World Athletics 2022 WA vs Aleksandr Ivanov

25 Aug 2022

Related case:

CAS 2019_A_6254 Alexander Ivanov vs RUSADA
February 14, 2020

Mr. Aleksandr Ivanov is a Russian Athlete competing at the 2012 IAAF Junior World Championships. Previously he served a 2 year period of ineligibility from May 2017 until May 2019 for an ABP violation including disqualification of his results from 9 July 2012 until 17 August 2014.

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.

As a result in May 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics reported a new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Aleksandr Ivanov for the use of the prohibited substances Androstatrienedione and 6-oxo in May 2012.

After notification the Athlete failed to respond to the AIU communications. Without his 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 the Athlete had already served a 2 year period of ineligibility until May 2019, including disqualification of his results until 17 August 2014. Under the Rules the AIU concludes that the 2012 violation shall be considered as a single first violation together with the previous violation committed.

Further the AIU holds that the Athlete's 2012 violations can be subject to a more severe sanction. Consequently due to aggravating circumstances an additional period of ineligibility of 2 years can be imposed on the Athlete for the 2012 anti-doping rule violations including disqualifation of all his results.

Therefore the AIU decides on 11 July 2022 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the Decision. All the Athlete's results from 6 May 2012 onwards are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, points, prize money and prizes.

World Athletics 2022 WA vs Navjeet Kaur Dhillon

24 Aug 2022

In August 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Indian Athlete Navjeet Kaur Dhillon after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU. Because she signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violation and Acceptance of Consequences Form she received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

The Athlete stated that she unaware had used a supplement that contained a prohibited substance. However the AIU finds that the Athlete failed to establish the violation was not intentional. 

Therefore the AIU decides on 24 August 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 August 2022.

World Athletics 2021 WA vs Tabitha Gichia Wambui

11 Jul 2022

In October 2021 and in February 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics has reported anti-doping rule violations against the Kenyan Athlete Tabitha Gichia Wambui after her samples - collected in September and in October 2021 -  tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

After notification in October 2021 of the first anti-doping rule violation the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The Athlete explained with evidence that she underwent medical treatment in September 2021, yet the AIU concluded that the used medication could not explain the presence of Nandrolone in her system.

Hereafter the Athlete revoked the Acceptance Form and filed additional medical evidence in her defence. She alleged that she underwent medical treatment in a Kenyan hospital in February, April and May 2021 and because of her condition that prescribed Nandrolone had been administered.

The Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) conducted an investigation into the filed evidence and established that the Athlete had not received any medical treatment in the Kenyan hospital whereas the filed medical evidence was not issued nor certified by the hospital.

Consequently in June 2022 the AIU reported an new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for Tampering because of the falsification of medical information. Again the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing and accepted the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The AIU finds that the Athlete had failed to demonstrate the violations were not intentional and deems that the two anti-doping rule violations for presence must be considered as one single violation. Aditionally the AIU finds that the Athlete had committed a second anti-doping rule violation for tampering during the Doping Control process.

Because the Athlete signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violation and Acceptance of Consequences Form she received a 1 year reduction from the AIU. The Athlete must serve the imposed period of ineligibility consecutively.

Therefore the AIU decides on 11 July 2022 to impose a 7 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 October 2022.

World Athletics 2022 WA vs Dhanalakshmi Sekar

22 Jul 2022

In July 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Indian Athlete Dhanalakshmi Sekar after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU. The Athlete didn't file a statement in her defence.

Because the Athlete signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violation and Acceptance of Consequences Form she received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 22 July 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 July 2022.

CAS 2021_A_8012 Natalya Antyukh vs World Athletics

13 Jun 2022

Ms. Natalya Antyukh is a Russian Athlete competing at the 2012 London Olympic Games and at the 2011 World Championships in Daegu. She retired from professional sport and competition in 2017.

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.

Based on the findings of the McLaren Reports the Athletics Integrity (AIU) on behalf on World Athletics reported in May 2019 anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete. In this matter the disclosed evidence (the Moscow Washout Schedules) listed 4 samples, provided by the Athlete, in which the presence had been established of the substances 1-Testosterone, Boldenone, Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone,  Desoxymethyltestosterone, Methasterone and Oxabolone.

In December 2019 the Athlete's case was referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance procedure and thereupon a 4 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete on 7 April 2021.

Hereafter in May 2021 the Athlete appealed the first instance decision with the CAS Appeals Division and requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision.

The Athlete denied the use of prohibited substances, nor that she had provided unofficial samples, while she officially was tested before without issues. She asserted that World Athletics failed to discharge its burden on the evidence and that the alleged anti-doping rule violations were unproved.

Further she disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by World Athletics, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov and pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence.

The AIU contended that there are aggravating circumstances in this case because the Athlete was engaged in the washout testing program which was part of a doping plan or scheme. The Moscow Washout Schedules showed that in 2013 the Athlete had provided 4 unofficial samples and that she had used 6 different prohibited substances in a one month period.

After assessment of the evidence the Panel is comfortably satisfied that, during the period on or about 30 June 2013 to and including on or about 25 July 2013, the Athlete used the prohibited substances Methasterone, Boldenone, Desoxymethyltestosterone, Oxabolone, Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), and 1-testosterone.

The Panel agrees that there are aggravating circumstances in this case and that a period of 4 years is a proportionate sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 June 2022 that:

  1. The appeal filed by Ms Natalia Antyukh on 21 May 2021 against the Award issued by the CAS Court Office on 7 April 2021 is partially upheld.
  2. Ms Natalia Antyukh is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 32.2 of the IAAF Competition Rules 2012-2013.
  3. Ms Natalia Antyukh is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting from (and including) 7 April 2021.
  4. All competitive results achieved by Ms Natalya Antyukh from 30 June 2013 through to and including 31 December 2015 are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.
  5. The costs, to be determined and served separately to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne in the proportions 90% (ninety percent) by Ms Natalya Antyukh and 10% (ten percent) by World Athletics.
  6. Each Party shall bear its own costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.
  7. All other or further requests for relief are hereby dismissed.

CCES 2022 CCES vs Tayden De Pol

2 Aug 2022

In May 2022 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the swimmer Tayden De Pol after his two samples - provided in March and in April 2022 - tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylphenidate related to medication he had used.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by CCES. An application for a retroactive TUE was rejected by WADA.

CCES finds that the Athlete had failed to apply timely for a prospective TUE for his medication and considers that the Athlete had signed the Waiver of Hearing Form. Further CCES deems that the Athlete's two positive tests are considered as a single anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore CCES decides on 2 August 2022 to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 17 May 2022.

UKAD 2022 UKAD vs Anthony De Luca

21 Jun 2022

In December 2021 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Canadian Ice Hockey player Anthony De Luca for presence and use after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold (295 ng/mL).

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

The Athlete admitted that he had used Cannabis daily in Canada until his arrival in England. He asserted that any use occurred out-of-competition in a context unrelated to sport performance.

UKAD contended that Athlete had used Cannabis at the material time on the day of the competition and that it was unlikely that the found concentration in his sample was attributed to his use before his arrival to England.

The Panel concludes that there was no evidence that the Athlete had used Cannabis at the material time on the day of the competition since the London Lab could not corroborate UKAD's contention in this matter. As a result the Panel deems that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation for the presence, not for the use of Cannabis.

Nevertheless the Panel also did not accept the Athlete's denial that he had not used Cannabis after his arrival in England two weeks before the competition. Further the Panel considers that the Athlete continued to play professionally in Canada while he was aware that a provisional suspension was ordered in the United Kingdom.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 21 June 2022 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision. This sanction could be reduced to 1 month if the Athlete satisfactorily completes a Substance of Abuse treatment program approved by UKAD.

iNADO Update #2022-08

1 Aug 2022

iNADO Update (2022) 08 (1 August)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)


Contents:

iNADO Community

  • Latest Annual Reports of NADOs available at the ADKC
  • 6th Annual Forum for Anti-Doping in Recreational Sport

Bulletin Board

  • iNADO Webinar: WADA NADO EAG Elections: What you need to know
  • Member-Only Webinar Summary: AFLD Compliance with the WADA Code: Challenges and Achievements

Athlete's Voice

  • NADA Germany Survey Athletes to Understand Their Anti-Doping Education Needs

iNADO Partners & Sponsors

  • New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

TJD-AD 2020-004 Disciplinary Decision - Volleyball

29 Jun 2020

In November 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the volleyball player after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Isometheptene. Also ABCD reported an anti-doping rule violation against the physical therapist for the administration of a prohibited substance.

After notification the Athlete and the physical therapist filed statements in their defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She stated that the day before the match during the warming-up she suffered from severe headache. Because she found the doctor not present she ingested a capsule of Sedamed provided by the physical therapist.

The Athlete acknowledged that she didn't check this medication and immediately ingested the capsule. Also she didn't mention the use of this product on the Doping Control Form.

The physical therapist denied that he acted intentionally and confirmed that he only gave the Athlete the capsule for her headache. He was not part of the Athlete Support Personnel, yet hired by the organisation of the competition and not entitled to prescribe medication.

The Rapporteur 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 Rapporteur accepts that the violations committed by the Athlete and the physical therapist were not intentional and that they demonstrated how the substance had entered the Athlete's system. In view of the circumstances the Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete achted with No Significant Fault or Negligence and that the physical therapist acted with No Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 29 June 2020 to impose a warning, without a period of inelgibility, on the Athlete. Furhter the Panel dismissed the charges against the physical therapist.

TJD-AD 2020-002 Disciplinary Decision - Basketball

29 Jun 2020

In February 2020 the  Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the basketball player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and failed to attend the hearing of the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete admitted the violation, claiming ignorance and denied the intentional use of the substance. He stated that he had used the substance 6 months ago for only 2 weeks and had purchased it on the internet.

At that material time he asserted that he was not a registered Athlete, in between two sports contracts, suffering from personal problems and had used the substance out-of-competition.

The Rapporteur 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 Rapporteur deems that the Athlete had admitted the intentional use of the substance and that there are no mitigating circumstances. He claimed ignorance whereas the use of the substance is prohibited out-of-competition.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 29 June 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 20 february 2020.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin