rely.

Hereafter in April 2021 the Athlete appealed the UCI-ADT Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and requested the Panel to annul the Appealed Decision.

The Athlete denied the violation and raised a number of issues regarding:

  • the lack of independence of the UCI-ADT;
  • the burden en standards of proof;
  • the refusal to translate the ABP documentation package;
  • the departures of the ISL;
  • the departures of the ISTI;
  • the reliability of the ABP data.

The UCI contended that the Athlete's ABP profile displays clear abnormalities and that none of the Athlete's explanations or attempts to establish that there are no such abnormalities are convincing.

In this case the Panel considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the Parties:

  • It first recalls the specific context and debates over the finding of an ADRV based on abnormalities identified in an ABP and the applicable burden of proof.
  • It then sets out the burden and standard of proof applicable in determining whether departures from certain applicable standards in sample collection, preservation and analyses are performed.
  • The Panel goes through said alleged departures to determine whether they have been characterized, and, if so, whether they had an impact over the finding of an ADRV;
  • before determining the justifications of the abnormalities debated between the Parties; and
  • determining the corresponding sanction.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to provide credible explanations for the abnormalities in his ABP, but that such failure cannot automatically induce that an ADRV has been committed.

Ultimately the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the cause for the abnormalities is most certainly the use of a Prohibited Method, i.e. blood transfer. The Panel considers that the Athlete's profile shows a high possibility of blood manipulations. The timing of which reinforces this conclusion, as these abnormalities coincided with the Volta a Portugal 2015, 2017 and 2018.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 28 January 2022 that:

  1. The appeal filed by Mr. Raúl Alarcón García on 6 April 2021 against the decision rendered by the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal dated 8 March 2021 is rejected.
  2. The decision rendered by the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal dated 8 March 2021 is confirmed.
  3. The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr. Raúl Alarcón García, which is retained by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
  4. Mr. Raúl Alarcón García is ordered to pay CHF 2,500 (two thousand and five hundred Swiss Francs) as a contribution towards the legal fees and other expense incurred by the UCI in connection with this procedure.
  5. All other or further requests or motions for relief are dismissed.

ICC 2021 ICC vs Brendan Taylor

28 Jan 2022

In November 2021 the International Cricket Council (ICC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Zimbabwean cricket player Brendan Taylor after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

After notification, the Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing and accepted the sanction proposed by the ICC. The Athlete explained that he had used Cocaine for recreational purposes 3 days before the sample collection

The ICC concludes that the use of the substance occurred out-of-competition and was unrelated to sport performance. Because the Athlete agreed to follow a Substance of Abuse treatment programme approved by the ICC his sanction was reduced to 1 month (instead of 3 months).

Therefore the ICC decides on 28 January 2022 to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of de Decision.

SDRCC 2021 CCES vs Darren Gagnon-Maltais

24 Jan 2022

In September 2021 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter Darren Gagnon-Maltais after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance LGD-4033 (ligandrol).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SDRCC Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He asserted that he had acted with no significant fault or negligence whereas he lacked education and was tested before without issues.

He believed that he had consumed a contaminated product Kaos for a few weeks and then stopped using. He acknowledged that he failed to research properly the ingredients of this product before using, nor conducted analysis of this supplement in a laboratory.

CCES contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional and that the produkt Kaos was the likely source of the positive test. Neither did he demonstrate that he excercised due care and acted with no significant fault or negligence. There was no evidence of how the substance entered his system, nor evidence of exceptional circumstances.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the CCES education was sufficient and completed by the Athlete, whereas he was warned repeatedly of the risks associated with supplement use.

The Sole Arbitrator accepts that the Athlete did not want to and did not know that he had consumed Ligandrol. Yet, he failed to meet his burden of proof that the violation was no intentional on a balance of probabilites while he clearly disregarded the unmistakable risks of ingesting supplements.

The Sole Arbitrator deems that there are no exceptional circumstances, nor compelling evidence presented in this case for the application of a reduced sanction.

Therefore the SDRCC Doping Tribunal decides on 24 January 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 September 2021.

JADO Annual Report 2021 (Jordan)

23 Jan 2022

Jordan Anti-Doping organization (JADO) Annual Report 2021 / Jordan Anti-Doping Organisation (JADO). - Amman : JADO, 2022

WADA - Independent Observers Report Olympic Games 2020

20 Jan 2022

Independent Observers Report of the Olympic Games, Tokyo 2020 / Francesca Rossi. - Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2021

WADA - Independent Observers Report Paralympic Games 2020

20 Jan 2022

Independent Observers Report Paralympic Games, Tokyo 2020 / Jenny Schulze. - Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2022

Detection of bazedoxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, in human urine by LC-MS/MS

18 Jan 2022

Detection of bazedoxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, in human urine by LC-MS/MS / Masato Okano, Mitsuhiko Sato, Shinji Kageyama

  • Drug Testing and Analysis (18 January 2022)
  • PMID: 35043573
  • DOI: 10.1002/dta.3225


Abstract

Bazedoxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, has been explicitly included in the prohibited list issued by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) since January 2020. A high-resolution liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometric detection method was developed to identify bazedoxifene and its metabolites in human urine and to quantify bazedoxifene (free plus glucuronide) for doping control purposes. Bazedoxifene acetate (20 mg) was orally administered to seven male volunteers, and the urine samples collected were analyzed using the developed method. The linearity ranged from 0.5 to 200 ng/mL, and the limit of detection was <0.2 ng/mL. The inter-day precision (2.2% to 3.6%) and the inter-day accuracy (-10.0% to 1.9%) were adequate. Bazedoxifene, bazedoxifene-N-oxide, and bazedoxifene gluco-conjugates were identified in the urine samples. The profiles of the urinary excretion indicated the presence of small amounts of free bazedoxifene and bazedoxifene-N-oxide, while bazedoxifene glucuronide was the predominant metabolite. The cumulative excretion amount of bazedoxifene (free form plus glucuronide conjugate) within 78 h after the administration was 0.7% to 1.3% of the total dose. In all subjects, bazedoxifene (free plus glucuronide) could be detected in urine up to 78 h after administration.

Category
  • 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
Origin