Agence mondiale antidopage - Vidéo Franc Jeu

In this video from WADA the principle of level the playing field is explained.

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 this video from WADA the principle of level the playing field is explained.

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 Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ionuț Miclea after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance metandienone.

After notification the Athlete filed a statement and a medical file in his defence. The ANAD TUE Commission considered the Athlete’s medical file and concluded that the his medical treatment showed no ground for the administration of the prohibited substance.

Therefore the ANAD Hearing Commission decides on 10 November 2009 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

In September 2009 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Peter Laszlo Bartha after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances clenbuterol and stanozolol.

Therefore the ANAD Hearing Commission decides on 10 November 2009 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

• CAS 2008/A/1585 Yücel Kop vs IAAF & TAF
• CAS 2008/A/1586 Süreyya Ayhan Kop vs IAAF & TAF

CAS 2008/A/1585 Yücel Kop v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) & Turkish Athletics Federation (TAF) and CAS 2008/A/1586 Süreyya Ayhan Kop v. IAAF & TAF

Related cases:

• Swiss Federal Court 4A_624_2009 Süreyya Ayhan Kop vs IAAF & TAF
  April 12, 2009
• CAS 2005/A/1585 Yücel Kop vs IAAF
  November 10, 2009
  
  

• Athletics
• Doping (multiple doping offences)
• Interpretation of Article 13.2.1 of the WADA Code
• Justification of a life ban for the second doping offence
• CAS power to rule de novo and limitation through the parties’ requests

1. The purpose of article 13.2.1 of the WADA Code is not to exclude the possibility for anti-doping organizations to institute a review system below the CAS for decisions concerning international-level athletes but rather to ensure that CAS is the final body to which decisions concerning an international-level athletes may be appealed, thereby providing them with the same treatment under unified rules and practices that ultimately guarantee a more level playing field in international competitions, in the interest of fairness and equality of treatment.

2. An athlete who committed at least two standard sanctions, which under the applicable rules require an ineligibility sanction of between 8 years and a life ban, leaves no other option to a CAS panel than to find a life ban would apply under the 2009 IAAF Rules when both violations must be deemed very serious in nature, while at the same time no tangible elements of proof allow to consider that the athlete did not intentionally commit the violations in both instances. In this respect, there is no more need to establish whether the violations would formally qualify as being committed in aggravating circumstances under the 2009 IAAF Rules.

3. A CAS Panel has the authority to evaluate and decide the case de novo; and has therefore the power to vary a sanction in either direction provided that such variation has been duly requested by a party.

In 2004 multiple anti-doping rule violations were reported against the Athlete Süreyya Ayhan Kop. Consequently on 15 June 2005 the Athlete was sanctioned for 2 years.

Thereupon in October 2007 the IAAF reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her out-of-competion sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Stanozolol and Metandienone.

As a result on 25 January 2008 - and again upholded on 2 April 2008 - the Turkish Athletics Federation (TAF) Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Athlete for her second anti-doping rule violation.

Following the Athlete's appeal the Turkish Youth and Sport Tribunal decided on 30 May 2008 to reduce the sanction to a four year period of ineligibility.

Hereafter in June 2008 the Athlete appealed the Turkish Tribunal decision of 30 May 2008 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The athlete argued that the Appealed Decision wrongly ruled that she should be subject to a four-year ban. By contrast the IAAF contended that the Athlete committed a second anti-doping rule violation and must therefore be declared ineligible for life under the IAAF Rules.

Having examined the table of sanctions provided under Rule 40.7 and characterized the Athlete’s 2004 and 2007 violations the Panel finds that she, at the very least committed two standard sanctions, which under the rule require an ineligibility sanction of between 8 years and a life ban.

Moreover, based on the evidence on record there is no doubt that both violations must be deemed very serious in nature while at the same time no tangible elements of proof allow to consider that the Athlete did not intentionally commit the violations in both instances.

Consequently, the Panel has no other option than to find a life ban would apply under the 2009 IAAF Rules. For those reasons, the Panel need not address whether the violations would formally qualify as being committed in aggravating circumstances as defined under Rule 40.6 of the 2009 IAAF Rules.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 11 November 2009:

1.) The decision with reference numbers 2008/55 and 2008/10 issued on 30 May 2008 by the Arbitral Tribunal of the Turkish General Directorate of Youth and Sport is set aside and the 2-year ineligibility period imposed on Mr Yücel Kop is lifted.

2.) The decision with reference numbers 2008/54 and 2008/9 issued on 30 May 2008 by the Arbitral Tribunal of the Turkish General Directorate of Youth and Sport is set aside and a life-ban is imposed on Mrs Süreyya Ayhan Kop, commencing on the date of this award.

(…)

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

• CAS 2008/A/1585 Yücel Kop vs IAAF & TAF
• CAS 2008/A/1586 Süreyya Ayhan Kop vs IAAF & TAF

CAS 2008/A/1585 Yücel Kop v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) & Turkish Athletics Federation (TAF) and CAS 2008/A/1586 Süreyya Ayhan Kop v. IAAF & TAF

Related cases:

• CAS 2008_A_1586 Süreyya Ayhan Kop vs IAAF & TAF
  November 10, 2009
• Swiss Federal Court 4A_624_2009 Süreyya Ayhan Kop vs IAAF & TAF
  April 12, 2009
  
  

• Athletics
• Doping (multiple doping offences)
  Interpretation of Article 13.2.1 of the WADA Code
• Justification of a life ban for the second doping offence
• CAS power to rule de novo and limitation through the parties’ requests

1. The purpose of article 13.2.1 of the WADA Code is not to exclude the possibility for anti-doping organizations to institute a review system below the CAS for decisions concerning international-level athletes but rather to ensure that CAS is the final body to which decisions concerning an international-level athletes may be appealed, thereby providing them with the same treatment under unified rules and practices that ultimately guarantee a more level playing field in international competitions, in the interest of fairness and equality of treatment.

2. An athlete who committed at least two standard sanctions, which under the applicable rules require an ineligibility sanction of between 8 years and a life ban, leaves no other option to a CAS panel than to find a life ban would apply under the 2009 IAAF Rules when both violations must be deemed very serious in nature, while at the same time no tangible elements of proof allow to consider that the athlete did not intentionally commit the violations in both instances. In this respect, there is no more need to establish whether the violations would formally qualify as being committed in aggravating circumstances under the 2009 IAAF Rules.

3. A CAS Panel has the authority to evaluate and decide the case de novo; and has therefore the power to vary a sanction in either direction provided that such variation has been duly requested by a party.

Mr Kop has been the athlete's trainer and husband throughout her career (i.e. Süreyya Ayhan Kop) as an international-level athlete. In that respect he functioned as 'athlete support personnel' as defined by the IAAF Rules.

On 25 January 2008, Mr Kop was sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility by the Turkish Athletic Federation (TAF) Disciplinary Commission in relation to the athlete's second anti-doping rule violation but on the principal basis that he had been negligent in his coaching duties.

Mr Kop appealed this decision to the Turkish Youth and Sport Arbitral Tribunal. On 30 May 2008, in a decision with reference numbers 2008/55 and 2008/10, the Turkish Youth and Sport Arbitral Tribunal confirmed a two-year sanction.

Hereafter Mr Kop decided to appeal the foregoing decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Following assessment of the case the Panel determindes that it has neither heard nor seen any evidence that Mr Kop violated any anti-doping rule or any disciplinary rule connected with his duties as athlete support personnel in the meaning of the lAAF Rules.

Furthermore, the appealed decision of the Turkish Youth and Sport Arbitral Tribunal failed to explain on what basis Mr Kop was sanctioned in that connection.

Therefore the CAS Panel decides on 10 November 2009 to set aside the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal of the Turkish General Directorate of Youth and Sport and to lift the 2 year period of ineligibililty on Mr Yücel Kop.

In October 2009 the Brazilian Cycling Confederation (CBC) has reported anti-doping rule violations against the cyclists Alex Diniz, Alcides Vielra, Cleberson Weber and Alex Arseno after their samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Recombinant Erythropoietin (rhEPO). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered while the athletes failed to respond to the CBC communications.

Without the responds of the athletes the CBC Anti-Doping Commission (CAS-CBC) deems that the test result establish the presence of rhEPO in their samples and accordingly that they committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the CAS-CBC decides on 6 November 2009 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the athletes starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 25 April 2009 for the athletes Alex Diniz and Alcides Vieira; 26 April 2009 for Cleberson Weber; and 7 June 2009 for Alex Arseno.

WADA appealed the FILA Sport Judge decision of 7 September 2009 with the FILA Appeal Commission in the case of the anti-doping rule violation of the Bulgarian Athlete Bozhidar Boyadzhiev.

The Appeal Commission concludes that the Athlete had no intention to enhance his sport performance and his only fault was he didn’t apply for a TUE. Therefore the FILA Appeal Commission decides to give the Athlete a reprimand.

Related cases:
CAS 2008/A/1564 WADA vs IIHF & Florian Busch
June 23, 2009
CAS 2008/A/1738 WADA vs DEB & Florian Busch
June 23, 2009

On 7 March 2008, Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA), the German National Anti-Doping Agency, has reported to Deutscher Eishockey-Bund (DEB), the German Ice Hockey Federation, an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Florian Busch after he refused to provide a sample for doping control.
The DEB informed NADA that the sanction as proposed by the National Anti-Doping Code would be excessive and a public warning would be sufficient, considering the circumstances of the actual case. Accordingly, it pronounced a public reprimand of the player on 15 April 2008 and fined him EUR 5,000.00 and 56 hours community service.

NADA learned of the decision by the DEB through the media and also learned that the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) supported this and would permit the player to play in the Ice Hockey World Championship in Canada during 2 - 11 May 2008. NADA then informed WADA on 21 April 2008 for the WADA to be able to instigate measures.

In a letter dated 6 May 2008, WADA appealed to the directory of the IIHF World Championships, on the basis of Article 3.1 of the IIHF Disciplinary Regulations 2004, to temporarily suspend the Athlete as of 6 May 2008 and for the IIHF to decide within 48 hours on a provisional suspension. In addition, WADA requested that the IIHF Disciplinary Committee to instigate disciplinary proceedings against the Athlete and to impose a two-year suspension.
On 7 May 2008, the IIHF Board informed WADA via e-mail that it would be unable to act as per the request. Amongst other things, the IIHF noted that the Internal Disciplinary Commission established by the German Ice Hockey Federation had decided on this matter on 15 April 2008 and that the period for an appeal had not yet lapsed.

On the same day, WADA wrote to the IIHF that she would assume that the letter of 7 May 2008 would be a decision according to the meaning of the IIHF disciplinary regulations which would be subject to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
On 9 May 2008, WADA appealed against the decision of 15 April 2008 of the DEB at the Ad-hoc Arbitral Tribunal of the German Olympic Sports Association and applied for the decision to be reversed and for the imposition of a two-year suspension on the Athlete. The DEB ad-hoc Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the WADA appeal with its decision of 3 December 2008, citing the reason that the sanction applied for by WADA would lack legal foundation.

On 27 May 2008, WADA appealed with CAS the letter of the IIHF of 7 May 2008 and applied for the imposition of a two-year suspension (Proceedings CAS 2008/A/1564). It noted that the request for arbitration was made to ensure its rights, in particular for the case that the request submitted to the German ad-hoc Arbitral Tribunal would not be allowed. Subsequently, the proceedings were suspended pending a decision by the German Arbitral Tribunal.

Following this, WADA also appealed the decision made by the ad-hoc Arbitral Tribunal of the German Olympic Sports Association (CAS 2008/A/1738). With the decision of 23 June 2008, CAS refused the case on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The IIHF waived participation in the arbitration proceedings. Amongst others, the Athlete objected on the grounds of want of jurisdiction, because an arbitration agreement was lacking.

In respect to the first appeal (Proceedings CAS 2008/A/1564), based on the "Player Entry Form" signed by the Athlete for the World Championship, CAS declared itself to be competent and took the e-mail sent by the IIHV on 7 May 2008 as an appealable decision. It revoked the decision by the IIHF with an arbitration ruling of 23 June 2008 and pronounced a two-year suspension of the Athlete.

Hereafter the Athlete applied to the Swiss Federal Court as a civil complaint to revoke the arbitration ruling by CAS of 23 June 2009 (CAS 2008/A/1564).

The Swiss Federal Court concludes that the complaint in civil matters against the CAS decision is purely of a cassatory nature, apart from exceptions where the present prerequisites are not given. Hence, the decision of CAS of 23 June 2008 must be set aside following the approval of the Athlete’s appeal. Corresponding with the outcome of the proceedings, WADA becomes liable for costs and damages.

Therefore the Swiss Federal Court decides:

1.) The appeal of the Athlete Florian Busch is approved and the CAS decision (CAS 2008/A/1564) of 23 June 2008 is set aside.
2.) The court fees of SFR. 5,000.00 are imposed on WADA.
3.) WADA has to compensate the Athlete for the Federal Court proceedings with SFR 6,000.00.
4.) This judgment is provided in writing to the parties and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Agencia mundial antidopaje - Control Antidopaje para Atletas

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.