In order to provide athletes with basic information about their rights and responsibilities in the doping control process, WADA, in partnership with the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (VANOC), has developed a doping control video.

This 5-minute video is intended to provide a general overview of the doping control process while raising awareness of the athlete’s rights and responsibilities. The video outlines each of the phases of the doping control process:

Athlete selection
Athlete notification
Sample collection
Laboratory analysis
Results management

The video, currently available in nine languages (Arabic, Croatian, English, French, German, Greek, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish), can be ordered by stakeholders at no cost for use as part of their information and education efforts. Those interested in producing a co-branded version of the video with their own logo or a version in their own language (voiceover or subtitles) can contact WADA at info@wada-ama.org.

The World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) mission is to lead a collaborative worldwide campaign for doping-free sport.

WADA was established in 1999 as an international independent agency composed and funded equally by the sport movement and governments of the world. Its key activities include scientific research, education, development of anti-doping capacities, and monitoring of the World Anti Doping Code (Code) – the document harmonizing anti-doping policies in all sports and all countries. WADA is a Swiss private law Foundation. Its seat is in Lausanne, Switzerland, and its headquarters are in Montreal, Canada.

WADA works towards a vision of a world where all athletes compete in a doping-free sporting environment.

In October 2009 the Brazilian Cycling Confederation (CBC) has reported anti-doping rule violations against four cyclists after their samples tested positive for prohibited substances:
- Justino Borges Ribeiro for Recombinant Erythropoietin (rhEPO) and Cannabis;
- Carlos França for Sibutramine;
- Sidinei Silva for Stanozolol; and
- Maurício Morandi for Hydroxyethyl starch (HES).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and only the athletes Carlos França and Mauricio Morandi responded to the CBC communications. They filed a statement in their defence and were heard for the CBC Anti-Doping Commission (CAD-CBC).

The Athlete Carlos França admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that the source of the positive test was the supplement Venon Hyperdrive 3.0 he had used to lose weight. The Athlete asserted that the label of this supplement didn’t mention the prohibited substance Sibutramine as ingredient. Also he acknowledged he didn’t list this supplement on the Doping Control Form due to he believed he only had to mention the supplements he had used on the day of the sample collection.

The Athlete Maurício Morandi also denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance and testified with medical evidence that he underwent medical treatment on the day before the sample collection as he felt sick and an infusion was administered against a shock and dehydration.

The CAD-CBC finds the test results of the samples of the athletes Justino Borges Ribeiro and Sidinei Silva established the presence of prohibited substances and accordingly that they committed an anti-doping rule violation. Without their response the CAD-CBC decides to impose a two year period of ineligibility on the athletes starting on the date of the sample collection.

The CAD-CBC accepts that the anti-doping rule violation of the Athlete Carlos França was not intentional and that he showed how the substance entered his system as a result of a supplement that didn’t mention on the label the prohibited substance. As a result the CAD-CBC decides to impose a reduced sanction of 8 months on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection.

The CAD-CBC deems that the Athlete Maurício Morandi demonstrated that the violation was not intentional and how the substance entered his system due to medical treatment. Therefore the CAD-DBC decides on 27 November 2009 to impose a warning on the Athlete.

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M44 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on July 12, 2009, respondent was asked to provide an urine sample for doping test purposes.

History
The respondent was unable to comply due to dehydration. Even after three hours in which he drank water he was unable to comply. He left the doping control area knowing the consequences on his behalf.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months in which respondent can't take part in competition or sport manifestations organized by the FFA.
2. All the results obtained at the event of July 12, 2009, will be cancelled. Medals, points and prizes are withdrawn.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Football Federation (Fédération Française de Football Américain, FFFA) charges respondent M43 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on February 23, 2009, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis showed the presence of salbutamol. Salbutamol is a prohibited substance according the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent had used medication that contained the prohibited substance, he used it to treat a condition of his bronchi. The respondent sent several medical documents, a copy of the request for a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) and the results of two pulmonary function tests to the l'Agence française de lutte contre le dopage (AFLD). However the specific documents for getting approval are not enclosed. The measured level of salbutamol contradicts the medical use.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one year in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFFA.
2. The decision (six months period of ineligibility as well as training lead) dated May 6, 2009, by the disciplinary committee of the FFFA should be modified.
3. The period of ineligibility should be reduced by the period already served in voluntary suspension and by the decision of May 6, 2009.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Football Federation (Fédération Française de Football Américain, FFFA) charges respondent M42 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on February 23, 2009, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis showed the presence of budesonide. Budesonide is a prohibited substance according the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent had mentioned the product containing the prohibited substance on the doping control form. He used it to treat his condition of asthma. He has medical proof of this condition. The panel considers his proof as a valid medical justification.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision (three months period of ineligibility) dated May 6, 2009, by the disciplinary committee of the FFFA should be modified.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M39 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on March 21, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substances.

History
The respondent didn't provide any explanation about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of four months, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFBB.
2. The decision (a warning) dated July 25, 2008, by the disciplinary committee of the FFBB should be modified.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Related case:

ISR 2009 KNBB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009018 T
August 25, 2009

On 25 August 2009 the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal Dutch Billiards Union (KNBB) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Person after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. In First Instance the Person had failed to respond nor filed a statement in his defence.

Hereafter the Person appealed the Decision of 25 August 2009 with the KNBB Appeal Committee. He requested for a reduced sanction and fully admitted the use of Cocaine.

The Appeal Committee dismissed most of the Athlete assertions but agrees that the imposed sanction was too severe and disproportional. Here the Committed considers that the use of Cocaine clearly occurred unintentonal, out-of-competition and in an context unrelated to sports enhancement.

Therefore the KNBB Appeal Committee decides to set aside the Decision of 25 August 2009 and to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on 25 August 2009.

Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne partially by the Person.

Facts
The French Football Federation (Fédération Française de Football, FFF) charges respondent M107 for a violation of the Anti-Doping rules. During a match on March 4, 2012, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample revealed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent didn't provide any information about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFF.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served by the decision, dated May 14, 2012, from the disciplinary committee of the FFF.
3. The decision, dated May 14, 2012, from the disciplinary committee of the FFF will be modified.
4. The present decision will start on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

• CAS 2009/A/1912 Claudia Pechstein v/ International Skating Union
• CAS 2009/A/1913 Deutsche Eisschnelllauf Gemeinschaft e.V. v/ International Skating Union
  
  
• CAS 2009/A/1912 Claudia Pechstein vs ISU
• CAS 2009/A/1913 DESG vs ISU

CAS 2009/A/1912 P. v. International Skating Union (ISU) &
CAS 2009/A/1913 Deutsche Eisschnelllauf Gemeinschaft e.V. (DESG) v. International Skating Union (ISU)

• Speed skating
• Doping (blood doping)
• Meaning of the full power of review of the CAS
• Retroactive application of new scientifically sound evidentiary methods
• Longitudinal hematological profiling as a mere evidentiary method
• Anti-doping proceedings without adverse analytical finding and burden of proof
• Absence of adverse analytical finding and departures from the international standards for testing
• Comfortable satisfaction of the Panel as standard of proof for doping cases
• Chain of custody
• Abnormal hematological values and establishment of a doping offence

1. The full power of review of the CAS means that the CAS appeals arbitration procedure entails a de novo review that it is not confined to deciding whether the body that issued the appealed ruling was correct or not. The mission of CAS Panels is thus to make its independent determination as to whether the parties’ contentions are inherently correct rather than to assess the correctness of the appealed decision

2. New scientifically sound evidentiary methods, even not specifically mentioned in anti-doping rules, can be used at any time to investigate and discover past anti-doping rule violations that went undetected, with the only constraint deriving from the eight-year time limitation and the timely initiation of disciplinary proceedings. As long as the substantive rule sanctioning a given conduct as doping is in force prior to the conduct, the resort to a new evidentiary method does not constitute a case of retrospective application of the law.

3. The “use” of a prohibited substance or prohibited method – not depending on an adverse analytical finding – constitutes nowadays an anti-doping rule violation exactly in the same way as it did under the old version of the WADA Code and the anti-doping regulations of the international federations.

4. The “longitudinal hematological profiling” constitutes evidentiary means to demonstrate the violation of the anti-doping rules and this could be utilized as evidence of a doping offence under the older versions of the WADA Code as well.

5. In case of a doping offence without adverse analytical finding, the federation claiming the violation must prove that
- (i) the blood samples used to acquire the athlete’s hematological values and portray her profile were properly taken,
- (ii) there was a reliable chain of custody of the blood samples from the place of collection to the laboratory,
-(iii) the machine used to analyse the blood samples was a reliable equipment to record accurate hematological values,
- (iv) the transmission of those values to, and the storage in, the federation’s data base was reliable, and
-(v) the hematological values of the athlete are reliable evidence of her use of a prohibited method.

6. There is no “factual presumption” that the blood screening tests produced correct result, because, according to the CAS case law, in anti-doping proceedings other than those deriving from positive testing, sports authorities do not have an easy task in discharging the burden of proving that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred, as no presumption applies. Accordingly, the federation bears the full burden to present reasonably reliable evidence to persuade the Panel, by the applicable standard of proof, that the athlete committed a doping offence in violation.

7. In the absence of an adverse analytical finding (where a presumption is provided in favour of the anti-doping organization), the international federation is not mandated to follow the WADA IST and WADA ISL in order to prove the Athlete’s use of a prohibited method. Any reasonably reliable practice of sample collection, post-test administration, transport of samples, analytical process and documentation would suffice. This view is confirmed, a fortiori, by the fact that, even in cases of adverse analytical findings, departures from WADA International Standards do not invalidate per se the analytical results, as long as the anti-doping organization establish that such departure did not cause the adverse analytical finding.

8. The “comfortable satisfaction” test is well-known in CAS practice, as it has been the normal CAS standard in many anti-doping cases even prior to the WADA Code. Several awards have withstood the scrutiny of the Swiss Federal Tribunal, which has stated that anti-doping proceedings are private law and not criminal law matters and that “the duty of proof and assessment of evidence [are] problems which cannot be regulated, in private law cases, on the basis of concepts specific to criminal law”. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is typically a criminal law standard that finds no application in anti-doping cases.

In the period between February 2000 and April 2009 the Athlete Claudia Pechstein underwent numerous in-competition and out-of-competition anti-doping controls. None of these Controls resulted in an adverse analytical finding.

At the same time the ISU collected more than ninety blood samples from the Athlete as part of the ISU blood profiling program. In particular, from 20 October 2007 until 30 April 2009 the ISU collected twenty-seven blood samples from the Athlete, the last twelve of which were collected between January and April 2009.

In March 2009 the International Skating Union (ISU) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Claudia Pechstein after her samples, collected in February 2009, showed abnormal blood values, due to the use of a prohibited substance and/or a prohibited method, i.e. blood doping.

Consequently the ISU Disciplinary Commission decides on 1 July 2009 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for the use of blood doping, including disqualification of her results.

Hereafter in July 2009 both the Athlete and DESG appealed the ISU decision of 1 July 2009 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete and DESG requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to annul the imposed sanction.

Following assessment of the evidence the Panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation, finds that the ISU has discharged its burden of proving to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that the abnormal blood values recorded by P. in Hamar on 6 and 7 February 2009, and the subsequent sharp drop recorded on 18 February 2009, cannot be reasonably explained by any congenital or subsequently developed abnormality.

The Panel finds that they must, therefore, derive from the Athlete's illicit manipulation of her own blood, which remains the only reasonable alternative source of such abnormal values. As a consequence, the Panel upholds the sanctions already imposed by the Appealed Decision and holds that the Athlete is liable for the full two-year period of ineligibility.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 25 November 2009:

1.) The appeals of P. and of the Deutsche Eisschnelllauf Gemeinschaft e.V. against the decision dated 1 July 2009 of the Disciplinary Commission of the International Skating Union are dismissed.

2.) The decision dated 1 July 2009 of the Disciplinary Commission of the International Skating Union is upheld, with the following modification as set out in para. 3.

3.) P. is declared ineligible for two years as of 8 February 2009.

4.) The results obtained by P. on 7 February 2009 at the ISU World Allround Speed Skating Championships are disqualified, with related forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

(…).

In November 2009 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Cristian Dumitru after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (nandrolone).

After notification the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the Commission.

Therefore the ANAD Hearing Commission decides on 24 November 2009 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.