In February 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf on World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Norbert Kigen after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone and its metabolites.

Following notification the Athlete timely admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The AIU deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Because he had 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 8 March 2024 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 February 2024.

In December 2023 and in January 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported 2 anti-doping rule violations against the Bahrain Kenyan Athlete Rosemary Mumo Katua. The AIU established that her two samples, provided in October and in November 2023, tested positive for the prohibited substance Triamcinolone acetonide.

Previously the Athlete was sanctioned for 3 years until December 2020 for the presence in her sample of the banned substance Nandrolone.

Following the two notifications in December 2023 and in January 2024 the Athlete timely admitted both violations, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU. The Athlete also filed an application for a retroactive TUE, yet this was denied due to her application was returned to the Athlete as incomplete.

The AIU finds that the Athlete had committed a second anti-doping rule violation and that both reported violations shall be considered as one single anti-doping rule violation. Further the AIU considers that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that she timely had admitted both reported violations.

Therefore the AIU decides on 7 March 2024 to impose a reduced 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the first admission, i.e. 19 December 2023.

In February 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kazakh Kenyan Athlete Caroline Chepkoech Kipkirui. The AIU deemed that the Athlete had 3 Whereabouts Failures within a 12 month period:

• a Filing Failure on 9 February 2023;
• a Missed Test and Filing Failure on 19 June 2023; and
• a Missed Test and Filing Failure on 27 November 2023.

Although the Athlete submitted her explanations to the AIU the Whereabouts Failures were recorded. In any case the Athlete did not file a request for an adminstrative review.

Following notification the Athlete gave a timely admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU. Furthermore she signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violation and Acceptance of Consequences Form.

Therefore the AIU decides on 7 March 2024 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 February 2024.

In December 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Uzbek Athlete Sitora Khamidova after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone, Heptaminol and Octopamine.

Following notification the Athlete timely admitted the violation, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU. She also signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and assumed that the products she had used were contaminated. She explained which supplements and medication she had used, although prior she had not mentioned these products on the Doping Control Form.

In February 2024 the Athlete's Coach admitted that he had purchased supplements and sport drinks that that possibly contained these prohibited substances. He denied that he had acted intentionally, nor that he was aware that these products contained these banned substances.

The AIU deems that both the Athlete and the Coach failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that these products contained the prohibited substance. They also failed to establish that the violations were not intentional.

Furthermore the AIU finds that there are aggravating circumstances present in this case because the Athlete had used multiple banned substances. Due to she had signed and submitted the Acceptance of Consequences Form she received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 6 March 2024 to impose a 5 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 December 2023.

In July 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenya Athlete Purity Temutai Komen after her sample, collected in October 2022, tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

In addition the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) had reported to the AIU that the Athlete had evaded Doping Control in May 2023 during several attempts by their Doping Control Officers to locate the Athlete for testing.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered by the AIU. At first the Athlete responded, yet thereupon she failed to submit any explanation to the AIU for the alleged anti-doping rule violations.

Because she did not respond within the set deadline the AIU determines in February 2024 that the Athlete was deemed to have waived her right for a hearing and accepted the consequences. In addition the AIU establishes that she had had failed to sign and submit the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form.

Furthermore the AIU finds that there are aggravating circumstances present in this case because the Athlete had committed multiple anti-doping rule violations. Finally these violations are considered together as one first anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the AIU decides on 5 March 2024 to impose a 6 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 July 2023.

Related case:

SAIDS 2022_41 SAIDS vs Thomas William Oosthuizen
June 23, 2023

On 23 June 2023 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the boxer Thomas William Oosthuizen for his refusal or failure to submit to sample collection.

On 16 October 2022 the Athlete was selected to submit to sample collection. Yet, he only provided 2 partial invalid samples and thereafter failed to produce an additional 3rd valid sample. Although the Bloemfontein Laboratory established no prohibted substances in the Athlete's samples they were deemed to be invalid.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Tribunal decision with the SAIDS Appeal Board. He reguested the Appeal Board to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete asserted that he gave his full cooperation and denied that he had refused to provide a third sample. His samples tested clean and also he was not ever warned of the consequences of his refusal by the Doping Control Officers in term of the ADR.

SAIDS contended that the Athlete had no compelling justification for not submitting and/or completing the sample collection session on the day of the boxing event. The fact remains that he refused to provide a third valid sample as requested.

The Panel finds that it is undisputed that the Athlete's samples did not contain any prohibited substances. Yet, the Athlete failed to submit a third sample and accordingly committed an anti-doping rule violation.

In view of the evidence the Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional. The Panel determines that the Athlete had been negligent and that there are grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the SAIDS Appeal Board decides on 13 February 2024 to uphold the Athlete's appeal and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the Decision, i.e. 23 June 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 prohibited substances has been established in the samples of the Athlete Victoriya Sudarušhkina. These 4 samples were provided by the Athlete in February 2013 and in June 2014 and thereupon deliberately reported as negative by the Moscow laboratory.

As a result in February 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for the use of the prohibited substances Enobosarm (Ostarine) and Trenbolone in 2013 and 2014. After notification the Athlete failed to respond to the AIU communications.

Without the Athlete's response the AIU deems that she has waived her right to a hearing, to have accepted the asserted anti-doping rule violation and the sanction rendered by the AIU. 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 21 February 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision. All the Athlete's results from 28 February 2013 until the date of the decision are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, points, prize money and prizes.

In August 2023 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Adam Rusling after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Cocaine and Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and their metabolites.

Following notification the Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by UKAD. The Athlete admitted that he had used Cocaine and MDMA out-of-competition and recreational at his home.

Therefore UKAD decides on 11 January 2024 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 2 August 2023. Because the Athlete already has served his period of inelibility he is eligible to participate in sport forthwith.

Update on the Role of Actovegin in Musculoskeletal Medicine : A Review of the Past 10 Years / James Brock, David Golding, Paul M. Smith, Len Nokes, Alvin Kwan, Paul Y.F. Lee

• PMID: 31855916
• DOI: 10.1097/JSM.0000000000000566
• Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine 30 (2020) 1 (January), p. 83-90

---

Abstract

Background: Actovegin is a biological drug with a controversial history of use in the treatment of sports injuries during the past 60 years. Particular concerns have been raised about its ergogenic potential to enhance performance, but some of these have been based on little more than anecdote.

Objectives: In this article, we review the most recent scientific evidence to determine the clinical efficacy, safety profile, and legal status of Actovegin.

Methods: We considered all studies directly commenting on experience with Actovegin use as the primary intervention within the past 10 years. Outcomes included mechanisms of action, clinical efficacy in enhancing muscle repair, any report of safety issues, and any evidence for ergogenic effect.

Results: Our database search returned 212 articles, abstracts were screened, and after inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied, 25 articles were considered: Publications included 11 primary research articles (7 in vitro studies and 4 clinical trials), 8 review articles, 5 editorials, and a single case report.

Conclusions: Current literature is still yet to define the active compound(s) of Actovegin, but suggests that it shows antioxidant and antiapoptotic properties, and may also upregulate macrophage responses central to muscle repair. Clinical efficacy was supported by one new original research article, and the use of Actovegin to treat muscle injuries remains safe and supported. Two articles argued the ergogenic effect of Actovegin, but in vitro findings did not to translate to the outcomes of a clinical trial. An adequate and meaningful scientific approach remains difficult in a field where there is immense pressure to deliver cutting-edge therapies.

• CAS 2023/A/9451 Association Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) v Ms Kamila Valieva
• CAS 2023/A/9455 International Skating Union (ISU) v Ms Kamila Valieva and The Russian Doping Agency
• CAS 2023/A/9456 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) and Ms Kamila Valieva

Related cases:

• CAS OG_2022_08 IOC, WADA, ISU vs RUSADA, Kamila Valieva & ROC
  February 17, 2022
• CAS OG_2022_11 United States Figure Skating Team vs IOC
  March 30, 2022
  
  

---

In February 2022 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva (15) after her sample, collected on 25 December 2021, tested positive for the prohibited substance Trimetazidine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered on 8 Februay 2022 and consequently the Athlete was prohibited from participation in the 2022 Beijing Olympic Games.

Yet, the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) decided on 9 February 2022 to lift the Athlete's provisional suspension as it deemed that under the Russian ADR and the WADC 2021 the minor Athlete is a Protected Person.

The DADC accepted the explanation and evidence that the prohibited substance entered the Athlete's system through the use of a contaminated product, i.e. the medication used by her grandfather.

Hereafter on 11 and 12 February the IOC, WADA and ISU appealed the DADC Decision of 9 February with the CAS Ad Hoc Division at the Beijing 2022 Olympic Games.

Nevertheless the CAS Ad Hoc Division dismissed the appeals and decides on 17 February 2022 that the Appealed Provisional Suspension regarding the Athlete should remain lifted.

---

On 24 January 2023 the RUSADA DADC rendered its final decision and concluded that the Athlete had acted with No Fault or Negligence and without the application of a period of ineligibility. The DADC disqualified her results at the Russian 2021 National Championships, but not her results at the Beijing 2022 Olympic Games.

Hereafter in February 2023 RUSADA, ISU and WADA appealed the DADC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

RUSADA, ISU and WADA contended that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation despite that she is a Protected Person. Accordingly they requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose an appropriate sanction on the Athlete based on her degree of Fault.

The Athlete accepted the test results and argued that she is a Protected Person. Further she objected the CAS jurisdiction in this case.

She asserted that the violation was not intentional and that she acted with utmost caution to keep clean. She was unaware that her grandfather was using a prohibited substance as a heart medication, thus she was unaware of the potentional risk of a contamination.

In this case the Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and issues raised by the Parties:

• CAS jurisdiction
• The anti-doping rule violation
• The sanctions
• Protected person
• Burdens and standards of proof
• Trimetazidine

Ultimately the Panel concludes:

• The Athlete failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that she did not commit the violation intentionally.
• Under the Russian ADR it is not open to the Panel to consider grounds for a reduced sanction.
• There had been substantial delays in the analytical process and in the results managment, which was not attributed to the Athlete.
• The Athlete is a honest, straightforward and credible witness.
• She certainly is not a cheat, nor that she cheated at the Russian 2021 National Championships, nor at the Beijing 2022 Olympic Games (or at any other time).

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 January 2024 that:

1. The Appeal filed on 14 February 2023 by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is upheld.
2. The Appeal filed on 20 February 2023 by the International Skating Union against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is upheld.
3. The Appeal filed on 21 February 2023 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is partially upheld.
4. The decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is set aside.
5. Ms Kamila Valieva is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Clause 4.1 of the All-Russian Anti-Doping Rules of 24 June 2021.
6. A period of four (4) years ineligibility is imposed on Ms Kamila Valieva, starting on 25 December 2021. Any period of provisional suspension served by Ms Kamila Valieva shall be credited against the period of ineligibility imposed.
7. All competitive results of Ms Kamila Valieva from 25 December 2021 are disqualified, with all the resulting consequences (including forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, profits, prizes, and appearance money).
8. (…)
9. (…).
10. (…).
11. (…).
12. (…).
13. (…)
14. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

, to sanction the Athlete for 4 years

The Athlete in her defence argued that:

• The source of the inadvertent contamination has been established by the DADC after careful analysis, in connection with her interacton with her grandfather, who regularly takes the medicine Trimetazidine.
• The DADC correctly had acknowledged that the Athlete is a Protected Person due to her age;
• The DADC accepted that the Athlete would not have any competitive advantages by consuming the Trimetazidine based on the medical experts' testimonies.
• Under the Rules the conditions are met in order to lift the Provisional Suspension.

RUSADA contended that the analysis in the Stockholm Lab was delayed due to pandemic-related staff shortages and is confident that the Athlete will be able to complete her submission with respect of evidenc in the proceedings before CAS whereas she has a lesser burden of proof as a Protected Person.

The ROC asserted that in the present case concrete evidence showing the source of the contamination is not required (as the Athlete is a Protected Person) and are not available (due to the undue delay in the reporting of the adverse analytical finding by the Anti-Doping Laboratory). As a result the Panel must rely on circumstantial evidence and decide to confirm the Appealed Decision if the scenario submitted by the Athlete with regard to contamination with the Prohibited Substance is more likely that the different scenario of a voluntary ingestion.

The CAS Ad Hoc Panel holds that it is uncontested that the Athlete is clearly a Protected Person under the Russian ADR and that the WADC 2021 intends to give special treatment to the Protected Persons like the Athlete.

The Panel finds that in cases involving Protected Persons, their Provisional Suspensions should be evaluated as optional Provisional Suspensions under WADC 2021 Article 7.4.2 and its progeny.

The Panel determines that the Athlete was entitled to benefit from being subject to an optional Provisional Suspension as a Protected Person and that, under the facts and circumstances, the option not to impose a Provisional Suspension should have been exercised so that she would not be prevented to compete in the Games.

Further the Panel considers in this case:

• the length of time it took for the laboratory to submit its report of an AAF involving the Athlete;
• the timing of that relative to the conduct of the Women’s Single Skating event at the Games;
• the difficulty to be faced in the Athlete not being able in
  the current situation, right in the middle of the Games, to muster proof to support her defence of the ADRV being asserted against her;
• the relatively low level of the prohibited substance found
  in her sample;
• the fact that she has tested negative in multiple tests before;
• after the test in question the case she has attempted to muster on contamination whether in a product or through domestic contamination, and the likely low level of sanction
  she will face if found to have committed an ADRV.

The Panel deems that athletes should not be subject to the risk of serious harm occasioned by anti-doping authorities’ failure to function effectively at a high level of performance and in a manner designed to protect the integrity of the operation of the Games. Accordingly the Panel finds that the Provisional Suspension should remain lifted.

Therefore the CAS Ad Hoc Division decides on 17 February 2022:

1. The Ad Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction to determine the Applications filed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and International Skating Union (ISU).
2. The Applications filed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and International Skating Union (ISU) are dismissed.