Related case:
FISA 2008 FISA vs Alexander Litvintchev, Evgeny Luzyanin & Ivan Podshivalov
January 14, 2008
FISA 2008 FISA vs Russian Rowing Federation (1)
January 27, 2008
FISA 2008 FISA vs Russian Rowing Federation (2)
April 4, 2008

The International Federation of Rowing Associations (FISA) was informed that medical materials were found in a rubbish bin near the hotel used by the Russian team in Lucerne during the World Cup Regatta from 13-15 July 2007.
This comprised intravenous infusion equipment, along with legal substances such as creatine and fructose. The materials were taken to the Anti-Doping Laboratory in Lausanne and analysed. Hereafter the DNA of a total of 8 blood samples, provided by the Russian Athlete’s, matched with the DNA samples from the blood found on the needles.
Hereafter in August 2007 FISA imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on three Athletes of the Russian team for intravenous infusion of substances for other than a legitimate acute medical treatment.

In September 2007 the International Federation of Rowing Associations (FISA) reported anti-doping rule violations against three Athletes of the Russian men’s eight and against two Athlete’s, Anastasia Fatina and Anastasia Karabelshchikova from the women’s eight, for intravenous infusion with no legitimate medical treatment.
FISA notified the five Athletes and a provisional suspension was ordered.

The Russian Rowing Federation submitted a document which stated that the team doctor did not use intravenous injections to introduce substances to the Athletes.
However in a second submitted document the former team doctor admitted his involvement with intravenous infusions and he did administer intravenous infusions to the three male Athletes as prescribed medical treatment for dehydration and convulsions.
The former team doctor made no comment about the two female Athletes in this case.
In a third document the president of the Russian Rowing Federation stated, in contradiction with the first document, that intravenous infusions took place as legitimate medical treatment for the three male Athletes administered by the team doctor.

In the case of the two female Athletes, the Russian Rowing Federation produced evidence in November 2007 that blood had been drawn in July 2007 from a total of 44 Russian Athletes, including the Athlete’s Fatina and Karabelshchikova, and that the blood was analysed by a laboratory in Moscow for ten parameters.
After further questions, in January 2008, the Russian Rowing Federation produced different evidence that the blood was not transported to Moscow and analysed in Moscow but was, in fact, analysed in a hotel room in Lucerne on a blood analysis machine which contradicts the previous evidence submitted in November 2007.

On the basis of the medical reports provided by the Russian Federation, the Panel finds that the Russian Rowing Federation has presented two different versions of what took place in the hotel room in Lucerne in July 2007 and that both appear not plausible and in contradiction with the evidence. In addition the Panel finds that there has been no credible evidence to support the assertion that blood was drawn from the two female Athletes in Lucerne.
The Panel concludes that the evidence is overwhelming that similar treatments were carried out on all eight Russian Athletes, i.e. infusions or other blood manipulation and that, in all cases, there was no legitimate medical treatment involved. The Panel notes that the contradiction in the Russian statements does raise questions as to the reliability of the submitted evidence.

Therefore the FISA Doping Hearing Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete’s Anastasia Fatina and Anastasia Karabelshchikova, starting on 27 August 2007.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) charges Kasun De Siva for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 3 November 2007, Mr. De Silva provided an urine sample as part of the in-competition anti-doping programme conducted at the Asian Rugby Championships (ASIAD). The Player’s “A” sample was found to contain Carboxy-THC (Cannabinoids) at a concentration greater than the set threshold of 15ng/ml. This is a Prohibited Substance listed under s. 8.Cannabinoids on the 2007 World Anti-Doping Agency Prohibited List. The Player waived his right to have his “B” sample analysed.

History
The Player asserts that he is a non-smoker. He does not drink alcohol. He has never used recreational drugs. He advises that he comes from a very religious Christian background and is a devoted church goer. On 27 October 2007 the Player apparently had a serious lapse of judgment. His best friend from childhood was leaving for overseas employment and the Player attended his farewell party. In a letter written to the Union on 22 November 2007 the Player stated: …all my friends were having a good time and during the night a few of my friends were smoking cigarettes and I too had a few puffs just for the fun of it. I now realise that some of the cigarettes may have been lazed with cannabis.”

Decision
The Player committed an anti-doping rule violation. The sanction imposed for this anti-doping rule violation is a period of Ineligibility of three (3) months, commencing on 21 November 2007 (the date upon which the Player was provisionally suspended) and concluding (but inclusive of) 20 February 2008.

Oxygen delivery enhancers: past, present, and future / P. Borrione, A. Mastrone, R.A. Salvo, A. Spaccamiglio, L. Grasso, A. Angeli. - (Journal of Endocrinological Investigation 31 ( (2008) 2 (February); p. 185-192)

• PMID: 18362513
• DOI: 10.1007/BF03345588

Abstract

In endurance sport the delivery of oxygen to muscles plays a critical role. Indeed, muscle performance declines during prolonged and intense activity as a consequence of the shift from the aerobic to the anaerobic metabolism with an increase of lactate. To enhance the aerobic capacity 2 alternatives may be used: increasing either the transport or the delivery of oxygen. In this setting, blood doping is the practice of illicitly using a drug or blood product to improve athletic performance. Based on this definition, blood doping techniques may include: 1) blood transfusion (autologous or omologous); 2) erythropoiesis-stimulating substances [recombinant human erythropoietin (alpha, beta, omega), darbepoietin-alpha, continuous erythropoiesis receptor activator, hematide]; 3) blood substitutes (hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers, perfluorocarbon emulsions); 4) allosteric modulators of hemoglobin (RSR-13 and RSR-4); 5) gene doping (human erythropoietin gene transfection); 6) gene regulation (hypoxia-inducible transcription factors pathway). In the present overview we will briefly describe the above-mentioned techniques with the aim of underlining potential hematological alternatives to gene doping for increasing aerobic capacity in sport.

Related case:
CAS 2008_A_1489 Serge Despres vs CCES
September 30, 2008

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) charges Serge Despres (the athlete) with a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Policy (CADP). On August 9, 2007, the CCES conducted out-of-competition doping control in Calgary, Alberta. A sample collection took place which included the athlete. The sample contained nandrolone or precursors-norandrosterone which is a prohibited substance.

History
The athlete does not dispute that an anti-doping rule violation occurred in the circumstances of this case. However, the athlete claims there are "exceptional circumstances" that justify a reduction in the two-year period of suspension. The athlete has established that the taking of the Kaizen HMB supplements containing the prohibited substance caused the adverse analytical finding. After an accident he used the supplement for fast recovery, he did some examination to see if the product was safe to use.

Submissions CCES
The CCES claims there are "no exceptional circumstances" in this case and that the athlete is significantly at fault or negligent for the violation that occurred.

Decision
1. The evidence, together with the admissions and stated positions of the parties, establish that an anti-doping violation occurred involving the presence of nandrolone or precursors over the 2 ng/mL threshold set out in CADP Rules 7.16-7.20 and 7.37 in the athlete's collected sample.
2. The evidence, together with the admissions and stated positions of the parties establish there was fault or negligence by the athlete in ingesting this material. The source was found to be Kaizen HMB supplements, purchased by the athlete.
3. The issue before me is whether the two-year provisional suspension issued November 8, 2007 should be reduced, having
regard to the totality of the evidence and the conduct of the athlete. More specifically, the question is whether the athlete
bears "no significant fault or negligence" and if so, what is the appropriate reduction, if any, to the two-year period of
ineligibility of the athlete from competition.
4. In the unusual and particular circumstances of this case, after a careful review of the evidence, the arbitrator determines:
a. While the athlete bears fault or negligence, his conduct does not quite rise to the level of significant fault or negligence.
b. While there are grounds established by the evidence for a reduction in the imposed sanction, such reduction must be
proportional to the totality of the evidence and the underlying principles of the Rules.
c. Accordingly, the period of ineligibility is hereby reduced to twenty months, to July 8, 2009. The period of ineligibility shall commence November 8, 2007, the date of the provisional suspension, in accordance with CADP Rule 7.12.

Eric Thompson, The Respondent, is a track athlete who competes primarily in the sport of high jumping. At the time of the events in question, he was 18 years old and had just graduated from public high school in Herrin, Illinois.
Mr. Thompson was a heavily recruited high school track athlete, and during his senior year he was awarded and accepted a fully-paid athletic scholarship to attend the University of Arkansas, where he had long hoped to enroll because of its distinguished track and field tradition.

Mr. Thompson competed in the high jump in Indianapolis on June 21, 2007, the second day after his consumption of cocaine at a graduation party. He placed second in the event, although his best jump was significantly below his prior jumping achievements. As a result of placing second, Mr. Thompson was subject to doping testing.
Mr. Thompson’s urine sample tested positive for the substance benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine. Mr. Thompson confessed and accepted responsibility for his actions. He agreed to an immediate suspension form further competition and has cooperated fully with USADA in this proceeding.

The fault was not “significant” in view of the totality of the circumstances. Mr. Thomson was young and inexperienced and ingested cocaine a single time in his life. He did so apparently out of a wrong-headed sense of experimentation and not to achieve any competitive athletic advantage, nor did he achieve any.
Mr. Thompson had had no experience with anti-doping regulations and had no one in a position to advise him. He had graduated from high school at the time in question, was not part of a continuing coaching program and was accompanied to the Junior National Championships by what were at that point former coaches who themselves had no experience with the relevant anti-doping testing. This does not excuse Mr. Thompson’s lack of knowledge of the applicable anti-doping rules, but it is a relevant mitigating circumstance in the case of a young athlete with no available informed guidance. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to limit the period of Mr. Thompson’s suspension to one year.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel therefore rules as follows:
- Mr. Thompson committed a doping violation, for which a suspension from competition of one (1) year, to take place effective from July 18, 2007 through July 17, 2008, is imposed.
- During the period of his suspension, and for at least one year thereafter, Mr. Thompson must participate in a substance abuse counseling program such as the one available to students at the University of Arkansas.
- The result of Mr. Thompson’ s competition at the Junior National Championship on June 21, 2007 is cancelled.

The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association and the compensation and expenses of the arbitrators shall by borne entirely by USOC.

Related cases:
FISA 2007 FISA vs Olga Samulenkova
January 28, 2007
FISA 2007 FISA vs Svetlana Fedorova
August 30, 2007
FISA 2007 FISA vs Vladimir Varfolomeev & Denis Moiseev
August 30, 2007
FISA 2008 FISA vs Alexander Litvintchev, Evgeny Luzyanin & Ivan Podshivalov
January 14, 2008
FISA 2008 FISA vs Anastasia Fatina & Anastasia Karabelshchikova
February 5, 2008
FISA 2008 FISA vs Russian Rowing Federation (2)
April 4, 2008

On 26 January 2008, the FISA Executive Committee convened a Hearing to consider the status of the Russian Rowing Federation after nine of their Athletes had been convicted of having committed anti-doping rule violations during a twelve month period. The Executive Committee is empowered to consider sanctions against a member federation under Article 12 of the FISA Anti-Doping Bye-Laws.

The Russian Rowing Federation stated that it had taken action after the violations had been committed. The team doctor had been dismissed and the head coach had been demoted (but not dismissed). No other coaches or other personnel had been punished.

In this hearing the FISA Executive Committee considered the gravity of the violations; the lack of cooperation by the Russian Rowing Federation; the refusal to accept responsibility; and their provision of contradictory, inconsistent and deceptive explanations.

Therefore the FISA Executive Committee decides:

1.) to apply the sanction defined in paragraph 12.2 of Article 12 of the Anti-doping Rules, namely, to obligate the Russian Rowing Federation to reimburse FISA for all costs (including but not limited to laboratory fees, hearing expenses and travel) related to these seven violations of these Anti-Doping Rules committed by Russian athletes. This amount is approximately CHF 50’000.00;
2.) to apply the sanction defined in paragraph 12.3.1 a of Article 12 of the FISA Anti-Doping Rules, namely, ban all officials of the Russian Rowing Federation from participation in any FISA activities including, but not limited to, the current office bearers and Board of Directors of the Russian Rowing Federation and all coaches, team support staff and medical staff for a period of one year, commencing on 27 January 2008.
3.) to apply the sanction defined in paragraph 12.3.1. b of Article 12 of the Anti-doping Rules, namely, to fine the Russian Rowing Federation in an amount of CHF 75’000.00. This fine will be directed to augment FISA’s 2008 Anti-Doping Programme.

Related case:
ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2007_17 ANAD vs Mihaela Botezan
October 17, 2007

On 17 October 2007 the Sanction Committee of the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Mihaela Botezan after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance chlorthalidone.

The Athlete stated that she used the substance without intention to enhance her sport performance.

The ANAD Appeal Commission considers the Athlete’s arguments and decides on 25 January 2008 to dismiss the appeal and to uphold the Sanction Committee’s decision of 17 October 2007.

facts
Laura Paus Tio (player) was reported for an Anti-Doping Rules Violation (ADRV). During the Wimbledon Championship Qualifiers at Roethampton on June 19, 2007, her urine samples tested positive for the prohibited substances hydrochlorothiazide and Amiloride. The player claims "no fault or negligence" or "no significant fault or negligence". The rights of an oral hearing have been waived and the case was handled in written representations.

history
The player was prescribed ameride for therapeutic purposes, she did not appreciate and was not advised it contained a prohibited substance. The player is a graduate of Medicine and Surgery with a master in nutrition and food science. It would haven been possible to get a therapeutic use exemption for the prescription but she didn't apply for this.

considerations of the tribunal
The reasons from the player differ in her written representation, at first she states to have used the diuretic to treat liquid retention in the knee and a weight problem, later she states to have used is for pre-menstrual symptoms, oedemas an hypertension. Also she didn't declare the use of the medication on the doping control form she signed. Only after the positive test her practitioner informed her that Ameride contained the prohibited substances.

Decision
The tribunal makes the following decision:
1. A doping offence has been established;
2. The player is automatically disqualified in respect of the Wimbledon Championship Qualifiers, and forfeits any computer ranking points and prize money obtained in that competition;
3. The period of ineligibility to be imposed is 2 years;
4. The period of ineligibility shall commence on October 1, 2007;
5. The player shall be disqualified from any events in which she competed between June 19 and October 1, 2007 and forfeits any computer ranking points and prize money obtained in that competition.

Respondent, Ms. LaTasha Jenkins (“Ms. Jenkins”) or “Respondent”, is an elite-level athlete in the sport of track and field. Ms. Jenkins has participated in USA Track an Field’s (“USATF”) Out-of-Competition testing pool since 2000. Prior to this period, Ms. Jenkins participated in the International Association of Athletic Federations (“IAAF”) drug testing program. With the sole exception of the test in issue, Ms. Jenkins has not previously tested positive for a prohibited substance.

On 22 July 2006, while competing in the KBC Night Hechtel Meet in Heusen, Belgium, The IAAF required Ms. Jenkins to submit to a drug test. On the same day, Ms. Jenkins participated and placed first in the women’s 100 meter event. Later that evening, Ms. Jenkins provided a urine sample at the doping control station at the venue, dividing the sample into two Berlinger collection bottles (“A” sample and “B” sample) each identified by control number 689699.
On the Doping Control Form, Ms. Jenkins declared that she had taken Voltaren, a prescription pain medication, Tylenol, and multi-vitamins over the course of the seven day period prior to administration of the test. The amount of urine collected and its pH at the time of collection were also measured and recorded on the Form.

The sample was then shipped on 25 July 2006 to the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”)-accredited laboratory in Ghent, Belgium (“Ghent Laboratory”)
On 31 July 2006, the Ghent Laboratory conducted an initial laboratory screen from Ms. Jenkins’s “A” sample using Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (“GC/MS”) and detected the presence of the anabolic steroid metabolite Norandrosterone.
On 2 August 2006, the Ghent Laboratory took three aliquots from the “A” sample bottle and performed three separate analyses of the urine, all of which revealed the presence of Norandrosterone at an average concentration of 7.80 mg/ml.
The Ghent Laboratory subsequently reported the “A” sample as positive to the IAAF.
On 4 August 2006, at the request of the IAAF, Ms Jenkins’s sample was sent to the WADA-accredited laboratory in Köln, Germany (“Cologne Laboratory”) for analysis by Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry (“IRMS”).
On 8 August 2006, the Cologne Laboratory reported the “A” sample as positive for Nandrolone.

Following notification that the “A” sample had tested positive for the presence of Norandrosterone in excess of the allowable threshold, Ms. Jenkins requested that the “B” sample be tested. Ms. Jenkins did not attend or request the attendance of a representative during the B sample test.
On 21 September 2006, the Ghent Laboratory took three aliquots from the “B” sample bottle and performed three separate analyses of the urine. Ms. Jenkins’s “B” sample tested positive for Norandrosterone at a level of 12.30 ng/ml. The Ghent Laboratory again reported its finding to the IAAF.
On 22 September 2006, USATF wrote to USADA requesting that the agency handle the positive testing result under the USADA Protocol.
Following notification of the “B” sample results, Ms. Jenkins agreed to serve a provisional suspension beginning on 23 October 2006.

USADA subsequently requested that IRMS analysis also be performed on Ms. Jenkins’s “B” sample. On 20 December 2006, the Cologne Laboratory reported that the “B” sample confirmed the finding of Nandrolone in Ms. Jenkins’s specimen.
On 16 January 2007, USADA informed Ms. Jenkins in writing that the result of the “B” sample IRMS analysis conducted by the Cologne Laboratory also confirmed the presence of Norandrosterone in her specimen.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel is of the view that:
- USADA has proven that the prohibited substance 19-Norandrosterone was found above the threshold level in urine specimen 689699 provided by the Respondent on 22 July 2006;
- The Respondent has successfully demonstrate that ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2 was violated by both the Ghent and Cologne laboratories;
- The Respondent has not demonstrated that ISL 5.2.5.1.1 was violated;
- And USADA has failed to prove to the Panel’s comfortable satisfaction that the failure by both laboratories to observe ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2. did not undermine the validity of the testing result.
In view of the Panel’s finding that USADA has failed to demonstrate that the violation of ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2 by both laboratories did not undermine the validity of the test results, the results must be set aside.

In closing, the Panel wishes to add two comments. Firstly, doping in sport is a scourge which must be eradicated. It is a strict liability offence and, just as the athletes who are subject to the anti-doping regime are expected to follow is rules and standard to the letter, so they are entitled by the anti-doping authorities themselves, including the WADA accredited laboratories that play such a vital role in the regime. Following the rules applicable to all stakeholders is the best method of ensuring the integrity of sport.
Finally, the Panel wishes to emphasize certain aspects of the findings which compel its award in this case. The Panel has found that two WADA-accredited laboratories detected prohibited levels of 19-Norandrostrone in the Respondent’s sample provide on 22 July 2006. The Panel has also determined that those test results must be set aside because of a violation of the ISL and because USADA was unable to prove that this violation did nor undermine the validity of the test results in question. However, the Panel has not found that the violation of the ISL caused the Respondent’s test result; nor has it determined whether the Respondent did or did not use a prohibited substance such as to account for the test result at issue.

The Panel therefore finds and awards as follows:
- The Ghent and Cologne Laboratories violated ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2 in the conduct of their analysis of Ms. Jenkins’s sample;
- The Ghent and Cologne Laboratories did not violate ISL 5.2.5.1.1 in the conduct of their analysis of Ms Jenkins’s sample;
- Claimant, USADA, has not demonstrated to the Panel’s comfortable satisfaction that the violation of ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2 did not cause the AAF arising from the analysis of the Respondent’s, Ms. Jenkins’s, sample by the Ghent and Cologne Laboratories;
- The testing results of Respondent are set aside.

The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association and the compensation and expenses of the arbitrators shall by borne entirely by USADA.

Facts
The French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M08 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on August 31, 2006, samples were taken for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of indapamide which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent takes a drug containing indapamide regularly due to a medical condition. He wants to prove this by showing the medical record of his father. He had no intention to enhance sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one year in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by French sport federations.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served in voluntary suspension and by the decision dated May 19, 2007, by the disciplinary committee of the FFHMFAC.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.