The Ad Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games – An Overview / Domenico Di Pietro. – (International Sports Law Journal (2005) 3-4 : p. 23-27)

Content:
1.) Introduction

2.) The Cases:
- CAS OG 04/001,
Russian Olympic Committee v. Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI)
- CAS OG 04/003,
Torri Edwards v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and USA Track and Field (USATF)
- CAS OG 04/004,
David Munyasia v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)
- CAS OG 04/005,
David Calder and Christopher Jarvis v. Federation Internationale des Societes d’Aviron (FISA)
- CAS OG 04/006,
Australian Olympic Committee (“AOC”)) v. International Olympic Committee (“IOC”)and International Canoe Federation (“ICF”)
- CAS OG 04/007,
Comite’ National Olympique et Sportif Francais (CNOF), British Olympic Association (BOA) and United States Olympic Committee (USOC) v Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI) and National Olympic Committee for Germany
- CAS OG 04/008,
Comité National Olympique et Sportif Français (“CNOSF”) v. International Canoe Federation (“ICF”) and International Olympic Committee (“IOC”)
- CAS OG 04/009,
Hellenic Olympic Committee (“HOC”) and Nikolaos Kaklamanakis v. International Sailing Federation (“ISAF”)
- CAS OG 04/010,
Mr Yang Tae Young v International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) and United States Olympic Committee (USOC)

3.) Conclusions

The cases administered by the ad hoc division of CAS at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games showed an increase in the challenges to refereeing decisions which were either wrong or perceived to be unfair. Even though only a few complaints were eventually formalised into actual CAS proceedings many more were about to reach that stage.

A regrettable element of the Olympic Games was obviously the presence of doping violations. The stringent regulations aimed at eradicating this terrible plague as well as the diligent enforcement of such regulations by CAS are to be praised and supported. It has been observed in this respect that, perhaps, the fight against doping should differentiate between sanctions to be imposed on deliberate cheating and sanctions to be imposed where the violation is the result of mere and genuine negligence. The objective difficulty in ascertaining the nature of the offence that such differentiation would be likely to give rise to is however a problem that may stop any future policy in that direction at least as long as doping remains such a malicious and unfortunately widespread enemy of sport and health.

Despite the presence of such difficult issues that the Olympic Movement will have to tackle in the future, one of the many positive notes in Athens, together with the excellent organisation of the Games, was that - once again since the creation of the ad hoc division - the Court of Arbitration for Sport has not failed to provide the Olympic Games with highly professional and perfectly organised service for the fast and effective protection of the rule of law in sport disputes.

Why Athletes say No to Doping? Examining the reasons underpinning athletes’ decision not to dope / Dave Collins, Áine MacNamara, Rosie Collins, Richard Bailey. - Institute of Coaching and Performance, University of Central Lancashire, 2012

Based on WADA’s objective and remit, a research focus on the reasons why athletes’ chose not to use Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) is a sensible focus. Of course, these motives are likely to be diverse and complex. This project was designed to examine this complexity, focusing on the major reasons why athletes decide against PEDs. A biopsychosocial approach was employed with a consideration of physical factors (e.g., performance advantage or risk), psychological
characteristics (e.g., risk taking behavior), and the athlete’s social environment (e.g., the advantages and rewards of PEDs, the opinion and influence of significant others, the social opinions within particular sports).

The first phase of the project employed a qualitative methodology, using one-to-one interviews with a cohort of athletes sampled from different types of sports, to capture a rich account of the factors underpinning athletes’ decision-making about PEDs. A combined inductive-deductive analysis was conducted which allowed us to listen to the voices of the athletes in a grounded style during the inductive phase while the deductive phase enabled us to test the data from the interviews against the existing body of research. The results of this study provided a rich and detailed picture of the factors athletes consider in making decisions and arriving at their viewpoint about PEDs. Central to this was the importance of Personal Ethical Standards, and athletes’ view that PEDs constituted cheating in their sport, and irrespective of anti-doping testing and sanctions, this moral stance guided their decision about PEDs. In contrast, participants did not consider Anti-doping Education, Anti-doping Testing or Long-term Health Implications as significant influencing factors. Instead, the importance of significant others and the social environment (e.g., the athletes’ training group) emerged as important factors that influenced the athletes’ decision-making. Differences between sports and age cohorts also emerged during this phase.

Extrapolating from this data, a self-report questionnaire was developed to test for factors used and weightings applied. In Phase 2, this sample was administered to a larger sample of athletes in order to present a more generalizable conclusion. The results of this quantitative study support the findings from Phase 1 with Personal Ethical Standards emerging as the most significant factor in athletes’ decision-making. As found in Phase 1, Anti-doping Education, Anti-doping Testing, and Long-term Heath Implications were less likely to influence an athletes’ decision about PEDs. As was found in the qualitative phase, differences in responses were evident between sports, gender and age cohorts. This questionnaire can now be used with other populations and sports to extend and enrich the picture through consideration of their own athletes.

The results of this study have important implications for WADA and those charged with the fight against doping in sport. The emphasis placed by the athletes on Personal Ethical Standards, Psychosocial Influences, and the Influence of Significant Others is interesting and should help inform the content, strategy and dissemination of anti-doping policy.

Outcomes of the Project
1) Athletes’ personal ethical standards and morals play an important role in their decision not to dope.
2) The athletes’ training environment plays an important protective role in anti-doping; the influence of significant others, notably the opinions of family and coaches, is a significant influence on their decision not to dope.
3) Current anti-doping policy (including education, testing, and sanctions) are not seen as the determining factor in athletes’ decision about doping.

Application of Findings in the field of Anti-Doping
- Anti-doping education needs to be multifaceted and comprehensive beyond the traditional emphasis on testing, sanctions, and health implications.
- An increased emphasis on personal ethical standards and moral beliefs underlying attitudes to doping would seem a useful way to reduce susceptibility to PED usage.
- Reflecting the previous point, the impact and importance of the athletes’ psychosocial environment should be considered and used as a basis for intervention.
- Differences in attitudes and intention to behave across sports should be considered in the development and implementation of anti-doping policy and strategy.
- Educational program that deal with the morality of PED usage are important. This might be especially important for younger athletes.
- Educational program should target the broader psychosocial group to include parents, coaches, and significant others.

Facts
The French Boxing Federation (Fédération Française de Boxe, FFBoxe) - charges respondent M123 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on February 12, 2011, a sample for a doping test was taken. The sample tested positive for Tuaminoheptane which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list, it is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent used medication to treat a pathological cold, this medication contained the prohibited substance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one month in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFBoxe.
2. The results obtained on February 12, 2011, are cancelled. Medals, points and prizes are withdrawn.
3. The period of ineligibility should be reduced by the period already served by the decision, dated May 19, 2011, of the disciplinary committee of the FFBoxe.
4. The decision , dated June 23, 2011, by the appeal committee of the FFBoxe should be modified.
5. The decision starts on the date of notification.
6. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Introduction
The objectives of this study were to determine: (1) the prevalence and type of NS used by athletes; (2) the frequency and dosage of use, and the reasons for their use; (3) where athletes obtain their information regarding supplements; (4 ) if age, nationality, gender, sport category, training hours, performance level and disability influence an athlete’s use of NS; (5) how athletes perceive NS use; and (6) the knowledge of disabled athletes on topics relating to doping/anti-doping in sport.

Participants
A total of 399 participants completed the questionnaire (296 (74%) male and 103 (26%) female) all aged above 18 years. The majority (87%) of athletes’ ethnic origin was reported as white. Athletes were represented from 21 different nationalities across 28 different sports with a large proportion from the wheelchair court sports (20% Wheelchair Rugby, 12% Wheelchair Basketball, 10% Wheelchair Tennis), Athletics (8%), Sitting Volleyball (7%) and Cycling (6%). The number of years the athletes’ reported playing their main sport (experience) was 8.1 ± 7.1 y, with 64% and 36% playing at an elite (National or International) and non-elite (club, regional or development) performance level, respectively.

Key findings
We provide data on a total of 28 sports with participants competing across the exercise continuum. These data suggest the use of NS is common with over half of the 399 athletes reporting the use of at least one NS. Despite the majority of athletes understanding the risks of using NS, it is of great concern that 33% of elite level athletes report never having attended an anti-doping or NS workshop. It is clear that this should be mandatory for all elite athletes and that education needs to be improved.

Overall the findings in this report suggest that more information should be readily available to athletes and their coaches on the use of NS for disabled people. The participants in the current study specifically requested information on topics such as effective NS and their dosage recommendations, anti-doping issues, personalised information and how their needs compare to AB athletes. Athletes are currently guided by sport scientists and/or nutritionists/dietitians on the use of NS but unfortunately not all athletes have access to such practitioners, especially below the elite level. Disabled athletes who are undertaking a training and competition schedule that pushes their body to the limits of their ability may benefit from the use of NS. However, given the limited evidence base they must perform a personal cost-benefit analysis prior to using them to help prevent any negative effects or complications. Consequently, over time we should seek more evidence-based recommendations and practice in this specific population. The outcomes from such disabilityspecific NS research would help reduce the issue of a ‘lack of understanding’ and ‘trial and error’, which is currently reported.

Recommendations
- WADA education workshops should be mandatory for all elite level disabled athletes and should include information that is aimed at this specific population.
- Information on topics such as NS and their effectiveness, how to adapt the dosage to suit an individual’s disability and to help prevent the possible negative effects of some NS should be highlighted during education sessions. This type of information could initially be provided in an online and leaflet format.
- Education should be aimed at both athletes and their coaches. It should also be considered whether a factsheet could be produced for other medical professionals such as doctors, general practitioners and physiotherapists in the event that they are
approached by athletes with questions on the topic of NS.
- Where possible, education should also be provided to those below the elite level of performance.
- Further research should be conducted into the use of specific NS and the dose, effectiveness and possible negative effects of NS for athletes who have a variety of disabilities including SCI, CP, amputations, multiple sclerosis and dwarfism.

Facts
The French Football Federation (Fédération Française de Football, FFF) charges respondent M122 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on May 21, 2011, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent can't take part in competitions and sporting events organized or authorized by the FFF.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served by the decision (period of ineligibility of two months), dated August 5, 2011, from the disciplinary committee of the FFF.
3. The earlier decision dated August 5, 2011, of the disciplinary committee of the FFF should be modified.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M121 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on July 3, 2011, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of triamcinolone which is regarded as a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Triamcinolone is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent used medication to treat an inflammation of a dental implant this medication was the cause of the positive test. He has a document to prove this, but it's without a date. He ads that he is not a professional but taking part in competition for leisure.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months in which the athlete can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFC and related French sport federations.
2. All the results obtained at July 3, 2011, are cancelled. Medals, points and prizes are withdrawn.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

CAS 2014/A/3487 Veronica Campbell-Brown v. Jamaica Athletics Administrative Association (JAAA) & International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)

• Athletics
• Doping (hydrochlorothiazide - HCT)
• Duty of strict compliance with international standards
• Departure from international standards requirements
• Shift in the burden of proof in case of a departure from the IST
• Standard of proof

1. In order to justify imposing a regime of strict liability against athletes for breaches of anti-doping regulations, testing bodies should be held to an equivalent standard of strict compliance with mandatory international standards of testing. This is particularly important in view of the principal purpose of the WADA International Standards for Testing (IST), namely to ensure “the integrity, security and identity of the Sample”. The need for a balanced approach to a regime of strict liability, on the one hand, and strict compliance with international standards, on the other, contributes to that purpose.

2. Certain IST requirements are so fundamental to the just and effective operation of the doping control system that fairness demands that any departure should automatically invalidate any adverse analytical finding. In other words, certain IST departures will be treated as so serious that, by their very nature, they will be considered to undermine the fairness of the testing process to such an extent that it is impossible for a reviewing body to be comfortably satisfied that a doping violation has occurred.

3. The burden of proof shifts from the athlete onto the anti-doping organization when the athlete establish facts from which a reviewing panel could rationally infer a possible causative link between the IST departure and the presence of a prohibited substance in the athlete’s sample. For these purposes, the suggested causative link must be more than merely hypothetical, but need not be likely, as long as it is plausible. This interpretation – which does not set the bar for a shift in the burden of proof to an unduly high threshold – strikes an appropriate balance between the rights of athletes to have their samples collected and tested in accordance with mandatory testing standards, and the legitimate interest in preventing athletes from escaping punishment for doping violations on the basis of inconsequential or minor technical infractions of the IST.

4. The burden of satisfying the relevant hearing panel that a doping violation has occurred is substantially higher where the anti-doping body has engaged in a knowing, systematic and persistent failure to comply with a mandatory IST that is directed at the integrity of the sample collection and testing process. Strict liability for doping violations is an essential cornerstone of anti-doping enforcement. However, the ability of anti-doping agencies to hold athletes to that strict standard of accountability is necessarily attenuated in circumstances where those agencies manifestly and willfully fail to uphold their side of the bargain. This is particularly so where the failure creates a possibility of sample contamination and unreliable testing results. In such cases, the IST departure strikes at the very heart and purpose of the anti-doping regime. To adopt a different approach might be said to encourage non-compliance with international standards and could render such standards a nullity.

In Februar 2014 the Athlete Veronica Campbell-Brown filed an appeal against the decision rendered on 10 February 2014 by the IAAF Doping Review Board, and against the decision of 10 February 2014 rendered by the Jamaican Athletics Administrative Association (JAAA).

The Athlete challenged their decisions to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide.

The issues that arise for determination by the CAS Panel in this appeal may be summarised as follows:

• (a) Has the IAAF adduced sufficient evidence to satisfy the Panel to the requisite standard of proof that the Athlete committed the anti-doping violation rule charged?
• (b) If so, do exceptional circumstances exist within the meaning of IAAF ADR Rule 40.4 that would justify the imposition of a lighter penalty than the standard mandatory sanction of two years ineligibility?

In view of the evidence in this case the Panel establishes that the JAAA has persistently failed to comply with the mandatory partial testing IST. That systematic and knowing failure, for which no reasonable explanation has been advanced, is deplorable and gives rise to the most serious concerns about the overall integrity of the JAAA’s anti-doping processes, as exemplified in this case by the flaws in JADCO’s sample collection and its documentation.

The Panel notes the contradictory explanations provided by the JADCO witnesses to the JAAA Disciplinary Panel in September 2013, which cause further concern about the reliability of the evidence adduced against the Athlete. In these circumstances, the evidence put forward by the JAAA and IAAF to rebut the suggestion that the IST departure could have caused the positive HCT result is insufficient to enable the Panel to comfortably conclude that the Athlete committed an anti-doping violation.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete’s appeal should be allowed on the ground that the Panel is not comfortably satisfied that the Athlete committed the charged anti-doping violation. Accordingly, the decisions of the IAAF and JAAA dated 10 February 2014 should be set aside and the Athlete’s provisional suspension terminated with immediate effect.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 February 2014 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Veronica Campbell-Brown on 12 February 2014 is upheld.

2.) The decision of the Doping Review Board of the International Association of Athletics Federations dated 10 February 2014 is set aside.

3.) The decision of the Jamaica Athletics Administrative Association dated 10 February 2014 is set aside.

4.) [...]

5.) [...]

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

Facts
The French federation of Full Contact and associated sports (Fédération Française de Sports de Contact et Disciplines Associées, FFSCDA) charges respondent M120 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a full contact match on March 27, 2010, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent didn't provide any information about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFSCDA.
2. All the results obtained at the match on March 27, 2010, are cancelled. Medals, points and prizes are withdrawn.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The International Military Sports Council (Conseil International du Sport Militaire, CISM) charges Natalia Tomilova for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the Military Winter Games, in Annescy, France, on March 26, 2013, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of carphedon. Carphedon is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The positive result of the doping test came from medicines taken by the respondent.

Decision
1. Suspension from participation for a period of 2 years, back-dated to commence from 26-3-2013.
2. The results at the 2013 CISM World Winter Games events shall be annulled.

Facts
The French Motorycling Federation (Fédération Française de motocyclisme, FFM) charges respondent M119 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a motorcycling event on April 3, 2011, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of heptaminol. Heptaminol is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent suffered from haemorrhoids and sent his girlfriend to a drugstore to provide a drug, which he admitted not having consulted the pharmaceutical notice, against the unbearable pain. Also he used medication prescribed for his mother. He has proof of his condition from his general practitioner and the examination report performed by a gastroenterologist.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one month in which in the respondent can't take part in competitions and manifestations organized or authorized by the FFM.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced with the period already served in by the decision (three months period of ineligibility), dated June 14, 2011, of the disciplinary committee of the FFM.
3. All the result obtained at April 3, 2011, are cancelled. Medals, points and prizes are withdrawn.
4. The decision, dated July 13, 2011, by the disciplinary committee of the FFM is cancelled.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.