In February 2023 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Laurie Francis after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Higenamine.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by CCES following assessment of the case.

The Athlete acknowledged she had ingested a supplement on the advice from a supplement retailer while she was unaware that it contained Higenamine.

Therefore CCES decides on 23 May 2023 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 February 2023.

In April 2022 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Esther Chesang Kakuri after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Triamcinolone acetonide.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in her defence. The case was referred to the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal and settled based on the parties' written submissions.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. She stated, without corroborating evidence, that she underwent medical treatment in a hospital for her condition and had used prescribed medication.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Panel deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered her system. She did not produce any medical document, neither provided any information about her doctors and the hospital she underwent treatment.

Therefore the Panel decides on 23 February 2023 to impose a 4 year period of inelibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 May 2022.

In October 2021 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Samuel Lomoi after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Triamcinolone acetonide.

Following notification a provision suspension was ordered. The case was referred to the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal and settled based on the parties' written submissions.

The Athlete accepted the test result timely and denied the intentional use of the substance. He believed that there was no evidence that he acted intentionally, rather that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

He explained with medical documents that at the material time he underwent treatment in a hospital for his diagnosed pheumonia. He used the prescribed medication out-of-competition while he acknowledged hat he had not researched his medication before using.

ADAK contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. His prescribed medication did not contain prohibited substances and as such could not be the source of the positive test.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel assessed the Athlete's conduct in this case and determines that:

• The fact that a doctor had prescribed medication does not excuse the Athlete from his responsibility in the context of anti-doping.
• The source of the prohibited substance has not been established.
• His prescribed medication did not contain prohibited substances.
• He failed to research his medication, nor mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form.
• He acted intentionally because he clearly disregarded material risk of an anti-doping rule violation.
• There are no grounds for a reduced sanction.
• The Athlete timely had accepted the test result.

Therefore the Panel decides on 6 January 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 12 September 2021.

Related case:

UKAD 2022 UKAD vs Rowland Kaye
January 4, 2023

In March 2022 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Rowland Kaye after his A and B samples tested positive for metabolites of the prohibited substance Methasterone and/or Oxymetholone in a low concentration.

Consequently the National Anti-Doping Panel decided on 4 January 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Panel ruled that the Athlete is not a cheat, yet he acted negligently with his supplements and he could not identify the source of the metabolites found in his samples.

Hereafter in January 2023 the Athlete appealed this Decision with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal. He requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substances. He acknowledged that he could not demonstrate how the metabolites came into his system.

The Appeal Panel assessed and addressed the Athlete's assertions and evidence in this case and determines that he failed to discharge the burden of proof that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional. The Panel agrees that the Athlete is not a cheat, yet he failed to demonstrate with the filed evidence that he did not have the requisite intention.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal decides on 26 April 2023 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision of 4 January 2023.

Related case:

UKAD 2023 Rowland Kaye vs UKAD - Appeal
April 26, 2023

In March 2022 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Rowland Kaye after his A and B samples tested positive for metabolites of the prohibited substance Methasterone and/or Oxymetholone in a low concentration.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

UKAD contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional and that he had acted negligently with the supplements he had used. Also he could not demonstrated with corroborating evidence how the substances had entered his system.

The Athlete accepted the test results, denied the intentional use of the substances and requested for a reduced sanction. He believed that the source of the metabolites was a contaminated supplement he had used.

He argued that the concentration of metabolites found in his samples was low and consistent with supplement contamination. Because of his fragile medical condition the use of doping would harm his health.

The Athlete asserted that he was hampered to find the source of the metabolites due to at the time of the delayed notification he had already disposed the containers of the supplements he had used after finishing the contents. Further he alleged that he received no assistance from UKAD to determine the source of the substances and his attempt to seek evidence from the manufacturers of suppements was unsuccesful.

In view of the evidence the Panel finds that the presence of  prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Although the found concentration of the metabolites in the samples was low the Panel deems it does not point to contamination as the source.

The Panel agrees that there was some delay and a regrettable amount of time between the test and results notification. Nevertheless the Panel considers it unlikely that by the normal time taken for an analysis he also had consumed all relevant supplements and disposed of the containers.

Furthermore the Panel holds that Athlete failed to initiate analysis of any of his supplements he retained. The Panel concludes that the Athlete is not a cheat, yet he acted negligently with his supplements and he could not identify the source of the metabolites found in his samples.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 4 January 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 March 2022.

In January 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Ethiopian Athlete Besha Teshome after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone and its metabolites.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU. The Athlete explained that he had self-medicated with Testosterone as treatment for his medical condition.

Because the Athlete signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form he received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 11 May 2023 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 January 2023.

In 2016, Professor Richard McLaren issued two reports about systemic doping in Russia. These reports identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered.

Hereafter in January 2019 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) recovered the internal database of the Moscow Laboratory (LIMS). Following investigation of allegations of organized doping practices, and in particular of the LIMS, WADA provided international federations with investigation reports on the athletes implicated in these organized doping practices.

These investigation reports revealed that a prohibited substance has been established in the 3 samples of the Athlete Bogdan Pishchalnikov. These samples were provided by the Athlete in 2012 and thereupon deliberately reported as negative by the Moscow laboratory.

As a result in July 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for the use of the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol) in 2012. After notification the Athlete failed to respond to the AIU communications.

Without the Athlete's response the AIU deems that he has waived his right to a hearing, to have accepted the asserted anti-doping rule violations and the sanction rendered by the AIU. Further the AIU considers that there are aggravating circumstances present in this case that justifies the imposition of a more severe sanction.

Therefore the AIU decides on 20 March 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision. All the Athlete's results from 15 July 2012 are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, points, prize money and prizes.

Related case:

CAS 2020_O_6761 World Athletics vs RusAF & Andrey Silnov
April 7, 2021

On 7 April 2021 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Russian Athlete Andrey Silnov for his use of the prohibited substances Formestane, Metenolone and Methasterone.

Hereafter in September 2021 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported a new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for breaching the prohibition on participation during the period of ineligibility.

The AIU had established that the Athlete had handing out prizes to young athletes and posing for a photograph(s), on a single occasion at a regional competition that had been organised in honour of his former coach and to which he had been invited.

At first the Athlete requested for a hearing in December 2022. However in January 2023 the Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing and accepted the sanction proposed by the AIU. Accordingly the Athlete signed an admission and acceptance form.

Considering the Athlete's degree of fault and the overall circumstances in this case the AIU deems that the 4 year period may be adjusted to 1 year.

Therefore on 18 January 2023 the AIU decides to impose an additional 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, commencing from the end of the original period of ineligibility imposed on him, i.e. from 7 April 2025 to 6 April 2026.

CAS 2021/O/8111 World Athletics (WA) v. Lebogang Shange

In December 2019 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics reported an anti-doping rule violation against the South African Athlete Lebogang Shange after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Trenbolone.

Following deliberations between the parties the Athlete was ultimately charged in June 2021 and the case was referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substance. It did not accept his explanation that the level of Epitrenbolone in his sample was caused by his ingestion of 800g of stewed beef the night before the doping control.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He asserted that he acted with No Fault of Negligence and claimed that contaminated meat was the source of the positive test.

Supported by expert witnesses, the Athlete argued that only a form of illicit or irregular use of Trenbolone on cattle, together with a misadministration of legal inspection requirements, could possible explain his positive test result. He also alleged that there were differences in the technical equipment and capabilities of detection of WADA-accredited laboratories.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel dismisses the Athlete's allegation that accredited laboratories apply different detection capability in order to establish an adverse analytical finding.

Further the Panel assessed and addresses 3 scenarios of illicit or irregular use of Trenbolone on cattle as a potentional explanation for the Epitrenbolone found in the Athlete's system. Nevertheless the Panel concludes that these 3 scenarios cannot explain the Athlete's positive test result:

• Scenario 1:The implant of more than one pellet of Trenbolone into cattle.
• Scenario 2: Slaughter of an animal earlier than the 70 days minimum period that should elapse after the Trenbolone implant.
• Scenario 3: Misplacement of a Trebolone implant into the cattle's muscle instead into the cattle's ear.

As a result the Panel finds that the Athlete could not demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, how the substance had entered his system, nor demonstrated the he acted unintentionally.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 March 2022 that:

1.) The Request for Arbitration filed by World Athletics on 18 May 2021 against Mr Lebogang Shange is upheld.

2.) Mr Lebogang Shange is found to have committed anti-doping rule violations pursuant to Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules in force from 1 November 2019.

3.) Mr Lebogang Shange is sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility, commencing on the date of the present Award. The period of ineligibility served during the period of provisional suspension imposed on Mr Lebogang Shange from 19 December 2019 until 7 June 2021 and from 30 June 2021 through the date of the present Award shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility.

4.) All the competitive results obtained by Mr Lebogang Shange from 4 November 2019 are disqualified, with all the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office by separate letter, shall be borne in their entirety by Mr Lebogang Shange.

6.) Each Party shall bear its own legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with the present arbitration procedure.

7.) Any other and further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2020_O_6762 World Athletics vs RusAF & Yelena Soboleva

Ms Yelena Soboleva is a 38-year-old former middle-distance runner of lnternational-Level specialized in 1500 meters distance. She participated in the 2005 Helsinki and in the 2007 Osaka IAAF World Championship in Athletics, obtaining the
fourth and second position in the 1500 meters competition, respectively.

Previously in July 2008 the Athlete was sanctioned for 2 years and 9 months for a tampering violation including disqualification of her results.

In 2016, Professor Richard McLaren issued two reports about systemic doping in Russia. These reports identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered.

Furthermore in 2016 World Athletics decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected in 2007. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2007.

Consequently World Athletics reported in December 2016 and in May 2019 two anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete. Hereafter in February 2020 the World Athletics referred the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that the Athlete had committed 2 anti-doping rule violations in 2007 and in 2013:

• for the presence of Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol) in her 2007 sample; and
• for the use of Methasterone as a result of her participation in the Moscow Washout Testing.

World Athletics asserted that 4 unofficial samples were listed in the Moscow Washout Schedules as belonging to the Athlete, provided on 23 June 2013, 4, 8 and 27 July 2013. This would prove that the Athlete was part of a doping programme and that she had used Methasterone in the leadup to the 2013 Moscow World Championships.

Despite being duly invited to do so, RusAF did not file any submission. Also the Athlete did not engage in this procedure, nor filed any submission or provided any form of defence whatsoever in this arbitration.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence in this case and determines that:

• The presence of the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone has been established in the Athlete's 2007 sample and accordingly she committed an anti-doping rule violation under the 2007 Rules.
• It is undisputed that the Athlete featured in the Moscow Washouts Schedules, other than the fact that she was indeed engaged in a doping programme.
• The Moscow Washout Testing Schedules revealed that in summer 2013 the Athlete used Mathasterone and accordingly committed an anti-doping rule violation under the 2013 Rules.
• Due to the Athlete's sporting results from April 2007 until April 2011 had been already annulled it is fair and reasonable to disqualify her results obtained from June 2013 until 15 December 2016.

Therefore the The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 April 2021 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics against the Russian Athletics Federation and Yelena Soboleva is upheld.

2.) Yelena Soboleva is found guilty of anti-doping rule violations under Rule 32.2 (a) of the IAAF Competition Rules 2006-2007 and under Rule 32.2 (b) of the IAAF Competition Rules 2012-2013.

3.) Yelena Soboleva is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of eight (8) years starting from the date of this award.

4.) All competitive results achieved by Yelena Soboleva from 23 June 2013 through the commencement of the Athlete's period of provisional suspension on 15 December 2016 are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any medals, titles, ranking points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The cost of the arbitration, to be determined and served on the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Russian Athletics Federation.

6.) Each party shall bear its own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.

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