Related case:

ISR 2009 KNBB Decision Appeal Committee 2009018 B
November 26, 2009

In May 2009 the Royal Dutch Billiards Federation (KNBB) has reported an anti doping rule violation against the Person after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

After notification the Person failed to respond nor filed a statement in his defence. The KNBB Disciplinary Committee rendered a Decision based of the written submissions of the Parties.

The Disciplinary Committee finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore in absentia of the Person the KNBB Disciplinary Committee decides on 25 August 2009 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Person.

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

The Royal Netherlands Power Sport and Fitness Federation
Koninklijke (Nederlandse Krachtsport en Fitnessfederatie, KNKF)
reports a violation of the Anti-Doping Code (ADC). The A-sample of the defendant was positive for the prohibited substances clenbuterol, stanozolol en 4β-hydroxystanozolol also the B-sample was positive on these substances.
A representative of the defendant handed in a written defence and the defendant attended the oral hearing on August 25, 2009. Additional information was provided by mail and letters also a request for three witnesses, eventually one witness doesn't attend the oral hearing.
The Disciplinary Committee notices that the report arrived late, the period of 6 weeks has passed. Because the report arrived to late the case is dismissed.
An appeal can be made within 21 days.

Doping is gevaarlijk (Dutch title)

This leaflet explains the risks of doping (medication) and nutritional supplements.The leaflet is made by the Flemish Government.

Determination of 76 pharmaceutical drugs by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry in slaughterhouse wastewater / Shao B, Chen D, Zhang J, Wu Y, Sun C. J. - (Chromatogr A. 2009 Nov 20;1216(47):8312-8318

• doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2009.08.038. Epub 2009 Aug 21.

Central Laboratory, Beijing Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing 100013, China

A multi-residue method for the analysis of 76 pharmaceutical agents of nine classes of drugs (tetracyclines, macrolides, fluoroquinolones, beta-agonists, beta-blockers, diuretics, sedatives, sulfonamides and chloramphenicol) in slaughterhouse wastewater and a receiving river is presented. After simultaneous extraction with an Oasis HLB solid-phase extraction (SPE) cartridge and further purification using an amino SPE cartridge, analytes were detected by liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry in positive or negative ion mode. Standard addition was used for quantification to overcome unavoidable matrix effects during ESI-MS analysis. Recoveries for most analytes based on matrix-matched calibration in different test matrices were >60%. The method quantification limits of 76 pharmaceuticals were in the range 0.2-30 ng/L. Nineteen compounds of 76 drugs were found in raw and treated slaughterhouse wastewater from four main slaughterhouses in Beijing. Sulfanamides (sulfanilamide, sulfameter), fluoroquenones (ofloxacin, pefloxacin, norfloxacin, ciprofloxacin, enrofloxacin), tetracyclines (tetracycline, oxytetracycline) and macrolides (kitasamycin, tylosin, erythromycin) were most frequently detected, with the highest levels up to approximately 3 microg/L in slaughterhouse wastewater and approximately 1 microg/L in treated wastewater. Illicit drugs for animal feeding such as clenbuterol and diazepam were commonly detected in slaughterhouse wastewater. These analytes were also observed in a river receiving slaughterhouse wastewater, with a highest level of up to 0.2 microg/L.

CAS 2009/A/1755 Adam Seroczynski v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)

Related case:

IOC 2008 IOC vs Adam Seroczynski
December 11, 2008

• Canoeing
• Doping (clenbuterol)
• Procedural rights of the athlete regarding the opening of the
• B sample
• No minimum threshold for clenbuterol
• Strict liability and automatic disqualification

1. The fact that the athlete could not attend to the opening of the B sample does not constitute a violation of the athlete’s procedural rights as such, so long as the athlete was informed of the date and time of the opening of the B sample, did not request a postponement and was represented to it.

2. The 2008 Prohibited List does not set a minimum threshold for clenbuterol. A qualitative – and not quantitative – identification is required, and the proven presence of clenbuterol constitutes an anti-doping rules violation.

3. According to the applicable regulations on automatic disqualification and based on the principle of strict liability, the athlete’s results in a competition in which the anti-doping violation occurred must be disqualified, without any further consideration on his fault or negligence.

Mr. Adam Seroczynski is a Polish Athlete competing in the Kayak event at the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games.

In September 2008 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples, tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. 

Consequently on 11 December 2008 the IOC Disciplinary Commission decided to disqualify the Athlete including his results obtained at the Kayak double (K2) 1000m Men event, where he had placed 4th.

Hereafter in December 2008 the Athlete appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to annul the Appealed Decision and to restore the results obtained at the Kayak event.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of Clenbuterol and disputed the reliability of the test results. He believed that food contamination or meat contamination had caused the positive test results. Further he claimed that he could not attend the opening of the B sample and because of this his test results should be disregarded.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel determines that the Athlete was duly notified in September 2008 and that he was properly represented at the opening of his B sample in Beijing.

Following assessment of the evidence the Panel deems that the test results were valid. Furthermore there was no evidence of an alleged false positive nor evidence that food contamination had caused these postive test results.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 August 2009:

1.) The appeal of the Athlete, Adam Seroczynski, is rejected.

2.) The decision issued by the IOC Disciplinary Commission on December 11, 2008 is upheld.

3.) The Athlete, Adam Seroczynski, is disqualified from the Kayak double (K2) 1000m Men event, where he had placed 4th and his diploma in this event shall be withdrawn.

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

5.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the court office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss francs) paid by Adam Seroczynski, which is retained by CAS.

6.) Each party shall otherwise bear its own legal costs and all other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.

In July 2009 NADO Flanders has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Nandrolone, Stanozolol with an atypical T/E ratio. 

After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission. The Athlete admitted the violation and acknowleged that he still trained but not participated in competitions. 

The Disciplinary Commission finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete’s sample and accordingly that he committed the admitted anti-doping rule violation. Further the Commission concludes that the Athlete clearly acted intentionally and at fault. 

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 18 August 2009 to impose a fine and a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision. 

Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne partially by the Athlete.

CAS 2009/A/1918 Jakub Wawrzyniak v Hellenic Football Federation (HFF)

Related cases:

• CAS 2009/A/1918 Jakub Wawrzyniak vs Hellenic Football Federation - Final Award
  January 21, 2010
• CAS 2009/A/2019 Jakub Wawrzyniak vs Hellenic Football Federation
  May 21, 2010
  
  

• Football
• Provisional measures
• Request for a stay of the decision

In April 2009 the Hellenic National Council for Combating Doping (ESKAN) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Jakub Wawrzyniak after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

In June 2009 the Athlete filed an appeal with the HFF Appeal Committee after the Disciplinary Committee of the First Instance of the Super League in Greece sanctioned him with a three month period of ineligibility. However the HFF Appeal Committee decided on 1 July 2009 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibiltiy which was upheld by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee on 27 July 2009 and the sanction was extended worldwide by FIFA.

In July 2009 the Athlete appealed the Decision of 1 July 2009 of the HFF Appeal Committee with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division finds in this case that the Athlete has not demonstrated that the stay of the decision rendered by the HFF Appeal Committee would protect him against any irreparable harm.

Due to the Athlete having failed to meet the first test (existence of an irreparable harm resulting from the execution of the challenged decision), the Deputy President deems that there is no need to evaluate whether the other conditions are fulfilled and that the request for a stay of the challenged decision shall be dismissed.

Therefore on 13 August 2009 in view of Articles R37 and R52 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division decides:

1.) The request for a stay filed by Mr. Jakub Wawrzniak is dismissed.
(…).

In January 2009 the International Biathlon Union (IBU) has reported anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the IBU Anti-Doping Hearing Panel (ADHP).

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance. She stated that previously her team physician had administered her a prescribed product 10 days before the sample collection and contended that this product may have contained prohibited substances. Further she argued that irregularities occurred as departures of the ISL due to delays in the process of analyzing the samples and the time of the sample collection. Also she indicated that he wanted to provide substantial assistance about possible anti-doping violations committed by athletes and support personnel.

The ADHP notes that the Athlete failed to provide substantial assistance and neither did she demonstrate how the prohibited substance entered her system. The Laboratory reported that errors were corrected later without effecting the test results and the ADHP finds that these errors didn’t cause the adverse analytical finding as departure of the ISL.

The ADHP observes that the Athlete’s written explanations are identical to those of two other athletes in parallel anti-doping proceedings and finds it hard to escape the conclusion that systematic and deliberate anti-doping rule violations and attempts to evade the consequences of those violations took place.

The Panel rules that the Athlete’s samples establish the presence of a prohibited substance and that she committed an anti-doping rule violation without grounds for a reduced sanction.
Therefore the ADHP decides on 11 August 2009 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 5 December 2008.

In January 2009 the International Biathlon Union (IBU) has reported anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete after his samples - provided in December 2008 and in January 2009 on 3 occasions in Sweden and Germany - tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the IBU Anti-Doping Hearing Panel (ADHP).

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance. He stated that previously his team physician had administered him a prescribed product 3 days before the sample collection and contended that this product may have contained prohibited substances. Further he argued that irregularities occurred as departures of the ISL due to delays in the process of analyzing the samples and the time of the sample collection. Also he indicated that he wanted to provide substantial assistance about possible anti-doping violations committed by athletes and support personnel.

The ADHP notes that the Athlete failed to provide substantial assistance and neither did he demonstrate how the prohibited substance entered his system. The Laboratory reported that errors were corrected later without effecting the test results and the ADHP finds that these errors didn’t cause the adverse analytical finding as departure of the ISL.

The ADHP observes that the Athlete’s written explanations are identical to those of two other athletes in parallel anti-doping proceedings and finds it hard to escape the conclusion that systematic and deliberate anti-doping rule violations and attempts to evade the consequences of those violations took place.

The Panel rules that the Athlete’s samples establish the presence of a prohibited substance and that he committed a single anti-doping rule violation without grounds for a reduced sanction.
Therefore the ADHP decides on 11 August 2009 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the first sample collection, i.e. 3 December 2008.

Related cases:

• CAS 2009_A_1931 Ekaterina Iourieva & Albina Akhatova vs IBU
  November 12, 2009
• IBU 2013 IBU vs Ekaterina Iourieva
  July 14, 2014
• IBU 2014 IBU vs Ekaterina Iourieva
  June 30, 2015
• Swiss Federal Court 4A_620_2009 Ekaterina Iourieva & Albina Akhatova vs IBU
  May 7, 2010
  
  

In January 2009 the International Biathlon Union (IBU) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete after her A and B samples - provided on 4 and 5 December 2008 - tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the IBU Anti-Doping Hearing Panel (ADHP).

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance. She stated that previously her team physician had administered her a prescribed product 4 days before the sample collection and contended that this product may have contained prohibited substances.

Further she argued that there had been irregularities as departures of the ISL due to delays in the process of analyzing the samples and the time of the sample collection. Also she indicated that she wanted to provide substantial assistance about possible anti-doping violations committed by athletes and support personnel.

The ADHP notes that the Athlete failed to provide substantial assistance, nor did she demonstrate how the prohibited substance entered her system. The Laboratory reported that errors were corrected later without effecting the test results and the ADHP determines that these errors didn’t cause the adverse analytical finding as departure of the ISL.

The ADHP observes that the Athlete’s written explanations are identical to those of two other athletes in parallel anti-doping proceedings and finds it hard to escape the conclusion that systematic and deliberate anti-doping rule violations and attempts to evade the consequences of those violations took place.

The Panel rules that the Athlete’s samples establish the presence of a prohibited substance and that she committed a single anti-doping rule violation without grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the ADHP decides on 11 August 2009 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of sample collection, i.e. 4 December 2008.