In July 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf on World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Mexican Athlete Jose Eduardo Rodriguez after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Boldenone.

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

The Athlete assumed without corroborating evidence that the positive test likely had been caused by:

• an injection administered by a doctor in April 2024;
• medication used in Brazil in May 2024; 
• a pre-workout supplement purchased and used in Brazil in May 2024; 
• meat consumption in Brazil in May 2024.

The AIU deems that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. Because he had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form he received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 10 July 2024 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 1 July 2024.

In May 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf on World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Lucy Karimi after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

Following notification the Athlete initially failed to respond. Yet, in June 2024 she timely admitted the violation, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The AIU deems that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. Because she had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form she received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 9 July 2024 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 May 2024.

Related case:

SDRCC 2023 CCES vs Tarek Dahab
February 12, 2024

In April 2017 the cyclist Tarek Dahab (50) was struck by a vehicle which caused him serious injuries, including a traumatic brain injury. He underwent many surgical procedures on his back, neck and wrists.

The injuries significantly impacted his life. He suffered from several medical conditions including severe headaches, loss of muscular strength and sleep problems.

In August 2021, Dahab was prescribed Testosterone which greatly improved the sequalae of some of his injuries. As a Para-cylist in October 2023 he was admitted to Cycling Canada's National Athlete Pool.

In November 2023 he was tested whereas his 3rd TUE application was rejected at the same time. As a result in December 2023 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Para-cyclist.

Consequently the SDRCC Doping Tribunal decided on 12 February 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Para-cyclist, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 December 2023.

Hereafter Cycling Canada Cyclisme (CCC) appealed the SDRCC decision with the SDRCC Doping Appeal Tribunal. CCC requested the Appeal Tribunal to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction on the Para-cyclist.

CCC argued that mitigating factors have not been properly considered related to intent and the Para-cylist's admission of his use of the substance. CCC also asserted that neither a reduction of the sanction had been properly considered by the Sole Arbitrator in first instance.

In first instance the Para-cyclist made the following assertions:

• He admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance.
• He acted with no fault or negligence and with due diligence.
• He took every precaution to comply with the Rules and demonstrated transparancy. 
• He kept both Cycling Canada Cyclisme (CCC) and the Quebec Sport Cycling Federation (FQSC) informed about his prescribed use of Testosterone.
• He relied on the advice of the experts at CCC and FQSC.
• At no time he was told to stop using Testosterone so that he could compete at provincial, national or international events. 

CCES contended that the Para-cylist had admitted the violation and failed to demonstrate that the acted not intentional. There are no grounds for a reduced sanction because he knew or should have known the risk inherent in taking Testosterone without a valid TUE.

The Appeal Tribunal 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 Appeal Tribunal agrees that the Para-cyclist had been transparant about his use of Testosterone for therapeutic purposes and attempted to obtain a TUE. He is not a cheat, yet he manifestly disregarded the risk of using the substance without a valid TUE.

The Appeal Tribunal determines that the Para-cyclist knew, or ought to have known, since February 2023, that using Testosterone was prohibited when persuing activites under the Rules unless he had a TUE.

Further the Appeal Tribunal considers that in October 2023 the Para-cyclist had completed the anti-doping training course. Moreover in October 2023 he was duly warned by the CCES about his medication while his TUE application had not been granted.

Therefore the SDRCC Doping Appeal Tribunal decides on 19 June 2024 to dismiss CCC's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision 12 February 2024.

Related case:

SDRCC 2024 24-0019 CCC vs CCES & Tarek Dahab - Appeal
February 12, 2024

In April 2017 the cyclist Tarek Dahab (50) was struck by a vehicle which caused him serious injuries, including a traumatic brain injury. He underwent many surgical procedures on his back, neck and wrists.

The injuries significantly impacted his life. He suffered from several medical conditions including severe headaches, loss of muscular strength and sleep problems.

In August 2021, Dahab was prescribed Testosterone which greatly improved the sequalae of some of his injuries. Thereupon in October 2023 he was admitted as Para-cylist to Cycling Canada's National Athlete Pool.

In February 2023 and in August 2023 his two TUE applications were rejected. In October 2023 the Para-cyclist made a new application for a TUE while he was using prescribed Testosterone.

In November 2023 he was tested whereas at the same time his TUE application was rejected. Consequently in December 2023 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Para-cyclist.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Para-cyclist filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Doping Tribunal of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC).

The Para-cyclist made the following assertions:

• He admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance.
• He acted with no fault or negligence and with due diligence.
• He took every precaution to comply with the Rules and demonstrated transparancy. 
• He kept both Cycling Canada Cyclisme (CCC) and the Quebec Sport Cycling Federation (FQSC) informed about his prescribed use of Testosterone.
• He relied on the advice of the experts at CCC and FQSC.
• At no time he was told to stop using Testosterone so that he could compete at provincial, national or international events.

CCES deemed that the Para-cyclist had committed an anti-doping rule violation and requested for a sanction of 4 years. CCES contended that the Para-cylist failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

CCES considered that the Para-cylist used the substance without a valid TUE. Following the anti-doping education course in October 2023 he knew or should have known the risk inherent in taking Testosterone.

The Sole Arbitrator 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 Arbitrator deems that the Para-cyclist failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. He also determines that under the Rules there are no exceptional circumstances for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the SDRCC Doping Tribunal decides on 12 February 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Para-cyclist, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 December 2023.

In December 2023 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Tanzanian bodybuilder Tobias Elahatia Maube after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxymetholone.

Following notification ADAK was unable to locate the Athlete and he failed to respond. Thereupon the case was referred to the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal.

In view of the evidence the Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

Without the Athlete's response the Panel deems that he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. Furthermore the Panel finds that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Panel decides on 2 May 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

In December 2023 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder Alfred Ouma Owino after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide.

Following notification ADAK was unable to locate the Athlete and he failed to respond. Thereupon the case was referred to the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal.

In view of the evidence the Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

Without the Athlete's response the Panel deems that he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. Furthermore the Panel finds that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Panel decides on 2 May 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

In December 2023 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder George Juma Kajula after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Canrenone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal.

The Athlete denied that he violation was intentional. He acknowledged that he had used a tablet, provided by another athlete, in order to reduce body mass.

In view of the evidence the Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he 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 his system. Furthermore the Panel finds that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Panel decides on 20 June 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 December 2023.

In December 2023 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Gideon Kipkosgei Ngetich after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete failed to respond, nor attended the hearing of the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal.

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.

Without the Athlete's response the Panel deems that he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. Furthermore the Panel finds that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore ADAK decides on 9 May 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 December 2023.

• Summary Report Issued on July 1 2024 by Eric Cottier (hereinafter: the Investigator), in Lausanne, to President of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), in Montreal in fulfilment of the mandate given by WADA on 6 May 2024.
  
  
• Case of the 23 swimmers who tested positive for Trimetazidine on January 1, 2 and 3, 2021

Summary Of The Main Investigative And Analytical Acts Carried Out By WADA From The Receipt Of CHINADA's Decision To The Decision Not To File An Appeal (15.06.2021 – 31.07.2021)

On 9 July 2024, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) held an extraordinary Executive Committee (ExCo) meeting to discuss the interim report (and annex) delivered by Independent Prosecutor, Mr. Eric Cottier, regarding his review of WADA’s handling of the China Anti-Doping Agency’s (CHINADA’s) no-fault contamination case involving 23 swimmers from China in 2021. 

During the virtual ExCo meeting, Mr. Cottier took members through his interim report that included his conclusions outlined below in relation to two questions: 

1. Is there any indication of bias towards China, undue interference or other impropriety in WADA's assessment of the decision by CHINADA not to bring forward anti-doping rule violations against the 23 Chinese swimmers?   

• There is nothing in the file – which is complete – to suggest that WADA showed favouritism or deference, or in any way favoured the 23 swimmers who tested positive for trimetazidine (TMZ) between 1 and 3 January 2021, when it proceeded to review CHINADA's decision to close the proceedings against them without further action. 
• The Investigator did not find any evidence to suggest any interference or meddling in WADA's review, as described above, either within the Agency or externally, from any entity or institution, including CHINADA or the Chinese authorities. 
• The investigation did not reveal any irregularities on the part of WADA in the review of CHINADA's decision; this review was detailed and covered all relevant issues in determining whether or not to appeal the decision. 

2. Based on a review of the case file related to the decision by CHINADA not to bring forward Anti-Doping Rule Violations against the 23 Chinese swimmers, as well as any other elements that WADA had at its disposal, was the decision by WADA not to challenge on appeal the contamination scenario put forward by CHINADA a reasonable one? 

• All the elements taken into consideration by WADA, whether they come from the file produced by CHINADA with its decision or from the investigation procedures that it carried out, show the decision not to appeal to be reasonable, both from the point of view of the facts and the applicable rules. 

About the Independent Prosecutor Review 

The decision to appoint Mr. Cottier was endorsed by WADA’s ExCo on 25 April, following requests for such a review by a small number of stakeholders. The 16-member ExCo is made up of independent members as well as athletes, Governments from all regions of the world, and the Sport Movement, who represent their respective constituency groups.  

As outlined in Mr. Cottier’s letter of engagement, he was asked to use his best endeavors to issue his full report by the end of June 2024. However, in the event that the full reasoned report could not be issued within that timeframe, he was asked to consider issuing a summary interim report before Paris 2024, including the outcomes of his inquiry, which he has now done. 

About the Independent Prosecutor Eric Cottier 

Entirely independent of WADA, the Sport Movement and Governments, Mr. Eric Cottier is a prosecutor of 39 years’ experience, who was the Attorney General of the Canton de Vaud, Switzerland, from September 2005 until his retirement in December 2022. Prior to that, he had been a public prosecutor from 1984 to 1991, President of the 2nd District Court in Vevey and Lavaux from 1991 to 1998, and a cantonal court judge from 1999 until 2005. He was Special Prosecutor at the federal level in Switzerland from 2016-2018. He is currently a member of the Board of the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, and a member of a working group at the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), an independent, inter-governmental organization based in Rome, Italy. 

CAS 2022/A/8700 Anna Harkowska v. Polish Anti-Doping Agency (POLADA)

• Cycling
• Doping (meldonium)
• CAS Jurisdiction
• Interpretation of a NADO’s arbitration clause for national level athletes
• Compliance of a NADO’s arbitration clause for national level athletes with article 6.1 ECHR

1. According to Article 186 para. 1 of the Swiss Private International Law Act, the arbitral tribunal shall rule on its own jurisdiction. The objection of a lack of jurisdiction must be raised prior to any defence on the merits. In order for the CAS to have jurisdiction to hear an appeal, there must exist either a specific arbitration agreement between the parties, or the jurisdiction of the CAS must be expressly recognized in the statutes or regulations of the sports-related body that issued the decision appealed against.

2. The National Anti-Doping Organisation’s Anti-Doping Rules (NADO ADR) adopted pursuant to the applicable provisions of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) and the International Standard shall be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with said provisions and standard. With respect to national level athletes not involved in international events, a NADO can provide either that the appellate body be an independent and impartial national-level appeal body provided the principles of a fair hearing are respected or provide that a national-level athlete not involved in international events has a right to appeal directly to CAS. Where the NADO ADR has clearly opted for a right to appeal to a national appellate body, there is therefore no CAS arbitration clause entitling a national-level athlete to file an appeal to CAS.

3. As a matter of principle, according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, a violation of Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) cannot be grounded on the lack of independence or impartiality of a decision-making tribunal or on the breach of an essential procedural guarantee by that tribunal, if the decision taken is subject to subsequent control by a judicial body that has “full jurisdiction” and ensures respect for the relevant guarantees by curing the failing in question. Accordingly, in cases where a final appeal to CAS is possible, the requirements of independence and impartiality are always met, since the CAS has been found to be a true and independent arbitral tribunal. If the appellate body established by the rules of a NADO is competent to finally decide the case i.e. in a case involving a national-level athlete (not involved in international events), Article 13.2.2 WADC ensures that the same standards of independence and impartiality are met at the local appellate level. If not, the national-level athlete has a right to appeal the first instance decision directly to CAS. From the perspective of the principle of equal treatment, the purported asymmetric nature of the adjudicatory system established by a NADO ADR in so far as it entitles only WADA, to file an appeal to CAS against decisions of the national federation’s appellate body does not amount to a violation of Article 6.1 ECHR. Indeed, the positions of a national-level athlete (not involved in international events) and WADA are not comparable. The athlete’s rights are fully respected by a national two-instance adjudicatory mechanism provided that the national appellate body respects the principles of independence and impartiality as well as the right to be heard stemming from Article 6.1 ECHR. Conversely, WADA’s right to appeal to CAS against decisions issued by a national appellate body is consistent with the role of WADA, which is charged, i) to ensure the uniform application of anti-doping rules worldwide and the respect of the principle of equal treatment of athletes at transnational level; ii) to correct potential mistakes in the interpretation and/or application of anti-doping rules by the anti-doping national sports bodies; iii) to avoid the risk of unredressable “home-town” decisions.

On 16 August 2021 The Disciplinary Panel of the Polish Anti-Doping Agency (POLADA) decided in first instance to impose a 4 year year period of ineligibility on the cyclist Anna Harkowska after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium.

Thereupon on 21 December 2021 the POLADAD Disciplinary Panel of Second Instance dismissed the Athlete's appeal in its entirety. Hereafter the Athlete appealed the POLADA decision of 21 December 2021 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). 

The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision of 21 December 2021. She asserted that under the Rules she is a national level athlete and that she has the right to appeal her case to CAS.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. She argued that there are grounds for No Fault or Negligence, or alternatively, that she acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

POLADA contended that CAS has no jurisdiction in this case and that that the Appealed Decision rendered by the Disciplinary Panel of Second Instance was final. It argued that only a limited number of entities are entitled to file an appeal to CAS.

In view of the issues raised by the Parties the Sole Arbitrator determines that:

• The present Award is dedicated to the issue of CAS Jurisdiction.
• Under the POLADA ADR international level athletes are entitled to appeal to CAS.
• The provisions of the POLADA ADR concerning the appeals are fully consistent with the WADC.
• in the POLADA ADR there is no CAS arbitration clause entitling a national-level athlete (not involved in international events) to file an appeal to CAS against decisions of the Second Instance Disciplinary Panel.
• The two-instance adjudicatory system established by POLADA ADR is fully consistent with both WADC and Art. 6.1 ECHR.
• Article 13.2.3.2 of the POLADA ADR is not in contrast with Article 6.1 ECHR.
• This Article 6.1 does not entitle national-level athletes to file an appeal to CAS against decisions of the Second Instance Disciplinary Panel.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 April 2023 that:

1.) CAS has no jurisdiction to decide on the appeal filed on 29 March 2022 by Ms. Anna Harkowska against the decision rendered by the Disciplinary Panel of Second Instance on 21 December 2021 with reasons notified on 9 February 2022.

2.) The appeal filed by Ms. Anna Harkowska against the decision rendered by the Disciplinary Panel of Second Instance on 21 December 2021 with reasons notified on 9 February 2022 is not entertained.

3.) (…).

4.) (…).