In March 2016 the Netherlands Ski Federation (Nederlandse Ski Vereniging, NSkiV), has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after he refused to provide a sample out-of-competition for drug testing.

After notification the Person admitted the violation, waived his right to be heard and filed a statement in his defence.
The Person submitted that he was already retired as elite level athlete and not a member anymore of the NSkiV. Therefore he assumed that he was not longer obliged under the Rules to cooperate with the sample collection.

The Disciplinary Committee establish that the Person at the time of the violation was still a registered member of the NSkiV and had to cooperate with the sample collection. The Committee concludes that the Person’s refusal was intentional and he was several times explicitly warned by the Doping Control Officer about the consequences of his refusal. Also the Person did not accept the offered opportunity by the DCO to contact the NSkiV.

Without grounds for reduction under the Rules the ISR-NSkiV Disciplinary Committee decides on 2 June 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on the date of the decision.

Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne by NSkiV.

In June 2015 the National Anti-Doping Organisation Flanders (NADO Flanders) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Dutch bodybuilder after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances clenbuterol, oxandrolon and tamoxifen. After notification the Person filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission.

The Person denied the intentional use of the substances and stated that she had been recoverd from her sickness and had used supplements provided by the coach.

The Commission did not accept the Person’s statement and concludes that she failed to prove how the substances came into her body and without evidence about the supplements she used.
The Panel finds that due to her previous sickness she used medication prescribed by het doctors, despite she asked no questions about the supplement provided by her coach who is not a doctor.

The NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission concludes that the Person used the subsances to enhance her sport performance and decides on 5 July 2016 to impose 1.000 euro fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on the date of the decision.

Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne partially by the Person.

CAS OG 16/13 Anastasia Karabelshikova & Ivan Podshivalov vs FISA & IOC

Related cases:
- FISA 2008 FISA vs Alexander Litvintchev, Evgeny Luzyanin & Ivan Podshivalov
January 14, 2008
- FISA 2008 FISA vs Anastasia Fatina & Anastasia Karabelshchikova
February 5, 2008

On 14 January 2008 the FISA Doping Hearing Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Russian rower Ivan Podshivalov and on 5 February 2008 the Panel imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Russian rower Anastasia Karabelshikova for their anti-doping rule violations.

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.

On 24 July 2016, the IOC Executive Board issued a decision (the "IOC Decision") concerning the participation of Russian athletes in the Rio Games. According to this decision the following was stated:

"2. Entry will be accepted by the IOC only if an athlete is able to provide evidence to the full satisfaction of his or her International Federation (IF) in relation to the following criteria:
[. . .]
The IFs should carry out an individual analysis of each athlete's anti-doping record, taking into account only reliable adequate international tests, and the specificities of the athlete's sport and its rules, in order to ensure a level playing field.
[. . .]
3. The ROC is not allowed to enter any athlete for the Olympic Games Rio 2016 who has ever been sanctioned for doping, even if he or she has served the sanction".

On 25 July 2016, the FISA Executive Committee met to evaluate the conditions for participation established by the IOC and to comply with the IOC Decision. It issued conditions (the "FISA Statement") for the Russian rowers:

1.) A Russian rower must have undergone a minimum of three anti-doping tests analysed by a WADA accredited laboratory other than the Moscow laboratory and registered in ADAMS from 1 January 2015 for an 18 month period.
2.) FISA considers a urine test, a blood test, or a urine and blood test or multiple tests taken on the same day to constitute one anti-doping test for this evaluation."

Additionally, the FISA Statement stated as follows: "The FISA Executive Committee underlines that the above evaluation does not mean that it has been established that the remaining entered rowers would have committed a doping offence, rather that they do not meet the conditions established by the IOC in their decision of 24 July 2016 for their entry to be accepted for the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.
The FISA Executive Committee decision was made as appropriate to the circumstances and based on the available information at the time, in the interests of the sport of rowing."

On 27 July 2016, the Russian Rowing Federation (RRF) was notified of the FISA Statement.
Hereafter on 2 August 2016 the two Russian rowers Anastasia Karabelshikova and Ivan Podshivalov appealed the IOC Decision and FISA Statement with the CAS Ad Hoc Division in Rio de Janeiro.

The Athletes requested the CAS Ad hoc Division Panel to set aside the IOC decision of 24 July 2016 and the FISA Statement of 25 July 2016 and to allow the rowers to participate to the Rio 2016 Olympic Games. IOC and FISA requested the Panel to reject the appeals.

The Panel has no doubts at all that the IOC acted in good faith and with the best of intentions when issuing such decision. The IOC confirmed that the aim of these criteria was to give an opportunity to those Russian athletes who were not implicated in the State-organised scheme to participate in the Rio Games.

The Panel sees no reason to depart from the line of CAS jurisprudence and determines that while it fully understands the exceptional circumstances that led the Executive Board to issue the IOC Decision, paragraph 3 results in an additional sanction. However this debate is largely moot, as the Panel finds that paragraph 3 does not respect the athletes' right of natural justice. In conclusion, the Panel determines that paragraph 3 of the IOC Decision is unenforceable, as it does not respect the rules of natural justice.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Panel supports the approach taken by the IOC at paragraph 2. As paragraph 3 is unenforceable, the Applicants should be considered by FISA pursuant to paragraph 2 of the IOC Decision to determine their eligibility or not without delay.

Therefore the Panel concludes that the appeals filed on 2 August 2016 shall be partially upheld and paragraph 3 of the IOC Executive Board's Decision dated 24 July 2016 is unenforceable.

The ad hoe Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 August 2016:
1.) The application filed by Anastasia Karabelshikova and Ivan Podshivalov on 2 August 2016 is partially upheld.
2.) Paragraph 3 of the IOC Executive Board's Decision dated 24 July 2016 is unenforceable.
3.) All other prayers for relief are rejected.

Related case:
CAS 2016/A/4746 Sibel Özkan Kanak vs IOC
November 21, 2016

Ms. Sibel Özkan is a Turkish Athlete competing the 48kg 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 May 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 in 2007 and 2008 she had been subject to various doping controls and denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance. She argued that she did nothing wrong and considered that she did not deserve any sanctions or penalties.

The IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation with the intentional use of a prohibited substance and decides on 21 July 2016 that the Athlete Sibel Özkan:

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 events in which she participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games Beijing 2008, namely, the 48kg weightlifting event, and
3.) has the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma obtained in the 48kg weightlifting event (Final) withdrawn and is ordered to return same.
4.) The IWF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The Turkish Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
6.) The Turkish 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 48kg weightlifting event (Final) to the Athlete.
7.) This decision enters into force immediately.

Ms. Yulia Kalina is an Ukrainian Athlete competing the 58kg Weightlifting event at the Londen 2012 Olympic Games.

In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012.

In May 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol). After notification the Athlete was heard for the IOC Disciplianry Commission.

The Athlete stated that she was regularly tested during her career and denied the intentional use of the substance. The Athlete asserted that only a contaminated or mislabeled food supplement could explain the test results. The supplements she used were recommended by her trainer and at that time she had no support of a team doctor. The Athlete argued that she researched the ingredients of these supplements before using and purchased the supplements from reliable sources in the Ukraine and not from the internet.

The Disciplinary Commission concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and has been, at best, highly negligent with her supplements. The Commission finds that the explanation about the contamination lack substance and coherence due to the Athlete failed to mention the name of the supplement she used and the substance turinabol is not known to accidental contamination of legitimate food supplements.

Therefore the IOC Disciplianry Commission decides on 13 July 2016 that the Athlete Yulia Kalina:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXX Olympiad in London in 2012 (presence, and/or use, of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen),
2.) is disqualified from the event in which she participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games London 2012, namely the 58kg weightlifting event, in which she placed 3rd.
3.) has the bronze medal, the diploma, and the medallist pin obtained in the 58kg weightlifting event withdrawn and is ordered to return 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 Ukrainian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
6.) This decision enters into force immediately.

Bundesgerichtshof KZR 6/15 Claudia Pechstein vs ISU

On 1 July 2009 the International Skating Union (ISU) imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the German Athlete Claudia Pechstein. On basis of all evidence presented in this case the ISU Disciplinary Commission ruled that the Athlete has applied the prohibited method of blood doping.

The Athlete denied the doping allegations and appealed with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. All 4 appeals were dismissed and the ban was upheld.

The Athlete started proceedings with the Geman District Court in Munich (Landgericht München I) against the ISU and the Deutsche Eisschnelllauf-Gemeinschaft (DESG).
The Court found that it had jurisdiction to hear the damages claims, and the defendants could not invoke the arbitration clauses.

However, the Court held that it could not revisit and review the legality of the ban as it was bound by the CAS findings that the ban was legal and the Athlete’s damages claims were unfounded. On 26 February 2014 the Munich District Court dismissed the Athlete’s claim but also ruled that the arbitration clause contained in the athletes’ agreement between Pechstein and both the ISU and DESG to be invalid.

In the Athlete’s new appeal against the DESG and ISU with the Higher Distict Court in Munich (Oberlandesgericht München) the Higher District Court confirmed the previous conclusion of the Landgericht München about arbitration. The Higher Court dismissed the CAS award based on Art. V (2) (b) New York Convention because it violates German cartel law, which is part of the ordre public.

Hence, no res iudicata effect of the CAS award hinders Pechstein from bringing forward claims for damages before German state courts. The Oberlandesgericht Munich ruled on 15 January 2015 that the arbitration agreement was void and the arbitral award could not be recognized.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed her claims for damages against the ISU with the German Federal District Court of Justice in Karsruhe (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH). On 7 June 2016 the BGH decides to dismiss the appeal of Claudia Pechstein considering the circumstances mentioned below.

German Federal Court of Justice, judgement of 7 June 2016 - KZR 6/15 - Higher Regional Court of Munich (OLG München)
Regional Court (Landgericht) of Munich I

Pechstein/International Skating Union:

Sec. 1025 para. 2, sec. 1032 para. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO); sec. 19, para. 1 of the Act against Restraints of Competition (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, GWB); Art. 12 of the Federal Constitution (Grundgesetz, GG); Art. 6 para. 1 of the ECHR.

Judgement:

a) The Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) in Lausanne is a court of arbitration pursuant to the definition of sections 1025 para. 2 and 1032 para. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

b) International sports federations organised according to the “one place principle” are market leaders with regards to the admission of athletes to the sports competitions organised by it.

c) It is not an abuse of the sports association’s market position if the association makes the participation of an athlete in a sporting competition dependent on the athlete signing an arbitration agreement that includes a clause naming the CAS as the court of arbitration under the anti-doping rules. The Rules of Procedure of the CAS contain sufficient guarantees safeguarding the rights of the athletes, and the arbitral awards of the CAS are subject to review by the Federal Tribunal of Switzerland (Bundesgericht).

d) The fact that the arbitrators must be chosen by the parties from a closed list drawn up by an international body consisting predominantly of representatives of the International Olympic Committee, the National Olympic Committees and the international sport federations is no indication that the Rules of Procedure of the CAS are lacking sufficient guarantees to safeguard the rights of the athletes. With regard to questions of anti-doping measures, sports federations and athletes are not, generally speaking, divided into opposing “camps” pursuing different interests.

e) Under the circumstances, the arbitration agreement is not invalid from the point of view of the right to access to state courts (Justizgewährungsanspruch) pursuant to Art. 2 para. 1 of the Federal Constitution, the fundamental freedom to pursue professional activities pursuant to Art. 12 para. 1 of the Federal Constitution, nor the right to a fair hearing pursuant to Art. 6 para. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) notes after the BGH decision that this is the confirmation that Claudia Pechstein had a fair trial, not only before the CAS but also before the SFT, and that the judgment of the SFT, which remains in force, settled this matter definitively in 2010. This means that the German courts have no jurisdiction to revisit a final CAS decision. It is also the confirmation that the CAS arbitration clauses inserted in the regulations of sports organizations are valid (as it was already decided by the Swiss Federal Tribunal earlier).

More importantly, like the SFT did in 1993 and 2003, the GFT has emphasized that the CAS is a “genuine arbitration tribunal” in the sense of German law, and that such sports jurisdiction is necessary for the uniformity in sport. The GFT also notes that the CAS procedural rules guarantee the impartiality and independence of the parties and do not create any imbalance between athletes and sports federations.

IPC, Whistleblowers and Clean Athletes Recognized for Integrity in Leadership : media release / Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2016

In the days since the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) release of the McLaren Report, integrity in leadership has been in the spotlight. Today, iNADO recognized three groups deserving podium recognition:

- The whistleblowers Yuliya (Rusanova) Stepanov and Vitaly Stepanov for braving the maelstrom of criticism and public attention in search of the truth on behalf of clean sport;
- The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) for so far responding favourably and decisively to recommendations from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and for NOT abdicating its important leadership responsibilities; and
- Beckie Scott, Claudia Bokel, Adam Pengilly, Robert Harting and other athletes who have spoken out with a clear and committed voice on behalf of the clean athletes of the world.

Doug MacQuarrie, Chair of iNADO, noted that it wasn’t easy to choose the finalists from a particularly strong field. Also considered were many National Anti-Doping Organizations who established an early and unified position in support of clean athletes in the days since the Report’s release. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) re-established itself as a contender in the ‘Integrity in Leadership’ field with their bold and steadfast actions. Former WADA Chairmen Richard Pound and John Fahey for supporting a clear and manageable solution – beginning with suspending the Russian Olympic Committee. Many sports journalists and media outlets have identified the inherent flaws in the current situation and have continued to hold the appropriate authorities accountable.

As anti-doping’s leader and regulator, WADA itself certainly deserves high praise for its effort to pursue the truth by establishing the McLaren Investigation in the first place and to give meaning to the World Anti-Doping Code by calling for the suspension of the Russian Olympic Committee and the Russian Paralympic Committee.

Not surprisingly, the Russian Sports Ministry and Russian Olympic Committee were disqualified from any consideration for their deceitful effort to defraud the world and cheat clean athletes out of their rightful place on the podium.

In seeking a better way forward, iNADO remains committed to helping to re-establish an Anti-Doping Organization in Russia that can operate in full compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code and contribute effectively in the global network of iNADO Members.

iNADO is the international member association of NADOs. NADOs have the sole and unequivocal mandate to protect clean athletes, without conflicting responsibilities such as promoting sport. iNADO’s 59 Members represent all Olympic Regions and conduct the majority of anti-doping work world-wide each year.

Prevalence of Body Dysmorphic Disorder and Muscle Dysmorphia Among Entry-Level Military Personnel / John D. A. Campagna, Barbara Bowsher . – (Military Medicine 181 (2016) 5 (May) : p. 494-501). - PMID: 27136659. - DOI: 10.7205/MILMED-D-15-00118

Abstract:

Objective: To determine the prevalence of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) and muscle dysmorphia
(MD) in enlisted U.S. military personnel; and secondarily, to determine supplement use and relationship with BDD and MD.
Methods:
A survey of advanced individual training of tri-service personnel at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, was performed combining the dysmorphia concern questionnaire, the MD symptom questionnaire, a supplement questionnaire, and demographic factors. Results: Of the 1,320 service members approached, 1,150 (87.1%) completed the survey. The majority of participants were male, 62.8% (n = 722) and Army soldiers 59.0% (n = 679). The prevalence rate of BDD was 13.0% in males and 21.7% in females. The prevalence of MD was 12.7% in males and 4.2% in females. There was a strong correlation between having BDD and using supplements to get thinner (odds ratio 5.1; 95% confidence
interval 3.4–7.8; p < 0.001) and MD to get more muscular (odds ratio 5.4; 95% confidence interval 3.5–8.3; p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
Our study shows a higher than expected prevalence rate of BDD and MD in service members. This indicates a need for increased awareness of dysmorphias in mental health providers, primary care providers, and commanders and justifies further military specific BDD and MD research.

Muscle Dysmorphia Symptomatology and Associated Psychological Features in Bodybuilders and Non-Bodybuilder Resistance Trainers : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis / Lachlan Mitchell, Stuart B. Murray, Stephen Cobley, Daniel Hackett, Janelle Gifford, Louise Capling, Helen O’Conno. – (Sports medicine (31 May 2016) : p. 1-27)

• PMID: 27245060
• DOI: 10.1007/s40279-016-0564-3

Abstract:

Background:
Muscle dysmorphia (MD) is associated with a self-perceived lack of size and muscularity, and is characterized by a preoccupation with and pursuit of a hyper-mesomorphic body. MD symptoms may hypothetically be more prevalent in bodybuilders (BBs) than in non-bodybuilder resistance trainers (NBBRTs).

Objective:
Our objective was to compare MD symptomatology in BBs versus NBBRTs and identify psychological and other characteristics associated with MD in these groups.

Methods:
We searched relevant databases from earliest record to February 2015 for studies examining MD symptoms in BBs and/or NBBRTs. Included studies needed to assess MD using a psychometrically validated assessment tool. Study quality was evaluated using an adapted version of the validated Downs and Black tool. We calculated between-group standardized mean difference (effect sizes [ESs]) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for each MD subscale, and performed meta-analysis when five or more studies used the same MD tool. We also extracted data describing psychological or other characteristics associated with MD.

Results:
Of the 2135 studies initially identified, 31 analyzing data on 5880 participants (BBs: n = 1895, NBBRTs: n = 3523, controls: n = 462) were eligible for inclusion, though study quality was generally poor-moderate (range 7-19/22). Most participants were male (90 %). Eight different MD assessment tools were used. Meta-analysis for five studies all using the Muscle Dysmorphia Inventory (MDI) revealed there was a medium to large pooled ES for greater MD symptomatology in BBs than in NBBRTs on all MDI subscales (ES 0.53-1.12; p ≤ 0.01). Competitive BBs scored higher than non-competitive BBs (ES 1.21, 95 % CI 0.82-1.60; p < 0.001). MD symptoms were associated with anxiety (r 0.32-0.42; p ≤ 0.01), social physique anxiety (r 0.26-0.75; p < 0.01), depression (r 0.23-0.53; p ≤ 0.01), neuroticism (r 0.38; p < 0.001), and perfectionism (r 0.35; p < 0.05) and were inversely associated with self-concept (r -0.32 to -0.36; p < 0.01) and self-esteem (r -0.42 to -0.47; p < 0.01).

Conclusions:
MD symptomatology was greater in BBs than in NBBRTs. Anxiety and social physique anxiety, depression, neuroticism, and perfectionism were positively associated with MD, while self-concept and self-esteem were negatively associated. It remains unclear whether these characteristics are exacerbated by bodybuilding, or whether individuals with these characteristics are attracted to the bodybuilding context.

iNADO Update (2016) 71 (26 July)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Content:

- McLaren Report and Reactions
- New Members
- iNADO in the Dominican Republic
- ABP Conference
- iNADO Quality Recognition for Sample Collection
- iNADO Webinars
- iNADO is in YouToube now
- SADA Public Awareness Campaing
- JADCO Quarterly Newsletter
- Pechstein Case and Operacion Puerto
- New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center