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teams in the women’s 4×100m and 4×400m relay events should be annulled and the medals withdrawn from those teams because one team member – Ms Marion Jones –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.

Adverse events associated with testosterone administration / Shehzad Basaria, Andrea D. Coviello, Thomas G. Travison, Thomas W. Storer, Wildon R. Farwell, Alan M. Jette, Richard Eder, Sharon Tennstedt, Jagadish Ulloor, Anqi Zhang, Karen Choong, Kishore M. Lakshman, Norman A. Mazer, Renee Miciek, Joanne Krasnoff, Ayan Elmi, Philip E. Knapp, Brad Brooks, Erica Appleman, Sheetal Aggarwal, Geeta Bhasin, Leif Hede-Brierley, Ashmeet Bhatia, Lauren Collins, Nathan LeBrasseur, Louis D. Fiore, Shalender Bhasin. - (New England Journal of Medicine 363 (2010) 2 (8 July); p. 109-122)

• PMID: 20592293
• PMCID: PMC3440621
• DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1000485

Abstract

Background: Testosterone supplementation has been shown to increase muscle mass and strength in healthy older men. The safety and efficacy of testosterone treatment in older men who have limitations in mobility have not been studied.

Methods: Community-dwelling men, 65 years of age or older, with limitations in mobility and a total serum testosterone level of 100 to 350 ng per deciliter (3.5 to 12.1 nmol per liter) or a free serum testosterone level of less than 50 pg per milliliter (173 pmol per liter) were randomly assigned to receive placebo gel or testosterone gel, to be applied daily for 6 months. Adverse events were categorized with the use of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities classification. The data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial be discontinued early because there was a significantly higher rate of adverse cardiovascular events in the testosterone group than in the placebo group.

Results: A total of 209 men (mean age, 74 years) were enrolled at the time the trial was terminated. At baseline, there was a high prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and obesity among the participants. During the course of the study, the testosterone group had higher rates of cardiac, respiratory, and dermatologic events than did the placebo group. A total of 23 subjects in the testosterone group, as compared with 5 in the placebo group, had cardiovascular-related adverse events. The relative risk of a cardiovascular-related adverse event remained constant throughout the 6-month treatment period. As compared with the placebo group, the testosterone group had significantly greater improvements in leg-press and chest-press strength and in stair climbing while carrying a load.

Conclusions: In this population of older men with limitations in mobility and a high prevalence of chronic disease, the application of a testosterone gel was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events. The small size of the trial and the unique population prevent broader inferences from being made about the safety of testosterone therapy.

Related cases:
- ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2008_05 ANAD vs Corina Dumbrӑvean
February 19, 2008
- ANAD Comisia de Apel 2008_06 Olimpic Sport Club & Corina Dumbrӑvean vs ANAD
December 12, 2008
- CAS 2009/A/1764 Olimpic Sport Club vs ANAD
October 9, 2009
- ANAD Comisia de Apel 2010_06 Corina Dumbrӑvean vs ANAD
August 10, 2010
- ANAD Comisia de Apel 2010_07 Olimpic Sport Club vs ANAD
August 10, 2010
- ANAD Comisia de Apel 2010_08 Eleodor Rosca vs ANAD
November 18, 2010
- CAS 2010/A/2220 Corina Dumbrӑvean vs ANAD
July 26, 2011

In May 2010 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Corina Dumbrӑvean after she attempted to tamper with her sample and refused to provide a sample for drug testing.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the ANAD Hearing commission.

The Athlete claimed that she was not on the location as mentioned in het whereabouts information and that she did not receive the invitation for testing. Several witnesses stated that the Athlete was not in Villa Olympic when the sample collection was conducted on 18 May 2005. The witnesses failed to identify the person presumed to undergo the doping test and the Doping Control Officers (DCO) stated they recognized the Athlete Corina Dumbrӑvean as the person who signed the invitation to provide a sample.
The Athlete sustained her claim that she was not the person who was tested by the two DCO’s on 18 May 2005. A criminologist expert testified that the person who signed the Invitation to provide a sample was not written by the Athlete Corina Dumbrӑvean.
However the National Crimonology Institute of the Romanian Ministry of Justice investigated several document with the Athlete's signature and concluded in July 2010 that the Athlete’s signature on the invitation to provide a sample on 18 May 2010 belonged to the Athlete Corina Dumbrӑvean.

The ANAD Hearing Commission considered in this case the statements and evidence and the fact that the Athlete committed a second anti-doping rule violation. In addition the IAAF has reported in March 2010 that the Athlete tested positive for the prohibited substance erythropoetin (EPO).
Therefore the ANAD Hearing Commission decides to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 3 June 2010 (case 18/08.07.2010)

Related cases:

- Dutch District Court 2009 Athlete 2009005 vs KNSB and Dopingautoriteit
June 9, 2009
- KNSB 2009 KNSB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 TU1
September 8, 2009
- Dutch District Court 2010 Athlete 2009005 vs KNSB
September 30, 2009
- KNSB 2009 KNSB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 TU2
October 15, 2009
- KNSB 2009 KNSB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 TU3
December 2, 2009
- KNSB 2010 KNSB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 T
March 12, 2010
- KNSB 2010 KNSB Decision Appeal Committee 2009005 B
November 26, 2010
- CAS 2010/A/2311 Stichting Anti-Doping Autoriteit Nederland (NADO) & the Koninklijke Nederlandsche Schaatsenrijders Bond (KNSB) vs W.
August 22, 2011

In February 2009 the Royal Netherlands Skating Association (KNSB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance norandrosterone (Nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered by the KNSB.

In this 4# preliminary case proceeding the Athlete argued that the costs for an expert investigation under the Rules shall be borne by the KNSB due to the T/E ratio wasn't subject of the investigation.
The KNSB Appeal Committee accepted the Athlete's argument and ruled on 6 July 2010 that the costs for the expert investigation shall be borne by the KNSB.

Full Case History:

Between 2009 and 2011 a number of proceedings and appeals followed in the dispute between the Athlete, the KNSB and Dopingautoriteit about the anti-doping violation and the Athlete seeking annulment of the disciplinary proceedings and sanctions.

- On 9 June 2009 the Dutch District Court dismissed the Athlete’s objections about the validity of the sample collection and violation of his rights.
- On 8 September 2009 the KNSB ruled in the 1# Preliminary Decision about the validity of the sample collection and the validity of the test results for which a independent expert is appointed and the Dopingautoreit is ordered to provide additional information about the laboratory procedures and protocols.
- On 30 September 2009 the Dutch District Court dismissed the Athlete’s request to lift the provisional suspension.
- On 15 October 2010 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee ruled in the 2# Preliminary Decision about the possibility for lifting the provisional suspension for which a new hearing is ordered.
- On 2 December 2009 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee ruled in the 3# Preliminary Decision that the imposed provisional suspension will expire in February 2010 when the KNSB has not rendered a final decision against the Athlete.
- On 12 March 2010 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee dismissed the Athlete’s arguments about the validity of the test results and decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete and 1 year probationary period until November 2011.
- On 6 July 2010 the KNSB Appeal Committee ruled in the 4# Preliminary Decision that under the Rules the costs for an expert investigation shall be borne by the KNSB.
- On 26 November 2010 the KNSB Appeal Committee decides to annul the KNSB Disciplinary Committee decision of 12 March 2010 because of the KNSB’s refusal to provide additional documentation to verify the validity of the laboratory testing method as violation of the Athlete’s right of defence.

Hereafter the Dopingautoriteit and the KNSB appealed the decision the KNSB Appeal Committee of 26 November 2010 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete’s samples tested positive for the prohibited substance norandrosterone (Nandrolone) and that no departure from the ISL occurred in this case. Therefore the CAS Panel upholds the decision of the 12 March 2010 of the KNSB Disciplinary Committee and decides to set aside the decision of the KNSB Appeal Committee of 26 November 2010.

Facts
UK Anti-Doping Limited (“UKAD") charged Dan Staite ("player") for an anti-doping rule violation. Two Prohibited Substances (as defined), erythropoietin and androsta-1,4,6-triene-3,17-dione, had been found in an urine sample provided by player on March 13, 2010. A hearing in the player's absence, to determine the charge and consequences, took place on June 28, 2010. At his home he refused a blood test on 18 March 2010.

History
The player is a cyclist and is bound by the Anti-Doping Rules adopted by the British Cycling Federation (“the Rules”). He admits the offence and by mail he made clear not to attend the hearing.

Decision
The sole arbiter rules:
1. an anti-doping rule violation was committed by the player;
2. the period of ineligibility in his case is to be two years;
3. the period of ineligibility is to run from 8 a.m. on 1 May 2010 to 8 a.m. on 1 May 2012.

Appeal
Either UKAD or Mr Staite (or any of the organisations specified in Article 13.4.1 of the Rules) may appeal against this decision.

TAS 2009/A/2014 Agence Mondiale Antidopage (AMA) c. ASBL Royale Ligue Vélocipédique Belge (RLVB) & Iljo Keisse

CAS 2009/A/2014 WADA vs Iljo Keisse & Royale Ligue Vélocipédique Belge (RLVB)

The Athlete Iljo Keissen is a professional Belgian cyclist with an UCI licence.

In December 2008 the UCI reported an anti-doping rule violation aginst the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance cathine (above the WADA threshold), chlorothiazide and hydrocholothiazide. However on 2 November 2009 the RLVB Disciplinary Commission decided not to impose a sanction on the Athlete. 

In first instance the RLVB Disciplinary Commission ruled that not had been established to their satisfaction that the concentration cathine had exceeded the threshold limit. Furthermore the Commission deemed that the Athlete had demonstrated how the other substances had entered his system and that he had acted with no fault or negligence

Hereafter in December 2009 WADA appealed the RLVB decision of 2 November 2009 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Preliminary the Athlete had challenged the CAS jurisdiction and claimed that his ECHR rights were violated. However Panel determines that the Athlete’s rights had not been violated and therefore that there are no grounds for suspension of the proceedings.

The Athlete asserted that the product Sinnutab Forte he had used contained pseudoephedrine and had caused the positive test result for cathine. The other substances found in his sample were the result of supplement contamination in his ZMA capsules he had used.

Following assesment of the Athlete's conduct the Panel concludes that he failed to research the ingredients of his supplements before using and failed to demonstrate that he acted not intentionally.

Therefore on 6 July 2010 the Cour of Arbitration for Sport decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 9 December 2008.

Facts
UK Anti-Doping Limited ("UKAD") charges Ben Payne ("player") for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The prohibited substances, 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone, had been found in a urine sample provided by Mr Payne on 13 March 2010. The player indicated that he did not dispute the fact of the anti-doping rule violation but that he wished to put forward reasons why he should not be subjected to the usual 2 year suspension for such a violation. Unfortunately, the player did no more than say that he would explain to me at the hearing why this should be so. Eventually the player decides not to attend the oral hearing, but because everything was set it took place without the player.

History
The player explained that he had suffered severe facial injury during a game of hockey and, at the suggestion of a friend, had taken two substances called “Deca” and “Sustanon” in order to aid his recovery.

Conclusion
In summary the following decision has been made:
1. an anti-doping rule violation was committed by the player;
2. the period of ineligibility in his case is to be two years; and the period of ineligibility is to run from 8 a.m. on April 16, 2010 to 8 a.m. on April 16, 2012.

Appeal
Either UKAD or Mr Payne (or any of the organisations specified in Article 13.4.1 of the Rules) may appeal against this decision as set out in the preceding paragraph.