Finding the golden genes : Advances in gene therapy could tempt some athletes to enhance their genetic makeup, leading some researchers to work on detection methods just in case / Patrick Barry. - (Science News 174 (2008) 3 (2 August); p. 16-21)
WADA Prohibited list - Additional information in regards to the reintroduction of pseudoephedrine to the 2010 Prohibited List / WADA Prohibited List Working Committee. - World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2009
The WADA List Committee has reintroduced pseudoephedrine (PSE) to the 2010 Prohibited List as a specified stimulant prohibited In-Competition at a urinary threshold of 150μg/mL. This decision was based on the results of controlled excretion studies as well as scientific literature.
Given the wide availability of PSE-containing medicines, WADA recommends that the reintroduction of PSE be supported by an active information/education campaign by all stakeholders.
Rechtbank Utrecht
Sector handels- en familierecht
September 30, 2009
274511 / KG ZA 09-988
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
- 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 Preliminary Decision Appeal Committee 2009005 TU4
July 6, 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 proceeding with the Dutch District Court in Utrecht the Athlete argued that there are grounds to lift the provisional suspension ordered by the KNSB. On 30 September 2009 the Dutch District Court dismissed the Athlete’s arguments for lifting the provisional suspension.
Legal costs for the KNSB shall be borne by the Athlete.
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.
In July 2009 the International Federation of Rowing Associations (FISA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Filippo Mannucci after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone. The Italian Rowing Federation notified the Athlete and a provisional suspension was ordered.
The Athlete filed evidence in his defence and was heard for the FISA Doping Hearing Panel.
The Athlete presented various arguments about the general validity of the testing procedures and possible theories of reasons for false positive results.
The Panel dismiss Athlete’s theories and finds they are either irrelevant or they do not apply to this case. The Athlete also presented no evidence that the testing procedure for the sample collection was conducted improperly.
Therefore the FISA Doping Hearing Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 August 2009.
The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXI Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver, 2010 / International Olympic Committee (IOC). - Lausanne : IOC, 2009
Contents:
Article 1 Application Of The Code - Definition Of Doping – Breach Of The Rules
Article 2 Anti-Doping Rule Violations
Article 3 The Prohibited List
Article 4 Doping Control
Article 5 Analysis Of Samples
Article 6 Disciplinary Procedure With Respect To Alleged Anti-Doping Rule Violations Arising Upon The Occasion Of The Olympic Games
Article 7 Automatic Disqualification Of Individual Results, Ineligibility For Olympic Games
Article 8 Sanctions On Individuals
Article 9 Consequences To Teams
Article 10 Financial And Other Sanctions Assessed Against National Olympic Committees And International Federations
Article 11 Appeals
Article 12 Applicable Law, Amendment And Interpretation Of Anti-Doping Rules
Article 13 Languages
Appendix 1 – Definitions
Appendix 2 – Criteria Relating To The International Standard For Testing (Article 4.3 Of The Rules)
Appendix 3 Of The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules: Technical Procedures For Doping Control By VANOC For The 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games
Related case:
ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2007_15 ANAD vs Mihai Gabriel Feroiu
October 17, 2007
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 Mihai Gabriel Feroiu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance mesterolone.
The ANAD Hearing Commission considers that the Athlete committed a second anti-doping rule violation and that he failed to attend the hearing of the Commission.
Therefore on 23 September 2009 the ANAD Hearing Commission decides to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.
CAS 2009/A/1805 IAAF v. RFEA & Josephine Onyia
CAS 2009/A/1847 IAAF v. RFEA & Josephine Onyia
In September 2008 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Spanish Athlete Josephina Onyia after her A and B samples - provided on two occasions in Lausanne and in Stuttgart in September 2008 - tested positive for the prohibited substances Clenbuterol and Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
However on 21 January 2009 and on 12 March 2009 the Royal Spanish Athletics Federation (RFEA) concluded in both cases that the Athlete had committed no anti-doping rule violation and decided to lift the ordered provisional suspension.
The RFEA concluded regarding the reported presence of Clenbuterol that:
In the matter of the reported presence of Methylhexaneamine the RFEA concluded that:
Hereafter in April 2009 the IAAF appealed the two Spanish decisions with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The IAAF rejected the grounds to exonerate the Athlete and argued that:
The Panel finds that in each case the Athlete was shown, to the requisite standard of proof (i.e. to a standard greater than a mere balance of probability), to have a prohibited substance in her samples. In each case therefore she has been shown to have committed an anti-doping rule violation.
The Panel determines that in neither case was the Athlete able to impugn the analysis or provide evidence to show, on the balance of probabilities, how the Prohibited Substance had come to be in her samples. She was therefore not in a position to assert that she bore no, or no significant, fault or negligence for the violations.
The appeals by the IAAF will therefore be allowed. The two anti-doping rule violations are to be considered as one single first anti-doping rule violation.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 September 2009 that:
1.) The appeals of the International Association of Athletics Federations are allowed.
2.) Ms Josephine Onyia is declared ineligible for all competition in respect of the two anti-doping rule violations for a period of two years, commencing on 22 September 2009.
However, credit is given for the periods of ineligibility already served because of the provisional suspensions totaling 316 days from 30 September 2008 to 21 January 2009 and from 4 March 2009 to 21 September 2009.
3.) Ms Josephine Onyia is disqualified from the 100m hurdles at the IAAF Golden League meeting "Athletissima" held in Lausanne on 2 September 2008 and from all subsequent events until the commencement date of the period of ineligibility with all resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.
4.) (…)
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.
The 2010 Prohibited List International Standard : The World Anti-Doping Code / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2009.
- The official text of the Prohibited List shall be maintained by WADA and shall be published in English and French. In the event of any conflict between the English and French versions, the English version shall prevail.
- This List shall come into effect on 1 January 2010
In June 2009 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Cornel Bobancu Alicescu after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance trenbolone.
Therefore on 17 September 2009 the ANAD Hearing Commission decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.
