2009 Out-of-Competition Testing Statistics / WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency). - Montreal : WADA, 2010

Niet spotten met je spotter (Dutch title)

Having a good spotter to watch and support you, is very important, especially when going heavy in your training. A spotter must know when to intervene, when and how to support. A spotter needs to know to strength and weaknesses of the person he spots. In short, a spotter has to be spot on for the task at hand!

This video is part of the True Strength (Eigen Kracht) campaign of the Dopingautoriteit. A campaign that warns gym users and bodybuilders for the health risks of doping use and offers healthy and effective alternatives (training, recovery, nutrition, nutritional supplements, mental techniques).

Blessures - voorkomen én omzeilen (Dutch title)

Injuries can be a terrible setback in your training. So, you better prevent them from happening or try to circumvent them. Strength and conditioning coach Milan de Rode shows how to. Plus a word of advise: stay away of injury prone exercises. Better safe than sorry is our motto here.

This video is part of the True Strength (Eigen Kracht) campaign of the Dopingautoriteit. A campaign that warns gym users and bodybuilders for the health risks of doping use and offers healthy and effective alternatives (training, recovery, nutrition, nutritional supplements, mental techniques)

Power! Banken, deadliften, voorslaan (Dutch title)

Power exercises are an endangered species in the gym. You can see a lot of bench pressing, but deadlifting or old school snatching seems to be avoided like the plague. The deadlift and Olympic style lifting should be reinstated with a vigour, because they are calorie burnes and superb compound exercises.

This video is part of the True Strength (Eigen Kracht) campaign of the Dopingautoriteit. A campaign that warns gym users and bodybuilders for the health risks of doping use and offers healthy and effective alternatives (training, recovery, nutrition, nutritional supplements, mental techniques)

The International Basketball Federation (FIBA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (metabolite of nandrolone).
The FIBA notified the Player and ordered a provisional suspension. The Player filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Panel.
The Player stated he took part in a private muscle training programme in the 2009 off-season where he used a supplement suggested to him by his professional trainer. The Player argued this supplement must have been the source of the prohibited substance. Player stated he had no intention to enhance his performance since the completion period would start only 1-2 months after the said trainings.
Considering Player’s statement and the exceptional circumstances the Panel finds the Player’s negligence to be not significant. Therefore the FIBA Disciplinary Panel decides a 1 year period of ineligibility starting from the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 February 2010.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping organization ("UKAD") charged Callum Priestly ("athlete") for a violation of the anti-doping rules. A prohibited substance (clenbuterol) was found to be present in the urine sample taken from the athlete in an out of competition test conducted at Stellenbosch South Africa on January 19, 2010. The athlete has waived his right to a hearing and requested that the panel deal with the case on the written submissions.

History
The athlete admits the presence of Clenbuterol he denies knowingly ingesting the substance and his case is that he bears “no fault or negligence” for the violation.

Decision
The tribunal makes the following decision:
1. A doping offence contrary to Rule 32.2(a) has been established;
2. The period of ineligibility to be imposed is 2 years from February 19, 2010, to February 18, 2012.

Appeal
The athlete has a right of appeal against this decision, as a national level athlete, any appeal must be filed within 45 days of the receipt of this decision.

CAS 2008/A/1545 Andrea Anderson, LaTasha Colander Clark, Jearl Miles-Clark, Torri Edwards, Chryste Gaines, Monique Hennagan, Passion Richardson v/ IOC

Ms Andrea Anderson, Ms LaTasha Colander Clark, Ms Jearl Miles-Clark, Ms Torri Edwards, Ms Chryste Gaines, Ms Monique Hennagan and Ms Passion Richardson are all track and field athletes from the United States of America. The Athletes participated in the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000 as members
of the U.S. Olympic team sent by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC).

The issue to be solved in this case is whether, under the applicable rules in force at the time of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the results obtained by the US track and field
teams in the women’s 4×100m and 4×400m relay events should be annulled and the medals withdrawn from those teams because one team member – Ms Marion Jones –
has been subsequently disqualified due to an admitted anti-doping rule violation.

Following investigations the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported in 2003 that the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO) was involved in a conspiracy for the purpose of the distribution and use of doping substances and techniques. These substances were either undetectable or difficult to detect in routine drug testing.

BALCO is alleged to have distributed several types of banned doping agents to professional athletes in track and field, baseball and football. Thereupon multiple athlete's were charged and convicted for the use of various performance-enhancing drugs.

Consequently on 10 April 2008 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to disqualify the USOC women relay teams and their results obtained at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games because of their use of prohibited substances provided by BALCO.

Hereafter in April 2008 the Athlete appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athletes requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to reverse the disqualifcation of their results obtained at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.

The Athletes argue that the IOC violated their rights to due process, fundamental fairness and natural justice through proceedings conducted in violation of the Olympic Charter.

In particular, according to the Athletes, the IOC knowingly and repeatedly disregarded the Olympic Charter and violated their right to be heard in the following ways:

• a) the IOC consistently refused to acquaint the Athletes with the charges and evidence against them;
• b) the Athletes were not granted any meaningful opportunity to tender a defence, in writing or in person;
• c) the IOC Disciplinary Commission and Executive Board were composed of individuals who had prejudged the matter, as demonstrated by some public statements;
• d) the Executive Board never adopted a valid decision.

Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that at the time of the Sydney Olympic Games there was no express IOC rule or IAAF rule that clearly allowed the IOC to annul the relay team results if one team member was found to have committed a doping offence.

As a result, the Panel is unanimously of the opinion that, on the basis of the IOC and IAAF rules applicable at the time of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the Appealed Decision taken by the IOC Executive Board on 10 April 2008 is incorrect and must be set aside. The Panel reaches this conclusion with all due respect to the IOC Executive Board and its fundamental role under the Olympic Charter.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 Juy 2010:

1.) The appeal filed by the Appellants Ms Andrea Anderson, Ms LaTasha Colander Clark, Ms Jearl Miles-Clark, Ms Torri Edwards, Ms Chryste Gaines, Ms Monique Hennagan and Ms Passion Richardson on 30 April 2008 is upheld.

2.) The Decision of the IOC Executive Board dated 10 April 2008 is hereby set aside.

3.) On the basis of the IOC and IAAF Rules in force and applicable at the time of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the United States’ teams that competed in the women’s 4×100m and 4×400m athletics relay events at those Games shall not be disqualified; the medals and diplomas awarded to the above noted Appellants in those events shall not be returned to the IOC.

4.) All other requests, motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

5.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500.- already paid by the Appellants and which is retained by the CAS.

6.) The IOC shall pay a global amount of CHF 10’000.- to the above noted Appellants as contribution towards their expenses incurred in this arbitration.

In March 2015 Lyfjaráð ÍSÍ, the Iceland ISI Anti-Doping Committee, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jóhann Birgir Ingvarsson after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance oxandrolone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.

After notification an provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.
The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he had used a product DAA as testosterone booster provided by a ‘friend’ and probably ‘under the table’.

The Tribunal concludes that the Athlete was negligent without intention to enhance his performance. Considering his substantial assistance the Tribunal of the National Olympic and Sport Association of Iceland (ÍSÍ) decides on 15 May 2015 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

In June 2010 Lyfjaráð ÍSÍ, the Iceland ISI Anti-Doping Committee, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Player after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.
After notification the Player was heard for the ISI Tribunal. The Player admitted she used cannabis out of competition.
Without intention to enhance her sport performance the ISI Tribunal decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Player.

In July 2010 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Adrian Rusu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
After notification the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the ANAD Hearing Commission, nor did he file a statement in his defence.
Therefore the ANAD Hearing Commission decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.