World Athletics 2020 WA vs El Mahjoub Dazza

24 Jul 2020

In January 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Moroccan Athlete El Mahjoub Dazza after an AIU Expert Panel concluded unanimously in October 2019 in their Joint Expert Opinion that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping.

This conclusion of the AIU Expert Panel was based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 4 May 2019 until 4 November 2019 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).

After notification the Athlete submitted several explanations and objections to the AIU about the circumstances surrounding the collected samples. However after consideration the Expert Panel rejected the Athlete’s explanations and objections in their 2nd (December 2019), 3rd (February 2020) and 4th (April 2020) joint report. A provisional suspension was ordered and after delays due to deliberations between the Parties the Athlete was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal.

The AIU contended that the Athlete’s ABP profile constitutes reliable evidence of blood doping and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation under the Rules.

The Athlete denied the violation and disputed the validity of the ABP supported by an expert witness. He asserted that the values in his ABP could be explained as a result of high altitude and his training regime.

Further the Athlete objected during the proceedings that he had not received a fair trial and requested the Panel for nulity. He argued the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was breached in this case since the documents he had received from the AIU were written in English (which he does not speak or understand) and needed translation into French. 

The Panel concludes that the Athlete had received a fair trial during the proceedings and dismissed the request for nullity. The Panel established that the Athlete does not speak or understand English nor French while previously he had received the relevant documents as requested translated in French and from the beginning he had assistance from someone in English and someone in French. 

Based on the evidence the Panel concludes that the doping scenario presented by the AIU and the Expert Panel caused the abnormalities in the Athlete’s ABP and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Athlete failed to provide a plausible explanation for the established abnormalities in his ABP. 

Therefore on 24 July 2020 the Disciplinary Tribunal decides to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 January 2020. The Athlete’s competition results obtained since 5 May 2019 are disqualified and he is ordered to pay a contribution to World Athletics for unnecessary costs and expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

 

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Hassan Chani

10 Sep 2020

In March 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Bahrain Athlete Hassan Chani after an AIU Expert Panel concluded unanimously in January 2020 in their Joint Expert Opinion that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping.

This conclusion of the AIU Expert Panel was based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 11 August 2016 until 4 October 2019 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP). 

After notification the Athlete submitted an explanation to the AIU about the circumstances surrounding the collected samples. However after consideration the Expert Panel rejected the Athlete’s explanations in March 2020 in their second joint report. A provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal. 

The AIU contended that the Athlete’s ABP profile constitutes reliable evidence of blood doping and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation under the Rules. The Athlete denied the violation, disputed the reliablility of the ABP and asserted that the values in his ABP could be explained as a result of high altitude and his training regime. 

Based on the evidence the Panel deems that Athlete’s ABP is highly abnormal and none of the Athlete's explanations or allegations can refute that conclusion. The Panel is comfortably satisfied that the doping scenario presented by the AIU and the Expert Panel caused the abnormalities in the Athlete’s ABP and that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

Therefore on 10 September 2020 the Disciplinary Tribunal decides to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 March 2020.

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Japhet Kipchirchir Kipkorir

10 Jun 2020

In May 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Japhet Kipchirchir Kipkorir after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

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

The Athlete explained that he underwent medical treatment for his back injury. The AIU finds that this medical treatment could not explain the positive test result.

Therefore the AIU decides on 27 May 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 May 2020.

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Kenneth Kiprop Kipkemoi

17 Jul 2020

In October 2019 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics has reported an an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Kenneth Kiprop Kipkemoi after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Terbutaline.

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

The Athlete admitted the violation and accepted the test result. He explained with evidence that in September 2019 he underwent treatment for an injury, severe pneumonia and malaria. He had used a prescribed cough syrup that contained Terbutaline but was considered essential to treat the severe condition in his lungs.

The Athlete testified that when tested out-of-competition due to his injury and illness he intended to cancel upcoming races. He mentioned the use of his medication to the Doping Control Officer (DCO) but he omitted the disclosure of the prescribed medication that would prove that he bears No Fault or Negligence. He also asserted that it was inappropriate for the AIU to send him several letters with varying lengths of proposed periods of ineligibility. 

The Arbitrator regards that the AIU does not contend that violation was intentional and agrees that the correspondence in question was without prejudice. It should not be understood as a willingness by the AIU to accept a lesser period of ineligibility in the course of the proceedings, nor should it be understood as evidence of bad faith on the AIU’s part.

The Arbitrator establish that the Athlete had admitted the violation, that he had used medication without having a valid TUE and that as a professional Athlete he had signed the Doping Control Form confirming that the information on his form was accurate. Further the Arbitrator holds that there were some inconsistencies in the explanations provided by the Athlete and his doctor that undermine the reliability of the evidence and testimony offered.

Considering the Athlete’s conduct the Arbitrator deems that there are insufficient grounds to conclude that the Athlete bears No Fault or Negligence, nor No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 17 July 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 25 February 2020.

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Luvo Manyong

11 Jun 2021

Related case:

SAIDS 2012_11 SAIDS vs Luvo Manyonga
June 1, 2012

In December 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) for World Athletics had reported an anti-doping rule violation against the South African Athlete Luvo Manyong for his 3 Whereabouts Filing Faulures and 1 Missed test within a 12 month period. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

Previously in June 2012 an 18 month period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete for the use of the prohibited substance methamphetamine.

In his submission the Athlete denied that he had committed the violation. Hereafter he failed to cooperatie with the hearing process, he didn't file a statement in his defence, nor attended the hearing of the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal.

Based on the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator finds that World Athletics has demonstrated that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Sole Arbitrator considers that this is the Athlete's second anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 11 June 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 December 2020.

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Maria Guadalupe González Romero

30 Jul 2021

Related cases:

CAS 2019_A_6319 Maria Guadalupe Gonzalez Romero vs IAAF
July 2, 2020

IAAF 2018 IAAF vs María Guadalupe González Romero
May 9, 2019


On 9 May 2019 the IAAF (now: World Athletics) Disciplinary Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Mexican Athlete María Guadalupe González Romero after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Trenbolone.

In First Instance the Sole Arbitrator deemed that the explanation together with the evidence produced by the Athlete were not convincing, contradicting and unreliable. Consequently her explanation was rejected for lack of credibility since she failed to establish that her violation was not intentional.

The Athlete appealed in June 2020 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). However on 2 July 2020 the CAS Panel confirmed the Appealed IAAF Decision of 9 May 2019. During the CAS hearing the Athlete acknowledged that she had provided false statements and evidence.

Hereafter in July 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) for World Athletics reported a new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for Tampering because of the false statements, fabricated evidence and false documents she had provided to the AIU.

Regarding the Athlete's Tampering the AIU contended that:

  • the Athlete provided two contradictory sets of facts with regards to her consumption of meat in the days before the sample collection;
  • the hospital report submitted by the Athlete was forged;
  • the receipts for the restaurants in question were also forged;
  • the Athlete acknowledged that she had asked her friend to provide false testimony to support her story about eating beef at the restaurant in question.

The Athlete argued that she never had the intention to manipulate evidence or to lie during the proceedings neither before the First Instance Proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal, nor before CAS. Indeed, the Athlete discharged any possible responsibility on her first lawyers, who did not disclose or inform her about any falsification or manipulation of documents and even forged her signature.

The Sole Arbitrator finds the conclusions reached by both, the First Decision and the CAS decision of the utmost relevance, since they are convincing and persuasive enough to conclude that the Athlete indeed lied and presented fabricated evidence during the First Instance Proceedings.

The Sole Arbitrator rejects the Athletes arguments alleging that she was unaware of the content, evidence and documents filed in her defence. Whereas he concludes that the Athlete's conduct shall be qualified as Tampering pursuant to the definition established in the ADR.

Considering the principle of lex mitior and the application of Article 10.9.3(c) of the ADR 2021 the Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete committed a stand-alone first violation with the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility (instead of 8 years).

Therefore on 30 July 2021 the Sole Arbitrator decides that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation for Tampering and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility.

This new sanction shall run consecutively to the period of ineligibility already imposed on the Athlete unitl 15 November 2022, thus starting on 16 November 2022 until 15 November 2026.

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Marina Arzamasova

27 Nov 2020

In August 2019 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Belarussian Athlete Marina Arzamasova after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance LGD-4033 (ligandrol).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and asserted with evidence that the positive test was the result of contaminated supplements she had used.

Analysis of her supplements in the Minsk Lab revealed the presence of LGD-4033 in 3 samples out of 6 samples of nutritional supplements. In addition the Lausanne Lab confirmed that LGD-4033 was found in the 3 bottles of the supplement she claimed she had had used in the months prior to the sample collection.

The AIU requested the Panel to impose a 4 year period of ineligibiltiy and contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, neither how the prohibited substance had entered her system or the source of the positive test. The AIU deemed that the Athlete provided no evidence she had purchased the ingested contaminated supplement Epic Labs BCAA.

In addition the AIU argued that the Athlete failed to mention this supplement on the Doping Control Form even though she meticulously listed a number of other medication and suppements on this Form. Also the concentrations of LGD-4033 found in her samples were not consistent with the claimed daily use of the contaminated supplement.

Considering the circumstances and evidence in the case the Panel concludes that Athlete failed to establish on a balance of probabilities not only te existence and intake of a contaminated supplement, but also the causal link between the ingestion of such supplement and the positive test results.

The Panel was not persuaded that the Athlete indeed used the contaminated supplement and, even if that was the case, that the positive test could haven been caused by the ingestion of this contaminated supplement. She failed to mention the supplements on her Doping Control Form nor provided evidence of purchase of these supplements.

Further the Panel agrees that the concentration levels of LGD-4033 found in the Athlete's samples were not consistent with a contamination scenario. Finally the Panel considers that there were substantial delays in the hearing process not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the Panel decides on 27 November 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting backdated on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 29 July 2019.

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Mercy Jerotich Kibarus

14 Jul 2020

In December 2019 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics has reported an an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Mercy Jerotich Kibarus after her samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Previously on 10 August 2015 the Athletics Kenya’s Medical Commission had imposed a public warning on the Athlete after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal. 

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that there had been several departures of the ISTI and ISL that would invalidate the test result. The AIU rejected the Athlete’s allegations that there had been an error in the collection, storage and analysis of the samples. 

The Arbitrator establish that the test results are valid and dismissed the Athlete’s speculations about a possible swapping of samples and alleged deficiencies in the collection, testing, analysis, reporting, handling and storage of the samples. Based on this evidence the Arbitrator finds that the AIU satisfied its burden of proof in establishing the presence of a prohibited substance and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

Because there is no doubt that the warning imposed on the Athlete on 10 August 2015 was an anti-doping rule violation the Arbitrator deems that the Athlete now has committed a second anti-doping rule violation.

Without grounds for the application of the principle of lex mitior the Athlete however is allowed to file an application to the Anti-Doping Organization which had Results Management to consider a reduction of the period of ineligibility before the period of ineligibility has expired. 

Therefore the Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 14 July 2020 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 December 2019.

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Nataliia Krol

3 Aug 2020

In March 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics has reported an an anti-doping rule violation against the Ukrainian Athlete Nataliia Krol after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by AIU. 

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and explained that in a city, 4 days before the Doping Control, she was afflicted by headache, blurred vision, heaviness in the back of the head and tinnitus related to hypertension. In the nearest pharmacy she used as treatment the suggested Captopres-Darnitsa medication. She acknowledged that she didn’t check this medication with a doctor nor checked the label before using it. 

The AIU accepts that the violation was not intentional and that she established how the substance entered her system. Considering the circumstances in this case the AIU holds that there are grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the AIU decides on 3 August 202) to impose a 20 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 16 january 2020.

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Nelly Jepkosgei

1 Mar 2021

In March 2020 a Doping Control Officer (DCO) of World Athletics reported that the Kenyan Athlete Nelly Jepkosgei was not present at her home address on 18 March 2020 during the designated 60-minute time slot. The DCO was advised by the Athlete's husband that the Athlete was informed that her sister was involved an accident and that the Athlete had to leave her home address in an emergency before the DCO's arrival.

In April 2020 in her submission the Athlete confirmed with corroborating evidence that her sister had been involved in a serious car accident, admitted to the Kapsabet County Referral Hospital and that the Athlete attended that hospital at the time of her 60-minute time slot.

However investigations thereafter conducted by the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) revealed the Kapsabet Police Station had no record of a car accident related to the Athlete's sister. Also the Kapsabet Country Referral Hospital had no hospital record of the Athlete's sister and her hospital admission on 18 March 2020. Further the Hospital confirmed that the Discharge Summary was a forged document.

Consequently in February 2021 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics reported an anti-doping rule violation for Tampering against the Athlete. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 1 March 2021 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 1 February 2021.

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