CAS 2005/A/997 International Skating Union (ISU) v. Anzhelika Kotiuga & Skating Union of Belarus

• Speed skating
• Doping (nandrolone, testosterone, human chorionic gonadotropin)
• Pregnancy as exculpatory circumstance for the finding of exogenous norandrosterone

An alleged early pregnancy cannot explain a level of norandrosterone far higher than the threshold of 2 ng/ml found in an athlete’s samples. Moreover, a pregnant woman has only endogenous values of norandrosterone and not exogenous values.

In March 2005 the International Skating Union (ISU) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Anzhelika Kotiuga after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Nandrolone, Testosterone and Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG).

In her defence the Athlete denied the use of prohibited substances and blaimed her team doctor Liudmila Lukyanskaya for the violation. Because she had terminated her early pregnancy in February 2005 she alleged that this also could explain the positive test results.

The Council of the Skating Union of Belarus accepted the Athlete’s statement and decided on 18 April 2005 to impose only a warning and a reprimand on the Athlete. It considered the Athlete not guilty for intentionally committing an anti-doping rule violation.

By contrast in May 2005 the Council of the Skating Union of Belarus formally blaimed Ms Liudmila Lukyanskaya and dismissed her from her position as a team doctor of the Skating Union of Belarus. Further the Skating Union of Belarus submitted to the ISU a statement from Ms Liudmila Lukyanskaya accepting full responsibility for unintentionally providing prohibited substances to the Athlete.

Meanwhile the Cologne Laboratory reported to the ISU that the Athlete’s samples showed no indication of a pregnancy; the Norandrosterone in her samples came from an exogenous source; and the Testosterone metabolites can not be explained by the medication she had used.

Consequently on 19 August 2005 the ISU Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a 2 year period of ineglibility on the Athlete. However the ISU Appeals Commission finds on 28 November 2015 that the ISU failed to establish an anti-doping rule violation. As a result the Appeals Commission decided to annul the first instance sanction and to reinstate the Athlete.

Hereafter in December 2015 the ISU appealed the decision of 28 November 2015 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The ISU requested the Panel to set aside the decision of ISU Appeals Commission and to uphold the decision of 19 August 2015 rendeed by the ISU Disciplinary Commission.

The Panel assessed and addressed the following issues:

• Was a prohibited substance present in Ms Anzhelika Kotiuga’s samples?
• If so, was the adverse analytical finding caused by the inconsistencies of the doping test procedure?
• What is the sanction and how should it be calculated?

The Panel determines that the source of Norandrosterone was exogenous. Further the Panel dismissed the Athlete's explanations regarding her pregnancy or her use of medication from her team doctor.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 February 20016 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the International Skating Union on 15 December 2005 is upheld.

2.) The appealed decision of the ISU Appeals Commission issued on 28 November 2005 is set aside.

3.) Ms Anzhelika Kotiuga is guilty of an Anti-Doping Rule violation committed on 19 February 2005, during the 2005 ISU World Cup Final in speed skating, at Heerenveen, the Netherlands.

4.) Ms Anzhelika Kotiuga’s results obtained during the 2005 ISU World Cup Final in speed skating, at Heerenveen, the Netherlands, i.e. her fourth place in the 1000 meters race, division A, and her first place in the 500 meters race and her medal, her points and prizes are forfeited.

5.) Ms Anzhelika Kotiuga shall be declared ineligible for two years. The period of ineligibility to be imposed upon her shall commence on 19 August 2005 and shall end on 18 August 2007.

6.) (…).

7.) (…).

8.) (…).

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

Research of stimulants and anabolic steroids in dietary supplements / N. Baume, N. Mahler, M. Kamber, P. Mangin, M. Saugy. – In: Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 1 (2006). vol. 16 (February), p. 41-48

The purpose of this study was to analyze the composition of 103 dietary supplements bought on the internet. The supplements were dispatched in four different categories according to their announced contents [creatine, prohormones, “mental enhancers” and branched chain amino acids (BCAA)]. All the supplements were screened for the presence of stimulants and main anabolic steroids parent compounds. At the same time, the research was focused on the precursors and metabolites of testosterone and nandrolone.

The study pointed out three products containing an anabolic steroid, metandienone, in a very high amount. The ingestion of such products induced a high quantity of metandienone metabolites in urines that would be considered as a positive anti-doping test. The results have also shown that one creatine product and three “mental enhancers” contained traces of hormones or prohormones not claimed on the labels and 14 prohormone products contained substances other than those indicated by the manufacturer. The oral intake of the creatine product revealed the presence of the two main nandrolone metabolites (19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone) in urine.

Alaranta A, Alaranta H, Holmila J, Palmu P, Pietilä K, Helenius I.
Int J Sports Med. 2006 Oct;27(10):842-6. Epub 2006 Feb 1.
Division of Social Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. anti.alaranta@helsinki.fi

Although athletes' beliefs and values are known to influence whether or not an athlete will use banned drugs, little is known about the athletes' beliefs and attitudes in different sports. The
aim of this study was to clarify the beliefs and attitudes of elite athletes towards banned substances and methods in sports.

A total of 446 athletes (response rate 90.3 %; 446/494) financially supported by the National Finnish Olympic Committee completed a structured questionnaire during their national team camps in 2002. More than 90 % of the athletes reported to believe that banned substances and methods have performance enhancing effects,
and 30 % reported that they personally know an athlete who uses banned substances. Of the male athletes 35 %, and 23 % of females reported they personally know an athlete using banned substances. A total of 15 % of the athletes reported that they had been offered banned substances: 21 % of the speed and power athletes, 14 % of the team sport athletes and of the athletes in motor skills demanding events, and 10 % of the endurance athletes. Stimulants were the most often offered substance group (to 7 % of all the athletes) followed by anabolic steroids (4 %).

Subjects who regarded doping as a minor health risk seemed to be more often associated with doping users than those regarding doping as a significant health risk. Athletes in different sports have a different approach to doping. Risk of doping appears to be highest in speed and power sports and lowest in motor skills demanding sports. Males are at higher risk than females. Controlling doping only by tests is not sufficient. A profound change in the attitudes is needed, which should be monitored repeatedly.

PMID: 16586338 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Anti-Doping controls and positives : statistical data 2002 / Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI). - Roma : CONI, 2003

Touch New Zealand (Touch NZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.
Touch NZ notified the Respondent and, together with the New Zealand Rugby Union, ordered a provisional suspension. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.
Respondent admitted the violation. He stated that the night before the Touch tournament he was celebrating and became so intoxicated that he could not recollect what happened, but accepted that he must have used Cannabis.
He expressed remorse and apologised for his actions.

The Tribunal finds that an aggravating factor in the case is the fact the Respondent had previously signed Player Participation Agreements with Touch NZ. In these agreements the athletes undertook to abide by all drug/doping rules and regulations, including those provided by the International Federation, WADA, the International Olympic Committee and the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency. In addition the Cannabis taking occurred just before the Touch tournament; and that he was an experienced player aware of Touch NZ’s strong drug free stance. The Tribunal notes that Touch NZ has had several cases involving cannabis violations and has been making commendable efforts to combat use of drugs in its sport, of which Respondent would be aware. The fact that the Cannabis use occurred while Respondent was intoxicated during a night of celebration was not a mitigating factor.

The Tribunal considers that Respondent was already provisional suspended for eight weeks and had missed several tournaments. Therefore the Tribunal finds a one week reduction to the otherwise appropriate one month suspension is warranted.
The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 3 week period of ineligibility, a warning and a reprimand on the Respondent. Each party will bear their own costs.

facts
Holger Fischer (player) was reported for an Anti-Doping Rules Violation (ADRV). During the Swiss Tennis Satellite Circuit Masters event in Montreaux, Switzerland, an urine sample was taken. This doping test was positive for the prohibited substance carboxy-THC a metabolite of cannabis. Also he B-sample analysis tested positive on the substance. The player admits the doping offense and the case was handled without oral hearing.

history
Either shortly before or during that tournament he went out with friends to a discotheque in Lausanne, Switzerland, where he unwisely accepted an offer of some cookies laced with cannabis, without stopping to think that he would be or could thereby be committing a doping offense.

decision
The Tribunal:
(1) confirms the commission of the doping offense specified in the notice of charge set out in the ITF’s letter to the player dated 5 January 2006: namely that a prohibited substance, Carboxy-THC, a cannabis metabolite, has been found to be present in the urine specimen that the player provided at the Swiss Tennis Satellite Circuit Masters event at Montreux on 22 September 2005;
(2) orders that the player’s individual result must be disqualified in respect of the Swiss Tennis Satellite Circuit Masters event, and in consequence rules that the four ranking points and the prize money of US $635.94 obtained by the player through his participation in that event, must be forfeited;
(3) finds that the player has succeeded in establishing on the balance of probabilities that his use of cannabis leading to the positive test result in was not intended to enhance sport performance;
(4) declares the player ineligible for a period of three months running from 25 September 2005 to 24 December 2005 from participating in any capacity in any event or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized by the ITF or any national or regional entity which is a member of or is recognized by the ITF as the entity governing the sport of tennis in that nation or region.

CAS 2005/A/872 Union Cycliste Internationale v. Federico Muñoz Fernandez & Federación Colombiana de Ciclismo

On 27 October 2004 Mr. Muñoz participated in the Vuelta a Guatemala where he was selected to supply a urine sample.
On 20 December 2004 the Union Cycling Union (UCI) reported an anti doping rule violation against Mr. Muñoz after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO).

On 18 February 2005 The Federación Colombiana de Ciclismo (FCC) Disciplinary Committee concluded that Mr. Muñoz had violated the anti-doping rules and decided to impose a period of ineligibility of 18 months. The FCC did not disqualify Mr. Muñoz’s results from the Vuelta a Guatemala.

Mr. Muñoz appealed against this FCC Disciplinary Committee’s decision to the General Disciplinary Committee of the Colombian National Olympic Committee. On 21 April 2005 the Colombian National Olympic Committee declared the decision of the FCC Disciplinary Committee to by null and void, and remitted the matter to the FCC for re-hearing.

On 20 April 2005 the UCI appealed against the FCC Disciplinary Committee’s decision, dated 18 February 2005, to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Both parties were heard for the Panel and filed their statements and documents in their defence.

Because it is an athlete’s responsibility to ensure that what enters into his body does not contain a prohibited substance, the Panel concluded Mr. Muñoz had to do more than simply rely on his doctor. He should attempt to obtain written confirmation from the doctor that the medicines he administered did not contain any prohibited substances.

It is essential that doctors who treat athlete play their full part in de waging of the fight against doping in sport. It can be no excuse for a doctor who is treating an athlete not to make himself familiar with the list of prohibited substances.

The Panel finds Mr. Muñoz took no precautions and must bear the responsibility for his failure. On the facts of this case the Panel cannot eliminate or reduce a 2 year sanction that must follow from Mr. Muñoz failure. That period will commence on 18 February 2005, the date of the FCC decision.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 January 2006 that:

1.) The appeal by the Union Cycliste Internationale against the decision issued on 18 February 2005 by the Disciplinary Commission of the Federación Colombiana de Ciclismo is allowed.

2.) Mr. Muñoz is disqualified from the Vuelta a Guatemala and all of his results since 27 October 2004 are cancelled.

3.) Mr Federico Muñoz Fernandez is ineligible to compete in cycling races for two years from 18 February 2005 until 17 February 2007.

4.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the court office fee of CHF 500 paid by the Union Cycliste Internationale, which is retained by the CAS.

5.) The Federación Colombiana de Ciclismo shall pay the Union Cycliste Internationale a contribution of CHF 5,000 towards the latter's legal and other costs relating to this arbitration.

CAS 2005/A/925 Laura Dutra de Abreu Mancini de Azevedo v/ FINA

In May 2003 the Brazilian Water Sports Confederation (CBDA) imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Laura Dutra de Abreu Mancini de Azevedo after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Stanozolol, Nortestosterone and Methyltestosterone.

On 16 September 2003 the CBDA decided to lift the suspension after the civil court in Rio de Janeiro had ordered the CBDA that as a provisional measure the suspension should be lifted.

On 15 January 2004 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Panel decided (CAS 2003/A/510) to uphold the 2 year period of ineligiblility imposed by the CBDA on the Athlete.

Previously in December 2003 the Athlete, FINA and CBDA had signed an agreement with the stipulations that the Athlete can compete when she is not sanctioned by CAS, or when sanctioned she will serve the 2 year period of ineligibility.

Despite this agreement and the CAS decision the Athlete did not withdraw her claim before the Brazilian courts and she continued to participate in swimming competitions in Brazil.

In June 2004 the CBDA reported to the International Swimming Federation (FINA) that the Athlete’s had refused to submit to sample collection at a competition in Brazil. Consequently on 21 April 2005 the FINA Doping Panel decided to impose a liftetime ineligibility on the Athlete for her second anti-doping rule violation.

Hereafter in July 2005 the Athlete appealed with CAS and requested the Panel to set aside the FINA decision of 21 April 2005.

The Athlete argued that she had not committed the first doping violation in 2003 for which she was sanctioned by a two-year suspension. Her innocence notably had been established by the DNA tests relating to the May 2003 A and B samples.

She asserted that she had refused sample collection during the Winter State Swimming Championships on 6 June 2004, yet merely demanded that the test involve a different laboratory than LADETEC, whose previous test results she had questioned as part of her action pending in the Brazilian courts.

As a result she argued that she cannot be deemed to have committed a second violation. Also she disputed the irregularities during the sample collection in June 2004 where she refused to provide a sample.

FINA argued that the Athlete’s refusal has been established and admitted by the Athlete. The Athlete has no right to to choose the laboratory whereas the LADETEC is a WADA accredited laboratory to conduct doping control.

Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that:

• The Athlete failed to provide a sample and without compelling justification she committed an anti-doping ruleviolation, which is her second violation.
• The Athlete disregarded her own written agreement of 11 December 2003 to respect any period of ineligibility to which she might be sanctioned by CAS (CAS 2003/A/510).
• Aggravating circumstances re-emphasises the finding that a lifetime ban is not disproportionate.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 January 2006:

1) The appeal by Ms Azevedo is dismissed.

2) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the court-office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) already paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS.

3) Each party shall bear its own costs.

The Bulgarian Rowing Federation has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Milka Dimitrova Manchorova after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoetin (rhEPO).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered by the Bulgarian Rowing Federation.

Without a hearing the FISA Doping Hearing Panel rules on the basis of the written submissions of the Athlete and the Bulgarian Rowing Federation.
The Bulgarian Rowing Federation submitted, on behalf of the Athlete, that the prior to the doping test the Athlete was hospitalised for five day due to heavy drinking resulting in bleedings. In the hospital rhEPO was administered to the Athlete. The Federation indicated that the Athlete has now been retired from competition.

The FISA Doping Hearing Panel is faced with very little evidence consisting only of the hospital report, the explanation given in writing by the federation and the expert medical opinion acquired by FISA. It is not in a strong position to look deeply into the facts, particularly; the reasons behind the hospitalisation and the injury / illness the athlete was suffering; the treatment the athlete received including the administration of rhEPO and the relevance of that treatment; and, the circumstances in which the athlete did not mention the hospitalisation or the medication administered on the form at the time of undergoing the test.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete acted negligently because she failed to research which medication was administered in the hospital and without mentioning the hospitalisation and administered medication on the doping control form. Therefore the FISA Doping Hearing Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

Facts
The French Federation of Bullfighting (Federation Française de course camarguaise, FFCC) charges respondent M09 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an event on August 1, 2005, respondent didn't attend the doping control.

History
The respondent refused to summit the doping control because he doesn't want to be involved with the federation.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months, from which 2 months conditionally, respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFCC.
2. The present decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.