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

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

These investigation reports revealed that a prohibited substance has been established in the sample of the Athlete Vasiliy Kharlamov. This sample was provided by the Athlete in 2012 and thereupon deliberately reported as negative by the Moscow laboratory.

As a result in October 2022 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 substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol) in 2012. After notification the Athlete failed to respond to the AIU communications.

Without the Athlete's response the AIU deems that he has waived his right to a hearing, to have accepted the asserted anti-doping rule 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 25 May 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision. All the Athlete's results from 12 October 2012 until the date of this decision are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, points, prize money and prizes.

Related cases:

• IOC 2016 IOC vs Vera Ganeeva
  January 27, 2017
• CAS 2018_O_5704 IAAF vs RusAF & Vera Ganeeva
  January 31, 2019
  
  

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 multiple prohibited substances has been established in the sample of the Athlete Vera Ganeyeva. This sample was provided by the Athlete in 2012 and thereupon deliberately reported as negative by the Moscow laboratory.

As a result in June 2022 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 Boldenone, Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol), Desoxymethyltestosterone and Oxandrolone in 2012.

After notification the Athlete submitted that she denied the violation and that she was already sanctioned twice. Thereupon she 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.

Further the AIU determines that the Athlete previously was sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 2 years from 29 March 2017 until 28 March 2019 and again for 2 years from 2 July 2018 to 1 July 2020. In the present case the AIU shall count the present anti-doping rule violation as single first violation together with the 2012 first violations.

Because the Athlete already had received a total 4 year sanction for the first violations the AIU deems that her present 2012 violation can't be subject to a more severe sanction. As a result no additional period of ineligibility can be imposed on the Athlete for the present violation. However the AIU rules that there are indeed grounds for the disqualificaton of the Athlete's results from 2012 until 2016.

Therefore the AIU decides on 25 May 2023 that the Athlete has committed an additional anti-doping rule violation in 2012. All her results from 4 July 2012 until 2 July 2016 are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, points, prize money and prizes.

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

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

These investigation reports revealed that a prohibited substance has been established in the sample of the Athlete Roman Semakin. This sample was provided by the Athlete in 2012 and thereupon deliberately reported as negative by the Moscow laboratory.

As a result in June 2022 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 substance Enobosarm (Ostarine) in 2012. After notification the Athlete failed to respond to the AIU communications.

Without the Athlete's response the AIU deems that he has waived his right to a hearing, to have accepted the asserted anti-doping rule 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.

Furthermore the AIU determines that the Athlete previously was sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 2 years from 4 March 2014 to 3 March 2016. In the present case the AIU shall count the reported 2012 anti-doping rule violation as single first violation together with the 2014 first violation.

Therefore the AIU decides on 25 May 2023 to impose an additional 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision. All the Athlete's results from 4 July 2012 until 4 March 2014 are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, points, prize money and prizes.

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

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

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

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

After notification the Athlete replied once and failed to address the substantive matters. Thereupon he failed to respond to the AIU communications.

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

Furthermore the AIU determines that the Athlete previously was sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 2 years from 29 March 2017 until 28 March 2019. In the present case the AIU shall count the reported 2012 anti-doping rule violations as single first violation together with the 2017 first violation.

Therefore the AIU decides on 25 May 2023 to impose an additional 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision. All the Athlete's results from 4 July 2012 until 29 March 2017 are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, points, prize money and prizes.

Related cases:

• UKAD 2014 IHUK vs Nicky Watt
  November 6, 2014
• UKAD 2014 Nicky Watt vs UKAD - Appeal
  March 10, 2015

On 6 November 2014 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the ice hocky player Nicky Watt for two anti-doping rule violations: refusal to submit to sample collection and the presence of the prohibited substance Stanazolol. Thereupon the Appealed Decision was confirmed on 10 March 2015 by the National Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal.

Hereafter in July 2022 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) reported that the Athlete had breached the imposed period of ineligibility. UKAD's investigations had established that the Athlete as a personal trainer had provided to Athletes general fitness training and off-ice sport specific ice hockey training.

Following notification the Athlete did not accept the sanction proposed by UKAD and the case was referred to the National Anti-Doping Panel.

UKAD contended, with corroborating evidence, that the Athlete multiple times had breached ineligibility between June 2014 and July 2020. UKAD finds that the provision of any fitness training, regardless of whether that training is specific or generic is sufficient to amount to a violation of the prohibition on participation provided the training is in respect of an Athlete.

The Athlete denied that he had violated ineligibility or otherwise that such violation was inadvertent. He argued that he genuinely believed that he was complying with the terms of his suspension and the ADR.

He admitted that at the material time he had provided general personal fitness training to Athletes as part of his personal training business. He denied that any training he provided was more than general fitness training or was ice hockey or sports specific.

In view of the evidence the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the provision of personal fitness and other training both amounted to assisting an Athlete. The Athlete provided specific speed and strenght training to the ice hockey players.

The Panel considers that the Athlete was not prohibited from carrying out his fitness business to non-athletes and that he did not know nor intended to breach the violation. Nevertheless the Panel determines that the Athlete was reckless and that this amounted to a repeated course of conduct.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 19 April 2023 to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 17 June 2022 until 17 December 2023.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related case:

UKAD 2022 UKAD vs Rowland Kaye
January 4, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related case:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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