World Anti-Doping Code International Standard for Laboratories / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2009. - (International Standard for Laboratories (ISL), version 6.0, in force 1 January 2009)

The International Standard for Laboratories was first adopted
in June 2003 and became effective on 1 January 2004. The
enclosed represents version 6.0 that incorporates revisions to
the International Standard for Laboratories that were
approved by the World Anti-Doping Agency Executive
Committee on 20 September 2008. The revised International
Standard for Laboratories is effective as of 1 January 2009.

The 2009 Prohibited List International Standard : The World Anti-Doping Code / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2008.

- 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 2009

AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY 2007-08 ANNUAL REPORT
© Commonwealth of Australia
ISSN 1833-8976

Table of contents
Letter of transmittal iii
Guide to this report iv
Overview 1
Message from the Chair 2
About us 6
Snapshot of ASADA 6
Highlights from 2007–08 10
Outlook for 2008–09 10
Report on performance 13
Report on performance 14
Outcome 1 15
Output 1.1 – Deterrence Program 16
Deterrence 18
Output 1.2 – Detection Program 28
Detection 29
Output 1.3 – Enforcement Program 33
Enforcement 34
Management and accountability 37
Corporate governance 38
External scrutiny 48
Management of human resources 49
Financial information 55
Summary of our financial performance 56
Discretionary grants 56
Asset management 56
Purchasing 57
Engagement of consultants and contractors 57
Financial statements 60
Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee 103
Appendixes 109
Appendix A: Doping control statistics 1997–98 to 2007–08 110
Appendix B: Publicly announced anti-doping rule violations 2007–08 111
Appendix C: International anti-doping and doping control 114
Appendix D: Powers of the minister to give directions to ASADA 115
Appendix E: ASADA’s functions, powers and delegations 116
Appendix F: Staffing statistics at 30 June 2008 118
Appendix G: Occupational health and safety 121
Appendix H: Advertising and market research 122
Appendix I: Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance 123
Appendix J: Freedom of information 124
Appendix K: Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee – functions 125
Appendix L: Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee – therapeutic use exemptions granted 127
List of abbreviations and glossary 131
Indexes 135
Tables
Table 1: Resources for Outcome 1 15
Table 2: Output 1.1 performance measures 16
Table 3: Education activities during 2007–08 20
Table 4: Output 1.2 performance measures 28
Table 5: Anti-doping tests conducted by ASADA in 2007–08 30
Table 6: Doping control facts and figures 2007–08 30
Table 7: Output 1.3 performance measures 33
Table 8: ASADA member details at 30 June 2008 40
Table 9: ASADA members’ attendance at Anti-Doping Rule Violation
Committee meetings 2007–08 42
Table 10: Expenditure on new and existing consultancy contracts 2007–08 57
Table 11: Consultancy service let during 2007–08 of $10,000 or more 58
Table 12: ASDMAC Members 105
Table 13 ASDMAC budget 2007–08 107
Table 14: Doping control statistics 110
Table 15: Publicly announced anti-doping rule violations 111
Table 16: Entries on the Register of Findings 2006–07 where the outcome was to be advised 113
Table 17: Government to government arrangements 114
Table 18: Full and part time staff at 30 June 2008 118
Table 19: Staff by classification groups and location at 30 June 2008 118
Table 20: SES staff at 30 June 2008 118
Table 21: Staff in equal employment opportunity groups at 30 June 2008 119
Table 22: Salary ranges of employees 119
Table 23: Number of staff on AWAs or certified agreement 120
Table 24: Performance payments 2006–07, paid in 2007–08 120
Table 25: Advertising and market research 122
Table 26: Therapeutic use exemption applications 2007–08 127
Table 27: Substances approved for therapeutic use 129
Figures
Figure 1: Organisational structure at 30 June 2008 8
Figure 2: Australia’s anti-doping framework 9
Figure 3: ASADA’s outcome and output structure 2007–08 14
Figure 4: Number of athletes recording anti-doping rule violations 35

Implementation of gas chromatography combined with simultaneously selected ion monitoring and full scan mass spectrometry in doping analysis / W. Van Thuyne, P. Van Eenoo, F.T. Delbeke. - (Journal of Chromatography A 1210 (2008) 2 (14 November); p. 193-202)

• PMID: 18849031
• DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2008.09.049

Abstract

A comprehensive screening method for the detection of prohibited substances in doping control is described and validated. This method is capable of detecting over 150 components mentioned on the list of the World Anti-Doping Agency including anabolic androgenic steroids, stimulants and all narcotic agents that are currently analysed using different analytical methods. The analytes are extracted from urine by a combined extraction procedure using freshly distilled diethyl ether and tert-butyl methyl ether as extraction solvents at pH 9.5 and 14 respectively. Prior to GC-MS analysis the residues are combined and derivatised using a mixture of N-methyl-N-trimethylsilyltrifluoroacetamide, NH(4)I and ethanethiol. The mass spectrometer is simultaneously operated in the full scan mode (mass range varies along with GC-oven temperature program) and in the selected ion monitoring mode. The obtained limits of detection are in compliance with the requirements set by the World Anti-Doping Agency. Besides narcotics, stimulants and anabolic androgenic agents, this method is also capable of detecting several agents with anti-estrogenic activity and some beta-agonists. This comprehensive screening method reduces the amount of urine needed and increases the sample throughput without a loss in sensitivity and selectivity.

The International Basketball Federation (FIBA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance marihuana (cannabis).
The FIBA notified the Player and ordered a provisional suspension.
The Player filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Disciplinary Panel.
The Player admitted he had smoked marihuana, had no intention to enhance his performance and accepts the consequences.
The FIBA Disciplinary Panel decides a three month period of ineligibility.
Because of the provisional suspension the ordered sanction has already expired and the Player is eligible to play immediately.

The Dutch Royal Strength Sport Fitness Federation (KNKF) started disciplinary proceedings against a person for violating the Doping rules of the ISR. In the analysis of the A-part of the urine sample of the person concerned the prohibited substances norsibutramine and hydroxynorsibutramine (metabolites of sibutramine) were found. The doping control was conducted during the Dutch Championships bench press. Person concerned has weathered in writing. The matter was treated in writing after the person expressed to refrain from an oral hearing.

Person concerned stated in his/her defence that he/she never used stimulants. He/she is a fierce opponent of this. It is a big question mark for him/her how these substances could be found in his/her urine. He/she uses the same nutritional supplements for many years. Person concerned has inquired the manufacturers, and it turned out that none of the supplements contains sibutramine. It is shown that the substances are in slimming products. However the weight of person rises for years in the same steady line. Person concerned had also encountered at the Dutch Championships three bench press failures. Person concerned calls on the disciplinary Commission to be reasonable with the imposed penalty. But the disciplinary Commission believes that the defence of the person concerned is not in line. The mere presence of a banned substance is already an offense. The disciplinary Commission is of the opinion that the violation is proven.
Sibutramine is a "specific substance". If the athlete can demonstrate that the use is not with the intention to improve sport performance, the penalty can be less than standard. The disciplinary Commission is of the opinion that this person has shown insufficient.
Therefore, the disciplinary Commission has the opinion that a penalty consisting of two years exclusion is in place. Also this case costs are borne by the person concerned.

FURTHER ANALYSIS OF B SAMPLES: THE MAYO DECISION
On August 12, 2008, the Court of Arbitration for Sport released in French its decision granting the International Cycling Union’s appeal of Iban Mayo’s exoneration from an anti-doping rule violation and two-year suspension involving EPO. The decision is especially noteworthy because of the sequence of testing of the rider’s B sample which involved, in different ways, four different WADA accredited labs. The decision makes clear that an inconclusive result need not be the end of the analytical story if there is sufficient remaining sample for further analysis. This gives Anti-Doping Organizations a further means to pursue cheating in sport. The decision also anticipates Article 6.5 of the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code which explicitly recognizes the authority of anti-doping organizations to re-analyze samples in accordance with the detailed requirements of the up-dated WADA International Standard for Laboratories.

Doping: a paradigm shift has taken place in testing;
Doping: probability that testing doesn’t tell us anything new;
Doping: ignorance of basic statistics is all too common / Pierre-Edouard Sottas, Christophe Saudan, Marial Saugy; Geoffrey Baird; Matthew Fero. – (Nature (2008) 455 (11 September) : 166)

Letters as response to the article: “The science of doping: commentary” / Donald A. Berry. – (Nature (2008) 454 (7 August) : p. 692-693)

CAS 2008/A/1516 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI), Federazione Italiana Tennis Tavolo (FITET) & Valentino Piacentini

• Table tennis
• Doping (Cocaine)
• Exceptional circumstances
• Suspension already served

1. The list of circumstances which may but do not have to lead to a reduction of the suspension cannot be exhaustive. In other words, it is not limited to the exemplifying list contained in the comment regarding art. 10.5.2 of the World Anti Doping Code or related provisions. However, no exceptional circumstances can justify an elimination or reduction of the stipulated suspension in the case of an athlete who knew prior to consuming the cocaine positively of the character of the substance which he may well have consumed in a state of euphoria but nevertheless in knowledge of the circumstances and finally intentionally.

2. The suspension already served has to be credited against the two-year suspension imposed in favour of the athlete.

On 15 November 2007 the Italian Corte di Apello Federale decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Table Tennis player Valentiono Piacentini after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

Following the appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) the Giudice di Ultima Istanza in material di doping del CONI decided on 4 February 2008 to impose a 1 year and 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter WADA appealed the decision of 4 February 2008 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 2 years on the Athlete.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He stated that he had used the substance 2 days before the competition.

The Sole Arbitrator determines that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 11 September 2008:

1.) The appeal filed by the WADA on March 17, 2008 is admissible.

2.) The appeal filed by the WADA on March 17, 2008 is upheld, and the appealed Decision issued by the Giudice di Ultima Istanza in material di doping del CONI on February 4, 2008 is varied to impose a two-year sanction.

3.) Valentino Piacentini is declared ineligible for competition for two years commencing on July 12, 2007. The competitive results obtained by Mr. Piacentini from June 8, 2007 to July 12, 2007 are disqualified.

4.) (…).

5. All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2007/A/1370 FIFA v. Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD) & Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) & Mr Ricardo Lucas Dodô

CAS 2007/A/1376 WADA v. Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD) & Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) & Mr Ricardo Lucas Dodô

Related case:

Swiss Federal Court 4A_460_2008 Ricardo Lucas Dodô vs FIFA & WADA
January 9, 2008

• Football
• Doping (Fenproporex)
• CAS Jurisdiction
• Applicable law
• No fault or negligence
• No significant fault or negligence
• Burden of proof
• Duty of care of the athlete
• Commencement of the suspension period

1. The “stand-alone test” is the decisive test to reveal whether a given sports justice body pertains in some way to the structure of a given sports organization or not. If it appears that, would the sports organization not exist, the sports justice body would not exist and would not perform any function, then the sports justice body has no autonomous legal personality and may not be considered as a Respondent on its own in a CAS appeal arbitration concerning one of its rulings. Consequently, the procedural position of the sports justice body before the CAS must be encompassed within that of the sports organization.

2. If a national legislation itself expressly states that official sports practice in the country is governed by national and international rules, then international sports rules are directly applicable in this country. Accordingly, any athlete registered with a national federation is directly bound by the international rules accepted by that federation, including any provision therein giving jurisdiction to the CAS.

3. The right of appeal to CAS against national decisions – granted to FIFA and WADA – confirms that national football associations have expressed the clear wish to pursue uniform interpretation and application of anti-doping rules and sanctions vis-à-vis athletes of international status throughout the football world. Such uniform interpretation and application would be imperilled or impeded if the CAS – absent any mandatory rule or public policy principle imposing such legal course – had to accord precedence to domestic anti-doping rules over a FIFA disciplinary system contractually accepted, on a basis of reciprocity, by all national football associations and their affiliated clubs and registered individuals.

4. In order to establish that he bears no fault or negligence, the athlete must prove (1) how the prohibited substance came to be present in his/her body and, thus, in his/her urine samples, and (2) that he/she did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution, that he/she had used or been administered the prohibited substance.

5. In order to establish that he/she bears no significant fault or negligence, in addition to the proof of how the prohibited substance came to be present in his/her body, the athlete must prove that his/her fault or negligence, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances and taking into account the requirement of utmost caution, was not significant in relationship to the anti-doping rule violation.

6. The athlete must establish the facts that he/she alleges to have occurred by a “balance of probability”. According to CAS jurisprudence, the balance of probability standard means that the indicted athlete bears the burden of persuading the judging body that the occurrence of the circumstances on which he/she relies is more probable than their non-occurrence or more probable than other possible explanations of the doping offence.

7. The WADA Code provides that the athlete is personally responsible for the conduct of people around him/her from whom he/she receives food, drinks, supplements or medications, and cannot simply say that he/she trusts them and follows their instructions.

8. When delays in the judging process are not or only partially attributable to the athlete, it is fair to apply ex officio the principle set forth by Article 10.8 of the WADA Code and, thus, to start the period of suspension at an earlier date than the day of notification of the award.

In June 2007 the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ricardo Lucas Dodô after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Fenproporex.

Thereupon in July 2007 several nutritional supplements regularly used by the Dodô's team were sent to the University of Sao Paulo Laboratory for Toxicological Analyses to be tested. The presence of Fenproporex was was found in some caffeine capsules.

Considering te contamination reports about the supplements the Brazilian Sports Disciplinary Commission accepted the Players statement and decided on 24 July 2007 to impose a 120 day period of ineligibility on the Player.

The Player appealded this decision and on 2 August 2007 the
Brazilian High Sports Court for Football (STJD) decided to set aside the Discplinary Commission’s decision and to acquit the Player with termination of his provisional suspension. The STJD accepted the Player’s argument that he had been an innocent victim of contamination and that he had not been negligent.

Hereafter in September 2007 FIFA and WADA appealed the STJD decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Following assessment the CAS Panel is not willing to share the STJD’s conclusion that the explanation offered by the Player is acceptable. In the Panel’s view, the evidence submitted by the Player as to both the ingestion of a caffeine capsule prior to the match and the contamination of that caffeine capsule is unsatisfactory.

The Panel finds that, on the balance of probability, the Player has failed to establish how the prohibited substance entered his system and the Panel finds that the Player’s degree of “fault or negligence”, viewed in the totality of the circumstances, is clearly “significant” in relation to the anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 11 September 2008:

1.) The CAS has jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione personae to entertain the appeals of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in respect of the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) and Mr Ricardo Lucas Dodô, while it has no jurisdiction ratione personae in respect of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD).

2.) The appeals of FIFA and WADA against the decision dated 2 August 2007 of the STJD are upheld.

3.) The decision dated 2 August 2007 of the STJD is set aside.

4.) Mr Ricardo Lucas Dodô is suspended from 6 December 2007 to 7 November 2009.

(…)