Mr Nurbek Hakkulov is an Uzbek Athlete competing in the Men’s Greco-Roman 50 kg event at the Singapore 2010 1st Youth Olympic Games.

On 8 September 2010 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.
After notification the Athlete waived his right to be heard for IOC Disciplinary Commission and didn’t file a statement in his defence.

After reviewing the file and the information at hand, the Disciplinary Commission unanimously concluded that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code (the “Code”) and Articles 2 and 13 of the Rules in that there was the presence of the prohibited substance Furosemide in his body.

Therefore on 15 October 2010 the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides:
1.) The Athlete, Nurbek Hakkulov, Uzbekistan, Wrestling is disqualified from the Men’s Greco-Roman 50kg event at the 2010 Youth Olympic Games, where he placed second.
2.) The Athlete shall have his medal, his diploma and his participation certificate in the above-noted event withdrawn.
3.) The International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence, not only with respect to the Athlete, but also with respect to the Athlete’s entourage.
4.) The NOC of Uzbekistan is ordered to return to the IOC, as soon as possible, the medal, the diploma and the participation certificate awarded to the Athlete in relation to the abovementioned event.
5.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

The Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) Disciplinary Panel imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Allison Randal, starting on 21 June 2013, after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the decision with the JADCO Appeal Tribunal. The Athlete assumed that one of her supplements was contaminated or that her regular supplements may have been mislabeled by the manufacturer.

The Appeal Tribunal concludes that the Athlete failed to explain and demonstrate how the prohibited substance entered her body.
Therefore the JADCO Appeal Tribunal decides on 17 October 2014 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal and to confirm the decision of the JADCO Disciplinary Panel.

Related cases:
CAS 2014/A/3670 Traves Smikle vs JADCO
November 4, 2014
CAS 2015/A/3925 Traves Smikle vs JADCO
June 22, 2015

In July 2013 the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Traves Smikel after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrocholorothiazide.

In his defence the Athlete stated that the adverse finding test could only be a result of contamination of one or more medications or supplements. The JADCO Disciplinary Panel concluded that there was no departure from the IST and the Athlete failed to explain how the prohibited substance entered his body.

Therefore on 1 July 2014, more than one (1) year after he provided a sample on 22 June 2013 for drug testing, the JADCO Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection.
On 26 August 2014, JADCO issued written reasons (dated 18 July 2014) in support of the previous issued Decision of 1 July 2014.

CAS 2014/A/3670 Traves Smikle v. Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO), award of 23 February 2015 (operative part of 4 November 2014)

Related case:

• JADCO 2014 JADCO vs Traves Smikle
  August 18, 2014
• CAS 2015/A/3925 Traves Smikle vs JADCO
  June 22, 2015
  
  

• Athletics (discus throw)
• Doping (hydrochlorothiazide)
• International-level athlete
• Denial of justice

1. An athlete is not an “international-level athlete” under IAAF Rule 35.7 simply because he previously competed in international competitions recognized by the IAAF and was tested as part of the IAAF’s drug testing program in 2009 and was drug tested from 2010-2013 in Jamaica and abroad. If the athlete has been tested positive based on a sample collected during his/her participationin a national track and field competition, which is not one of the international competitions listed in IAAF Rule 35.7, he/she is not to be considered as an “international-level athlete”.

2. Anational-level athlete who does not have the right to appeal a decision finding a doping violation and imposing a sanction directly to the CAS must be given the right to appeal to an independent and impartial body that will provide a timely hearingand a timely, written, reasoned decision. If the athletehas a pending appeal before an appealsbody, there has been no denial of any procedural justice but this might occur if the appeals body refuses without reasons to issue a decision or delays the issuanceof a decision beyond a reasonable time, thereby constituting a denial of justice, opening the way of an appeal to CAS against the absence of a decision.

On 1 July 2014 the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrocholorothiazide.

On 15 July 2014 the Athlete appealed the decision of 1 July 2014 with the JADCO Appeal Tribunal. In addition on 22 July 2014 the Athlete filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

On 26 August 2014, more than one (1) year after he provided a sample on 22 June 2013 for drug testing, the JADCO Disciplinary Panel produced written reasons in support of the Decision of 1 July 2014.

The Athlete submitted to CAS that the JADCO Disciplinary Panel had violated his rights because it failed to arrange a timely hearing and provide timely written reasons about his alleged doping violation. The Athlete asserted there is a real risk that if he waited until he had exhausted the local legal remedy, he would have served most if not all of the 2 year period of ineligibility before any further appeal to CAS could be determinded.

Considering the WADC and IAAF Rules the CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete is a national-level athlete and not an international-level athlete and therefore he must appeal first before the JADCO Appeal Tribunal and not to CAS.

The CAS Panel finds that although the completion of the hearing process before the JADCO Disciplinary Panel significantly exceeded the Anti-Doping in Sport Act’s time requirements and the Anti-Doping Rules’ requirement that the hearing before the JADCO Disciplinary Panel “should be completed (…) within three (3) months of the completion of the results management process”, the CAS Panel has no authority to assume jurisdiction prior to the resolution of his pending appeal before the JADCO Appeal Tribunal, which the Athlete does not contend is not an independent and impartial body.
Neither the WADC nor the IAAF Competition Rules authorize the CAS Panel to do so.

Because the Athlete has a pending appeal before the JADCO Appeal Tribunal, there has been no denial of any procedural justice but the CAS Panel notes this might occur if the JADCO Appeal Tribunal “refuses without reasons to issue a decision or delays the issuance of a decision beyond a reasonable time”, thereby constituting a “denial of justice, opening the way of an appeal [to CAS] against the absence of a decision”.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport rules that:

1.) Based on the record presented, it lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by the Athlete Mr. Traves Smikle on 22 July 2014 against the decision of the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission Disciplinary Panel of 27 June 2014.

(…)

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

CAS 2013/A/3341 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Daniel Pineda Contreras & Chilean Olympic Committee

• Athletics (long-jump, sprint)
• Doping (refusal to submit to sample collection)
• Time limit to appeal against a decision of the sports association rendered in a doping matter
• Restrictive interpretation of the compelling justification to the refusal to submit to sample collection
• Sample collection equipment
• Tampering

1. The fact that the statutes of a sports association specify a 21-day time limit to appeal a decision of the sports association to a State court shall not be interpreted as a constraint on the time limits specified in the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) or the WADC. The ADR (and therefore not the sports association’s statutes) are relevant to determine the applicable time limit for the appellant to appeal against a decision of the sports association rendered in a doping matter and within the framework of the ADR.

2. As established in CAS jurisprudence, the defence of compelling justification of the refusal to submit to sample collection is to be interpreted restrictively. The logic of the anti-doping tests demands and expects that whenever physically, hygienically and morally possible, the sample be provided despite objections by the athlete. If that does not occur, athletes would systematically refuse to provide samples for whatever reasons, leaving no opportunity for testing. Furthermore, if the athlete is not satisfied with any of the equipment available for selection, this shall be recorded by the doping control officer.

3. After the doping control officer orders additional urine collection equipment to be delivered to the doping control station, the athlete is not entitled to simply leave the doping control station based on his/her assertion that no appropriate sample collection equipment was available.

4. To establish that the athlete has tampered or attempted to tamper with any of the steps or processes that make up the doping control process, the party supporting this has the burden of establishing to the comfortable satisfaction of the adjudicating body that the athlete engaged in one or more of the actions specified in the definition of tampering. All of the actions specified in the definition of tampering require intent and certain actions also require fraudulent conduct, or the intent to deceive, on the part of the person involved.

On 30 June 2012 at the Bogota Grand Prix athletics competition during the first attemd to provide a sample, the Athlete dropped the urine collection container into the toilet bowl.

During the second attempt the open container fell on the floor after the Athlete had placed the urine collection container on a surface above the partition between the toilets. The Athlete refused to continue using this container due to the risk of contamination and left the Doping Control Station.

On 3 June 2013, one year later, the Chilean Olympic Committee (COC) Court of Honor decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete Daniel Pineda Contreras, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 March 2013.

Hereafter in October 2013 WADA appealed the COC decision of 3 June 2013 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested to set aside the COC decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for the refusal to provide a sample for drug testing without compelling justification.

The Athleted argued that WADA’s appeal was inadmissible due to it wasn’t filed within the time limit and he denied that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that under the Rules WADA had appealed the case within the time limit. Considering the submissions the Arbitrator concludes that is was physically, hygienically and morally possible for the Athlete to provide a sample during de doping control session on 30 June 2012 without compelling justification.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport rules that:

1.) The Appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency is admissible and partially upheld.

2.) The decision issued on 3 June 2013 by the Chilean Olympic Committee Court of Honor and Sports Arbitration in the matter of Mr. Daniel Pineda Contreras is set aside.

3.) Mr. Daniel Pineda Contreras is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility, starting on 5 March 2013. The three-month period of served provisional suspension shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.

4.) All competitive results obtained by the Athlete from 30 June 2012, through the commencement of the applicable period of ineligibility shall be disqualified, with all resulting consequences for the Athlete including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, point and prize and appearance money.

5.) The COC shall bear the costs of the proceedings, to be determined and served on the Parties by the CAS Court Office.

6.) The COC is ordered to pay WADA a total amount of CHF 4,000.- as contribution towards the expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

7.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2014/A/3734 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Vladislav Lukanin & International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)

• Weightlifting
• Doping (epioxandrolone; 18-nor-oxandrolone)
• Sanction for second anti-doping rule violation

In circumstances where an athlete, following a second anti-doping rule violation, receives a sanction for a first anti-doping rule violation due to the fact that the anti-doping panel in charge of the second anti-doping rule violation had not been informed of the first anti-doping rule violation the athlete may – on appeal for example by the World Anti-Doping Agency – ultimately receive a sanction adequate for a second anti-doping rule violation. If the period of ineligibility then imposed on the athlete is backdated to the end of the first imposed period of ineligibility, any results of the athlete achieved between the end of the first imposed period of ineligibility and the date of the second decision have to be disqualified. The reason for this is that it would be contrary to fairness and common sense for the athlete to be able to retain the benefit of his results over the period from the end of the first imposed period of ineligibility while at the same time having the benefit of counting the same period as a part of his period of ineligibility.

In 26 November 2004 the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Vladislav Lukanin after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (hCG).

In May 2011 the IWF reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance oxandrolone. The Athlete admitted the use of supplements purchased from the internet.
As a result on 24 november the IWF Doping Hearing Panel (DHP) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 May 2011.

The DHP imposed the sanction as first anti-doping rule violation and wasn’t informed about the Athlete’s previous anti-doping violation in 2003. With lex mitior due to modified rules of the IWF Anti-Doping Policy (ADP) the IWF Executive Committee decided in October 2012 to reduce the Athlete’s sanction from 4 year to 2 years ending on 13 May 2013.

After delays due to incomplete case files WADA appealed the IWF decision of 8 September 2014 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Sole Arbitrator to set aside the IWF decision and to impose a 8 year ineligibility period or a lifetime ban on the Athlete.

WADA argued that IWF made several failures and under the IWF ADP Rules the Athlete had committed multiple violations due to his second anti-doping rule violation in April 2011 occurred within the 8 year period after he had committed the first anti-doping rule violation in November 2003.

The Sole Arbitrator agrees that after the second violation in April 2011 the Athlete had committed multiple anti-doping rule violations within the 8 year period under the IWF ADP Rules. As a consequence the IWF Doping Hearing Panel had to impose a 8 year period of ineligibility or a lifetime ban on the Athlete and without lex mitior reduction of the sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 December 2012 that:

1.) The Decision of the IWF Doping Hearing Panel issued on 7 November 2011 is varied in that in place of a period of four years ineligibility a period of eight years ineligibility is imposed on the Athlete, such period to be calculated from 13 May 2011.

2.) The decision of the IWF Executive Board contained in its letter dated 29 October 2012 is declared void.

3.) All competitive individual results obtained by the Athlete from 13 April 2011 are disqualified (including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes).

4.) IWF shall pay a contribution of CHF 3,000 (three thousand Swiss Francs) towards the costs of WADA incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

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

CAS 2014/A/3485 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Daria Goltsova and International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)

• Weightlifting
• Doping (cocaine)
• Applicable law
• WADA time limit to appeal
• Scope of CAS review
• Degree of fault or negligence
• Commencement of the period of ineligibility in case of substantial delays

1. In anti-doping cases where at the time of an anti-doping rule violation a different version of the applicable anti-doping rules is in force than at the time an appeal to CAS is lodged against a first instance decision rendered with respect to the anti-doping rule violation, the substantive elements of the appeal are governed by the rules in force at the time of the alleged violation – subject to any application of the principle of lex mitior. However the procedural aspects of the appeal are governed by the rules in force at the time of the appeal.

2. Under the IWF anti-doping policy, the deadline for an appeal by WADA is determined – amongst others – by WADA’s receipt of the complete file relating to the decision. In cases of appeals by WADA where the length of time elapsed between the decision appealed and the date of the appeal is considerable, consideration should be given as to whether there was any evidence from which it could be inferred that there was a good faith obligation on WADA to have inquired as to the existence or progress of any disciplinary proceedings against the athlete so as to impose a duty on WADA to commence any appeal to the CAS earlier than it did in the given case.

3. Even if an athlete does not appeal against a first instance decision by which he or she has been found to have had no significant fault/negligence for an anti-doping rule violation, upon appeal by another party (e.g. by WADA) the CAS Panel in charge must start with the question whether the athlete has established that there was no fault or negligence on his or her part. This is because CAS has full power to review the facts and the law (i.e. to treat the matter de novo and not merely as a review of the first instance decision, though it will pay proper regard and respect to the first instance decision).

4. Over the years, athletes have had their obligation to ensure that they do not ingest any prohibited substance drummed into them. An athlete cannot now be regarded as being absolved from all responsibility when choosing to make up a drink from a sachet containing an unknown herbal substance, particularly one with the word “Coca” in its name, even when that substance is made freely available to all the guests in a hotel dining room.

5. Where there have been substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of Doping Control not attributable to the athlete, for example an delay in the commencement of the appeal proceedings brought about by the failure of the International Federation or Anti-Doping Organization to comply with its obligation to notify WADA of the result of the hearing before the first instance hearing body, the International Federation or Anti-Doping Organization imposing the sanction may start the period of ineligibility at an earlier date commencing as early as the date of sample collection or the date on which another anti-doping rule violation last occurred.

In May 2011 the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against Daria Goltsova after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine.
The Russian Athlete stated in her defence that during the World Youth Championships in Lima, Peru, she drank juice and tea. The Athlete didn’t speak English and didn’t know she consumed in her hotel free available tea Mate de Coca. After she tested positive analysis of this tea by Rusada showed that the tea bags contain 0.08 mg of cocaine per 100 gram tea.
On 20 November 2011 the IWF Doping Hearing Panel (DHP) decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 July 2011.

Hereafter in February 2014 WADA appealed the IWF decision of 20 November 2011 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA accepted the Athlete’s explanation and requested the CAS Panel to set aside the IWF decision and to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete with no significant fault or negligence.

Considering the exeptional circumstances the Panel finds that the Athlete wasn’t warned by the Russian Weightlifting Federation to avoid any product related to the coca plant and she acted without intention to enhance performance and without significant fault or negligence.
The Panel notes that there was an unconscionable delay in the commencement of the WADA appeal with CAS due to apparent unexplained failure of the IWF to notify WADA of the result of the hearing before the DHP. The Athlete was entitled to believe that the matter had been closed and to get on with her career. It would be unconscionable for her now to be required to serve any further period of ineligibility. In these circumstances the appropriate course is to commence the period of 1 year period of ineligibility from the date of the sample collection on 13 May 2011.

Therefore the Sole Arbitrator of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 12 August 2014 that:

1.) The Appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the IWF Doping Hearing Panel dated 20 November 2011 in the matter of Ms Daria Goltsova is upheld.
2.) The decision, of the IWF Doping Hearing Panel is set aside and replaced with the following:
A period of one year's ineligibility shall be imposed on Ms Daria Goltsova, such period of ineligibility to run from 13 May 2011.
3.) All sporting results obtained by Ms Daria Goltsova between 13 May 2011 up to the expiry of the period of ineligibilty shall be invalidated.
4.) The International Weightliftmg Federation shall pay a contribution of CHF 1,000 to the costs and expenses of the World Anti-Doping Agency.
5.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 paid by the World Anti-Doping Agency which shall be retained by the CAS.
6.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

CAS 2014/A/3472 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Marzena Karpinska & Polish Weightlifting Federation (PWF)

Weightlifting
Doping (19-norandrosterone)
Consequences of the inadmissibility of an appeal before the first instance body having imposed the original sanction
Fairness of the sanction

1. If, pursuant to the applicable Article 13.2.1 of the Anti-Doping Model Rules of the Polish Commission Against Doping in Sport, in cases involving an International-Level Athlete, a decision may be appealed exclusively to CAS and the athlete is considered to be an International-Level Athlete in the meaning of the abovementioned Article 13.2.1, he or she must lodge his/her appeal against the first instance decision before the CAS. Therefore the PWF Disciplinary, Anti-Doping and Club Change Committee which issued the original decision has no jurisdiction over an appeal and cannot re-examine its own decision and decide to shorten the ineligibility period of 2 years originally imposed to 16 months.

2. If the suspension sought by WADA of the athlete’s individual results between the first 16 months of suspension and the now 8 additional months imposed on the athlete as a result of WADA’s appeal have the additional effect to extend the overall sanction over the period of two years of ineligibility originally imposed, reasons of fairness suggest that the relevant request for relief put forward by WADA shall not be upheld and any awards, earnings, etc. earned by the athlete after he/she began to compete, in good faith, following the conclusion of the first 16 months of suspension until the date of this award imposing the additional 8 months of suspension shall be retained by the athlete.

In June 2012 Polski Zwiazek Podnoszenia Ciezarow (PZPC), the Polish Weightlifting Federation (PWF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against Marzena Karpinska after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (metabolite of nandrolone). As a result the Disciplinary, Anti-Doping and Club Change Committee of the PWF decided on 13 September 2012 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Athlete appealed in October 2012 and the PWF decided to reduce the imposed sanction from 2 years to 16 months.

Hereafter in In January 2014 WADA appealed the PWF decision of 3 October 2013 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
WADA requested the CAS Sole Arbitrator to set aside the PWF decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

WADA argued that the Polish Anti-Doping Model Rules don’t allow PWF amending of the appealed decision and without permission of both WADA and IWF. The Model Rules also don’t allow reduction of the imposed sanction for violations with anabolic steroids and under the Model Rules the Athlete failed to explain how the prohibited substance entered her body. In addition the Athlete failed to file her appeal within 21 days after receipt of the original decision.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete’s appeal was not admissible due to the fact that she filed her appeal too late according to the Polish Anti-Doping Model Rules and the PWF Disciplinary Regulations and without PWF jurisdiction should have been addressed to CAS.

Therefore the Sole Arbitrator of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 September 2014 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency is partially upheld.
2.) The decision rendered by the Polish Weightlifting Federation Disciplinary, Anti-Doping and Club Change Committee on 3 October 2013 is set aside.
3. )The decision rendered by the PWF Disciplinary, Anti-Doping and Club Change Committee on 13 September 2012 (the Original Decision) is re-established.
4.) Ms Marzena Karpinska is sanctioned with an additional period of ineligibility of eight (8) months starting from the notification of the present award by the CAS Court Office.
5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Polish Weightlifting Federation.
6.) The Polish Weightlifting Federation shall contribute CHF 3,000.00 towards the legal expenses and costs incurred by the World Anti-Doping Agency in connection with this procedure.
7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Commission d'enquête sur le recours aux drogues et aux pratiques interdites pour améliorer la performance athlétique : [Dubin Report] / Charles L. Dubin. - Ottawa : La Commission ; Ministère des approvisionnements et services Canada, 1990. – XXXI, 714 p. : ill
ISBN 0660929767
ISBN 9780660929767

Cette commission a été créée à la suite de la disqualification du coureur Ben Johnson, gagnant de l'épreuve des 100 mètres aux Jeux Olympiques de Séoul, en 1988. Cette publication est le résultat d'une enquête approfondie sur l'usage des drogues dans les milieu sportifs canadiens. La Commission a en effet tenue des audiences publiques en 1989 dans le but d'enquèter sur l'usage des drogues par les athlètes, plus particulièrement sur celui des stéroides anabolisants, d'analyser leurs effets sur performances des utilisateurs ainsi que des risques qu'elles représentaient pour leur santé. Les conclusions et recommandations de la commission contribueront largement à réhabiliter l'image du sport au Canada et dans le monde entier.

Commission of inquiry into the use of drugs and banned practices intended to increase athletic performance : [Dubin Report] / Charles L. Dubin. - Ottawa : The Commission ; Canadian Government Publishing Centre, 1990. – XXIX, 638 p. : ill
ISBN 0660136104
ISBN 9780660136103

In Canada, the federal government established the Commission of Inquiry Into the Use of Drugs and Banned Practices Intended to Increase Athletic Performance, headed by Ontario Appeal Court Chief Justice Charles Dubin. The Dubin Inquiry (as it became known), which was televised live, heard hundreds of hours of testimony about the widespread use of performance-enhancing drugs among athletes. The inquiry began in January 1989 and lasted 91 days, with 122 witnesses called, including athletes, coaches, sport administrators, IOC representatives, doctors and government officials.

Recommendations from the Dubin Report include:
(1) increased and improved drug testing at the national and international levels;
(2) third-party testing by the Sports Medicine Council of Canada;
(3) stricter sanctions, including suspension for at least the next world championship, after a violation;
(4) legal sanctions for steroid distribution and use;
(5) clearer demarcation on rights and responsibilities of Sport Canada and the sports governing bodies, with the former responsible for financing carded athletes and national teams, and the latter responsible for the selection and eligibility of such teams;
(6) change in emphasis by the sporting community, the media, and the public at large from winning medals to personal excellence;
(7) establishment of an independent arbitrator to deal with appeals; and
(8) ethics and morality modules in the National Coaching Certification Program.

Content:

PART ONE
Overview of Government and Sport in Canada
1. Government and Sport in Canada

PART TWO
Overview of Doping
2. Doping Definitions and Policies
3. Banned Substances and Practices
4. Doping Control Procedures

PART THREE
The Sports and Events Examined
5. Weightlifting
6. The Canadian Track and Field Association
7. Doping Control Policy and Practice in Track and Field before September 1988
8. The Throwing Events
9. Canada's Olympic Sprint Team, 1988
10. The Disqualification at the Seoul Olympics
11. The Use of Performance-Enhancing Drugs
12. The Positive Test
13. "Estragol" [furazabol]
14. Other Track Athletes
15. Athlete Reserve Fund

PART FOUR
Use and Control of Banned Substances
16. Extent of Use of Banned Substances
17. Supply and Distribution of Banned Substances
18. Food and Drugs Act
19. Medical Profession
20. Drug-Testing Issues
21. Doping Control Initiatives before 1988
22. Doping Control Initiatives since 1988

PART FIVE
Rights and Ethical Considerations
23. Athletes and Coaches against Drugs
24. Athletes'Rights
25. Ethics and Morality in Sport

PART SIX
Conclusions and Recommendations
26. Conclusions and Recommendations