CAS 2017_A_5142 FIFA vs Fédération Algérienne de Football & Walid Abdelli

6 Oct 2017

CAS 2017/A/5142 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Fédération Algérienne de Football (FAF) & Walid Abdelli Football Doping (tampering with doping control) Anti-doping rule violation by dilution of an anti-doping test-related urine sample It is straightforward and obvious that doping control procedures are reliant on the integrity of bodily samples provided by one athlete being tested. It is equally straightforward and obvious that (a) a deliberate introduction of any foreign substance to a urine sample is likely to undermine the effectiveness of doping control tests conducted on a sample and that (b) a deliberate introduction of any foreign substance is therefore prohibited in order to protect the integrity and effectiveness of a doping control process. In such context, an athlete who deliberately diluted his urine sample with water must have known that by doing so, he was committing an anti-doping violation. ___________________________________________________ On 6 February 2017 the Disciplinary Commission of the Algerian Football Federation (FAF) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the football player Walid Abdelli for tampering his sample. Here the Cologne Lab reported that the Athlete’s sample was diluted with water while the Athlete denied any involvement in the dilution of his sample. Hereafter in May 2017 FIFA appealed the Decision of the FAF Disciplinary Commission with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). FIFA requested the Panel to set aside the FAF Decision of 6 February 2017 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. FIFA contended that the Athlete clearly committed the anti-doping rule violation and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction. The FAF accepted that there had been a violation of the Rules and it could not definitively explain how the Athlete’s sample had come to be diluted with water. However the FAF contested the suggestion that the violation was intentional as the Athlete had consistently denied manipulating the sample. The Athlete did not file any written submissions in reponse to FIFA’s appeal. The Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete’s sample was diluted with water and that there is no evidence that anyone other than the Athlete was responsible for that dilution. The Panel does not accept that a professional football sportsperson in the position of the Athlete could have held an honest belief that deliberately diluting a tiny quantity of urine with a large quantity of water during an anti-doping test would not entail a violation of anti-doping rules. Whatever the Athlete’s motivation for diluting the Sample, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete must have known that by doing so he was committing an anti-doping violation. The Panel is also concerned that the Doping Control Officer who oversaw the collection of the Athlete’s sample did not comply with the Rules to “ensure an unobstructed view of the Sample leaving the Athlete’s body”. While the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the failure to ensure an unobstructed view of the sample leaving the Athlete’s body does not in any way call into question the finding that the Athlete committed an anti-doping violation, the Panel is concerned that the Athlete was apparently able to dilute a urine sample in the presence of the Doping Control Officer without the doping control officer realising this had occurred. The Panel holds that the procedures set out in the Rules are intended (amongst other things) to minimise the scope for interference and tampering during the sample collection process. In the Panel’s view, it is clear that proper adherence to the procedures set out in the Rules have led to the immediate detection of the Athlete’s anti-doping violation before he had left the doping control room, or would have deterred the Athlete from embarking on that course in the first place. Therefore The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 October 2017 that: 1.) The appeal filed by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association on 17 May 2017 is upheld. 2.) The decision of the Commission de Discipline Ligue de Football Professionnel dated 19 April 2017 that Mr Walid Abdelli is subject to a two-year period of ineligibility (with one year suspended) is set aside. 3.) Mr Walid Abdelli is sanctioned with a four year-period of ineligibility starting from 30 January 2017. 4.) (…). 5.) (…). 6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2016_A_4658 FIVB vs CBV & Maria Elisa Mendes Ticon Antonelli - Settlement

8 Feb 2017

CAS 2016/A/4658 Fédération Internationale de Volleyball (FIVB) v. Confederação Brasileira de Voleibol (CBV) & Maria Elisa Mendes Ticon Antonelli, consent award Beach volleyball Doping (hydrochlorothiazide (HCT)) Consent award Upon request by the parties, the arbitration tribunal ratifies and incorporates the terms of the settlement agreement into a consent award. It is the task of the arbitration tribunal to verify the bona fide nature of the settlement agreement, to ensure that the will of the parties has not been manipulated by them to commit fraud and to confirm that the terms of the settlement agreement are not contrary to public policy principles or mandatory rules of the law applicable to the dispute. ___________________________________________________ On 24 May 2016 the Brazilian High Sports Court for Football (STJD) decided to impose a suspension of 45 days on the Athlete Maria Elisa Mendes Ticon Antonelli after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide as result of contamination in a pharmacy of the Athlete’s prescribed supplement . Hereafter in August 2016 International Volleyball Federation (FIVB) appealed the STJD decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). After deliberations between the Parties a settlement was reached and the Parties signed copies of the settlement agreement. The Parties submitted signed copies to CAS and requested the Panel to ratify the Settlement Agreement into a Consent Award. The Parties agree on the following on 5 December 2016: 1.) Ms Antonelli has committed an anti-doping rule violation within the meaning of Art. 2.1 of the FIVB Medical and Anti-Doping Regulations (“FIVB MADR”), which have been drafted in accordance with the WADC. 2.) In her Answer before the CAS, Ms Antonelli has submitted sufficient evidence for the FIVB to be satisfied that the adverse analytical finding was caused by contamination, which took place in the compounding pharmacy that produced the supplement taken by Ms Antonelli as prescribed by her doctor. 3.) Taking into account Ms Antonelli’s degree of fault, a ninety (90) day period of ineligibility is imposed on her pursuant to Article 10.5.1.2 of the FIVB MADR. 4.) Ms Antonelli shall be credited with a served voluntary provisional suspension starting on 14 April 2016 until 27 April 2016, and a served mandatory suspension ordered by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Voleibol from 27 April 2016 until 24 May 2016, i.e. a total of forty (40) days. 5.) Ms Antonelli shall serve the remaining fifty (50) day period of eligibility from the date of this Settlement Agreement, 5 December 2016 until 24 January 2017. 6.) The FIVB shall be entitled to communicate the present settlement to the WADA and CAS as well as to the interested National Federation(s) and Confederation(s), and to publish the anti-doping rule violation and the resulting sanction in accordance with the FIVB MADR. 7.) The CAS shall issue a consent award based on this Settlement Agreement. The costs of the arbitration, if any, will be born equally by the parties. Each party shall bear its own legal fees and expenses. After reviewing the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Panel finds no grounds to object or to disapprove the terms of the Settlement Agreement and is satisfied that the Settlement Agreement constitutes a bona fide settlement of the present dispute. It therefore, in accordance with the Parties’ request, ratifies the Settlement Agreement and incorporates it into a Consent Award. The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 8 February that: 1.) The Settlement Agreement between the Fédération Internationale de Volleyball, the Confederação Brasileira de Voleibol and Ms Maria Elisa Mendes Ticon Antonelli dated 5 December 2016 is hereby acknowledged and its terms are incorporated into this arbitral Award. 2.) The arbitration procedure with reference CAS 2016/A/4658 is hereby terminated. (…) 5.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2011_A_2357 Raphael Menezes Dos Santos vs ITU

30 Sep 2011

CAS 2011/A/2357 Raphael Menezes Dos Santos v. International Triathlon Union (ITU) Triathlon Doping (clenbuterol) Right to a fair hearing Effects of a de novo trial on procedural defects Proof of how the prohibited substance entered the athlete’s body 1. An athlete cannot be expected to know that he or she has the right to an oral hearing. If the regulations of the federation give to the athlete the right to such oral hearing but that the federation has developed a practice of having “documentary” hearings and wants to continue with such practice, it must first inform the athlete of his or her right to an oral hearing and secondly, advise the athlete of the option of having the case decided on the papers instead of holding an oral hearing. Likewise, the practice of having the president of the first-instance panel acting as legal counsel in the matter on appeal, as well as calling a member of the first-instance panel as an “expert witness” in the appeal proceedings does not give the impression that the first-instance decision makers were impartial, when they turn around and act for the entity alleging the anti-doping rule violation on appeal and ultimately “defend” their own decision. 2. The CAS appellate arbitration procedure under Article R57 of the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration entails a trial de novo which can cure procedural defects at first instance. 3. An athlete does not establish on a balance of probability that the source of the Clenbuterol was meat contamination when submitting that his primary diet prior to the testing was chicken and pasta with meat sauce. Evidence of all experts is that to date, there have been no reports of cases of Clenbuterol contamination from ingesting chicken and that the athlete would have had to have eaten a quantity of beef, which the athlete does not even contend he did on that day, or any day leading up to the competition, abnormally large in order to have the level of Clenbuterol in his system that he did. _________________________________________________ On 1 February 2010 the International Triathlon Union (ITU) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Brazilian triathlon Athlete Raphael Menezes Dos Santos after his A and B Samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. Hereafter the Athlete appealed the ITU Decision with the Court of Aribitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested to annul the ITU Decision and that no period of ineligibility be imposed on him. The Athlete asserted that his right for a fair trial was breached since the ITU in their communications failed to advice the Athlete about his option for an oral hearing. Further he alleged that the doping control procedure departed from the IST and that the positive test was the result of his ingestion of contaminated meat (i.e. chicken) in Mexico prior to the testing. The Panel agrees that the ITU first must inform the Athlete of his or her right to an oral hearing and secondly advise the athlete of the option of having the case decided on the papers. In this matter the Panel determines that a CAS trial de novo can cure such procedural defects at first instance. The Panel finds that the Athlete’s allegations about departures of the IST are not supported by any documentary evidence while the Athlete’s signature on the Doping Control Form indicate that the IST was followed. Even if there was a departure, this did not cause or contribute to the positive test. The Panel acknowledges there is a possibility of meat contamination in Mexico. Indeed even the witnesses of the ITU agree that a person may eat meat, particularly in Mexico, that has been contaminated with Clenbuterol and subsequently suffer side effects of Clenbuterol intoxication. However the evidence of all experts is that to date, there have been no reports of cases of Clenbuterol contamination from ingesting chicken. The Panel deems that the Athlete’s argument that the chicken was contaminated with Clenbuterol is simply not supported by the evidence. Accordingly the Panel concludes that the Athlete has not established on a balance of probability that the source of the Clenbuterol was meat contamination. Therefore The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 September 2011: 1.) The appeal of Raphael Menezes dos Santos against the decision of the ITU Doping Hearing Panel convened under the ITU regulations dated 1 February 2011 is dismissed. 2.) Pursuant to Art. 10.2 of the ITU Rules, the two year period of ineligibility of Raphael Menezes dos Santos, running from 8 October 2010 is confirmed. (…) 5.) All further and other requests for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2011_A_2337 Marius Ilas vs World Karate Organization

23 Mar 2012

CAS 2011/A/2337 Marius Ilas v. World Karate Organization (WKO) Karate Doping (human chorionic gonadotropin - hCG) Stay of execution of a disciplinary decision Mission of the CAS Panel under Article R57 of the CAS Code Presence of hCG of endogenous origin in the athlete’s sample 1. A WADA’s statement that the athlete’s case “might not be a case of doping” can be a sufficient reason to stay the execution of a contested decision related to the suspension of an athlete. 2. The mission of a CAS panel under Article R57 CAS Code is to make an independent determination as to whether the parties’ contentions are inherently correct rather than only to assess the correctness of the appealed decision. 3. WADA’s criterion for an Adverse Analytical Finding of hCG in urine of a male athlete stands at densities greater than 5mlU/ml. The athlete whose sample is greater than the aforementioned limit has to demonstrate that the high density of hCG in the sample was due to a physiological or pathological condition and is therefore of endogenous origin. The unchallenged opinions of experts in the field of hCG that such is the case, confirmed by a WADA accredited laboratory, constitute sufficient evidence in this respect. _________________________________________________ On 27 December 2010 the World Karate Organization (WKO) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Romanian karate Athlete Marius Ilas after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). Hereafter in January 2011 the Athlete appealed the WKO decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). In this case the WKO was informed in January 2011 by the Romanian Karate Federation that the Athlete had shown high levels of hCC on the occasion of a doping control in 2005 as indication of the beginning of the development of cancer in the testicles and not as indication of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation. Recommended by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) the WKO ordered an international-recognized expert, Prof. Stenman, to conduct further hCG tests on the Athlete to establish that this might not be a doping case. Because of these tests CAS ordered on 31 March 2011 a stay of the execution of the WKO Decision. After analysis of the Athlete’s blood and urine samples the expert reported in September 2011 that they did not contain hCG, only endogenous hCG. Thus no evidence for illicit use of hCG injections and WADA recommended to acquit the Athlete of any doping charges. In November 2011 WKO approved the continuation of the suspension of the ban imposed on the Athlete. The WKO questioned the findings of the expert and contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the hCG detected in the sample was of endogenous origin while the Athlete had the burden of proof to demonstrate that the hCG was of endogenous origin. The Athlete denied the use of any prohibited substance and asserted that the hCG detected in the A Sample is of endogenous origin. He argued that in a similar situation in 2005 the Danish Anti-Doping Agency had accepted that the positive test was not the result of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation. Further he maintained that he previously requested the WKO to investigate the origin of the detected hCG and that the filed evidence in this case confirmed the endogenous origin of the hCG in his A Sample. The Panel finds that the concentration of hCG in the Athlete’s Sample was of endogenous origin. This conclusion is in particular based on the expert opinion of Prof. Stenman, an expert on the field of hCG, who was requested, upon WADA’s suggestion, to examine the Athlete’s case. Accordingly the Panel finds that the concentration of hCG in the Sample was due to a physiological or pathological condition and therefore of endogenous origin. Hence, the Panel finds that the Athlete did not violate Article 2.1 of the WKO Anti-Doping Code 2009. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 23 March 2012 that: 1.) The appeal filed on 14 January 2011 by Mr. Marius Ilas against the decisions issued on 27 December 2010 by the Respondent is upheld. 2.) The decision issued on 27 December 2010 by the Respondent is set aside. 3.) (…). 4.) (…). 5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IAAF 2018 IAAF vs María Guadalupe González Romero

9 May 2019

In November 2018 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Mexican Athlete María Guadalupe González Romero after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Trenbolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. The Athlete stated that she was diagnosed with ferropenic anaemia and was advised by her doctor to increase her consumption of green vegetables and meat. At the time of the sample collection she had ordered beef liver, beefsteak, tacos, picanha in two Mexican restarants to increase the ingestion of meat to overcome the anaemia. She clamed that in Mexico the administration of Trenbolone to cattle is permitted and that Mexican authorities allow certain limits of Trenbolone residues in meat, but there are not many studies involving Trenbolone. The IAAF contends that the risk of meat contaminated with Clenbuterol in countries such as Mexico is widely acknowledged and, in circumstances where an athlete is able to demonstrate that they have been in a country where Clenbuterol meat contamination is demonstrably high, and that they ingested quantities of meat in that country, WADA accepts that disciplinary proceedings against athletes with low levels of urinary concentrations of Clenbuterol would have little to no prospect of success. However, the same cannot be said for matters involving Trenbolone, and thus the Athlete had the burden of providing actual evidence that it is more likely than not that the ingested meat was contaminated with Trenbolone. The IAAF argued that the Athlete’s evidence regarding Trenbolone used legitimately in meat production in Mexico is not sufficient on the balance of probability. Also IAAF investigations showed that some documents in support of the Athlete’s explanations had been forged and that her explanations were moulded around those forged documents (i.e. consultations in hospitals and visits to restaurants). The Sole Arbitrator holds that the explanation together with the evidence produced by the Athlete is not convincing and not reliable. The Athlete provided contradicting versions of events during the proceedings, which are themselves contradicted by the evidence provided, some of which was fabricated. This leads the Sole Arbitrator to reject the Athlete’s explanation for lack of credibility. Consequently the Athlete failed to establish that her violation was not intentional. Therefore the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 9 May 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 November 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IAAF 2018 IAAF vs Kseniya Savina

6 May 2019

Related case: IAAF 2018 IAAF vs Aleksey Savin May 6, 2019 In June 2018 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete Kseniya Savina after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO). After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence. The Athlete stated that her husband and coach, Aleksei Savin had been prescribed EPO to treat chronic renal failure and their housekeeper must have mixed up his medication with hers (taken for back pain) whilst the housekeeper was laying the table for lunch at their apartment in Ifrane, Morocco. In support of her statement the Athlete provided the IAAF with a copy of the her Husband/Coach's medical records from the Clinic in Simferopol, Crimea establishing a diagnosis of renal failure for a patient, Alexei Mikhailovich Savin. At the request of the IAAF the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) investigated the authenticity of the filed medical records. Here the Clinic in question reported that the Clinic did not issue documents such as the one provided by the Athlete and there was no evidence of the prescribed medical treatment of the Husband/Coach in the Clinic. The Clinic confirmed to RUSADA that the medical records provided by the Athlete to the IAAF were forged. Consequently the IAAF reported in April 2019 the following Violations against the Athlete: 1.) First Anti-Doping Rule Violation(s): - Presence of a prohibited substance; - Use of a prohibited substance. 2.) Second Anti-Doping Rule Violation(s): - Tampering by providing fraudulent information to the IAAF after notification about the First Anti-Doping Rule Violation; - Complicity with her Husband/Coach in the commission of his Anti-Doping Rule violation of Tampering for having procured and submitted fraudulent information in the form of fabricated medical records in order to corroborate the Athlete’s explanation for the positive test for EPO. Hereafter the Athlete failed to respond to the IAAF communication. Without the Athlete’s response to the charges the IAAF’s Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) deems that the Athlete has admitted the First and Second Anti-Doping Rule violations, waived her right to be heard and accepted the imposed sanction, i.e. 4 years for the First violations and 8 years for the Second violations running sequentlially in accordance with the Rules. Therefore the IAAF decides on 6 May 2019 to impose a 12 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IAAF 2018 IAAF vs Aleksey Savin

6 May 2019

Related case: IAAF 2018 IAAF vs Kseniya Savina May 6, 2019 Mr Aleksei Savin is the Husband and Coach of the Russian Athlete Kseniya Savina. In June 2018 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete Kseniya Savina after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO). After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence. The Athlete stated that her Husband and Coach, Aleksei Savin had been prescribed EPO to treat chronic renal failure and their housekeeper must have mixed up his medication with hers (taken for back pain) whilst the housekeeper was laying the table for lunch at their apartment in Ifrane, Morocco. In support of her statement the Athlete provided the IAAF with a copy of her Husband/Coach's medical records from the Clinic in Simferopol, Crimea establishing a diagnosis of renal failure for a patient, Alexei Mikhailovich Savin. At the request of the IAAF the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) investigated the authenticity of the filed medical records. Here the Clinic in question reported that the Clinic did not issue documents such as the one provided by the Athlete and there was no evidence of the prescribed medical treatment of the Husband/Coach in the Clinic. The Clinic confirmed to RUSADA that the medical records provided by the Athlete to the IAAF were forged. Consequently the IAAF reported in April 2019 two anti-doping rule violations against the Coach: - Tampering by providing fraudulent information to the IAAF via the Athlete; - Complicity with the Athlete in her committing a Tampering violation under the ADR. Hereafter the Coach failed to respond to the IAAF communication. Without the Coach’s response to the charges the IAAF’s Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) deems that he has admitted the Anti-Doping Rule violations, waived his right to be heard and accepted the imposed sanction. Therefore the IAAF decides on 6 May 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Coach starting on the date of the decision.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IAAF 2018 IAAF vs Glory Onome Nathaniel

5 May 2019

In August 2018 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported anti-doping rule violation against the Nigerian Athlete Glory Onome Nathaniel after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal. The Athlete accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. The Athlete provided several possible explanations with evidence as to how the Stanozolol came into her system: - Through her own negligence; - The innocent contamination of her diet; - The contamination of her diet by a Coach; - The contamination of her diet (i.e. spiking) by another athlete. Here the Athlete asserted that the possible spiking was the most probable and only explantation. The Sole Arbitrator considers the evidence produced by the Athlete and concludes that it was insufficient to establish the spiking allegation. Further she failed to show the source of the Stanozolol in her samples to the required standard nor that the violation was not intentional. Therefore the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 5 May 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 August 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IAAF 2018 IAAF vs Reneilwe Aphane

2 May 2019

In February 2018 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the South African Athlete Reneilwe Aphane after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Clomiphene, GW1516 and Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol). After notification the Athlete gave a promp admission, waived his right to be heard, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the IAAF. The Athlete explained that he had purchased the product Muscle Primer from an unidentified individual in the gym in November 2017. The product was offered to the Athlete at a discount price because it had already been openened at the time of the Athlete’s purchase. The Athlete had checked the supplements he purchase for prohibited substances before using. After the notification the Athlete discovered that the manufacturer of Muscle Primer also manufactured, sold and distributed prohibited substances. Further he discovered that the unnamed individual in the gym had admitted mixing Clomiphene and Turnabol with the Muscle Primer prior to selling it to the Athlete because it had originally not been intended for the Athlete’s use. The IAAF Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission as ground for a reduced sanction and decides on 2 May 2019 to impose a 3 year and and 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 28 February 2019.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IAAF 2018 IAAF vs Asbel Kiprop

10 Apr 2019

In February 2018 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported anti-doping rule violations against the Kenyan Athlete Asbel Kiprop after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal. The Athlete denied the charges and provided various possible explanations for the positive test results: - The EPO was naturally produced due to altitude training in November 2017; - The medication used prior to the sample collection and mentioned on the Doping Control Form; - Irregularities occurred during the sample collection procedure; - He was victim of spiking or sample substitution; - There was a breach of the chain of custody; - The analytical prodedures of the samples were incorrect. The Panel considered the evidence in this case provided by the parties and concludes that: 1.) Analysis of the Athlete’s A and B samples showed the presence of EPO; 2.) The Athlete had no valid TUE that justifies the presence or use of EPO; 3.) The IAAF expert evidence shows that hypoxia of altitude and intense physical training can’t explain the presence of exogenous EPO in de samples; 4.) None of the medications mentioned by the Athlete on the Doping Control Form contains EPO and none of them could have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding; 5.) The Athlete failed to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that a departure from the ISL occurred and that this departure could reasonably have caused EPO to be present in the samples. 6.) The presence of EPO in the A Sample was confirmed by the analysis of the B sample. The Adverse Analytical Finding was also subject to review and second opinion in accordance with the Technical Document and the finding was confirmed; 7.) The Laboratory conducted the sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the ISL; 8.) The Athlete failed to show with evidence that a departure from the ISL occurred; 9.) Although there has been a departure from the ISTI in this case, this departure did not cause, and could not reasonably have caused the presence of EPO in the samples; 10.) The presence of EPO in the samples therefore remains as valid evidence in support of the charge against the Athlete for the presence and use of EPO. Consequently the Panel is comfortable satisfied that the Athlete has committed the anti-doping rule violations for presence and use of a prohibited substance and failed to produce any evidence that these violations were not intentional. Therefore the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 10 April 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 3 February 2018. ________________________________________________ In the included Annex the Panel Chairman determined in the proceedings about various applications filed by the Athlete. Here the Chairman determined that: - The IAAF Athletics Intergrity Unit (AIU) has jurisdiction to prosecute this case; - The admission of additional exhibits enclosed with the applications, and the extention of time for the filing of the applications have been agreed and acted on; - There are no grounds to strike the Doping Control Form from the record on the basis that it is “false and misleading”; - Reanalysis of the A and B samples is rejected since no departure of the ISL has been established; - There are insufficient grounds to conduct a DNA analysis on the Athlete’s A and B sample; - There is no sufficient purpose in producting the urine and blood test findings for samples collected from the Athlete between October 2017 and January 2018. Accordingly the Athlete’s applications were dismissed on 18 July 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf
Category
  • Legal
  • 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