In November 2011 the Japan Anti-Doping Agency (JADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Athlete J-4130 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance terbutaline. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Japan Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel.

The athlete stated, sustained by evidence, that he suffered from asthma and used prescribed medication as treatment without a TUE. Previously the Athlete had informed his doctor that he was an athlete and subject of doping tests.

Without intention to enhance performance, the Panel finds that there was insufficient awareness about doping prevention related to the use of medication and the application of a TUE with the Athlete and the Athlete’s school.
Considering the Athlete’s fault the Japan Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 14 November 2011 to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension i.e. on 4 November 2011.

In October 2011 the Japan Anti-Doping Agency (JADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete J-4129 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Japan Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel.

Considering the evidence and statements the Panel finds that the Athlete acted with negligence because he used non intentionally non prescribed supplements purchased overseas on the internet.
Therefore the Japan Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 15 October 2011 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension i.e. on 4 October 2011.

Related case:
JADDP 2012-007 JADA vs J-4128
December 27, 2012

In July 2011 the Japan Anti-Doping Agency (JADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete J-4128 (the Athlete) after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance betamethasone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Japan Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that she had used prescribed medication as treatment for her allergies without knowledge that it contained a prohibited substance. Previously the Athlete had informed her doctor that she was an athlete and subject of doping tests.
Without intention to enhance sport performance the Panel finds that the Athlete’s doctor failed to prescribe the right medication and that the Athlete did not research the ingredients of her medication before using.

Considering the circumstances the Japan Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 17 July to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension i.e. on 8 July 2011.

In June 2011 the Japan Anti-Doping Agency (JADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete J-4127 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Japan Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel.

Considering the evidence and statements the Panel finds that the Athlete acted with negligence because he used non intentionally unprescribed supplements purchased overseas on the internet.

Considering the circumstances the Japan Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 6 July to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension i.e. on 28 June 2011.

In May 2011 the Japan Anti-Doping Agency (JADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete J-4126 (the Athlete) after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance drostanolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Japan Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel.

Considering the evidence and statements the Panel finds that the Athlete acted with negligence because he used non intentionally a large numbers of unprescribed supplements purchased overseas on the internet.

Without grounds for reduction under the Rules the Japan Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 10 June 2011 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension i.e. on 17 May 2011.

CAS 2016/A/4745 Russian Paralympic Committee (RPC) v. International Paralympic Committee (IPC)

Paralympics
Validity of an IPC’s decision to suspend a member organization
Failure of the national Paralympic Committee to comply with its anti-doping obligations
Regularity of the disciplinary process leading to a membership suspension
Proportionality of the suspension from membership of a national organization
Strict liability

1. The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) Constitution and IPC Anti-Doping Code make compliance with the obligation to pursue all potential anti-doping rule violations within its jurisdiction and to investigate cases of doping a condition of each National Paralympic Committee (NPC)’s membership of the IPC. On a national level and within the structure of the IPC as stipulated in the IPC Constitution, a NPC is the responsible entity having the obligation to the IPC as well as to the IPCs’ members to ensure that no violations of the anti-doping system occur within the country. The existence of a State doping system as described in a report commissioned by the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) means that the relevant NPC breached its obligations and conditions of membership of the IPC.

2. The disciplinary process leading to an IPC member’s suspension may have difficulty of application in circumstances where the deadlines are imposed upon the parties by external parties and external circumstances i.e. the imminent commencement of the Paralympic Games and the magnitude of the deficiencies to be remedied by the NPC. However, a notification letter regarding formal opening of IPC membership suspension proceedings shall be considered as an “official warning” compliant with the applicable requirements. Further, by entering into an arbitration agreement, the parties can answer the practical difficulties arising in these unusual circumstances and therefore agree upon a proceeding which is different to that provided in the IPC applicable disciplinary process. Moreover, the fact to also agree within the framework of such an agreed “taylor made” legal mechanism, that in accordance with the IPC Policy on Suspension of IPC Member Organisations, the IPC provided the NPC with a full opportunity to present its case to the IPC, both in writing and in person, excludes any failure to comply with the applicable procedural provisions.

3. An international federation may, in appropriate circumstances and in accordance with its Rules, suspend without reservation, or alleviation of the consequences to the athletes, a member federation based on a breach of its Anti-Doping Policy and based on reliable information, as long as such decision is within its power, has a proper legislative basis and is not irrational, or perverse, or outside the margin of discretion open to it. It must also serve a legitimate purpose and is suitable, necessary and appropriate for the objective which it aims to achieve. The suspension of the member federation is a means of restoring a level playing field and is, in addition, a powerful tool to provoke behavioural change within the member federation’s sphere of influence. Also, it is also a powerful message to restore public confidence. In the absence of submission of an alternative measure that would, comparably and effectively, be suited to achieve the goals pursued, it must be concluded that the decision is proportionate.

4. Under German law as well as Swiss association law, a sanction issued by an association against one of its members does not necessarily require that the member violated its obligation with fault.

On 18 July 2016, WADA's Independent Person, Mr. Richard McLaren, published on the WADA website its official independent report (the "McLaren Report") describing a fraudulent, government directed scheme to protect Russian athletes from ADRVs, including with respect to disqualification during the Sochi Winter Games. Also Professor McLaren provided CAS a sworn affidavit in this case.

By letter the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) notified on 22 July 2016 the Russian Paralympic Committee (RPC) that it had opened suspension proceedings against it, based on a list of seven, non-exhaustive facts that it believed were established according to the McLaren Report.
After deliberations between the IPC and the RPC about the suspension proceedings the IPC decided on 7 August 2016 to suspend the membership of the RPC. As a consequence of the suspension the Russian parlympic athletes were excluded for the Rio 2016 Paralympic Games.

Hereafter on 15 August 2016 the RPC appealed the IPC decision of 7 August with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The RPC requested the Panel to order WADA and the McLaren investigation team to file all relevant evidence related to the RPC and its athletes.
RPC requested the Panel to annul the IPC decision of 7 August 2016 and to allow Russian Paralympic athletes to compete at the Rio 2016 Paralympic Games. The IPC requested the CAS Panel to dismiss the RPC appeal and to confirm the validity of the IPC decision of 7 Augusst 2016.

The Panel finds that the existence of the Disappearing Positive Methodology system as described in the McLaren Report and in the McLaren affidavit means that the RPC has breached its obligations and conditions of membership of the IPC.
The Panel concludes that the IPC took an action which it believed was necessary, as explained in its submissions. The Panel does not find that the IPC Decision lacks proportionality and the RPC has not established that the IPC has failed to comply with the procedural provisions of the Suspension Policy. Recent actions by the RPC don’t have sufficient weight to affect the proportionality of the IPC Decision.
Considering RPC arguments the Panel notes that the IOC Decision as to the participation of Russian athletes following the McLaren Report is not in contradiction with the IPC Decision.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport rules on 30 August 2016 that:
1.) The appeal filed by the Russian Paralympic Committee on 15 August 2016 against the decision rendered by Governing Board of the International Paralympic Committee on 7 August 2016 is dismissed.
2.) The decision rendered by the Governing Board of the International Paralympic Committee on 7 August 2016 is confirmed.
3.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and communicated separately by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Russian Paralympic Committee.
4.) Each party shall bear its legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.
5.) All further claims and prayers for relief are dismissed.

Nederlandse tuchtrechtspraak en de toepassing van de World Anti-Doping Code: 2010 t/m juni 2017 / S. Teitler, H. Ram. - (Tijdschrift voor Sport & Recht (2017) 2/3 (September) p. 25-39)

Abstract:
Hoe is het gesteld met de kwaliteit van de Nederlandse tuchtrechtspraak in dopingzaken? Dat vraagstuk heeft de Dopingautoriteit een kleine tien jaar geleden voor het eerst onderzocht. Het antwoord destijds luidde dat er veel mis was. Ruim de helft van alle uitspraken voldeed niet aan de normen uit het Nationale Doping reglement (NDR) en de World Anti-Doping Code. Het resultaat van voornoemd onderzoek is in dit tijdschrift gepubliceerd. Sindsdien is er veel veranderd. De positie van de Dopingautoriteit in tuchtzaken is tegenwoordig reglementair vastgelegd, de Code is ingrijpend gewijzigd, en het merendeel van de sportbonden laat zijn dopingzaken inmiddels behandelen door het Instituut Sportrechtspraak. Reden genoeg om nu, bijna een decennium later, de huidige stand van zaken met betrekking tot de dopingtuchtrechtspraak te onderzoeken. Daarbij komt tevens de vraag aan de orde hoe het zit met de kennis en de acceptatie van de dopingregels. Dat waren namelijk de twee belangrijkste door de Dopingautoriteit geïdentificeerde redenen voor het hoge aantal uitspraken dat niet conform het NDR en de Code was. Dit artikel bespreekt alle wijzigingen, die zijn doorgevoerd in de regelgeving en de structuur van de tuchtrechtspraak, alsmede de relevante tuchtrechtelijke beslissingen naar aanleiding van aangebrachte dopingovertredingen.

Inhoud:

1. Inleiding
2. Normenkader
3. Tuchtrechtspraak in dopingzaken
4. Het artikel uit 2010
5. Wat is er veranderd sinds 2009?
6. Veranderingen in de tuchtrechtelijke procesgang
7. Instituut Sportrechtspraak (ISR)
8. De oprichting en de opheffing van de Auditcommissie doping
9. Relevante wijzigingen in de World Anti-Doping Code
10. Tuchtrechtelijke uitspraken in dopingzaken 2009 t/m juni 2017: algemeen
11. jurisprudentie: de rol van de Dopingautoriteit in tuchtprocedures
12. Bewijslast: de laboratoriumpresumptie
13. Strafmaat
14. De dopingcontroleprocedure
15. Diverse andere problemen
16. Herziening
17. Conclusies

Nederlandse tuchtrechtspraak en de toepassing van de World Anti-Doping Code / Steven Teitler, Herman Ram. - (Tijdschrift voor Sport & Recht (2010) 2 (Juli) : p. 57-70)

Nog niet zo lang geleden beschikten de tuchtcommissies over vrijwel onbeperkte bevoegdheden en mogelijkheden om dopingzaken af te handelen zoals het hen goed dunkte. Afgezien van enkele richtlijnen inzake de strafmaat voorzagen de dopingreglementen tot 2004 niet in tuchtrechtelijke voorschriften. De behandeling van een overtreding van het dopingreglement vond toen nog geheel plaats volgens de normen van het tuchtreglement, waar het dopingreglement tegenwoordig vrijwel op zichzelf staat. Veel dopingzaken kwamen toentertijd echter niet bij de tuchtcommissies terecht, vanwege het feit dat bondsbesturen die regelmatig onder de spreekwoordelijke pet hielden. In die gevallen volgde dus geen aangifte. De komst van de World Anti-Doping Code heeft voor zowel de vrijheid van de tuchtcolleges als die van bondsbesturen ingrijpende gevolgen gehad.

Inhoud:

1. Inleiding
2. Terugdringen rechtsongelijkheid en rechtsonzekerheid: voorgeschiedenis en instrumenten
2.1. Internationaal Olympisch Commité
2.2. WADA
2.3. Unesco
3. Gesloten systeem: bewijsvoering en sanctiestelsel
4. Auditcommissie Doping
5. Jurisprudentie sinds invoering Code (2004)
6. Bewijslast
7. Sanctiestelsel
8. Formele/procedurele eisen
9. Informatieplicht
10. Kennis & acceptatie
11. Samenvatting en conclusies
12. Consequenties/vooruitblik

TAS 2011/A/2493 Antidoping Switzerland v. Vaton Zyberi
CAS 2011/A/2493 Antidoping Switzerland vs Vaton Zyberi

• Boxe
• Dopage (nicéthamide)
• Annulation automatique des résultats obtenus lors de la compétition concernée par le contrôle antidopage
• Responsabilité de l'athlète dans le choix de son entourage sportif et médical
• Circonstances atténuantes

1. La violation des règles antidopage entraîne l'annulation automatique des résultats obtenus lors de la compétition concernée par le contrôle antidopage, avec toutes les conséquences que cela comporte, notamment le retrait des médailles et des prix. L'annulation des résultats est facultative uniquement pour les autres résultats obtenus parallèlement lors d'une manifestation.

2. Une exonération de toute faute ou négligence ne peut pas résulter du fait que la substance interdite s'est retrouvée dans l'organisme de l'athlète par la seule action de son entraîneur ou de son médecin, compte tenu de la responsabilité du sportif, respectivement de ses parents, s'agissant des mineurs, dans le choix de leur entourage sportif et médical.

3. La jeunesse et le manque d'expérience de l'athlète font partie des facteurs pertinents à prendre en considération pour déterminer sa faute. Ainsi, si l'athlète était encore en âge de scolarité obligatoire au moment du contrôle antidopage, il était non seulement mineur, mais encore suffisamment jeune pour avoir un rapport de soumission à l'adulte, en l'occurrence à son entraîneur, circonstance dont il y a lieu de tenir compte pour réduire la sanction.

In March 2011 Antidoping Switzerland has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Athlete Vaton Zyberi after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Nikethamide.

The Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic accepted that the minor Athlete had not committed any fault or any negligence by swallowing a Gly-Coramin tablet, with his trainer having indicated that it was dextrose. Therefore on 8 June 2011 the Disciplinary Chamber decided to impose a ban or a fine including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

Hereafter in July 2011 Antidoping Switzerland appealed the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Antidoping Switzerland requested the CAS Panel to annul the decision of 8 June 2011 of the Disciplinary Chamber and to impose at most a 3 month period of ineligibility, but at the least a reprimand on the Athlete.

The Athlete’s trainer submitted that the effects of the tablet used by the Athlete only lasted for half an hour. He argued that the use of the Gly-Coramin tablet is authorized for the training, but not in competition and that more than 5 hours passed between taking the tablet and the beginning of the boxing match in question.

The Sole Arbitrator finds, as accepted also by Antidoping Switzerland, that the minor Athlete did not know what was handed to him, when he received what he thought was dextrose, trusting his trainer even more so as he was still of school-going age, a reason why the fault of the Athlete can be considered to be very insubstantial and without intention to enhance sport performance.
Given the very insubstantial fault the Sole Arbitrator concludes that there are grounds for keeping to the minimum set out by the Statute in order to fix the applicable punishment. Consequently, instead of a suspension, there are grounds for imposing a reprimand on the Athlete.

Therefore on 29 November 2011 the Court of Arbitration for Sport Sole Arbitrator decides:

1.) Declares the appeal admissible brought by Antidoping Suisse against the decision of 8 June 2011 of the Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic in the Athlete’s case.

2.) Partially accepts the appeal, in the sense that figures I, II, IV and VII of the decision of 8 June 2011 of the Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic must be annuled;

3.) Establish the breach of the anti-doping rules, in the sense of art. 2.1 of the Statute relating to 2009 doping of Swiss Olympic, committed by the Athlete on 6 March 2011, by the presence in his body of a banned substance;

4.) Pronounces a reprimand against on the Athlete.

5.) Confirms the withdrawal of the title of Swiss boxing champion, junior category - 75 kg, obtained by the Athlete on 6 March 2011 in Blonay;

6. Confirms the withdrawal of the medal and also any other prize won by the Athlete at the Swiss boxing championships on 6 March 2011 in Blonay;

7.) Orders the Athlete to pay the analysis costs for the anti-doping test up to a limit of CHF 320.00;

8.) Makes the costs for proceedings before the Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic payable by the Athlete up to a limit of CHF 100.00 and the balance of the costs of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic by CHF 900.00 payable by Swiss Olympic;

9.) Makes the cots of proceedings before the TAS, according to a separate final account which must be communicated subsequently by the registry of the TAS to the parties, at the rate of 10% payable by the Athlete, the balance remaining payable by Antidoping Suisse;

10.) Dismiss all other or fuller submissions of the parties.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/008 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Chagnaadorj Usukhbayar

Mr. Chagnaadorj Usukhbayar is a Mongolian Athlete competing in the 56 kg Weightlifting event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 16 August 2016 the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Non of the parties requested for a hearing and the Athlete did not file a statement in his defence.

The CAS Sole Arbitrator finds that the IOC met its burden of proof under Art. 3.1 IOC ADR. The documents adduced by the IOC establish sufficient proof, to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator, that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation under Art. 2 IOC ADR.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division Sole Arbitrator decides on 20 August 2016:

1.) The Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Olympic Games Rio 2016.
2.) All results obtained by the Athlete in the Olympic Games Rio 2016 are disqualified with all consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes.
3.) The Athlete is excluded from the Olympic Games Rio 2016.
4.) The Athlete's Accreditation (number 1141787) is withdrawn.
5.) The responsibility for the Athlete's results management in terms of sanction beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is referred to the International Weightlifting Federation being the applicable International Federation.