Related case:
CAS 2004/A/714 Robert Fazekas vs IOC
March 31, 2005

Mr. Robert Fazekas is a Hungarian Athlete competing in the men’s discus throw event at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games.

On 24 August 2004 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after he refused or failed to provide a sample for doping control.
After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

Despite several attempts the Athlete could provide on 24 August 2004 only a (partial) sample of 25 ml of urine. The athlete stated that he decided to abort the procedure because he did not feel well. The athlete was given the opportunity to continue the sample collection at the polyclinic where medical treatment could be given to him but the athlete did not accept.

The IOC Disciplinary Commission unanimously concluded that the Athlete Mr Robert Fazenas had committed a doping offence pursuant to Article 2.3 of the Rules in that he had refused or failed to submit to sample collection.

On 24 August the IOC Executive Board, as recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, decides that the Athlete:
1.) is disqualified from the men’s discus throw event, where he had placed first;
2.) is not awarded a gold medal or diploma;
3.) is excluded from the Games of the XXVIII Olympiad in Athens in 2004; and
4.) shall have his Olympic identity and accreditation card withdrawn.
5.) The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) is requested to modify the results of the above-noted event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
6.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

In March 2004 the Lyfjaráð ÍSÍ, the Iceland ISI Anti-Doping Committee, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.
After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and did not attend the hearing of the ISI Tribunal.
The Athlete stated she suffered from a swelling and therefore used a Lasix Retard tablet as medication due to a kidney condition.
The ISI Tribunal does not accept the Athlete’s statement and decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision, i.e. 24 August 2004.

Regulation of muscle fiber type and running endurance by PPARdelta / Yong-Xu Wang, Chun-Li Zhang, Ruth T. Yu, Helen K. Cho, Michael C. Nelson, Corinne R. Bayuga-Ocampo, Jungyeob Ham, Heonjoong Kang, Ronald M. Evans. - (PLoS Biology 2 (2004) 10 (October); e294, p. 1532-1539)

• PMID: 15328533
• PMCID: PMC509410
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020294

Erratum in:

• PLoS Biol. 2005 Jan;3(1):e61
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030061

Abstract

Endurance exercise training can promote an adaptive muscle fiber transformation and an increase of mitochondrial biogenesis by triggering scripted changes in gene expression. However, no transcription factor has yet been identified that can direct this process. We describe the engineering of a mouse capable of continuous running of up to twice the distance of a wild-type littermate. This was achieved by targeted expression of an activated form of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor delta (PPARdelta) in skeletal muscle, which induces a switch to form increased numbers of type I muscle fibers. Treatment of wild-type mice with PPARdelta agonist elicits a similar type I fiber gene expression profile in muscle. Moreover, these genetically generated fibers confer resistance to obesity with improved metabolic profiles, even in the absence of exercise. These results demonstrate that complex physiologic properties such as fatigue, endurance, and running capacity can be molecularly analyzed and manipulated.

S J Somerville, M Lewis
The John Kelso Practice, Park Medical Centre, Ball Hay Road, Leek ST13 6QR, UK; simon@somerville22.freeserve.co.uk

Objectives: To identify educational needs of elite sportspeople with respect to the doping laws.

Methods: A questionnaire survey of 196 Olympic level sportspeople from the fields of athletics, cycling, rowing, and sailing. The questionnaire addressed the date and source of the last doping educational update, the usefulness of current resources, sources of help, and possible ways of improving the system. The questionnaire also sought to estimate the use of nutritional supplements in these sports.

Results: Seventy four (38%) athletes responded to the questionnaire. Over 90% of responders had received a doping educational update in the last six months, and most agreed with the statement ‘‘I have received the information I need to avoid getting into trouble with the doping laws’’. Despite this, more than half of responders agreed with the statements ‘‘I should receive reminders more often’’ and ‘‘The authorities should do more to educate sportspeople’’. In addition, there were four people who admitted taking a banned substance by accident. Forty one (55%) reported taking supplements. The team doctor was the most popular source if information on a substance or product was required, with 62% and 66% of subjects stating that they would contact their team doctor when based in the United Kingdom and abroad respectively. The UK Sports website was often suggested in relation to ways of improving knowledge.

Conclusions: There is a need to alter the educational process, particularly with respect to contingency planning for minor illness. The use of internet based resources for up to date information about banned substances needs to be promoted, and access to the internet improved. The educational needs of team doctors with respect to the doping laws need to be assessed.

In June 2004 the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency (NZSDA) and Cycling New Zealand Federation (Cycling NZ) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Stephen Collins after he refused to provide a sample to NZSDA.

After the notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and a decision was rendered by the Tribunal based on the parties submissions.
The Athlete explained that he was disillusioned with cycling in April 2004 and had informed Cycling NZ about his retirement. He expected that Cycling NZ would request NZSDA to remove him from the Sports Drug Testing Register. He also complained about the failure of Cycling NZ to comply with the two day time limit under the Rules.

Cycling NZ established that the Athlete was still registered as a member. It acknowledged that it had not forwarded the NZSDA’s notice of the determination of a drug infraction timely as required.
Cycling NZ accepted that the Athlete may have been upset and angry when he refused to provide a sample to NZSDA. Cycling NZ also recognises that whether the Athlete was full aware of the consequences of his refusal he might have been more co-operative to the doping control and he might have provided a sample.

The Tribunal considered whether Cycling NZ’s failure to provide the Athlete's with timely notice of the determination of the Board of the NZSDA has deprived him of an effective right of appeal or challenge to the NZSDA Board’s determination. The matters relied upon by the Athlete may be relevant, however, in mitigation of penalty, to the extent that the Tribunal has any discretion in that regard.

On 17 August 2004 the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the notification, i.e. on 11 June 2004.

In addition the Tribunal made some recommendations that might encourage national sports organisations and athletes who are covered by the Anti-Doping Rules to look closely at, and adhere to, their respective responsibilities under the anti-doping rules.

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Athens) 04/003 Torri Edwards v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) & USA Track & Field (USATF)

Related cases:

• AAA No. 30 190 00675 04 USADA vs Torri Edwards - Final Award
  August 10, 2004 AAA No. 30 190 00675 04 USADA vs Torri Edwards - Interim Award
  July 22, 2007
• CAS 2008_A_1545 Andrea Anderson, LaTasha Colander Clark, Jearl Miles-Clark, Torri Edwards, Chryste Gaines, Monique Hennagan, Passion Richardson vs IOC
  July 16, 2010
  
  

• Athletics
• Doping (nikethamide)
• CAS ad hoc Division power of review
• Exceptional circumstances
• Negligence
• Sanction

1. The limitation in the IAAF Rules of the scope of review by CAS is not in line with Article 16 of the CAS ad hoc Rules, under which the Panel shall have unrestricted authority to review the facts and the law. It is also not in line with the WADA Code and, in particular, with the IAAF’s commitment thereunder to “incorporate (…) without any substantive changes”, inter alia, Article 13 (Appeals) of that Code.

2. Under the IAAF Rules, the exceptional circumstances provisions can only apply either when there is “no fault or no negligence”, as defined, in which case the athlete may have the period or ineligibility “eliminated”. Alternatively, if the athlete can demonstrate that there is “no significant fault or no significant negligence”, as defined, then the period of ineligibility may be reduced but the reduced period may not be less than half the minimum period of ineligibility otherwise applicable.

3. There is an obligation and a duty on an elite athlete to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his/her body, tissues or fluid. There is negligence in failing to inquire or ascertain whether a product contains a prohibited substance. The negligence (at a minimum) of the athlete’s chiropractor who had access to the box which stated the substances contained in the product (including nikethamide) and to the leaflet which even contained a warning for athletes must be attributed to the athlete who uses him in supplying either a food source or a supplement. It would put an end to any meaningful fight against doping if an athlete was able to shift his/her responsibility with respect to substances which enter the body to someone else and avoid being sanctioned because the athlete himself/herself did not know of that substance.

4. In the fight against doping in sport, federations must be supported in their adoption of the WADA Code. Therefore, a sanction of two years of ineligibility in application of the newly promulgated IAAF rules is not inequitable even if all Olympic Movement sports athletes are currently not subject to the same sanction for the same type of doping offence because not all federations have yet implemented the WADA Code.

In June 2004 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Torrie Edwards after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Nikethamide.

Consequently on 10 August 2004 the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Panel decided in its final award to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete including disqualification of all her results.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the AAA decision of 10 August 2004 with the CAS ad hoc Division.

The Appellant didn't contest the occurrence of the doping infraction or the fact that Nikethamide was detected in her body fluids, but she argued that exceptional circumstances exist that should allow her to have the sanction eliminated or reduced pursuant to IAAF Rules 40.2, 40.3 and 40.4.

The Panel has considered, and was entitled to consider the materials before the IAAF Doping Review Board, its decision and the submissions and additional evidence placed by the parties before the Panel to determine whether or not the decision under appeal was correct. The Panel is satisfied that the determination of the IAAF Doping Review Board is the correct decision according to the terms of the IAAF Rules.

On the basis of the facts and legal aspects, the ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport renders the following decision on 17 August 2004:

1.) The appeal by Ms Edwards is dismissed.

2.) The decision issued by the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel dated 10 August 2004 is upheld.

Ms. Nan Aye Khine is a Myanmar Athlete competing in weightlifting at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games.

On 15 August 2004 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her sample tested positive for a prohibited anabolic steroid.
The Athlete admitted she used a herbal remedy on regular basis without research of the ingredients before using.

The IOC Disciplinary Commission unanimously concludes that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. Therefore on 16 August 2004 the IOC Executive Board decides, as recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, that the Athlete Ms Nan Aye:
1.) is disqualified from the women’s 48 kg weightlifting event, where she had placed fourth;
2.) is excluded from the Games of the XXVIII Olympiad in Athens in 2004; and
3.) shall have her Olympic identity and accreditation card be immediately withdrawn.
4.) The International Weightlifting Federation is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The National Olympic Committee of Myanmar is ordered to return to the IOC, as soon as possible, the diploma awarded to the Athlete in relation to the above-noted event.
6.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

CAS OG 04/004 David Munyasia v. International Olympic Committee

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Athens) 04/004 David Munyasia v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)

CAS arbitration N° CAS OG 04/004 Mr. David Munyasia vs International Olympic Committee (IOC)

Related case:

IOC 2004 IOC vs David Munyasia
August 10, 2004

• Boxing
• Doping (cathine)
• Jurisdiction of the CAS ad hoc Division in case of exclusion from the Olympic Games and withdrawal of the Olympic accreditation

If an appeal is lodged against a decision of exclusion from the Olympic Games and withdrawal of the Olympic accreditation, the jurisdiction of the CAS ad hoc Division is to confirm or reverse the decision of the IOC Executive Board. Any submission regarding deferral of the decision until further analysis of the urine had been undertaken and the implications thereof must be made before the International Federation within whose competence it is to further sanction or not sanction the athlete.

Mr. David Munyasia is a Kenyan Athlete competing in the boxing event at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games.

In August 2004 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cathine.

On 29 August 2004 the IOC Executive Board unanimously concluded that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and decided to exclude the Athlete from the Athens 2004 Olympic Games. Thereupon the Board requested the International Boxing Association (AIBA) to consider any further action within its own competence.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport ad hoc Division.

The Athlete denied the use of prohibited substances during his career, he asserted that he was tested before without issues and that he had only used antibiotics.

The Panel finds that a doping offence has been established after a prohibited substance was founde in his samples and it cannot accept the request for deferral of the IOC-decision. Any submission regarding further lab analysis are properly made before the AIBA.

Therefore the CAS ad hoc Division confirms the IOC decision and decides on 15 August 2004 to reject the Athlete’s appeal.

In August 2004 the Irish Sport Council (ISC) has reported an Anti-Doping Rule Violation against the Athlete IS-1514 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

After notification the Athlete admitted the use of the substance and therefore the Panel decides on 12 August 2004 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

Related case:
CAS OG_2004_04 David Munyasia vs IOC
August 15, 2004

Mr David Munyasia is a Kenyan Athlete competing in the boxing event at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games.

On 8 August 2004 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance cathine.
The Athlete denied taking any medical substance, other than an antibiotic and offered no explanation on how the prohibited substance came into his body.

The IOC Disciplinary Commission unanimously concludes that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. Therefore on 10 August 2004 the IOC Executive Board decides, as recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, that the Athlete David Munyasia:
1.) is excluded from the Games of the XXVIII Olympiad in Athens in 2004; and
2.) shall have his Olympic identity and accreditation card be immediately withdrawn.
3.) The International Boxing Association (AIBA) is requested to consider any further action within its own competence.
4.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.