Therapeutic Use Exemptions : the World Anti-Doping Code International Standard / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2008. - (International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (ISTUE) version 3.0, effective on 1 January 2009)

The World Anti-Doping Code International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUE) is a level 2 mandatory International Standard developed as part of the World Anti-Doping Program.

The basis for the development of the International Standard for TUE has been a review of various procedures and protocols of International Federations, the IOC, National Anti-Doping Organizations and relevant sections in the revised International Standard for Doping Control (ISDC). A WADA expert reference group reviewed, discussed and prepared the document following wide consultation and consideration of submissions.

The official text of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemption 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.

The International Standard for TUE (version 3.0) will come into effect on 1 January 2009.

Meat products as potential doping traps? / Hans Braun, Hans Geyer, Karsten Koehler. - (International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism 18 (2009) 5 (October); p. 539-542).
- PMID: 19051433.
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsnem.18.5.539

Abstract:

Recently published news regarding food safety in China caused some worldwide disturbance and uncertainty among top athletes and their supporting staff. According to an article in The New York Times, a member of the U.S. Olympic team discovered oversized chicken breast when visiting a supermarket in Beijing, China. More interesting, the chicken contained considerable amounts of anabolic steroids, which were reported to be large enough to cause a failed doping test after ingesting the meat (Shpigel, 2008). Based on this case report it appears necessary to assess the danger posed to our (Olympic) athletes by foods and especially meat products on a more general basis. More important, our athletes are involved in worldwide travel during the competitive season. Therefore we must consider not only our athletes’ local food choices but also the wide variety of foods and regional delicacies our athletes might be confronted with in foreign countries.

International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information : the World Anti-Doping Code / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2008. - (International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information (ISPPPI) version 1.0, in effect on 1 January 2009)

The World Anti-Doping International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information is a level 2 mandatory International Standard developed as part of the World Anti-Doping Program.

WADA and Anti-Doping Organizations share responsibility for ensuring that Personal Information Processed in connection with anti-doping activities is protected as required by data protection and privacy laws, principles and standards. The main purpose of this International Standard is to ensure that organizations and persons involved in anti-doping in sport apply appropriate, sufficient and effective privacy protections to Personal Information that they Process, regardless of whether this is also required by applicable laws.

A WADA expert reference group reviewed, discussed and prepared this document, and specifically took into account the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) 1980 Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data; the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS. No. 108); Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and other international and regional data privacy rules and standards.

The official text of the International Standard for Privacy and Personal Information 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 be controlling.

The International Standard for Privacy and Personal Information shall come into effect on 1 January 2009. It shall be updated from time to time, as needed, to reflect developments in applicable laws and anti-doping practices.

CAS 2008/A/1489 Despres v/CCES
CAS 2008/A/1510 WADA v/Despres, CES & Bobsleigh Canada Skeleton

CAS 2008/A/1489 Serge Despres v. Canadian Center for Ethics in Sport (CCES) & CAS 2008/A/1510 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Serge Despres, CCES & Bobsleigh Canada Skeleton (BCS)

Related case:

SDRCC 2007 CCES vs Serge Despres
January 31, 2008

• Bobsleigh
• Doping (nandrolone)
• Significant fault or negligence
• Enhancement of sport performance
• Proportionality of the sanction
• Starting date of the sanction

1. The athlete who did not contact the manufacturer of a nutritional supplement directly to seek a guarantee before ingesting it, has not taken a clear and obvious precaution. Simply believing such guarantees to be generic fails to explain why he/she did not take this additional, prescribed step. As a consequence, the athlete has not exercised a standard of care meriting a “no significant fault or negligence” reduction to the mandated two year period of ineligibility. The advice of a team nutritionist also constitutes an inadequate claim for establishing “no significant fault or negligence”.

2. The ingestion of a nutritional supplement for faster recovery after a surgery is a performance-related reason.

3. The proportionality doctrine gives the CAS panels flexibility in cases involving extreme or exceptional circumstances. As the risk of contamination in nutritional supplements is widely known, the circumstances surrounding an athlete’s adverse analytical finding are neither extreme nor unique in such case. As a result, there is no reason to reduce the two-year suspension period required under the applicable regulations.

4. Whatever effects a two-year ineligibility period would have on an athlete’s ability to qualify for the Olympics or any other competition should in the ordinary course not have any bearing on when the ineligibility period begins or how long it lasts. An athlete’s personal history or how severely the penalty would impact him or her given the particularities of his or her sport cannot be taken into account when fixing the penalty. This notwithstanding, and in accordance with the applicable regulations, fairness may require that the start date of an athlete’s ineligibility be the date of his or her first sample collection.

In November 2007 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Serge Despres after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Thereupon the SDRCC Tribunal decided on 31 January 2008 to impose a 20 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. In first instance the Tribunal accepted that a contaminated prescribed supplement was the source of the positive test.

Hereafter in February 2008 the Athlete and in March 2008 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the SDRCC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Panel determined that the Athlete acknowledged having made a mistake, has expressed regrets and hopes to act as a spokesperson on this issue. However, he essentially argued that whenever an athlete can prove that the supplement is contaminated, he or she should be found to have acted with “no significant fault or negligence”.

Given the numerous warning about the risks of contaminated supplements, the Panel deems that contamination alone cannot be a sufficient basis for finding “no significant fault or negligence”.

Furthermore the Panel finds that the facts of this case do not warrant a reduction in the Athlete's period of ineligibility based on a proportionality analysis. As a result, the Panel does not reduce the two-year suspension period required under the WADC and the CADP.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 September 2008 that:

1.) The award of the SDRCC of January 31, 2008 is set aside.

2.) Mr. Serge Despres is declared ineligible for a period of two years, commencing on the date of his sample collection, August 9, 2007, and concluding on August 8, 2009. All results from competition on or after August 9, 2007 shall be considered void.

3.) To the limited extent specified in the prior paragraph, each of the appeals filed by Mr. Despres on February 19, 2008 and by WADA on March 31, 2008 is upheld.

4.) (…).

5.) All other prayers for relief are rejected.

Facts
French Mountaineering and Climbing Federation (Fédération Française de la Montagne et de l'Escalade, FFME) charges M59 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an event on January 27, 2008, the respondent provided a sample for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of prednisolone and prednisone which are prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. They are regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent thinks that the positive test derived from a pharmaceutical product he had used and tablets of an old treatment. It was used to treat a condition of fragile bronchi. He had mentioned the pharmaceutical product on the doping control form, but he had taken more tablets than was prescribed. Also there was no mentioning of the tablets of the old treatment he had used.

Decision
1. The decision (four months period of ineligibility in which respondent can't take part in competition and manifestations organized or authorized by the FFME) dated May 16, 2008, by the disciplinary committee of the FFME doesn't need to be changed.
2. The decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Federation of Full Contact Sports (Fédération Française de Full Contact, FFFC) charges respondent M58 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a doping control in the night of February 10 to 11, 2007, the respondent evaded the doping control.

History
The respondent admitted to have used a prohibited substance the last five days, it was made clear to him that he could refuse the doping control which he did.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFFC.
2. The decision (six months period of ineligibility) dated March 28, 2007, by the disciplinary committee of the FFFC 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 Federation of Full Contact Sports (Fédération Française de Full Contact, FFFC) charges respondent M57 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a doping control in the night of February 10 to 11, 2007, the respondent evaded the doping control. On February 14, 2007, he had another doping control. His sample tested positive for the substance furosemide which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) doping list.

History
The respondent had evaded to deliver his sample after being asked personally. Also he didn't present any written documents and didn't appear at the hearing.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three years in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFFC.
2. The decision (two years period of ineligibility) dated March 28, 2007, by the disciplinary committee of the FFFC should be modified.
3. The period of ineligibility should be reduced by the period served under the decision of March 28, 2007.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

In March 2008 the Turkish Basketball Federation (TBF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.
The TBF notified the Player and ordered a provisional suspension.
In June 2008 the Turkish Club Alpella Basketbol Kulübü terminated the employment contract with Player and the TBF Disciplinary Board decided a 2 year period of ineligibility starting from the date of the notification.

In June 2008 the Turkish Board of Arbitration of the Directorate of Youth and Sports dismissed Player’s appeal against the previous TBF Disciplinary Board decision. Hereafter in September 2008 the Player’s appealed to the FIBA. The Player filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the FIBA Disciplinary Panel. Player stated he denied that he had used cannabis; the doping procedure was invalid; and Player claimed he had insufficient time to decide he wanted the B sample to be tested.
The Panel finds the laboratory test reliable and valid; and the Player had all the necessary time to request the opening of the B-sample.

The Panel concludes that the Player had no intention to enhance his sport performance but also committed a second anti-doping rule violation. Because in 2005 the Player was suspended for 4 games for a doping violation in France after his sample tested positive for cannabis.
Therefore the FIBA Disciplinary Panel confirms the TBF Disciplinary Board decision for a 2 year period of ineligibility starting from the day in which the Player was provisionally suspended, i.e. on 15 April 2008.

The International Basketball Federation (FIBA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.
The FIBA notified the Player and ordered a provisional suspension.
The Player was heard for the Panel and stated he had smoked marijuana (cannabis), had no intention to enhance his performance and expressed his regret for the violation committed.
The FIBA Disciplinary Panel decides a 3 month period of ineligibility.
As a result the sanction has already expired and the Player is eligible to play immediately.

In April 2008 the Turkish Basketball Federation has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Carboxy-THC (cannabis). The Federation notified the Player and ordered a provisional suspension.Hereafter the Turkish Basketball Federation decided a two year period of ineligibility.
The player appealed against this decision of the Turkish Basketball Federation to the FIBA Disciplinary Panel. The Player admitted he had smoked marihuana, had no intention to enhance his performance and expressed his regret for the violation committed.
Considering the provisional suspension and ineligibility since May 2007, and that Player committed no previous anti-doping rule violation, the FIBA Disciplinary Panel decides a 3 month period of ineligibility.
As a result the sanction has already expired and the Player is eligible to plan immediately.