In December 2019 the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Finnish rider Jaana Kivimaki after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use. With medical evidence she demonstrated that for her medical condition she used daily prescribed Furosemide since November 2018 while there is no alternative medication available as treatment.

The Athlete previously had not received anti-doping education and was unaware that she had to apply for a TUE. Not only did she mention her medication on the Doping Control Form she also told the Doping Control Officer that she had used prescribed Furosemide.

Hereafter the Athlete's application for a TUE for the use of Furosemide was granted by the ITA TUE Committee in February 2020. The approval of a retroactive TUE was rejected.

FEI accepted the Athlete's explanation, concluded that the violation was not intentional and that she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence. It considered that the Athlete had admitted the violation and that a TUE was approved. Further she had mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form and had not received any anti-doping education.

The parties in this case reached an agreement and requested the FEI Tribunal to issue a Decision incorporating the terms of this agreement. The Athlete accepted the sanction and agreed to fulfil the Education Requirement within 1 year.

Therefore the FEI Tribunal decides on 7 February 2020 in accordance with the mutual consent of the Parties to impose a fine and a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In June 2012 the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazillian amateur rider Fabricio Caldas Albuquergue after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Isometheptene. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the FEI Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted the violation and explained with evidence that he had used prescribed medication Neosaldina without a TUE as treatment for his headaches and nausea. The Athlete had mentioned the use of this over-the-counter medication on the Doping Control Form and previously had not received anti-doping education.

FEI accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the positive test was the result of the Athlete's use of the prescribed medication.

The Tribunal considered that the Athlete had mentioned the use of this medication on the Doping Control Form and had demonstrated how the prohibited substance had entered his system. Further the Tribunal considers that the Athlete competed as an amateur and that the Isometheptene has a low performance enhancing potential.

Also the Tribunal finds that the Athlete had acted with some degree of negligence since he failed to failed to research his medication before using nor informed his doctor that he was an international level athlete subject to anti-doping testing.

Therefore the FEI Tribunal decides on 23 July 2012 to impose a fine and a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

In January 2019 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Henry Kosgei for his evasion and refusal to submit to sample collection. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a submission in his defence.

In this case there were delays in the proceedings attributed to the Athlete because he acted evasive, his council was forced to resign and he repeatedly failed to attend the hearing of the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal. The case was settled by the Tribunal based on written submissions of the parties.

The Kenya Doping Control Officers (DCOs) testified that on 16 December 2018 during a marathon the Athlete refused to provide a sample after notification en hereafter left the venue.

In his submission the Athlete denied the charges and alleged that after notification by the DCO he had permission to change his clothes and that immediately hereafter he was arrested by the police and kept in custody for several hours.

Based on the evidence the Tribunal established that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation while he also acknowleded in his submission that he indeed was notified and had left the venue without providing a sample. The Tribunal did not accept his explanation that he been in police custody since he failed to produce any evidence in this matter.

Therefore the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 19 November 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

In November 2019 the International Tennis Federation has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French wheelchair tennisplayer Adeline Bervoux after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Acetazolamide. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the ITF Independent Tribunal.

In this case the ITF accepted that the violation was not intentional. Further it regarded that the parathlete is not in good health and used prescribed Diamox (Acetazolamide) and several other medications without a TUE.

The ITF deemed that if a retrospective TUE is granted the charges against the parathlete would be withdrawn. Nevertheless despite efforts of the ITF to assist the parathlete no retroactive TUE application was filed. Also after an postponement of the proceedings until 31 december 2020 the ITF established that the parathete for over a year had failed to apply for a retrospective TUE.

The Tribunal considers that the parathlete had confirmed that she used the medication Diamox and mentioned it on the Doping Control Form. The Tribunal also considers that the violation is not intentional and that the parathlete is entirely ignorant of any anti-doping requirements.

In reaching its final conclusion the Tribunal regrets that it has been left without a choice due to the parathlete's failure to engage with the process of applying for a retrospective TUE despite having every possible opportunity and assistance to do so.

Therefore the ITF Independent Tribunal decides on 15 January 2021 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the parathlete starting back dated on 20 November 2020.

CAS 2020/A/6747 Mehdi Sohrabi v. Union Cycliste Internationale

Related case:

UCI-ADT 2019 UCI vs Mehdi Sohrabi
Januari 17, 2020

On 17 January 2020 the UCI Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Iranian cyclist Mehdi Sohrabi due to the abnormal values in his Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).

In First Instance the UCI Anti-Doping Panel deemed that the Athlete failed to produce any evidence that contradicted the findings of the Expert Panel and it was comfortably satisfied that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation in the form of a prohibited substance or prohibited method that had been used.

Hereafter in February 2020 the Athlete appealed the UCI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Decision of 17 Januari 2020 and to establish and declare that he had not committed any anti-doping rule violation.

The Athlete disputed the reliability of the ABP and argued that the UCI ADT had ignored his explanations and arguments. He believed that his blood sample in question did not belong to him due there were many irregularities during the blood collection that resulted in departures of the ISTI.

The UCI contended that Athlete's ABP showed abnormalities and that many of his contentions and allegations should be dismissed. Not only failed the Athlete to establish that the violation was not intentional nor did he demonstrate that the alleged departures of the ISTI could have caused the anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that CAS has no jurisdiction to address the Athlete's request for damage compensation and that his submissions not to lift the Provisional Suspension are not relevant.

The Arbitrator rejected the Athlete's defence that his blood sample in question did not belong to him. He also could not demonstrate on a balance of probability that a departure occurred and that such departure could have caused the anti-doping rule violation. Neither did he explain other sources convincingly for the abnormal blood values.

The Arbitrator upholds the findings of the UCI Expert Panel and he concludes that he is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete committed and anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 October 2020 that:

1.) The Court of Arbitration for Sports has no jurisdiction to rule on the appeal filed by Mr Mehni Sohrabi on 3 February 2020 in respect to paragraph 4 of the request of relief in the Statement of Appeal about the damage compensation.
2.) The appeal filed by Mr Mehni Sohrabi on 3 February 2020 against the decision rendered by the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal on 17 January 2020 is dismissed.
3.) The decision rendered by the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal on 17 January 2020 is confirmed.
4.) The Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr Mehni Sohrabi, which is retained by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
5.) Mr Mehni Sohrabi shall pay to the Union Cycliste Internationale 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 motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

In September 2019 the Royal Dutch Cycling Federation (KNWU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Salbutamol in a concentration above the WADA threshold (1900 ng/ml). After notification the Person filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the ISR KNWU Disciplinary Committee. 

The Person denied the intentional use of the substance, explained that he suffered from Asthma and Bronchitus and that he used regularly the medication Ventolin (Salbutamol) as treatment. He was surprised about the high concentration in his sample and testified that he had used 400 ng/ml before the competition and again 400 ng/ml immediately after the competition, prior to the sample collection. He was aware that the threshold of therapeutic use per 24 hours for Ventolin is 1600 ng/ml and 800 ng/ml per 12 hours.

Supported by an expert witness the Person asserted that the tropical weather conditions (31 °C) at the relevant time and dehydration had resulted in an accumulation in his system of the substance due to he had used in the week before the competition the maximum daily dose of 1600 ng/ml Ventolin. Further the Athlete claimed that there were similarities between his case and the Chris Froom case and that its outcome should lead to his acquittal or alternatively in a reduced sanction of less than 2 years. 

The Doping Authority Netherlands (Dopingautoriteit) initially accepted that the violation was not intentional after the Person’s first statement. Yet hereafter the Person’s expert witness reported that the Person had used 800 ng/ml before the competition and 800 ng/ml immediately after the competition (=1600 ng/ml). The Dopingautoriteit requested for an explanation and the Person and its expert witness filed an altered report stating that on the day of the competition the Person had used 400 ng/ml at 07:45 hours, 400 ng/ml at 12:00 hours and again 400 ng/ml at 18:00 hours (=1200 ng/ml). 

The Dopingautoriteit considered this new explanation from the Athlete and its expert witness and concluded that the Person through is use of 1200 ng/ml Ventolin within 10 hours had crossed the threshold of 800 ng/ml per 12 hours. In addition the Person previously had confirmed that he was aware of the threshold limits for therapeutic use of his medication. Accordingly the Dopingautoriteit deemed that the violation was intentional and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction. 

The Disciplinary Committee established that in the WADA Technical Document TD2019DL the relevant threshold limits for Salbutamol were raised from 1200 ng/ml to1400 ng/ml. Nevertheless it establishes that in the Person’s sample, above the WADA threshold, a concentration of 1900 ng/ml Salbutamol was found with only signs of a light degree of dehydration. The Committee rejected  the scientific foundations in the altered expert report and finds and that there are insufficient grounds to consider the Chris Froom case in these proceedings. 

Furthermore the Committee holds that the Person had confirmed that he had used 1200 ng/ml within 10 hours. He also refrained from a controlled pharmacokinetic study in order to demonstrate that the found concentration in his sample was the result of his therapeutic use of Salbutamol, the tropical weather conditions and dehydration. Consequently the Committee concludes that the Person has committed an anti-doping rule violation without grounds for a reduced sanction. 

Therefore the ISR KNWU Disciplinary Committee decides on 11 January 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility starting on the date of the decision. 

Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the Person.

Related cases:

• NADO Flanders 2020 Disciplinary Commission 2020001 T (1)
  September 22, 2020
• NADO Flanders 2020 Disciplinary Commission 2020001 T (2) November 17, 2020

On 17 November 2020 the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a fine and a reduced 2 year period of ineligibility on the Dutch Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide. 

Hereafter in November 2020 the Athlete appealed the Decision of 17 November with the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Council.

The Athlete objected against the imposition of a 2 year period of ineligibility, refrained definitely the anlysis of the B sample and requested for the commencement of the sanction on the date of the sample collection.

The Disciplinairy Council accepted the Athlete's Appeal and considers that there are grounds to grant a further reduced sanction since the violations was not intentional and the young Athlete (18) bears No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Council decides on 8 January 2021 to set aside the Decision of 17 November 2020 and to impose a further reduced 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection.

Fees and expenses for this Council shall be borne partially by the Athlete.

CAS 2018/A/5990 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) & Ruann Visser

In April 2018 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Ruann Visser after his A and B samples, collected in February 2018, tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

Howevere in September 2018 SAIDS informed the Athlete that it withdrew the charges against the Athlete. Accordingly the Independent Doping Hearing Panel (IDHP) of SAIDS decided on 5 October 2018 to acquit the Athlete. 

In December 2018 the Lausanne Lab reported after a DNA cross-check analysis that the sample in question provided in February 2018 and the Athlete's sample provided in November 2018 came from the same male individual.

Hereafter in November 2018 the World Anti-Doping Agency appealed the IDHP Decision of 5 October 2018 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the IDHP Decision of 5 October 2018 and to impose a 4 year periode of ineligibility on the Athlete. 

In this case there were delays in the CAS proceeding attributed to the Athlete due the number of extensions he requested. Further he filed an exceptionally large number of letters with CAS, presented a number of procedural requests and arguments and appointed various witnesses and experts. 

The Sole Arbitrator dealed with some issues of preliminary nature and ruled that SAIDS was properly named as a Respondent in this arbitration by WADA and therefore cannot be removed from the proceedings. Under the Rules WADA was allowed sample collection for purposed of DNA profiling as evidence in this case. Also due to the Athlete’s exceptional procedural conduct WADA was granted to amend its requested prayers for relief. 

WADA contended that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete’s samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The test results were valid and WADA rejected the Athlete’s allegations that there had been several departures of the ISTI. Also the conducted DNA analysis was valid and it confirmed that the samples collected in February 2018 originated from the Athlete. 

The Athlete asserted that more than 30 alleged departures occurred with respect to the different aspects of the doping control procedure:

• The Doping Control Station was not secure and doping control items were left unattended;
• The used Berlinger kits in question can be opened and re-closed;
• The Athlete’s signatures on the Doping Control Form are forged;
• The samples were not delivered immediately to SAIDS after the sample collection;
• Dispartity in the urine volumes;
• Disparity in the Stanozolol Concentrations;
• The DNA Cross-check Analysis.

After addressing the raised issues and evaluating the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, the the departures from the applicable rules had occurred. Neither was there a departure that caused a fundamental breach invalidating the entire sample or that it could have reasonably caused a positive test. 

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete has not met his burden of proof in establishing that the violation was not intentional. Finally the Arbitrator considers that no reason for fairness is engaged and that the Athlete had contributed to the delay of the CAS Proceedings. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 19 February 2020 that: 

1.) The appeal filed on 6 November 2018 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport and Mr Ruann Visser is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered on 5 October 2018 by the Independent Doping Hearing Panel established under Article 8 of the SAIDS ADR is set aside.

3.) Mr Ruann Visser is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation and sanctioned with a four-year ( 4) period of ineligibility, starting from the date of this Award, with credit given for the provisional suspension already served by the Athlete (i.e. from 16 April 2018 to 27 September 2018).

4.) All competitive results of Mr Ruann Visser between 23 February 2018 and 16 April 2018 and from 10 April 2019 until the entry into force of this Award (inclusive of the dates specified) are disqualified, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes).

5.) The costs of the arbitration to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office shall be borne by SAIDS and Mr Ruann Visser in equal shares.

6.) SAIDS and Mr Ruann Visser are ordered to pay CHF 5,000.00 (five thousand Swiss Francs) each to the World Anti-Doping Agency as a contribution towards its legal fees and expenses. SAIDS and Mr Ruann Visser shall bear their own legal fees and expenses.

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

In January 2020 the Athletics Integriyt Unit (AIU) for World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Alfred Kipketer for his Whereabouts Filing Failures resulting in 4 Missed Tests within a 12 month period.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. At first the Athlete requested for a hearing but after several adjourments in the proceedings finally in December 2020 the Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right to be heard and accepted the sanction proposed by the AIU.

Therefore AIU decides on 23 December 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 26 November 2019.

iNADO Update (2020) 01 (10 January)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

People

• A resilient Anti-Doping Community

iNADO Community

• The Doping Authority Netherlands and Dutch Martial Arts Authority enter into a Doping Control Agreement
• WADA’s Standing Committees: Number of NADO Representatives increased
• WADA Executive Comittee adds the first two additional independent Members
• Covid-19 Vaccines
• European Commission Study on Anabolic Steroids in EU Sport seeks Interviews with NADOs

iNADO Bulletin Board

• Registration of iNADO e.V. in Germany
• PWC offer for iNADO Members
• WADA Vacancy in Lausanne - NADO Relations Manager

Athletes Voice 

• The athlete, anti-doping and 2021

Science

• Episode 08: The Mission Creep Dilemma of WADA

Practical Developments in Anti-Doping

• Raising Awareness towards IT-Security: the IT-Security Principles for ADOs developed by iNADO Working Group

Feature of the Month by Anti-Doping Sweden

New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center