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 Daniel Irimia after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (nandrolone).

After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and did not request the B sample analysis.

The ANAD Hearing Commission decides on 14 October 2009 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

Related cases:
CAS 2008/O/1643 Vladimir Gusev vs Olympus Sarl
June 15, 2009
Swiss Federal Court 4A_368/2009 Olympus Sarl vs Vladimir Gusev
October 13, 2009

The case involved a Russian racing cyclist, Vladimir Gusev and a Belgian Company Olympus Sarl. Olympus hired Gusev for two years on November 15, 2007 and the contract was governed by Swiss law. On July 23rd, 2008, Olympus Sarl terminated the contract, alleging that a medical report seriously suggested that the cyclist had taken exogenous EPO.
The Athlete Gusev started arbitration proceedings in front of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and on 15 June 2009 the CAS Panel found for Gusev and ordered Olympus to pay damages.

Olympus Sarl appealed to the CAS decision of 15 June 2009 with the Federal Court and hereafter also sought the revision of the award.
The Swiss Federal Court rejected the appeal of Olympus Sarl (4A_352/2009) and the petition seeking revision (4A_368/2009) on 13 October 2009.

The court’s opinion in this case:
1.) In the appeal (4A_352/2009), Olympus Sarl claimed a violation of the “right to be heard” (due process). The Federal Court recalled what it has already said many times as to the Arbitral Tribunal’s duty to ensure that each party be heard on all essential facts and enabled to present its arguments. Yet the allegedly aggrieved party must prove that the Arbitral Tribunal failed to do so and this was clearly not the case here.
2.) As to revision (4A_368/2009), the Federal Court recalled that new facts or evidence may justify revision only to the extent that they existed at the time, were unknown to the petitioner although he acted with due diligence and would have been likely to have an influence on the outcome of the proceedings. The requirements established by case law in this respect were not met in this case.

Related cases:
CAS 2008/O/1643 Vladimir Gusev vs Olympus Sarl
June 15, 2009
Swiss Federal Court 4A_352/2009
October 13, 2009

The case involved a Russian racing cyclist, Vladimir Gusev and a Belgian Company Olympus Sarl. Olympus hired Gusev for two years on November 15, 2007 and the contract was governed by Swiss law. On July 23rd, 2008, Olympus Sarl terminated the contract, alleging that a medical report seriously suggested that the cyclist had taken exogenous EPO.
The Athlete Gusev started arbitration proceedings in front of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and on 15 June 2009 the CAS Panel found for Gusev and ordered Olympus to pay damages.
Olympus Sarl appealed to the CAS decision of 15 June 2009 with the Federal Court and hereafter also sought the revision of the award.

The Swiss Federal Court rejected the appeal of Olympus Sarl (4A_352/2009) and the petition seeking revision of Olympus Sarl (4A_368/2009) on 13 October 2009.

The court’s opinion in this case:
1.) In the appeal (4A_352/2009), Olympus Sarl claimed a violation of the “right to be heard” (due process). The Federal Court recalled what it has already said many times as to the Arbitral Tribunal’s duty to ensure that each party be heard on all essential facts and enabled to present its arguments. Yet the allegedly aggrieved party must prove that the Arbitral Tribunal failed to do so and this was clearly not the case here.
2.) As to revision (4A_368/2009), the Federal Court recalled that new facts or evidence may justify revision only to the extent that they existed at the time, were unknown to the petitioner although he acted with due diligence and would have been likely to have an influence on the outcome of the proceedings. The requirements established by case law in this respect were not met in this case.

Facts
The French Squash Federation (Fédération Française de Squash, FFSquash) charges respondent M49 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a squash event on June 6, 2009, respondent didn't attend the doping control.

History
The respondent had used cannabis ten days before the doping control. He feared the consequences for that reason he didn't attend the doping control.

Decision
1 The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized by FFSquash.
2. The decision (period of ineligibility on three years) dated August 12, 2009, by the disciplinary committee of the FFSquash should be modified.
3. The decision will start on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Floyd Landis: an unsafe conviction, regardless of the quality of the data / N.K. Faber. – (Clinica Chimica Acta (2010) 411 (12 October) : p. 117-118)

• doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2009.10.001. Epub 2009 Oct 12.

Comment on:

Bad Science: The instrumental data in the Floyd Landis case / Robert D. Blackledge. – Clinica Chimica Acta (2009) 406 (22 May) ; p. 8-13)

• doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2009.05.016. Epub 2009 May 22

Advocacy versus impartial scientific review: a problem for scientists and the courts / Larry D. Bowers. – (Clinica Chimica Acta (2009) 406 (19 May) ; p. 14-17)

• doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2009.05.006. Epub 2009 May 19

The debate in the Clinica Chimica Acta has centered on the quality of the isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) data in the Floyd Landis case.
Here, some fundamental problems with current doping tests are outlined with the purpose to strongly argue from a fairly broad perspective that Floyd Landis is the victim of an unsafe conviction. For simplicity, the IRMS data quality is not questioned. Neither do we wish to discuss the processing of the (raw) data, although e.g. not being able to reproduce calculations during the trial does not speak in favor of the prosecution. Nevertheless, one can imagine that this author finds it particularly disturbing that accounts in the open literature largely ignore serious doubts about the IRMS method on the side of some anti-doping researchers.

Related cases:
NBB 2009 NBB Decision Appeal Committe 2009021 B
December 13, 2009
FIBA 2010 FIBA vs Mr. X
April 15, 2010

The American Player underwent an in-competiton doping test on 26 March 2009 in Leiden (the Netherlands). The WADA-accredited laboratory in Cologne reported on 22 April 2009 that Player’s sample showed an elevated testosterone/epitestosterone ratio. However isotope ratio mass spectrometric (IRMS) analysis in the laboratory of Player’s sample did not indicate an application of testosterone or testosterone prohormones.
Therefore the Dopingautoriteit, Netherlands Anti-doping Authority (NADA), ordered follow-up testing. After notification the Player refused to produce an out of competition urine sample on 20 May 2009.
Hereafter the NADA reported an anti-doping rule violation to the Nederlandse Basketball Bond (NBB), Netherlands Basketball Federation, for Player’s refusal to provide an urine sample.
On 10 October 2009 the NBB Disciplinary Committee ruled that the Player had not committed an anti-doping rule violation.

CAS 2009/A/1766 Liliana Popescu c/ RANAD
CAS 2009/A/1766 Liliana Popescu vs ANAD

Related case:
ANAD Comisia de Apel 2008_07 Liliana Popescu vs ANAD
December 8, 2008

On 30 September 2008 the Hearing Commission of the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania (ANAD) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for Darbepoetin (dEPO). On 8 December 2008 the ANAD Appeal Commission dismissed the Athlete’s appeal and decided to uphold the decision of the ANAD Hearing Commission.

Hereafter in January 2009 the Athlete appealed the decision of the ANAD Appeal Commission with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete argued that the anti-doping violation was not intentional because to she had an accident in May and when unconscious in the hospital medication was administered without her knowledge including dEPO causing the positive test results.

The Panel finds that the Athlete explanation about the circumstances has several contradictions and rules that there are no grounds to justify exceptional circumstances in this case for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitarton for Sport decides on 9 October 2009 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal and to uphold the decision of the ANAD Appeal Commission of 8 December 2008.

CAS 2009/A/1764 Club Sportif Olimpic Craiova c/ RANAD

CAS 2009/A/1764 Olimpic Sport Club vs ANAD

Related cases:

• ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2008_05 ANAD vs Corina Dumbrӑvean
  February 19, 2008
• ANAD Comisia de Apel 2008_06 Olimpic Sport Club & Corina Dumbravean vs ANAD
  December 12, 2008
• ANAD Comisia de Audiere 2010_18 ANAD vs Corina Dumbrӑvean
  July 8, 2010
• 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
• CAS 2010/A/2220 Corina Dumbrӑvean vs ANAD
  July 26, 2011
  
  

In February 2008 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 her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance NESP - Novel Erythropoiesis Stimulating Protein -(Darbepoetin).

The ANAD Hearing Commission considered the filed statements and evidence that in November 2011 the Athlete suffered from an acute renal deficiency, low output of urine with unconsciousness for which the Athlete was hospitalized urgently. As medical treatment medications were administrated which contained prohibited substances. The Commission ruled that the Athlete established her lack of guilt or significant negligence due to she did not know ans did not suspected that she was administered prohibited substances.

Therefore on 19 February 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decided (case 5/19.02.2008) not to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In March 2008 the Federația Română de Atletism (FRA), the Romanian Athletics Federation, appealed against case 5/19.02.2008) with the ANAD Appeal Commission. The RAF argued that in this case 5/19.02.2008 the IAAF anti-doping rules had been disregarded.

On 23 May 2008 the ANAD Appeal Commission (appeal case 2/23.05.2008) ruled that the RAF appeal is admissible and decided to annul the decision (case 5/19.02.2008) of the ANAD Sanction Committee.

The Athlete’s file was submitted to the IAAF Doping Review Board which investigated the case and concluded in August 2008 that there were no exceptional circumstances for the reduction or elimination of the Athlete’s sanction. As a result the ANAD Sanction Committee decided on 10 September 2008 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete (case 22/10.09.2008).

The Athlete and the Olimpic Sport Club in Craiova appealed against the decision in this case 22/10.09.2008, which was dismissed by the ANAD Appeal Commission on 8 December 2008 (appeal case 6/8.12.2008).

The Romanian Olimpic Sport Club in Craiova appealed in January 2009 the decision made by the ANAD Appeal Commission (appeal case 6/8.12.2008) with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS 2009/A/1764).

The CAS Panel considered the Romanian Sport Club’s arguments and concluded on 9 October 2009 that the appeal is inadmissible.

The hunt for gene dopers / Mai M.H. Mansour, Hassan M.E. Azzazy. - (Drug Testing and Analysis 1 (2009) 7 (July); p. 311-322)

• PMID: 20355209
• DOI: 10.1002/dta.52

Abstract

Gene doping, the abuse of gene therapy for illicit athletic enhancement, is perceived as a coming threat and is a prime concern to the anti-doping community. This doping technique represents a significant ethical challenge and there are concerns regarding its safety for athletes. This article presents the basics of gene doping, potential strategies for its detection and the role of promising new technologies in aiding detection efforts. These include the use of lab-on-a-chip techniques as well as nanoparticles to enhance the performance of current analytical methods and to develop new doping detection strategies.

In April 2009 the International Federation of Rowing Associations (FISA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Sergey Shushin after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide.
After notification by the Russian Rowing federation a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the FISA Doping Hearing Panel.

The Athlete stated that in March 2009 during training he suffered from a severe back pain. The Athlete was hospitalised and treated with prescribed medications and physiotherapy.
Hereafter the Athlete provided a sample for drug testing in April 2009 and mentioned all the prescribed medication he used on the Doping Control Form. At the doping control the Athlete was surprised to hear that one of the prescribed medication contained a prohibited substance. The Athlete applied immediately for a TUE, but RUSADA rejected his TUE due to his application should have been made 7 days after the beginning of the medical treatment.
The hospital doctor submitted that the used diuretics are one of the normal prescriptions she would prescribe for patients with a back pain condition. The doctor claimed she had no special knowledge related to the treatment of high level Athletes.

The Panel considers the circumstances that the Athlete’s doctors prescribed medications without knowledge of the WADA prohibited list and made no TUE application when the Athlete was treated in the hospital.
The Panel finds that there was no convincing evidence and no justification for the use of the prescribed diuretics for the Athlete’s medical condition.
The Panel rules that the Athlete has not proved to their comfortable satisfaction, that he was not taking the specified substance to enhance performance or to mask a substance which would enhance performance.
Therefore the FISA Doping Hearing Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting at the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 22 April 2009.