Ms. Mariya Grabovetskaya is a Kazakh Athlete competing in the Women’s 75 kg weightlifting event at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2008.

In July 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances stanozolol, oxandrolone and dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol).

After notification the Athlete submitted that the ISL in force at the time of the sample collection in 2008 should have been applied and that such did not allow to conduct the analysis on a split B-Sample.
The Athlete did not file a statement in her defence and waived her right to be heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

The Disciplinary Commission observes that the Rules themselves do not specify the version of the ISL and finds that the process which led to the analytical finding was correctly conducted in application of the ISL in force at the time of the analysis.

With the positive test results the IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides on 10 November 2016 that the Athlete Mariya Grabovetskaya:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in Beijing in 2008 (presence and/or use, of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen),
2.) is disqualified from the Women’s +75 kg weightlifting event in which she participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games Beijing 2008,
3.) has the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma obtained in the Women’s +75 kg weightlifting event withdrawn and is ordered to return the same.
4.) The IWF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The National Olympic Committee of the Republic of Kazakhstan shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
6.) The National Olympic Committee of the Republic of Kazakhstan shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma awarded in connection with the Women’s +75 kg weightlifting event to the Athlete.
7.) This decision enters into force immediately.

Ms Chrysopigi Devetzi is a Greece Athlete competing in the Women’s long jump event at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2008.

In July 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.

After notification the Athlete submitted that she did not accept the test results and waived her right to be heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.
In September 2016 the Athleted informed the Commission that she was already sanctioned by the IAAF for her anti-doping violation.
On 6 October the IAAF confirmed to the Commission that they had imposed a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete with disqualification of her results between 31 August 2007 and 30 August 2009 including her results from the 2008 Olympic Games.

Because the IAAF reported that the Athlete was already sanctioned the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 10 November 2016:

1.) The proceedings are filed.
2.) The IOC and the Greek Olympic Committee are invited to implement the existing decision disqualifying i.a. the Athlete’s results achieved on the occasion of the 2008 Olympic Games.

Ms Natalya Davydova is an Ukrainian Athlete competing in the Women’s 69 kg weightlifting event at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2008.

In July 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol). After notification the Athlete failed to respond.

With the positive test results the IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides on 10 November 2016 that the Athlete Natalya Davydova:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in Beijing in 2008 (presence and/or use, of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen),
2.) is disqualified from the Women’s 69 kg weightlifting event in which she participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games Beijing 2008,
3.) has the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma obtained in the Women’s 69 kg weightlifting event withdrawn and is ordered to return the same.
4.) The IWF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The National Olympic Committee of Ukraine shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
6.) The National Olympic Committee of Ukraine shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma awarded in connection with the Women’s 69 kg weightlifting event to the Athlete.
7.) This decision enters into force immediately.

Mr Khasan Baroev is a Russian Athlete competing in the Men’s 96-120 kg Greco-Roman wrestling event at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2008.

In July 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol).

After notification the Athlete submitted his objections against the opening and splitting of his B sample and argued that the ISL 2016 may not apply for retesting of 2008 samples. Hereafter the Athlete failed to respond to further IOC submissions.

The Disciplinary Commission observes that the Rules themselves do not specify the version of the ISL, which is to be applied to the analytical process. However, the Rules refer to the World Anti-Doping Code (in this case the 2003 version, p.2) which expressly sets forth that International Standards and all revisions shall become effective on the date specified in the International Standard or revision.
The ISL 2016 – Version 9 came into effect on 2 June 2016 and is therefore the ISL applicable to the analysis of the Athlete’s samples conducted in July 2016.

With the positive test results the IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides on 10 November 2016 that the Athlete Khasan Baroev:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in Beijing in 2008 (presence and/or use, of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen),
2.) is disqualified from the Men’s 96-120 kg Greco-Roman wrestling event in which he participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games Beijing 2008,
3.) has the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma obtained in the Men’s 96-120 kg Greco-Roman wrestling event withdrawn and is ordered to return the same.
4.) The UWW is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
6.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma awarded in connection with the Men’s 96-120 kg Greco-Roman wrestling event to the Athlete.
7.) This decision enters into force immediately.

Related case:
IOC 2016 IOC vs Khadzhimurat Akkaev (London Olympiad)
March 15, 2017

Mr Khadzhimurat Akkaev is a Russian Athlete competing in the Men’s 94 kg weightlifting event at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. The Athlete also competed at the London 2012 Olympic Games.

In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2008.

In July 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol). After notification the Athlete failed to respond.

With the positive test results the IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides on 10 November 2016 that the Athlete Khadzhimurat Akkaev:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-
Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in Beijing in 2008 (presence and/or use, of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen),
2.) is disqualified from the Men’s 94 kg weightlifting event in which he participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games Beijing 2008,
3.) has the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma obtained in the Men’s 94 kg weightlifting event withdrawn and is ordered to return the same.
4.) The IWF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
6.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma awarded in connection with the Men’s 94 kg weightlifting event to the Athlete.
7.) This decision enters into force immediately.

In December 2016 the IOC reported a new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after reanalysis of the Athlete's London 2012 sample tested positive for the prohibited substances dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol) and the Athlete was sanctioned by the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

Breaking Down the Process for Determining a Basic Sanction Under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code / Antonio Rigozzi, Ulrich Haas, Emily Wisnosky, Marjolaine Viret. - (International Sports Law Journal 15 (2015) 1-2 (2 June) : page 3-48). - doi:10.1007/s40318-015-0068-6

Anti-Doping,
Sanctioning,
2015 World Anti-Doping Code,
No Significant Fault or Negligence,
No Fault or Negligence

Abstract

An Athlete's fault is one of the core issues for determining the applicable period of Ineligibility under the sanctioning regime of the World Anti-Doping Code. Nevertheless, the issue is seldom addressed in a detailed and comprehensive manner that would provide a genuine insight into the role of fault in this context. This article proposes a process to determine the length of the initial period of Ineligibility associated with the basic sanction for antidoping rule violations involving the presence of a Prohibited Substance under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code. The authors first examine the interplay between the familiar concept of 'No (Significant) Fault or Negligence' on the one hand, and the newly introduced concept of 'intentional' on the other hand, advocating a mutually exclusive understanding of these two concepts for the purposes of determining a basic sanction. Based on this understanding, the article proposes a process for determining the appropriate length of period of Ineligibility for both Specified and non-Specified Substances under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code. Throughout the discussion, the article presents comparisons to the approach taken in earlier versions of the World Anti-Doping Code, illustrated through an analysis of past Court of Arbitration for Sport awards, to demonstrate the coherence of the proposed method and evaluate how it will function in practice.

Content:

1 Introduction
1.1 Scope of this article
1.2 Interpreting the Code
2 Comparison of the four steps to determine an appropriate sanction under the 2009 and 2015 versions of the Code
2.1 The four steps to determine an appropriate sanction under the 2009 Code
2.2 The four steps to determine an appropriate sanction under the 2015 Code
2.3 Focus on step one of the 2015 Code
3 The interplay among the concepts of Fault, negligence, and ‘‘intention’’ under the 2015 Code
3.1 Definitions
3.2 The proposed mutually exclusive relationship between intentional violations and No (Significant) Fault or Negligence violations
4 Overview of the process for determining a basic sanction
4.1 Available basic sanctions
4.2 Overview of Phases A and B to determine a basic sanction
5 How to distinguish between intentional and nonintentional violations (Phase A)
5.1 Special assessment for substances prohibited In-Competition only (Article 10.2.3)
5.2 Definition of intentional in Article 10.2.3
6 How the sanction can be reduced for Fault-related reasons (Phase B)
6.1 No Fault or Negligence (Article 10.4)
6.2 No Significant Fault or Negligence (Article 10.5)
7 Conclusion
Appendix 1: The full text and Comments to Articles 10.2, 10.4, 10.5.1, 10.5.2, 10.5.5 (except the Examples), and 10.6 of the 2009 Code
Appendix 2: The full text and Comments to Articles 10.2, 10.4, 10.5, and 10.6.4 of the 2015 Code

https://ssrn.com/abstract=2631425

iNADO Update (2016) 75 (7 November)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

WADA ExCo and Foundation Board Meetings November 2016 Glasgow, UK

This is the latest in iNADO’s thrice-a-year review and summary of the documents prepared for upcoming WADA ExCo and Foundation Board (FB) meetings. It is prepared with the NADO / RADO community in mind. Because of the exigencies of time, not all WADA documents are summarized or even mentioned.

Content:

3.0 Directors General´s Report
4.1 President’s Term Renewal
4.2 Election of Vice-President
4.3 WADA Statutes
5.1 Think Tank Outcomes
5.2 Olympic Summit Declaration
5.3 Governments Forum
5.4 NADO Leaders’ Summits
5.6 Independent Testing Authority
5.7 Way Forward in the Fight Against Doping
7.5 2017 Budget Strategic and Operational Plan Explanations
8.2 Education Report
9.2 Science Report
9.3 Medical Report
10.2 Whistleblowing Programme and Policy
10.3 Intelligence & Investigations Report
11.1.2 Consequences of Non-Compliance
11.1.3 New Declarations of Non-Compliance
11.1.4.1 Update on Russia
12.0 ADAMS Report
14.0 NADO/RADO Relations
15.0 Government Relations and UNESCO Update
17.0 Standards and Harmonisation Report

Related case:
ISR 2016 NBB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2016009 T
June 3, 2016

On 3 June 2016 the ISR-NBB Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Person after his A and B samples tested positive for stanozolol.
The Disciplinary Committee accepted the Person’s explanation that the violation was non intentional and that the stanozolol came into his body through transdermal transfer by using a healing ointment purchased by his father in Serbia.

Hereafter in July 2016 the Anti-doping Authority Netherlands (Dopingautoriteit) appealed this decision with the ISR-NBB Appeals Committee. The Dopingautoriteit requested the Appeal Committee to annul the decision of the ISR-NBB Disciplinary Committee and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility.
The Dopingautoriteit did not accept the Person’s possible explanation and the confirming testimonies of his family. The Dopingautoriteit argued that there were inconsistancies in their witness statements about the ointment the have purchased and used and the sample of the ointment that they presented to be tested in the accredited laboratory.

The Appeal Committee agreed that the Person only produed a probable explanation and without new evidence he failed to prove how the substance came into his body.
Without grounds for reduction the ISR-NBB Appeals Commission decides on 10 October 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Person.
Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the Person.

Related case:
ISR 2016 NBB Decision Appeal Committee 2016009 B
October 10, 2016

In February 2016 the Dutch Boxing Federation (NBB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his A and B samples tested positive for stanozolol.
Analysis of the Person’s supplements by the accredited laboratory in Cologne showed they contained no prohibited substances. Analysis of the Person’s cutman cream healing ointment showed that it contained the substance stanozolol.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the ISR-NBB Disciplinary Committee. The Person denied intentional use and stated that the stanozolol came into his body by using the healing ointment.
The Person’s father testified that as his coach he treated the Person's injuries several times with the ointment before and during the competition where he was tested. The father stated that the healing ointment was purchased in Serbia and provided by a friend in a small jar without a label. The father assumed he had purchased and used cutman cream, containing adrenaline, to treat the Person’s boxing injuries.

The Committee accepted the Person’s statement that the stanozolol came into his body through transdermal transfer by using the healing ointment purchased by his father in Serbia. The Committee finds that the Person and his father acted significantly negligent because they failed to research the ingredients of the ointment as medication before using.
Considering the low concentration of stanozolol found in his sample and without intention to enhance his sport performance the ISR-NBB Disciplinary Committee decides on 3 June 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension. Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the Person and the NBB.

CAS 2015/A/4273 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Sri Lanka Anti-Doping Agency (SLADA) & Don Dinuda Dilshani Abeysekara

Weightlifting
Doping (mesterolone)
Requirement to establish the source of the prohibited substance
Harmonisation of sanctions under the World Anti-Doping Code

1. The need for an athlete to establish how a prohibited substance entered his or her system is a condition precedent to a finding of absence of fault or no significant fault. The applicable standard of proof in this respect is at a balance of probability.

2. The World Anti-Doping Code is intended to harmonise sanctions in such a way that is equally applicable to athletes young and old, amateur or professional. It does however allow for youth and inexperience to be considered as factors when determining an athlete’s degree of fault, which, if somehow deemed to be less than significant, could lighten an otherwise standard period of ineligibility of two years.

Ms Don Dinuda Dilshani Abeysekara is a Sri Lankan minor Athlete competing in the weightlifting event at the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Kandy, Sri Lanka.

On 3 November 2014 the Disciplinary Committee of the Sri Lanka Anti-Doping Agency (SLADA) decided to impose a 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance mesterolone.

Hereafter in October 2015 WADA appealed the decision of 3 November 2014 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
WADA requested the Sole Arbitrator Panel to annul the decision of the SLADA Disciplinary Committee and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility.

Without grounds for reduction the Sole Arbitrator finds that the anti-doping rule violaton is uncontested and that the Athlete failed to explain how the prohibited substance came to be in her system.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 April 2016 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 30 October 2016 against the Sri Lanka Anti-Doping Agency and Ms Don Dinuda Dilshani Abeysekara with respect to the decision rendered by the Sri Lanka Anti-Doping Agency Disciplinary Committee on 3 November 2014 is upheld.
2.) The decision rendered by the SLADA Disciplinary Committee on 3 November 2014 is set aside.
3.) Ms Don Dinuda Dilshani Abeysekara is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility commencing on the date of this award with credit given for any period of ineligibility already served by Ms Don Dinuda Dilshani Abeysekara between 18 May 2014 and 27 December 2014,
4.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Sri Lanka Anti-Doping Agency.
5.) The Sri Lanka Anti-Doping Agency shall pay the World Anti-Doping Agency CHF 3,000 as a contribution to its legal and other costs.
6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.