Årsrapport Antidoping Norge 2005 / Antidoping Norge (ADNO). - Oslo : ADNO, 2005
Innhold
Årsberetning 2005 fra styret 3
Innledning 6
Styret 6
Påtalenemnd 7
Administrasjon og drift 8
Kontrollvirksomhet 10
Informasjon og forebyggende arbeid 12
Internasjonalt arbeid 15
Forskning 16
Oppdragsvirksomhet 17
Andre oppdrag 17
Medisinrelaterte oppgaver 18
Advisory opinion CAS 2005/C/976 & 986 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) & World Antidoping Agency (WADA)
CAS 2005_O_976
CAS 2005_O_986
1. As an association governed by Swiss law, FIFA is free, within the limits of mandatory Swiss law, to adopt such anti-doping rules it deems appropriate, whether or not such own rules comply with the WADC. However, FIFA is a recognized International Federation under Rule 26 of the Olympic Charter. According to Rule 26 para. 2 of the Olympic Charter, FIFA is obliged to implement the WADC. Not implementing the WADC does not render the WADC applicable by substitution, but may lead to sanctions as provided in Rule 23 of the Olympic Charter.
2. The most significant deviation of the FIFA Anti-Doping Rules from the WADC are:
3. As an association governed by Swiss law, FIFA is free, within the limits of mandatory Swiss law, to determine such sanctions on anti-doping violations as it deems appropriate. This includes FIFA’s competence to establish lower minimum sanctions than provided by the WADC. The competent sanctioning bodies of FIFA are obliged to apply the Anti-Doping Rules of FIFA only and may not take recourse to the WADC alternatively.
The International Football Federation (FIFA) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) have each filed a request for an Advisory Opinion in order to resolve a dispute arising out of the implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) into the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FIFA DC).
FIFA and WADA are in dispute as to whether certain rules of the WADC concerning the imposition of sanctions for anti-doping rule violations are admissible under Swiss law. FIFA is particularly concerned about the standard sanction of a two years' ineligibility (art. 10.2 WADC) with the limited possibility of eliminating or reducing the sanction only in the event of exceptional circumstances (art. 10.5 WADC).
FIFA takes the view that Swiss law requires an individual assessment of the sanction, based on the objective and subjective circumstances of the individual case. WADA submits that the WADC is compatible with Swiss law, and that the FIFA DC has disregarded a number of mandatory provisions of the WADC.
CAS 2005/A/936 UCI v/ Bakker & KNWU
Related cases:
In April 2005 the Royal Dutch Cycling Federation (KNWU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Erwin Bakken after his A and B samples - provided in Spain in March 2005 - tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.
However on 1 July 2005, the KNWU Anti-Doping Committee decided to acquit the Athlete from any charges related to an anti-doping rule violation.
Hereafter in August 2005 the UCI appealed the KNWU decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The UCI requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
In view of the evidence the Panel is of the opinion that the Laboratory complied with the procedures set by the UCI Anti-Doping Rules and provided two results that showed that a prohibited substance was found in the Athlete’s urine and such substance was of exogenous origin.
The Panel rejected the Athlete's argument concerning the lack of complementary research. The Laboratory conducted the GC/C/IRMS analysis and that shall be considered as the complementary research.
Further the Panel rejected the Athlete's contention that intense exercise can cause an important variation of the level of endogenous testosterone. In this matter the Panel relies on the GC/C/IRMS analysis that established that the testosterone found in the Athlete’s urine was of exogenous origin.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 april 2006:
1.) The appeal filed by Union Cycliste Internationale is upheld.
2.) The decision of the Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie’s Anti-Doping Commission dated 1 July 2005 is annulled.
3.) Mr Erwin Bakker is disqualified from the “Vuelta Internacional a Valladolid 2005” and any other race in which he competed between 26 March 2005 and 2 February 2006.
4.) Mr Erwin Bakker shall be declared ineligible for competition for two years, commencing on 2 February 2006.
5.) The award is rendered without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 which is retained by the CAS.
6.) Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie shall contribute the amount of CHF 2000 to the legal fees and other expenses incurred by Union Cycliste Internationale in connection with the proceedings.
Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) charges Andrew Hanks (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 8 November 2005, the Player was randomly selected for out of competition testing. He was required to provide an urine specimen to a doping control officer. In the Doping Control Form which he completed, the Player declared that he was using Proscar and daily vitamins. Analysis of the “A” sample indicated a positive test for the presence of finasteride in the Player’s urine sample.
History
Dr. Hilger wrote that he had been treating the Player for early male pattern hair loss since August 2003 and that he had, at that time, placed him on propecia. "I was unaware that propecia (finasteride) was banned, and I believe Andrew was also. The drug was prescribed by me, in good faith, over the last 2⅓ years, at the doses above [1mg daily], for a recognized condition and consistent with FDA indications and dosages. There certainly was no intent by the patient or myself to seek unfair competitive advantage, only a better anterior hairline! The patient … has discontinued use of finasteride."
Decision
Regulation 21.22.4(b) permits us to reduce the Player’s period of ineligibility by up to one half of the minimum period of ineligibility otherwise applicable, which, for this infraction, is two years. In the circumstances of this case we are of the view that the Player’s period of ineligibility should be reduced by the maximum permitted to one year.
The Judicial Committee is entitled to take into account any period of Provisional Suspension and to credit it against the total period of ineligibility to be served. It is appropriate that we do so in this case. The Player will therefore remain suspended up to and including 27 December 2006. During that time he will be subject to the conditions of ineligibility.
The Royal Netherlands Yachting Union (Koninklijk Nederlands Watersport Verbond, KNWV) reported a violation of the Doping rules of the ISR for the refusal to attend a doping control after he was requested by a DCO.
written statement defendant:
In the period of May 2005 the defendant tried to get approved with a status and support by the KNWV in which he failed due to bad results. Another crewmember was approved. Defended assumed it was a closed case.
Defendant never received a copy of the Anti-Doping Code or was aware of it.
Defendant received a request to attend a doping test, due to his work he couldn't attend. He informed the DCO that he was making money and didn't receive a contribution of the KNWV and he stopped sailing, all this is a confusion.
The conversation was getting unpleasant and the defendant said he would be in contact with the KNWV.
By e-mail he explained the situation to the KNWV and explained if there were any consequences he would attend the doping test.
The KNWV told they would inform him about the consequences.
In April 2006 a DCO announced a doping test and the defendant went along with it, the results were never mentioned to him.
written statement KNWV
None
Oral reaction KNWV
The Anti-Doping Code is published on their website.
By an annual meeting in February the members are informed about the Anti-Doping Code.
Members with a C-status don't receive a hardcopy of the Anti-Doping Code.
The team mentioned received a contribution in 2005.
It is likely that the defendant didn't attend the annual meeting in February.
The defendant never confirmed that he signed off from the team.
In a letter on April 4, 2006, the case was mentioned to the board of the KNWV, but there were no member of the disciplinary committee.
Facts
The defendant was in 2005 a member of the KNWV and practicing the sport.
He was a crewmember in 2005 in the Tornado Class.
A declaration was filed for costs related to matches.
In a letter dated June 8, 2005, the Anti-Doping Code was mentioned.
In September 2005 the KNWV agreed to put defendant out of the team.
In November 2005 the defendant was put on a list for out of competition doping control
The status of the defendant on that list was "selected member".
Defendant refused a doping test, but complied for another test.
KNWV sends the papers related to the refusal to the Disciplinary Committee of the KNWV and several oral hearing are arranged.
Defendant fails to attend the oral hearings.
The cases is now transferred to the Disciplinary Committee.
The defendant will not attend a oral hearing.
The applicable rules are the Anti-Doping Code for the KNWV of 2004.
Concerning section 5.2 refusal to cooperate with a doping test, section 20 information, section 22.2 selection of a listed target group for doping control, section 22.3 selection of doping control for athletes out of the listed target group, section 33 appealing for a violation of the Anti-Doping Code, section 39 no (significant) fault or negligence.
Considerations
The Anti-Doping Code applies for all members of associations joining the KNWV.
The KNWV has not informed defendant the full application of section 20 of the Code.
The KNWV agreed that defendant was ruled out as a crewmember.
The defendant should not have been on the designated list of November 2005 for doping tests for out of competition.
The defendant should not have been on the designated list for doping test in November 2005.
Conclusions
It is obvious that the defendant didn't consider to be selected for a out of competition doping test. The Anti-Doping Code has no clause for athletes who can't be blamed for refusing to cooperate.
The defendant will be free of charge.
Decision
The defendant is free of charge for violating the Anti-Doping Code.
The Royal Dutch Billiards Association (KNBB) has reported a violation of the Doping rules of the ISR. Defendant failed to attend a doping test which is a doping rule violation section 5 paragraph 2 of the Anti-Doping Rules of the ISR (Instituut Sportrechtspraak).
The Disciplinary Committee discharges the defendant.
Considerations:
The Claimant reported the defendant.
Defendant submitted a written defence dated January 25, 2006.
The Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee doesn't impose a temporary penalty.
The Oral Hearing will take place on April 13, 2006.
Motivation
Defendant was a member of the KNBB. The KNBB recognizes in section 7 paragraph 1 the impedance of the judgment of the ISR for members of the KNBB.
The report handed in by the KNBB is valid.
It is not clear that the representative of the KNBB made clear the consequences for not attending the doping test.
The defendant claims he felt ill after his match, waited a short while and went home after mentioning this to the tournament leader.
There standard form to sign wasn't filled out. And the tournament leader didn't point out the location of the doping test.
The Disciplinary Committee can't determine if the procedure for designation the defendant for a doping test was correct.
The Disciplinary Committee decision is that the defendant is not the designated sportsman as in the Anti-Doping Code section 1 paragraph 4. The violation of section 5 paragraph 2 of the Anti-Doping Rules of the ISR hasn't been proven.
Both parties can appeal.
Fight against doping : statistical data 2005 / National Anti-Doping Council Portugal. - Lisbon : Conselho Nacional Antidopagem (CNAD), 2006
Fight against doping : statistical data 2004 / National Anti-Doping Council Portugal. - Lisbon : Conselho Nacional Antidopagem (CNAD), 2005
In December 2005 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete George Cosmin Dobros after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.
The Athlete stated he used a medication, which contained the prohibited substance.
On 11 April 2006 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 11 March 2006.
In March 2006 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Grama Ianula Sofia Micu after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.
Therefore on 11 April 2006 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 11 March 2006.
