In August 2023 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Adam Rusling after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Cocaine and Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and their metabolites.

Following notification the Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by UKAD. The Athlete admitted that he had used Cocaine and MDMA out-of-competition and recreational at his home.

Therefore UKAD decides on 11 January 2024 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 2 August 2023. Because the Athlete already has served his period of inelibility he is eligible to participate in sport forthwith.

Update on the Role of Actovegin in Musculoskeletal Medicine : A Review of the Past 10 Years / James Brock, David Golding, Paul M. Smith, Len Nokes, Alvin Kwan, Paul Y.F. Lee

• PMID: 31855916
• DOI: 10.1097/JSM.0000000000000566
• Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine 30 (2020) 1 (January), p. 83-90

---

Abstract

Background: Actovegin is a biological drug with a controversial history of use in the treatment of sports injuries during the past 60 years. Particular concerns have been raised about its ergogenic potential to enhance performance, but some of these have been based on little more than anecdote.

Objectives: In this article, we review the most recent scientific evidence to determine the clinical efficacy, safety profile, and legal status of Actovegin.

Methods: We considered all studies directly commenting on experience with Actovegin use as the primary intervention within the past 10 years. Outcomes included mechanisms of action, clinical efficacy in enhancing muscle repair, any report of safety issues, and any evidence for ergogenic effect.

Results: Our database search returned 212 articles, abstracts were screened, and after inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied, 25 articles were considered: Publications included 11 primary research articles (7 in vitro studies and 4 clinical trials), 8 review articles, 5 editorials, and a single case report.

Conclusions: Current literature is still yet to define the active compound(s) of Actovegin, but suggests that it shows antioxidant and antiapoptotic properties, and may also upregulate macrophage responses central to muscle repair. Clinical efficacy was supported by one new original research article, and the use of Actovegin to treat muscle injuries remains safe and supported. Two articles argued the ergogenic effect of Actovegin, but in vitro findings did not to translate to the outcomes of a clinical trial. An adequate and meaningful scientific approach remains difficult in a field where there is immense pressure to deliver cutting-edge therapies.

• CAS 2023/A/9451 Association Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) v Ms Kamila Valieva
• CAS 2023/A/9455 International Skating Union (ISU) v Ms Kamila Valieva and The Russian Doping Agency
• CAS 2023/A/9456 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) and Ms Kamila Valieva

Related cases:

• CAS OG_2022_08 IOC, WADA, ISU vs RUSADA, Kamila Valieva & ROC
  February 17, 2022
• CAS OG_2022_11 United States Figure Skating Team vs IOC
  March 30, 2022
  
  

---

In February 2022 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva (15) after her sample, collected on 25 December 2021, tested positive for the prohibited substance Trimetazidine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered on 8 Februay 2022 and consequently the Athlete was prohibited from participation in the 2022 Beijing Olympic Games.

Yet, the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) decided on 9 February 2022 to lift the Athlete's provisional suspension as it deemed that under the Russian ADR and the WADC 2021 the minor Athlete is a Protected Person.

The DADC accepted the explanation and evidence that the prohibited substance entered the Athlete's system through the use of a contaminated product, i.e. the medication used by her grandfather.

Hereafter on 11 and 12 February the IOC, WADA and ISU appealed the DADC Decision of 9 February with the CAS Ad Hoc Division at the Beijing 2022 Olympic Games.

Nevertheless the CAS Ad Hoc Division dismissed the appeals and decides on 17 February 2022 that the Appealed Provisional Suspension regarding the Athlete should remain lifted.

---

On 24 January 2023 the RUSADA DADC rendered its final decision and concluded that the Athlete had acted with No Fault or Negligence and without the application of a period of ineligibility. The DADC disqualified her results at the Russian 2021 National Championships, but not her results at the Beijing 2022 Olympic Games.

Hereafter in February 2023 RUSADA, ISU and WADA appealed the DADC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

RUSADA, ISU and WADA contended that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation despite that she is a Protected Person. Accordingly they requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose an appropriate sanction on the Athlete based on her degree of Fault.

The Athlete accepted the test results and argued that she is a Protected Person. Further she objected the CAS jurisdiction in this case.

She asserted that the violation was not intentional and that she acted with utmost caution to keep clean. She was unaware that her grandfather was using a prohibited substance as a heart medication, thus she was unaware of the potentional risk of a contamination.

In this case the Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and issues raised by the Parties:

• CAS jurisdiction
• The anti-doping rule violation
• The sanctions
• Protected person
• Burdens and standards of proof
• Trimetazidine

Ultimately the Panel concludes:

• The Athlete failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that she did not commit the violation intentionally.
• Under the Russian ADR it is not open to the Panel to consider grounds for a reduced sanction.
• There had been substantial delays in the analytical process and in the results managment, which was not attributed to the Athlete.
• The Athlete is a honest, straightforward and credible witness.
• She certainly is not a cheat, nor that she cheated at the Russian 2021 National Championships, nor at the Beijing 2022 Olympic Games (or at any other time).

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 January 2024 that:

1. The Appeal filed on 14 February 2023 by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is upheld.
2. The Appeal filed on 20 February 2023 by the International Skating Union against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is upheld.
3. The Appeal filed on 21 February 2023 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is partially upheld.
4. The decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is set aside.
5. Ms Kamila Valieva is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Clause 4.1 of the All-Russian Anti-Doping Rules of 24 June 2021.
6. A period of four (4) years ineligibility is imposed on Ms Kamila Valieva, starting on 25 December 2021. Any period of provisional suspension served by Ms Kamila Valieva shall be credited against the period of ineligibility imposed.
7. All competitive results of Ms Kamila Valieva from 25 December 2021 are disqualified, with all the resulting consequences (including forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, profits, prizes, and appearance money).
8. (…)
9. (…).
10. (…).
11. (…).
12. (…).
13. (…)
14. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

, to sanction the Athlete for 4 years

The Athlete in her defence argued that:

• The source of the inadvertent contamination has been established by the DADC after careful analysis, in connection with her interacton with her grandfather, who regularly takes the medicine Trimetazidine.
• The DADC correctly had acknowledged that the Athlete is a Protected Person due to her age;
• The DADC accepted that the Athlete would not have any competitive advantages by consuming the Trimetazidine based on the medical experts' testimonies.
• Under the Rules the conditions are met in order to lift the Provisional Suspension.

RUSADA contended that the analysis in the Stockholm Lab was delayed due to pandemic-related staff shortages and is confident that the Athlete will be able to complete her submission with respect of evidenc in the proceedings before CAS whereas she has a lesser burden of proof as a Protected Person.

The ROC asserted that in the present case concrete evidence showing the source of the contamination is not required (as the Athlete is a Protected Person) and are not available (due to the undue delay in the reporting of the adverse analytical finding by the Anti-Doping Laboratory). As a result the Panel must rely on circumstantial evidence and decide to confirm the Appealed Decision if the scenario submitted by the Athlete with regard to contamination with the Prohibited Substance is more likely that the different scenario of a voluntary ingestion.

The CAS Ad Hoc Panel holds that it is uncontested that the Athlete is clearly a Protected Person under the Russian ADR and that the WADC 2021 intends to give special treatment to the Protected Persons like the Athlete.

The Panel finds that in cases involving Protected Persons, their Provisional Suspensions should be evaluated as optional Provisional Suspensions under WADC 2021 Article 7.4.2 and its progeny.

The Panel determines that the Athlete was entitled to benefit from being subject to an optional Provisional Suspension as a Protected Person and that, under the facts and circumstances, the option not to impose a Provisional Suspension should have been exercised so that she would not be prevented to compete in the Games.

Further the Panel considers in this case:

• the length of time it took for the laboratory to submit its report of an AAF involving the Athlete;
• the timing of that relative to the conduct of the Women’s Single Skating event at the Games;
• the difficulty to be faced in the Athlete not being able in
  the current situation, right in the middle of the Games, to muster proof to support her defence of the ADRV being asserted against her;
• the relatively low level of the prohibited substance found
  in her sample;
• the fact that she has tested negative in multiple tests before;
• after the test in question the case she has attempted to muster on contamination whether in a product or through domestic contamination, and the likely low level of sanction
  she will face if found to have committed an ADRV.

The Panel deems that athletes should not be subject to the risk of serious harm occasioned by anti-doping authorities’ failure to function effectively at a high level of performance and in a manner designed to protect the integrity of the operation of the Games. Accordingly the Panel finds that the Provisional Suspension should remain lifted.

Therefore the CAS Ad Hoc Division decides on 17 February 2022:

1. The Ad Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction to determine the Applications filed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and International Skating Union (ISU).
2. The Applications filed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and International Skating Union (ISU) are dismissed.

In January 2022 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the triathlon Athlete Annah Watkinson after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Mestanolone in a low concentration.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Tribunal.

SAIDS contended that the Athlete failed to prove with corroborating evidence that the violation was not intentional and how the subtance had entered her system.

The Athlete attempted to identify the source of the prohibited substance with testst, experts and legal representative. Also she attempted to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional and that she had not acted recklessly.

The Athlete presented three possible sources of the prohibited substance:

• Contamination or cross contamination of a peanut butter smoothie;
• The transfer of the prohibited substance to her by her boyfriend through kissing;
• The use of a steroid cream by someone who shared the swimming pool with her.

Regarding the possible sources the Panel assessed and adressed in detail the evidence raised by the Athlete. However, the Panel concludes that the hypothesis is not probable and the theories unlikely.

Furthermore the Panel did not accept that as an experienced athlete in the Doping Process she only had mentioned on the Doping Control Form the supplements she had use on the day of the test and not the preceeding 7 days.

Despite the Athlete tried to demonstrate with evidence that she not had been dishonest or reckless the Panel concludes that she failed to establish that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the Panel decides on 21 November 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 January 2022.

In September 2023 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) charged the triathlon Athlete Louis Walker for committing an anti-doping rule violation after Clenbuterol had been found in his possesion in February 2023 and this was reported to his coach and UKAD.

Following notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by UKAD.

The Athlete admitted the possession and use of Clenoxin tablets (Clenbuterol). He statet that he had used it at a time of difficult personal circumstances to assist him for losing weight and for body image.

UKAD deems that the Athlete's violation was intentional and determines that he shall receive a 1 year reduction for his timely admission of the anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore UKAD decides on 5 January 2024 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 September 2023.

In September 2023 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the softball player Mitchell McKay after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Pseudoephedrine in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by CCES.

The Athlete provided an explanation for the positive test and signed an Agreement on Consequences in January 2024. CCES accepted that the violation was not intentional and considered that he acted with a degree of fault.

Therefore CCES decides on 12 February 2024 to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 September 2023.

In December 2021 the Pan American Sports Organization (PASO) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Argentine cyclist Juan Manuel Godoy after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

Consequently the PASO Disciplinary Commission (PASO DC) decided on 23 February 2022 that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and to disqualify his results obtained at the 2021 Junior Pan American Games.

Hereafter the case was referred to the UCI to consider further action on sanction and consequences. Following notification the UCI upheld the Athlete's provisional suspension.

In January 2023 the UCI considered that the Athlete refused the Acceptance of Consequences and the case was referred to the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal. Without a hearing the Sole Arbitrator rendered a decision based on the written submissions of the Parties.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He requested for a reduced sanction and to lift the provisional suspension.

He argued that his case must be dismissed because there had been irregularities in the proceedings before the PASO DC. Moreover on the basis of ne bis in idem he claimed that the PASO DC had already sanctioned him.

Further the Athlete alleged that the source of the positive test were supplements contaminated by members of the Argentinian Team. Yet, analysis of his supplements revealed no banned substances because the relevant technology was unavailable at the laboratory that conducted the analysis.

Preliminary the Soul Arbitrator determines that there was no violation of the principle of ne bis in idem because under the applicable rules it was valid to refer the case to the UCI for completion of Results Management.

The Sole Arbitrator confirmes the decision of the PASO DC that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation for the presence of a prohibited substance in his sample.

In view of the evidence the Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. Furthermore there are also no grounds for a reduced sanction.

The Arbitrator deems that without any corroborating evidence the Athlete did not demonstrate that contaminated supplements were the source of the positive test. Neither did he demonstrate how the prohibited substance had entered his system.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 20 December 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e on 17 December 2021.

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

In February 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Spanish Athlete Mohamed Katir for his Whereabouts Filing Failures and Missed Tests within a 12 month period:

• a Filing Failure on 28 February 2023;
• a Missed Test / Filing Failure on 3 April 2023;
• a Missed Test / Filing Failure on 10 October 2023.

Regarding the first Whereabouts Filing Failure in February 2023 the Athlete explained that he had received a call from his fiancée that she was feeling unwell. He immediately booked a flight to Portugal and updated his Whereabouts information.

Regarding his failure in April 2023 the Athlete explained that during the days before the Mssed Test multiple times he could not update his Whereabouts information in ADAMS due to technical problems with his App.

After the Missed Test in October 2023 he stated that he was surprised to see that his 60-minute time slot was set between 19:20 and 20:20. He asserted that there must have been a system error as prior he had set his 60 minutes time slot between 07:00 and 08:00 uur.

The AIU assessed and addressed the Athlete's explanations and evidence and made the following conclusions:

• The Athlete's flight to Portugal in February 2023 was booked 2 days before his departure and not last minute as claimed by the Athlete.
• He did not timely update his Whereabouts in February 2023 and provided inaccurate information.
• At the material time in April 2023 there had been no technical problems with ADAMS, nor were multiple log in attempts recorded.
• Before the Missed Test in April 2023 his updates in ADAMS were inaccurate and incomplete.
• On the day of the Missed Test in April 2023 he updated his Whereabouts 20 minutes after the arrival of the Doping Control Officer (DCO) and not prior to his 60-minutes timeslot in ADAMS as claimed.
• In October 2023 he had changed his 60-minutes time slot in ADAMS after the DCO had concluded his attempt to locate the Athlete.

Ultimately the Athlete admitted the anti-doping rule violation and signed and submitted an Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violation and Acceptance of Consequences Form.

Therefore on 16 February 2024 the AIU decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 February 2024.

In June 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Lithuanian Athlete Zita Kosač after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Mestanolone, Methasterone and Oxymetholone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in her defence. She believed that her supplement was the source of the prohibited substances.

With approval of the AIU the Athlete provided an open container of this supplement and a sealed container (from a different batch) to the Warshaw Lab for testing. Thereupon analysis in the Lab confirmed the presence of these prohibited substances in both containers of this supplement.

The Athlete asserted that the supplement was the source of the prohibited substances and that she had mentioned this product on the Doping Control Form. Ultimately in February 2024 she signed and submitted an Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance Form. 

In view of the evidence the AIU accepts that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that she demonstrated how the substances had entered her system. The AIU determines that she acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Further the AIU considers that the prohibited substances were not mentioned on the product label of this supplement and that she had participated into a Marathon in September 2023 during the provisional suspension.

Therefore the AIU decides on 16 February 2024 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting backdated on 25 July 2023.

In July 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Charles Karanja Kamau after his sample tested positive for Testosterone and its metabolites.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and he was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal.

In this case there were delays attributed to the Athlete. He failed to communicate properly with his pro bono counsel, nor did he file a statement in his defence within the set deadline.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He stated that he only had used medication and supplements which he had mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

The Athlete acknowledged that he had not checked his supplements for banned substances, nor had he consulted experts in this matter. For his supplements he followed the recommendations from his manager, a friend and a nutritionist.

The AIU requested the Tribunal to impose a sanction of 4 years and contended that the Athlete had failed to demonstrate the source of the prohibited substance. Furthermore the AIU considered that the Athlete's supplements did not contain Testosterone, neither were these supplements tested.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

In view of the evidence and the Athlete's conduct in this case the Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate  that the violation was not intentional. He also deems that he acted negligently with the supplements.

Therefore the Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 12 February 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 July 2023.