In March 2023 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of World Aquatics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kazakh swimmer Darya Muravyeva. The ITA deemed that the Athlete had 3 Whereabouts Failures within a 12 month period:

• a Filing Failure on 21 January 2022;
• a Filing Failure on 31 March 2022; and
• a Missed Test on 4 April 2022.

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

The ITA determines that the Athlete had signed and submitted the Agreement on Consequences Form. Further it considers that there had been delays in the results management not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the ITA decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting backdated on 1 November 2022 until 1 November 2024.

2024/ADD/102 World Aquatics v. Uros Nikolic

In February 2024 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of World Aquatics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Serbian swimmer Uros Nikolic after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Ephedrine. 

Hereafter in June 2024 the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure. A decision was rendered based on the written submissions of the Parties.

Previously in March 2024 the Athlete explained that he had used a prescribed nasal spray for his allergic reaction and that he was unaware that it contained Ephedrine. Thereupon in May 2024 his application for a retroactive TUE was rejected and his appeal in this matter dismissed by CAS in June 2024.

World Aquatics accepted that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that he demonstrated how the prohibited substance had entered his system. Yet, it deemed that he acted with significant fault or negligence.

World Athletics contended the Athlete failed to check his medication and did not ask his doctor about prohibited substances in his medication. He did not mention his medication on the Doping Control Form, nor made an application for a prospective TUE for the use of Ephedrine.

The Athlete accepted the test result and had demonstrated that his prescribed medication was the source of the prohibited substance. He argued that he acted with no significant fault or negligence and requested for a reduced sanction.

The Sole Arbitrator determines that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete's prescribed medication was the source of the prohibited substance. Considering the Athlete's conduct the Arbitrator deems that he acted with a degree of negligence and that there are grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 July 2024 that:

1.) The Request for Arbitration filed by World Aquatics on 28 June 2024 is partially upheld.

2.) Uros Nikolic is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Articles 2.1 and/or 2.2 of the World Aquatics ADR.

3.) Uros Nikolic is sanctioned with a period of Ineligibility of one (1) year commencing on the date of notification of this decision.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Uros Nikolic at the 2024 World Aquatics Championships and from 11 February 2024 until the date on which the CAS ADD decision enters into force are disqualified with all resulting Consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

5.) The costs of the procedure are to be determined and served upon the Parties in accordance with Article A24 of ADD Rules, if necessary.

6.) Each party shall bear their own legal costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this procedure.

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

iNADO Update (2024) 09/10 (31 October)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

Speaking Up for NADOs & RADO Globally

• iNADO Initiatives to Support the 2027 Code & IS Update Process Stakeholder Consultation
•  iNADO Webinar for Anti-Doping Community

Building a Supportive Community

• 2025 iNADO Annual Workshop – Registration Now Open!
• iNADO Welcomes New CEOs to its Global Community

Improving Practice Everywhere

• Update Your NADO Contact Details for iNADO BaseCamp

Guiding Principles

• Join Our Commitment: Become a Signatory to the Guiding Principles for Clean Sport

iNADO Sponsors & Partners

In September 2024 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Noah Vladimirovich after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxandrolone.

Following notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by CCES. Because the Athlete signed and submitted the Early Admission and Acceptance Form he received a 1 year reduction from CCES.

Therefore CCES decides on 30 October 2024 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 September 2024.

• CAS 2023/A/10025 Simona Halep v. International Tennis Integrity Agency
• CAS 2023/A/10227 International Tennis Integrity Agency v. Simona Halep
  
  

Related case:

ITF 2022 ITF vs Simona Halep
September 11, 2023

On 11 September 2023 the ITF Independent Tribunal decided  to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Simona Halep for committing two anti-doping rule violations:

• Presence and Use of the prohibited substance Roxadustat; and
• Use of a prohibited substance and/or a prohibited method.

The Panel concluded that on a balance of probability the Athlete's supplement was contaminated with Roxadustat. However the Panel also concluded that the Athlete clearly must have ingested Roxadustat from some other source.

In the matter of the ABP charge the Panel was comfortably satisfied that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation because of her use of a prohibited substance and/or a prohibited method.

Hereafter in September 2023 the Athleten and ITF appealed this decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision, whereas the ITF requested to uphold this Appealed Decision.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of Roxadustat and argued that she bore No Significant Fault or Negligence. Moreover she had demonstrated that a contaminated supplement was the source of the positive test.

Supported by expert witnesses the Athlete asserted that there had been departures of the ISTI that would invalidate blood Sample 48 in her ABP. The Athlete claimed that a series of innocent explanations had caused the abnormalities in her ABP:

• hypothyroidism and high levels of cortisol;
• anaesthesia during her nasal surgery;
• the effect of a period of detraining after the 2022 US Open;
• fluctuations in her menstrual cycle; and
• blood loss during her nasal surgery.

The ITA contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the Roxadustat has entered her system. Also analysis of the Athlete's supplements in question in the WADA-accredited laboratories did not reveal prohibited substances. 

The ITA further contended that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation because of the abnormalities in her ABP. The ITA rejected the assertation that Sample 48 in her ABP is invalid because of alleged ISTI departures.

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and arguments presented by the Parties and determines that:

• The Roxadustat detected in the Athlete's sample 2022 came from the Keto MCT product that she consumed that was contaminated with Roxadustat.
• This anti-doping rule violation was not intentional and the Athlete acted with no significant fault or negligence in this matter.
• The temperature during the transport of Sample 48 did not have a material effect on the integrity of the sample.
• The elevated HGB and low RET% in Sample 48 were statistically abnormal when compared to other ABP samples as well as the private blood test results.
• None of the Athlete's explanations have been demonstrated to have had a significant or material effect on the Athlete's ABP so as to explain the abnormality in Sample 48.
• it unlikely that the Athlete used ESA/EPO after her private blood sample on 9 September 2022 and before providing Sample 48 on 22 September 2022.
• The ABP charge is dismissed because not has been demonstrated that an anti-doping rule violation had occurred.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 September 2024 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Simona Halep on 28 September 2023 against the decision issued on 22 September 2023 by the ITF Independent Tribunal is admissible and partially upheld.

2.) The appeal filed by the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) on 14 December 2023 against the decision issued on 22 September 2023 by the ITF Independent Tribunal is admissible and is dismissed.

3.) The decision issued on 22 September 2023 by the ITF Independent Tribunal is set aside.

4.) Simona Halep is found to have committed Anti-Doping Rule Violations under Articles 2.1 (presence) and 2.2 (use) of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme 2022 as a result of the presence of a Prohibited Substance (Roxadustat) in her urine sample collected In-Competition on 29 August 2022.

5.) Simona Halep is sanctioned with a period of Ineligibility of nine (9) months, commencing on 7 October 2022.

6.) Credit is given to Simona Halep for her provisional suspension served since 7 October 2022.

7.) All results obtained by Simona Halep in competitions taking place in the period 29 August 2022 to 7 October 2022 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, ranking points and prize money.

8.) ( ... ).

9.) ( ... ).

10.) All further and other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

• CAS 2023/A/9550 Mario Vušković v. German Football Association (DFB) & National Anti-Doping Agency of Germany (NADA)
• CAS 2023/A/9586 National Anti-Doping Agency of Germany (NADA) v. Mario Vušković & German Football Association (DFB)
• CAS 2023/A/9607 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. German Football Association (DFB) & National Anti-Doping Agency of Germany (NADA) & Mario Vušković
  
  
  

In November the German Football Association (DFB) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Croatian football player Mario Vušković after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Recombinant Erythropoietin (RhEPO).

Yet, the DFS Sports Tribunal decided on 30 March 2023 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Panel deemed that this reduced sanction was proportional, appropriate and justified in accordance with German law.

Hereafter in April 2023 the Athlete, the National Anti Doping Agency of Germany (NADA) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed this DFS Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete sought a decision fully exonerating him from any alleged anti-doping rule violation whereas NADA and WADA sought a decision whereby the period of ineligibility is increased from 2 to 4 years. The DFB sought a decision dismissing the three appeals and confirming the Appealed Decision.

The Athlete denied that he had used any prohibited substance and asserted that the presence of RhEPO had not been established in his samples. Supported by expert witnesses he claimed that departures had caused a false positive and that he must be fully acquitted.

In this matter the Athlete invoked the case of Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) where the Athlete's B sample did not confirm the A sample presence for RhEPO. As a result of this atypical finding the Athlete was not prosecuted by SIA and exonerated.

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and arguments presented by the Parties and determines that:

• It is not necessary to determine whether NADA has standing to be sued in the proceedings related to the appeals filed by the Athlete and WADA.
• The Athlete did not prove that the identification criteria pursuant TD2022EPO had been applied erroneously to establish the presence of RhEPO in his samples.
• The Athlete's comparison with the Australian case has no material impact in the matter at hand.
• There are no grounds to apply the new TD2024EPO in this case.
• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article FIFA ADR.
• German law has no particular role to play in international anti-doping proceedings.
• The principle of proportionality is already built into the system of imposing sanctions under the WADC, on which the DFB LPR, the DFB ADR, the NADA ADC and the FIFA ADR are based.
• The Athlete failed to establish any mitigating factors for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 27 August 2024 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 5 April 2023 by Mr Mario Vušković against the decision issued on 30 March 2023 by the DFB Sports Tribunal is dismissed.

2.) The appeals filed on 19 and 27 April 2023 respectively by the National Anti-Doping Agency of Germany and the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision issued on 30 March 2023 by the DFB Sports Tribunal are upheld.

3.) The decision issued on 30 March 2023 by the DFB Sports Tribunal is confirmed, save for paragraph 1 of the operative part, which shall read as follows:
Licensed player Mario Vuskovic (HSV Fuẞball AG) is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 4 (four) years for a violation of Article 6 of the FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations, commencing as from 15 November 2022.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

6.) (…).

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

CAS 2023/O/9406 World Athletics (WA) v. Russian Athletic Federation (RUSAF) & Tatyana Tomashova

Related case:

CAS 2008/A/1722 IAAF v. All Russia Athletic Federation & Tatyana Tomashova
November 18, 2009

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.

These investigation reports revealed that the prohibited substances 1-Testosterone, Boldenone, Mesterolone, Metenolone and Oxandrolone had been established in the 2 samples of the Athlete Tatyana Tomashova provided in June and in July 2012.

Previously in November 2009 the Athlete was sanctioned for 2 years and 9 months (CAS 2008/A/1718-1724) for an anti-doping rule violation relating to urine substitution.

Consequently in December 2022 World Athletics reported a new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for the use of these prohibited substances. In January 2023 World Athletics referred the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that two official samples were listed in the London Washout Schedules as belonging to the Athlete, which would date 21 June 2012 and 17 July 2012. This would prove that the Athlete was part of a doping programme.

In this regard, in accordance with the information contained in these schedules, in the leadup to the 2012 London Olympic Games, the Athlete had used these prohibited substances. Moreover reanalysis in the Lausanne Laboratory in July 2013 of the Athlete's 21/6/2012 Sample confirmed the presence of these prohibited substances.

RusAF did not submit an answer or any other written submissions containing requests for relief.

The Athlete denied that she had used these prohibited substances and asserted that she had been tested before without issues. Further she disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by WADA, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence provided by the Parties and determines that:

• The Athlete used prohibited substances within the Washout Testing Programme as part of a doping plan or scheme.
• The Athlete used, in or around June 2012, Boldenone, Oxandrolone, Metenolone and Mesterolone.
• The Athlete used, in on around July 2012, Boldenone, Oxandrolone an 1-Testosterone.
• Reanalysis in the Lausanne Laboratory in July 2013 confirmed the presence of these prohibited substances in the 21/6/2012 Sample.
• The Athlete committed two anti-doping rule violations on two different occasions.
• There are several aggravating circumstances in this case that justify the imposition of a more severe sanction.
• This is the Athlete's second anti-doping rule violation.
• Fairness requires that the Athlete's results are disqualified from 21 June 2012 to 3 January 2015.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 3 September 2024 that:

1.) The Request for Arbitration filed on 16 March 2023 by World Athletics against the Russian Athletics Federation and Ms. Tatyana Tomashova is partially upheld.

2.) Ms. Tatyana Tomashova is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 2.2 of the 2021 WA ADR.

3.) Ms. Tatyana Tomashova is sanctioned with a Period of Ineligibility of ten (10) years starting from the date of this Award.

4.) All the competitive results obtained by Ms. Tatyana Tomashova from 21 June 2012 until 3 January 2015 are disqualified, with all the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served separately to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne 90% jointly by the Russian Athletics Federation and Ms. Tatyana Tomashova and 10% by World Athletics.

6.) The Russian Athletics Federation and Ms. Tatyana Tomashova shall jointly pay an amount of CHF 4,000 (four thousand Swiss Francs) to World Athletics as contribution to its legal costs and other expenses incurred in the present proceedings.

7.) All other and further requests of reliefs are dismissed.

The prevalence of trimetazidine use in athletes in Poland : excretion study after oral drug administration / Anna Jarek, Marzena Wójtowicz, Dorota Kwiatkowska, Monika Kita, Ewa Turek-Lepa, Katarzyna Chajewska, Sylwia Lewandowska-Pachecka, Andrzej Pokrywka

• Drug Testing and Analysis 6 (2014) 11-12 (November-December), p. 1191-1196
• 32nd Cologne workshop: Advances in sports drug testing
• PMID: 25421604
• DOI: 10.1002/dta.1755

Abstract

Stimulants, together with anabolic androgenic steroids, are regarded as one of the most popular doping substances in sport. Owing to a great variety of these substances and new designer drugs being introduced to the market, each year the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) updates the list of substances and methods prohibited in sport. On 1 January 2014, a new doping agent - trimetazidine (TMZ) - was added to the WADA Prohibited List. TMZ, a substance prohibited in competition, is classified in the S6b Specified Stimulant Group. TMZ is used as a well-known cardiologic drug with confirmed biochemical and clinical activity. According to knowledge of the pharmacology and mechanism of TMZ action, TMZ can be used by athletes to improve physical efficiency, especially in the case of endurance sports. This study presents the phenomena of TMZ use by Polish athletes involved in anti-doping control in the WADA-accredited laboratory in Warsaw (Poland) between 2008 and 2013. Samples were taken from the athletes of such disciplines as cycling, athletics, and triathlon. Moreover, the elimination study of TMZ has been conducted to establish the change of TMZ concentration in urine sample after oral administration of a single or double (during the long-term therapy) dose. TMZ was monitored in urine samples by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry-nitrogen phosphorus detection (GC-MS-NPD).

In August 2022 the International Cycling Union (UCI) reported a possible anti-doping rule violation against the Italian cyclist Massimo Berlusconi after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG).

Preliminary the UCI requested the Athlete to confirm whether there was a pathological cause for the elevated urinary hCG in his sample. Hereafter the Athlete underwent several medical examinations and submitted the medical reports to the UCI.

Ultimately in February 2023 the UCI concluded that the Athlete had failed to establish a pathological cause for the positive test results and ordered a provisional suspension.

Thereupon the Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences in June 2023 and filed a statement in his defence when the case was referred to the UCI Anti-Doping Panel in February 2024.

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied the use of prohibited substances. He could not explain how the substance had entered his system and only suggested that a contaminated supplement was the source of the positive test results.

In view of the evidence 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 Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. Having ruled out any pathological condition the Athlete could not produce any corroborating evidence that could explain the positive test results.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 6 May 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e on 28 February 2023.

The UCI costs for the results management shall be borne by the Athlete.

In April 2023 an UCI Expert Panel concluded unanimously in their Expert Opinion, that the hematological profile of the Australian cyclist Robert Stannard “highly likely” showed that he had used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping.

This conclusion of the UCI Expert Panel is based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 11 May 2017 until 7 September 2022 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).

Thereupon the Athlete submitted his explanations for the abnormal findings in his ABP to the UCI which were rejected by the Expert Panel in their:

• 2# Experts Opinion Report submitted in July 2023;
• 3# Experts Opinion Report submitted in April 2024; and
• 4# Experts Opinion Report submitted in July 2023.

Consequently in August 2023 the UCI reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequence. He filed a statement in his defence and the case was referred  to the UCI Anti-Doping Panel.

The UCI contended that the Athlete had committed an ADRV based on the abnormalities detected in the Athlete’s haematological profile resulting from his ABP.

The Athlete, supported by expert witnesses, disputed the reliability of the ABP. He asserted that no ADRV has taken place and no sanction is to be imposed on him, based on these arguments:

• invalidity of samples 2 and 6 in his ABP;
• differences in his physiological condition and the differences in his training periods between 2017 and 2020;
• previous altitude training and the influence of hydration;
• his explanations about the abnormalities in his ABP exclude a doping scenario;
• the length of time between the violation and the disciplinary proceedings;
• Under the Rules he should be considered as a Protected Athlete;

Following assessment of the submissions, arguments and evidence the Sole Arbitrator determines that:

• The reliability of the ABP as means of evidence to establish an ADRV has been confirmed by several decisions of the Tribunal.
• Important abnormalities did exist in the Athlete's haematological profile.
• There is no evidence in the case at hand that renders the doping scenario, as presented by the UCI, is implausible.
• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation in the form of use of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method.
• The Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor grounds for a reduced sanction.
• The argument that he is a Protected Person is not accepted.
• There had been substantial delays in the Athlete's ABP not attributed to the Athlete.
• The period of ineligibility shall start backdated on the date of collection of Sample 2.
• Since the period of ineligibility has ended, the provisional suspension is lifted.
• The Athlete's results obtained between 17 August 2018 and 16 August 2022 shall be disqualified.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Panel decides on 3 June 2024 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting backdated on the date of the sample collection of Sample 2, i.e. on 17 August 2018.

The UCI costs for the results management, the blood samples analysis and the ABP documentation package shall be borne by the Athlete.