WADA - RUSADA Compliance Court of Arbitration for Sport Decision of 17 December 2020 : Questions and Answers

4 Feb 2021

RUSADA Compliance Court of Arbitration for Sport Decision of 17 December 2020: Questions and Answers / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2021


Following the publication of the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS’s) 186-page full reasoned decision regarding its 17 December 2020 ruling in favor of WADA to declare the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) non-compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code for a period of two years, WADA has developed a question and answer document to assist with stakeholder understanding of the matter.

This is in response to a number of queries received from Anti-Doping Organizations, athletes, members of the media and other stakeholders seeking clarity on some of the award’s finer points and their implications. The Q&A document is in addition to the Agency’s publication of a legal note on 14 January 2021, which outlines the background that led to the CAS proceedings, provides a summary of the parties’ key arguments, and summarizes the decision.

COLDEPORTES 2018 FEDEPATIN vs Camilo Andrés Orozco Fuentes

21 Jun 2018

On 14 April 2016 the FIRS Doping Review Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Dominican roller sports Athlete Mauricio García Sierra after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoieting (EPO).

The Athlete admitted the violation and testified that the EPO was recommended, provided and administered by the Colombian coach Camilo Andrés Orozco Fuentes. Hereafter in June 2016 the Colombian Roller Sports Federation opened an investigation and reported an anti-doping rule violation against the coach Orozco Fuentes for the administration of EPO.

The Coach acknowledged that he had recommended the use of EPO for the Athlete in a low dose out-of-competition during training in Columbia in preparation for the World Championships in China. He confirmed that he was aware that EPO was a prohibited substance and denied that he was the official coach of the Athlete but only had assisted him as a friend.

Considering the evidence and witness statements in this case the FEDEPATIN Disciplinairy Commission establishes that Mr Orozco Fuentes acted as a official coach as part of the coaching staff of the Paisa Patín Club. Further the Commission concludes that the coach was aware that EPO was prohibited and that he intentionally had administered the substance to the Athlete. Regarding the severity of the conduct of Mr Orozco Fuentes and mitigating circumstances the Commission deems not to impose a 6 year period of ineligibility on the coach.

Therefore the FEDEPATIN Disciplinary Commission decides on 21 June 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the coach Orozco Fuentes starting on the date of the decision.

IWF 2017 IWF vs Cesar Augusto Lugo Torres

14 Oct 2018

In December 2017 the International Weightlifiting Federation (IWF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Colombian weightlifter Cesar Augusto Lugo Torres after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Boldenone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the the Athlete did not request for a hearing nor filed a statement in his defence.

The IWF finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the IWF decides on 14 October 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 December 2018. Further the IWF imposed a $ 5000,- fine on the Weightlifting Federation of Columbia.

World Athletics 2019 WA vs James Kibet

29 Jan 2021

In December 2019 the Athletics Integriyt Unit (AIU) for World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete James Kibet after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal. 

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He assumed that the positive test was the result of his use of pork fat, a substance traditionally used and ingested in the Athlete’s home town country as a “medicine”. He also ingested pork fat syrup three times a day at the time of the doping control. He stated that he had purchased the pork fat and/or other products he had used and ingested from a local market in Eldoret Town, Kenya.

After conducting a research regarding pigs and pork products he filed a video recording in which an apparent farmer provided explantions regarding pig farming, and cites an scientific article in this matter. 

The AIU contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional nor established grounds for a reduced sanction. The AIU had provided contact information of a food safety research laboratory in Germany that could analyse the Athlete’s pork fat in question. 

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete’s sample and accordingly the he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Considering the evidence the Athlete had produced the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete had not provided evidence that he had purchased the pork fat and/or other products from the local market in Eldoret Town, Kenya. 

The Arbitrator further considers that there was no evidence that the pork fat the Athlete allegedly had consumed contained Nandrolone as source of the positive test. He missed the opportunity to analyse the pork fat in question, he provided a video recording but he failed to produce the scientific article itself he cited. 

Therefore the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 29 January 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 December 2019.

CAS 2019_A_6597 IAAF vs Jacob Kibet Chulyo Kendagor

19 Jan 2021

CAS 2019/A/6597 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v Jacob Kibet Chulyo Kendagor

Related case:

IAAF 2019 IAAF vs Jacob Kibet Chulyo Kendagor
October 22, 2019



In July 2019 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Jacob Kibet Chulyo Kendagor for evading and refusing to submit to sample collection after notification during an out-of-competition doping control on 21 November 2018.

However in first instance the AIU Disciplinary Tribunal was not satisfied to the level of comfortable satisfaction that the individual seen by the DCO and BCO was the Athlete and decided on 22 October 2019 to dismiss the charge against the Athlete.

Hereafter in November 2019 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of the IAAF (now known as World Athletics) appealed the decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The AIU requested the Panel to set aside the decision of 22 October 2019 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Athlete disputed to have committed an anti-doping rule violation by relying on affidavits and by submitting that the way in which the investigation by the DCO and BCO was conducted and executed, was flawed and that there was a lack of due diligence on their behalf. The Athlete argued that this case was about mistaken identity and he alleged that he was not notified on 21 November 2018 by the DCO and BCO and that, accordingly, no anti-doping rule violation can be established.

The AIU contended that the charges of the anti-doping rule violations have been sufficiently proven since the DCO and BCO made a valid identification on 21 November 2018 and properly notified the Athlete. Further the AIU asserted that the testimonies of the Athlete and his witnesses were inconsistent and not convincing.

Considering the evidence in this case the Panel finds that the IAAF established to its comfortable satisfaction, beyond a mere balance of probability standard, that the DCO and BCO had interviewed and notified the Athlete on 21 November 2018 and that the Athlete has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation pursuant to Article 2.3 ADR by intentionally misleading the DCO and BCO about his identity and failing or refusing to submit to sample collection.

The Panel holds that the defence raised by the Athlete and the affidavits he relied on were inconsistent and did not corroborate the position of the Athlete. Whereas the Athlete did not attend the hearing, the Panel regards that it did not have the benefit of examining and questioning him further. Likewise, the inconsistencies and other questions raised in regard to the affidavits could not be addressed by the parties or by the Panel at the hearing, as these witnesses have not been made available by the Athlete notwithstanding the Panel’s request.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 19 January 2021:

  1. The appeal filed by the International Association of Athletics Federations on 21 November 2019 against the decision rendered by the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal on 22 October 2019 is upheld.
  2. The decision rendered by IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal on 22 October 2019 is set aside.
  3. Mr Jacob Kibet Chulyo Kendagor is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four years with effect from the date of this Award but the period between 5 July 2019 and 22 October 2019 shall be credited against the period of ineligibility.
  4. All competitive results obtained by Mr Jacob Kibet Chulyo Kendagor between 21 November 2018 and 22 October 2019 shall be disqualified, with all of the consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
  5. Mr. Jacob Kibet Chulyo Kendagor shall pay to the IAAF a contribution in the amount of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) toward its legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.
  6. All other and further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2019_A_6574 WADA vs ANAD & Sorin Mineran

24 Jul 2020

On 30 January 2017 the Hearing Panel of the National Anti-Doping Agency Romania (ANAD) decided to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the long-distance runner Sorin Mineran for his second anti-doping rule violation after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Higenamine.

However on 16 March 2018 the ANAD Appeal Panel decided to set aside the first instance decision and to acquit the Athlete. Hereafter in November 2019 WADA appealed the Decision of 16 March 2018 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

WADA requested the Panel to set aside the decision of the ANAD Appeal Panel and to sanction the Athlete for his second anti-doping rule violation. Whereas WADA accepted that the violation was not intentional it requested the Panel to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

WADA contended that Higenamine is a specific substance prohibited at all times under S3 of the 2016 Prohibited List and that a significant number of Athlete's were sanctioned because of the presence of Higenamine in their samples in 2016.

Refering to the Sakho case, invoked by the Athlete in his defence, WADA points out that the Board in that case did not hear any expert explanation of the bases on which doping authorities have determined that such categorization is justified.

The Athlete did not dispute the test result and denied that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation based asserting that:

  • his sanction was precluded by res judicata;
  • Higenamine was not on the 2016 Prohibited List, because it was not known to be a Beta-2 agonist; and
  • not all WADA-accredited laboratories tested for Higenamine in 2016.

The Panel considered the invoked Sakho case and establish that the UEFA-CEDB decision did not actually find that Higenamine is not a prohibited beta-2 agonist. What the Board wrote was instead that there was "significant doubt" in the matter and that is was "not clear" that Higenamine was a beta-2 agonist.

The Panel holds that the evidence does not show a reluctance of laboratories to test for Higenamine, and to the contrary an expansion of their capability to conduct such testing as the use of that substance has proved to be wide spread.

The Panel accepts WADA's contentions and finds that the Athlete's explanation for his anti-doping rule violation is weak. The Panel deems that Higenamine, although not explicitly named, was present on the 2016 Prohibited List. Furthermore CAS jurisprudence has established and confirmed that a list of prohibited substances need not be exhaustive.

Here the Panel regarded that Higenamine was already listed by name as a prohibited substance on the Global Drug Reference Online in 2013. The substance also had been on the agenda of the WADA List Expert Group meetings serveral times listing Higenamine as a beta-2 agonist.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 July 2020 as follows:

  1. The appeal filed on 5 November 2019 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency and Sorin Mineran with respect to the decision issued on 11 March 2019 by the Appeal Panel of the Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency is upheld.
  2. The decision issued on 11 March 2019 by the Appeal Panel of the Romanian National AntiDoping Agency is set aside.
  3. Mr Sorin Mineran is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation and is therefore sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility, commencing on the date of the entry into force of the present award, subject to the proviso that the length of provisional suspension or ineligibility he has already served shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.
  4. The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne 50% by the Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency and 50% by Mr Sorin Mineran.
  5. The Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency and Mr Sorin Mineran shall bear their own costs and each is individually ordered to pay to the World Anti-Doping Agency an amount of CHF 2,000 (two thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution towards WADA's legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
  6. All other and further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2019_A_6112 WADA vs ANAD & Anda-Mihaela Vâlvoi

27 Jan 2020

CAS 2019/A/6112 WADA v. RANAD & Anda-Mihaela Vâlvoi

On 18 January 2018 the Hearing Commission of the National Anti-Doping Agency Romania (ANAD) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Romanian sambo Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

The Athlete appealed and on 16 October 2018 the ANAD Appeal Panel decided to set aside the Decision of 18 January 2018 and to acquit the Athlete.

In first instance the Athlete had accepted the test result, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction on the grounds of No Significant Fault or Negligence. During the Appeal Hearing she argued that during the sample collection process procedural flaws occurred that would annul the testing and finding of an anti-doping rule violation.

Hereafter in January 2018 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) decided to appeal the Decision of the ANAD Appeal Panel with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The case was settled by the Sole Arbitrator based on the written submissions of the Parties.

WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Decision of 16 October 2018 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. WADA contended that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and failed to produce any evidence that the alleged departures of the ISTI reasonably could have caused the adverse analystical finding. 

WADA asserted that the Doping Control Officer (DCO) in question had testified that the partial sample equipement was sealed in the presence of the Athlete before she left for the medal ceremony. Furher the Athlete had never explained how the prohibited substance had entered her system or the source of the positive test.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the analytical results showing the presence of Furosemide in the Athlete's sample are valid and that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Whereas the Athlete had not argued, explained or proven how the contended departure from the ISTI could have reasonably caused the advers analytical finding the Sole Arbitrator finds that evidence of a departure of the ISTI is insufficient for finding an annulment.

To the contrary, the Athlete had not contested the positive test, nor did she contend that the sample was manipulated in her absence from the doping control station or that it was not even her sample. She even declined to the opportunity to have the B sample analysis and to DNA testing, thereby demonstrating that she did not think that the sample was not hers.

Even if the sample collection procedure had not been in compliance with ISTI, such non-compliance would not be sufficient to invalidate the results as the Athlete has not even attempted to show or establish that the alleged procedural failures had resulted in the positive test.

Finally the Sole Arbitrator deems that Athlete has not shown that she bears No Fault Or Negligence or that her fault or negligence was not significant in relationship to the anti-doping rule violation, and that as a consequence, the period of ineligibility should be eliminated or reduced.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 27 January 2020 that:

  1. The appeal filed by WADA on 25 January 2019 against the decision rendered by the Appeal Panel of RANAD on 16 October 2018 is upheld.
  2. The decision of the Appeal Panel of RANAD of 16 October 2018 is set aside.
  3. Anda-Mihaela Vâlvoi is suspended for a period of two (2) years commencing on the date of this Award.
  4. Any period of provisional suspension or ineligibility effectively served by Anda-Mihaela Vâlvoi shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.
  5. All competitive results obtained by Anda-Mihaela Vâlvoi between 17 September 2017 and 18 January 2018 are disqualified with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes.
  6. The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by RANAD.
  7. RANAD is ordered to pay WADA a total amount of CHF 4'000 as contribution towards the expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings).
  8. All other motions or prayers forrelief are dismissed.

UKAD 2020 Mark Jones vs UKAD - Appeal

24 Dec 2020

UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Mark Jones
February 7, 2020

On 7 February 2020 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the rugby player Mark Jones after he tested positive for Clenbuterol in a very low concentration.

In first instance the Panel concluded that the Athlete only provided a timely admission, he failed to establish how the substance had entered his system, nor that the positive test was the result of meat contamination.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the National  Anti-Doping Appeal Panel.

The Athlete argued that UKAD and WADA had failed to grant him a reduction of the sanction based on his prompt admission. He believed that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence due to the violation was not intentional and the result of meat contamination.

UKAD contended that the Athlete failed to produce corroborative evidence about his purchase of meat in bulk at a market in Cardiff nor was there any evidence of the existence of the trader who allegedly sold the meat. Also UKAD considered it implausible that contaminated meat from China might have been exported elsewhere, including to the UK, and thereafter causing an adverse finding particular in South Wales. Moreover the Athlete's social media records indicate that he had purchased supplement which were not all from necessarily reliable sources.

In its submission to the Appeal Panel WADA confirmed that there were no grounds to grant a significant reduction of the Athlete's sanction based on his prompt admission and No Significant Fault or Negligence. WADA found that the Athlete failed to establish how the substance had entered his system or established the source of the positive test.

Considering the evidence in this appeal and the arguments of the Parties the Appeal Panel concludes that UKAD and WADA were both entitled to exercise their discretion on the basis that this was a serious violation and that they were not satisfied by the Athlete's explanation that he had not been seriously at fault.

Therefore the Appeal Panel decides on 24 December 2020 to uphold the Decision of 7 February 2020 of the National Anti-Doping Commission, to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to confirm the imposition of a 4 year period of inelgibility.

UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Mark Jones

7 Feb 2020

Related case:

UKAD 2020 Mark Jones vs UKAD - Appeal
December 24, 2020

In August 2019 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the amateur rugby player Mark Jones after his sample tested positive as an atypical finding for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol in a very low concentration.

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

The Athlete accepted the test result, admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. At first he requested to lift the provisional suspension and later he requested to be credited for serving this provisional suspenion due to the substantial delays in the process attributed to UKAD.

The Athlete argued that there were grounds for a reduced 2 year sanction based on his prompt admission and No Significant Fault or Negligence. He alleged that meat contamination had caused the positive test due to his ingestion of cheap Australian / Chinese meat he had purchased in bulk at a market in Cardiff and consumed in the months hereafter.

UKAD deemed that there were no grounds that the Athlete had provided a prompt admission since there was only a timely admission. Further it contended that the Athlete failed to explain how the substance had entered his system nor did he  produce any corroborating evidence in support of his meat contamination allegation.

The Panel holds that there were no substantial delays in this case and agrees that the Athlete only provided a timely admission. Consequently it was prepared to start the period of ineligibility on the date of the sample collection which also credits the Athlete for the time already served during his provisional suspension.

The Panel concludes that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction since the Athlete failed to establish how the prohibited substance had entered his system nor did he provide corroborating evidence in support of his allegations.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 7 February 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 25 April 2019.

FINA 2020 FINA vs Willson Singh Nbhorot

29 Jan 2021

In March 2020 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Indian water polo player Willson Singh Nbhorot (17) after his sample tested postive for the prohibited substance Terbutaline.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by FINA. The case was settled by the FINA Doping Panel based on the written submissions of the Parties.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and believed that the positive test was te result of a the medication he had used. He explained with evidence that, at first and without relief, he had used prescribed medication as treatment for his cough, headache and fever. As alternative he had used a cough syrup purchased in a medical store.

The Athlete asserted that at the relevant time he was a minor, that he was tested for the first time and prior had not received any anti-doping education. He was unaware that the medication he used contained a prohibited substance and acknowleded that he had not checked before using nor mentioned it on the Doping Control Form.

The Panel finds that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation as a result of the use of a medication that contained a prohibited substance. The Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete established how the substance had entered his system.

The Panel considers the circumstances in this case and holds that the Athlete gave a prompt admission and prior he had not received any anti-doping education when he underwent doping control. The Panel regards that the Athlete's cough syrup did not raise as much suspicions of containing a prohibited substance as other medications. Further the Panel finds that he acted with a degree of fault since he failed to check his medication before using it.

Therefore the FINA Anti-Doping Panel decides on 29 January 2021 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 5 November 2019.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin