iNADO Update #63 reports on a number of recent anti-doping conferences and meetings, and one later this week. It provides links to a wide range of practical and thought-provoking anti-doping presentations and other resources.

CAS 2014/A/3615 WADA v. Lauris Daiders, Jànis Daiders & FIM

On 21 March 2014 the FIM International Disciplinary Court decided to impost a 15 month period of ineligibility on the riders Lauris Daiders and Jànis Daiders after Lauris Daiders tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol.

Hereafter in May 2014 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the FIM decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision regarding the Athlete Lauris Daiders and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. In his defence he provided a number of possible scenarios of how Clenbuterol could have entered his system, as well as a list of food supplements he had been taking.

The Panel establishes that the Athlete failed to produce any corroborating evidence in support of any of his hypotheses as to how Clebuterol might have entered his system. As a result the Panel deems that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 January 2015

1. The Appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on May 28, 2014, against the Decision of the International Disciplinary Court of the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme dated 21 March 2014 is upheld.
2. The decision rendered by the International Disciplinary Court of the FIM dated March 21, 2014, is set aside.
3. Mr Lauris Daiders is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of two years commencing on the date of this award. Any period of ineligibility, whether imposed on or voluntarily accepted by Mr Lauris Daiders before the entry into force of this award, shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.
4. All competitive results obtained by Mr Lauris Daiders – whether alone or as part of a team - from and including July 21, 2013, through the commencement of his provisional suspension are disqualified, with all resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
5. The present award is pronounced without costs, except for the CAS Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) already paid by the World Anti-Doping Agency, which is retained by the CAS.
6. The FIM shall contribute CHF 3’000 (three thousand Swiss Francs) to the WADA for its legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings. The other parties shall bear their own legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.
7. All other or further requests or motions for relief are dismissed.

In September 2012 the English and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Pakistan Cricket Player Abdur Rehman after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete admitted the violation and filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete explained that a week before he provided a sample he was at a party where he had used alcohol and there he inadvertently had smoked cannabis as part of a roll-up cigarette which he had wrongly assumed to be a tobacco cigarette.

The ECB accepted the Athlete's explanation and considers the Athlete's prompt admission and cooperation in this case.
Therefore the ECB decides on 4 October 2012 to impose a 12 week period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 29 September 2012.

In March 2014 the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has reported an anti-doping rule violationa against the cricket player Umaid Asif after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Prednisolone and Prednisone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with medical information in his defence and he was heard for the PCB Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted the violation and explained that he suffered from a medical condition, severe allergic reactions, which requires the use of life saving drugs. He produced prescriptions from hospitals and medical certificates and prescriptions issued by the doctors. He asserted, alternatively, that he bears no fault or negligence.

The Tribunal accepts that the Athlete in this case under the Rules was not required to obtain a TUE under the peculiar circumstances of this case. Also the Tribunal finds that the Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence as grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the PCB Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 26 September 2014 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 March 2014.

In January 2014 the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cricket player Kashif Siddique after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrostenedione, 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone) and Stanozolol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.
The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the PCB Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he had used the presctribed medication Wingstole and Deca Durabilin, without a TUE, as treatment for his shoulder injury as possible source of the positive test. The Athlete asserted that the violation was not intentional and that he acted with No Fault or Negligence.

The Tribunal did not accept the Athlete's statement and finds that he failed to produce evidence that the medication he used was the source of the positive test, neither that he underwent medical treatment.

The PCB Anti-Doping Tribunal concludes that the Athlete acted with negligence and without grounds for a reduced sanction it decides on 26 April 2014 to impose a 2 year period of ineligbility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 January 2014.

Doping in sport is nothing new, but it has grown, expanded geographically and become more visible in recent years. It is a true scourge for many competitive sports and jeopardizes the health of millions of young athletes throughout the world.
Since the 1960's, the Council of Europe has realized the extent of this problem and decided to fight it. The Anti-Doping Convention, opened for signature on 16 November 1989 in Strasbourg and entering into force on 1 March 1990, demonstrates this commitment. It expresses the Contracting Parties’ political will to fight against doping in sport in an active and coordinated manner.
The main objective of the Convention is to promote the harmonization, at national and international levels, of the measures to be taken against doping.
The Convention does not claim to create a uniform model of anti-doping, but sets a certain number of common standards and regulations requiring that the Parties adopt legislative, financial, technical, educational and other measures. Its spirit derives from the political desire to help safeguard the ethics of sport and to preserve the integrity of clean sport.
By joining the principles and objectives of the Convention, the contracting Parties undertake, in their respective constitutional provisions, to set up a national anti-doping policy to:
– create a national coordinating body;
– reduce the trafficking of doping substances and the use of banned doping agents;
– reinforce doping controls and improve detection techniques;
– support education and information programs;
– guarantee the efficiency of sanctions taken against offenders;
– collaborate with national and international sports organisations;
– and use accredited anti-doping laboratories.
A monitoring system was created under the Convention and the Monitoring Group of the Anti-Doping Convention set up under Article 10 of the Convention is the body responsible for monitoring the application of the Convention. Parties to the Convention are under the obligation to provide the Council of Europe with information on legislative and other measures taken for the purpose of complying with the terms of the Convention, in accordance with Article 9. In order to facilitate this process, a questionnaire was prepared, requesting national reports from the Parties on the implementation of the Convention.
This report, reflecting the data of Netherlands for the year 2009, has been compiled for the purpose of monitoring of the convention by its Committee and is published for transparency. Comments may be sent to the secretariat of the Council of Europe, Sport department (sport@coe.int).
All reproduction of this report, of a part of this report or of its data, has to be allowed by written authorization of the Council of Europe.

Facts
Richard Burnett appealed against the decision of the National Anti-Doping panel (NADP) of June 10, 2015. His reason for appealing was that his wants a reduction of the sanction (18 months period of ineligibility).

History
The player claims that effectively his sanction was a period of 2 years and 2 months due to missing qualification rounds and by that he was not able to earn money till January 2017.
The also player claims that in similar cases the reduced sanction should not exceed the period of one year.
The panel considers his lost of income as an invalid argument.
The NADP had been erroneous in some ways, but their conclusion is valid.

Decision
The appeal is dismissed.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping organization (UKAD) charges Richard Burnett, the player, for an Anti-Doping rule (ADR) violation. On November 3, 2014, UKAD collected a sample, during a dart tournament, for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample did show the presence of benzoylecgonine a metabolite of cocaine. Cocaine is a prohibited substance according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 prohibited list, it is a non-specified substance.

History
The player only indicated that he had taken gout tablets and pain killers.
The panel does take exceptional circumstances into consideration and allows a reduction of the penalty.

Decision
- The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 18 months.
- The period of ineligibility is adapted to his provisional suspension commencing on November 3, 2014, and ending on May 2, 2016.
- His results obtained on November 3, 2014, will be annulled. Medals, points and prizes will be withdrawn.

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges Quentin Bigot, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The athlete provided a sample for doping control purposes on June 21, 2014, during the European championships for teams in Germany. The sample showed the presence of metandienone and stanozolol which are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 prohibited list.

History
The athlete explains that he had used medication containing the prohibited substances to accelerate the recovery of muscle injuries.

Decision
1. The doping violation has been established and there were no objections.
2. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of four years, from which two years conditionally, in which the athlete can not take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFA and other French sport federations.
3. The individual results of June 21, 2014, are cancelled. Points, medals and prizes will be withdrawn.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published in the official bulletin of the FFA and by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF).

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges Bertrand Moulinet, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The athlete provided a sample for an in-competition doping control on April 13, 2015. The sample showed the presence of FG-4592 which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2015 prohibited list.

History
The athlete had mentioned medication but these are known for containing budesonide instead of FG-4592. Budesonide was not detected.
On March 30, 2015, the athlete had also been tested positive during an out-of-competition doping test for FG-4592. But the two findings are seen as only one doping violation.

Decision
1. The doping violation has been established and there were no objections.
2. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of four years in which the athlete can not take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFA and related French sport federations.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.