Facts
Andreas Berger, the Athlete, appeals before the Court of Vienna against a decision of the Austrian Athletic Federation (Österreichischer Leichtathletik-Verband, ÖLV) in which he was sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four years.

History
The athlete had been sanctioned because of the use of metandienone which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 1993 prohibited list. The International Association of Athletics Federations sanctions this with a 4 year period of ineligibility, a second violation will be a life ban. The sanction of a first violation by the Austrian Sport Federation (Österreichischen Bundessport-organisation, BSO) however is only a 2 year period of ineligibility for national and international games. The athlete had used the prohibited substance to recover from a operations of his Achilles joints. Also it is considered that a 4 year period of ineligibility goes against the principle of the freedom to pursue a trade, it is the end of the career of the athlete. Also it is against the principle of proportionality.

Decision
- The sanction of the ÖLV is inappropriate.
- ÖLV has to pay the legal fee.

CAS 2004/A/607 B. v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)

• Weightlifting
• Doping offence
• Manipulation of sample
• Standard of proof
• Sanction

1. When the physical manipulation of the samples is undisputed, a prohibited doping method in the form of manipulation has occurred under Rule 5.1(b) of the IWF Anti-Doping Policy. The result is a doping offence as the alleged breach in the chain of custody, the alleged manipulation occurring during the period of custody and the alleged fact that the athlete has been victim of a conspiracy have not Under Rule 5.1(b) of the IWF Anti-Doping Policy been demonstrated. As a result, the athlete should be suspended according to the applicable rules.

2. As to the standards of proof to establish that an anti-doping violation has occurred, the IWF Anti-Doping Policy remains silent. According to Swiss law, which has been chosen by the parties, the Panel, based on objective criteria, must be convinced of the occurrence of an alleged fact. However, according to the jurisprudence of the Swiss Supreme Court, no absolute assurance is required; it suffices that the Tribunal has no serious doubts on a specific fact or that the remaining doubts appear to be light. This test is in line with standard CAS practice, providing that an anti-doping rule violation must be established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal. This standard of proof is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In November 2013 the Bulgarian Weightlifting Federation (BWF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete B and two other athletes for tampering (physical manipulation) after the laboratory had reported that their three samples contained the urine from the same athlete.

The IWF submitted a letter to the BWF on 31 March 2004. The letter stated that following negotiations between the IWF and the BWF, the parties agreed to reduce the Athlete’s sanction from a life time ban to eight years and the other athletes’ suspensions from a two year ban to 18 months.

This compromise was accepted by the Board of the IWF to avoid a long-lasting and expensive legal process if the athletes appealed. The letter also indicated that the BWF would have
to pay a fine of USD 60,000, of which USD 30,000 had already been paid, because the BWF had three doping offences within one calendar year.

On 13 April 2004, the Athlete sent to the Executive Board of the IWF a statement in which he refused the 8 year suspension and hereafter he appealed the IWF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

A rigorous analysis of the events surrounding the sample collection phase leads to the Panel's conclusion that the conditions under which the test took place were not satisfactory and offered several opportunities for the Athlete and the other two athletes to engage in manipulation.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete had the motive and the opportunity to manipulate the sample himself or with the assistance of others. The Panel is comfortably satisfied that the IWF has demonstrated that the Athlete did manipulate the sample himself or with the assistance of others.

Therefore on 6 December 2004 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

1.) The appeal of Athlete B. against the decision issued on 31 March 2004 by the International Weightlifting Federation is dismissed.

2.) The decision issued by the International Weightlifting Federation on 31 March 2004 concerning the Athlete B. is upheld.

(…)

Rapport om doing I Dansk Cykelsport 1998-2015 / Anti Doping Danmark. - 2015

English summary included p. 88-96

The investigation group responsible for this report was administratively appointed by Anti Doping Denmark (ADD) and the NOC and Sports Confederation of Denmark (DIF).

The Rasmussen investigation had disclosed specific information about alleged anti-doping rule violations committed by other Danish riders and leading support personnel requiring further investigation. The administrations of ADD and DIF mandated the investigation group to proceed its investigation with the aim of possibly collecting the necessary proof for the alleged violations in order to facilitate subsequent prosecution of anti-doping rule violations.
In total, 50 persons with a relation to Danish cycling from 1998 and onward have been interviewed. Among these are previous and current riders, sports directors, team directors, team owners and others. The persons have been selected based on an assessment of their relevance for the investigation and a reasonable balance between persons with former and current functions has been sought. In total, 100 hours of interviews have been conducted.

The conclusion of this investigation is that Bjarne Riis, Johnny Weltz, and Alex Pedersen and a number of Danish former riders have violated applicable anti-doping rules. ADD (who has had the prosecuting competence since 1 January 2015) would have been able to bring doping cases forward against these persons before DIF's Doping Tribunal on the basis of the findings of the investigation. However, since all of the alleged anti-doping rule violations have been committed outside the statute of limitations it is not possible for ADD to bring any of these cases forward. It should be emphasized that it is not within the mandate of the investigation to determine how the Doping Tribunal would have assessed the proof that would have been brought forward in each case and hence whether sanctions would have been imposed.

Notwithstanding the fact that no doping cases can be brought forward, the investigation group have received significant information through the interviews about patterns of a systematic doping culture in cycling. Consequently, it was decided administratively that the investigation group should continue its work with the purpose to produce and publish a report about doping in Danish cycling from the beginning of professional cycling in Denmark in 1998 until the present in 2015.

As for the team generally known as Team CSC (Currently Team Saxo Tinkoff), it is the opinion of the investigation group that the information received during this investigation about the team's former owner and leading sports director Bjarne Riis would have constituted grounds to bring forward a doping case before the Danish Doping Tribunal against Bjarne Riis for violation of anti-doping regulations in force at the time of each of the alleged violations - in particular the applicable rule about assisting anti-doping rule violations. (The current rule is the 2015 WADA Code's article 2.9 about Complicity). However, due to the statute of limitations no case will be brought forward against Bjarne Riis.
This assessment is, among other things, based on the fact that Bjarne Riis has admitted that he, as team owner and leading sports director during the period when Tyler Hamilton was employed by Team CSC, had knowledge about the fact that Tyler Hamilton was using doctor Eufemiano Fuentes for blood doping and did not take action to stop it. Additionally, Riis has admitted that in his own career as a rider, he has used blood doping and hereby has personal knowledge about blood doping practices.
Furthermore, the assessment is based on the following matters which the investigation group finds established by the information received through the interviews:
• Bjarne Riis has requested Bo Hamburger to provide EPO to Jörg Jaksche.
• A comprehensive use of cortisone without medical justification took place on Team CSC.
• In his capacity as team owner and leading sports director, Bjarne Riis had knowledge that other riders on the team besides Tyler Hamilton were using doping.
The investigation group finds that a leader is obliged to act on knowledge about anti-doping rule violations committed by employees on the team. Bjarne Riis has not fulfilled this obligation. On the contrary, he has silently accepted the use of doping and such silent acceptance from a team leader constitutes in the opinion of the investigation group a case of complicity, re. art. 2.9 in the current World Anti-Doping Code, which includes the covering up of doping offences, encouraging, aiding etc. of any type of intentional complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation.

In the opinion of the investigation group Johnny Weltz and Alex Pedersen who also silently accepted the use of doping among riders have also violated applicable anti-doping rules about complicity.

However, as team owner and leading sport director Riis had a greater responsibility than the others as he had authority to make take decisions about suspending riders who doped and report the violations to the responsible anti-doping authorities.
In the absence of statute of limitations, the investigation group also finds that there would be grounds to bring doping cases forward against a number of Danish riders who have admitted either their own doping violations or where the interviews have given the investigation group knowledge about their alleged offences.

ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS
It is the assessment of the investigation group that without the statute of limitations, ADD would have been able to bring a case forward against Bjarne Riis forward for violation of the Danish Antidoping Regulations § 6.8 about complicity in force at the time (re. the current art. 2.9 of the 2015 WADA Code). According to the current art. 2.9, assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, conspiring, covering up or any other type of intentional complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation is prohibited.
This assessment is, among other things, based on the following:
• Bjarne Riis has admitted that he as team owner and leading sports director, while Tyler Hamilton was riding on Team CSC, had knowledge about the fact that Tyler Hamilton was working with Fuentes about blood doping, and in addition, Riis has admitted that in his career as an active rider, he has tried blood doping and thus he has personal knowledge of the mechanics of blood doping
These matters are admitted by Bjarne Riis.

• Bjarne Riis has requested Bo Hamburger to provide EPO to Jörg Jaksche
This assessment is built on the fact that Bo Hamburger's statement about this is confirmed by
Jörg Jaksche who has first-hand knowledge about the request.

• A comprehensive misuse of cortisone without medical justification took place on Team CSC.
A number of named and unnamed riders and sports directors have informed the investigation group about a widespread misuse of cortisone against the rules in cycling generally and concretely on Team CSC. Michael Rasmussen, Tyler Hamilton, Jörg Jaksche, and Alex Pedersen have all informed the investigation group that riders were provided with cortisone by the team without medical justification.

• In his capacity as team owner and leading sports director, Bjarne Riis had knowledge that other riders on the team in addition to Tyler Hamilton used doping.
This assessment is based on the fact that three other riders in addition to Hamilton - Bo Hamburger, Michael Rasmussen and Jörg Jaksche - have stated that Riis knew about their use of doping.

In addition, the statements of the three riders to the investigation group is supported by the statements of other interviewees:

Hamburger's statement is the strongest as he is backed by Alex Pedersen who has first-hand knowledge about a conversation between himself, Hamburger, and Riis which demonstrates Riis's knowledge of Hamburger's use of EPO before the result of Hamburger's doping test was available.
Johnny Weltz, who was involved in Michael Rasmussen's case about a high hematocrit level due to use of EPO and who had actual conversations about Riis about the high level, supports Michael Rasmussen's statement about Riis's knowledge of Rasmussen's use of EPO. Weltz have stated to the investigation group that he is convinced that Riis knew that Rasmussen took EPO, although this is a general observation and not a reflection of an actual conversation or episode.
Finally, Tyler Hamilton confirms having talks with Jörg Jaksche in 2007 where Jaksche and Hamilton exchanged experiences from their time with Riis and agreed that Riis behaved hypocritically by publicly denouncing them after their doping sentences. Nevertheless, Hamilton's knowledge of Riis's knowledge of Jaksche's use of doping is second hand knowledge as it comes from Jaksche himself.
The investigation group finds that actual knowledge about rules being broken gives a leader a duty to take action which Bjarne Riis has not lived up to. On the contrary, as a minimum he has silently accepted the use of doping and such silent acceptance from a team leader is in the opinion of the investigation group a case of prohibited complicity which is in breach of the Danish Anti-doping Regulations § 6.8 about complicity in force at the time (re. art. 2.9 in the current WADA Code). The same goes in the opinion of the investigation group for Johnny Weltz and Alex Pedersen, but as team owner and leading sports director Riis had a greater responsibility than the others as he as the top manager had authority to make the decisive decisions about suspending doping users and reporting them to the anti-doping authorities. Accordingly, the investigation group finds that there is a great need for strengthening the leadership of the cycling teams and the group has proposed a number of recommendations in this respect.

In conclusion, the investigation group finds that the statute of limitation in the World Anti Doping Code - and in the Danish Anti-doping Regulations - which was 8 years until 31st January 2014 and 10 years from 1st January 2015 prevent ADD from bringing forward a doping case against Bjarne Riis for an anti-doping rule violation. The same apply to Johnny Weltz and Alex Pedersen.

Agence Française de Lutte contre le Dopage (AFLD): 2014 Rapport d’activité

06 ORGANISATION DE L’AGENCE
08 ORGANIGRAMME FONCTIONNEL
09 AVANT-PROPOS DU PRéSIDENT
12 2O14 EN BREF

14 ENVIRONNEMENT INSTITUTIONNEL ET STRATÉGIE
15 L’activité du Collège
15 Les synergies au sein de l’Agence
15 L’organisation et le fonctionnement de l’Agence
16 L’activité juridique et de conseil
17 L’activité de contrôle
18 L’activité d’analyses
18 L’activité scientifique
18 L’activité internationale

38 RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE ET ACTIVITÉ MÉDICALE
39 Une ambition clairement affirmée en matière de recherche
39 Efficacité et cohérence au service de la recherche
40 Des axes de recherche couvrant un large spectre
41 Une activité médicale essentielle pour la pratique sportive
41 Une activité relative aux AUT en diminution
42 Une certaine permanence dans les grandes pathologies concernées
42 Une faible évolution des classes de médicaments concernées

46 ACTIVITÉ DE CONTRôLE
47 Un volume de contrôle élevé quoique révisé à la baisse
47 Des objectifs globalement maintenus s’agissant de la nature des prélèvements
48 Une priorité donnée au suivi à long terme des sportifs de haut niveau
49 Le recentrage du département des contrôles sur ses missions stratégiques
49 L’appui sur les ressources internes de l’Agence
50 Le renforcement de la capacité d’enquête et de collecte de renseignements
50 La création d’un réseau territorial
51 La consolidation de la collaboration internationale

62 ACTIVITÉ D’ANALYSE
63 Le rôle du laboratoire antidopage de l’Agence
63 Un niveau d’activité qui demeure élevé
64 Les prélèvements urinaires
64 Les prélèvements sanguins
64 Les classes de substances détectées en 2014
65 L’activité d’expertise
65 Une démarche de modernisation

82 ACTIVITÉ DISCIPLINAIRE
83 Une mission partagée mais essentielle
83 Une activité en diminution
84 Une action restant essentiellement fondée sur un constat de dopage
84 Un environnement juridique vivant

94 GESTION ET FONCTIONNEMENT
DE L’AGENCE EN 2014
95 Une organisation modernisée
95 Des efforts de gestion importants
96 Une contrainte budgétaire assumée
96 Une année fertile sur le plan des ressources humaines
102 GLOSSAIRE DES TERMES GéNéRAUX
106 GLOSSAIRE DES TERMES SCIENTIFIQUES

sommaire des annexes
20 ENVIRONNEMENT INSTITUTIONNEL ET STRATÉGIE
21 Répartition des délibérations adoptées par le Collège au cours de l’année 2014 selon le domaine concerné
21 état récapitulatif des Délibérations du Collège pour 2014
31 Loi n° 2014-1663 du 30 décembre 2014 habilitant le Gouvernement à prendre les mesures relevant du domaine de la loi nécessaires pour assurer dans le droit interne le respect des principes du code mondial antidopage
32 Décret n° 2014-1556 du 22 décembre 2014 portant publication de l’amendement à l’annexe I de la convention internationale contre le dopage dans le sport, adopté à Paris le 17 novembre 2014

Annexes
43 RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE ET ACTIVITÉ MÉDICALE
44 Publications et communications scientifiques en 2014 associant des personnels du département des analyses
45 Répartition par nature des dossiers reçus au cours de l’année 2014
45 Classes de pathologies à l’origine de demandes d’AUT, selon la classification OMS de 2006
45 Principaux médicaments objets de demandes d’AUT

Annexes
52 ACTIVITÉ DE CONTRÔLE
53 Évolution du nombre de prélèvements antidopage réalisés depuis 2010
54 Comparaison 2013/2014 des volumes de prélèvements antidopage selon qu’ils ont été réalisés ou non à l’occasion de compétitions sportives
55 Fédérations internationales ou organisations pour le compte desquelles l’AFLD a réalisé des contrôles en 2014
57 Ventilation des prélèvements selon les disciplines sportives en 2014
59 Ventilation par discipline sportive de prélèvements antidopage réalisés en 2014
60 Établissement du profil biologique du sportif
61 Lutte contre le dopage animal

ANNEXES
66 ACTIVITÉ D’ANALYSE
67 Prélèvements urinaires par discipline en 2014
68 Comparaison quantitative des types de prélèvements et d’analyses par année
70 Prélèvements urinaires reçus en 2014
72 Répartition des résultats d’analyses anormaux selon les disciplines sportives
74 Prélèvements sanguins de contrôle antidopage reçus en 2014
75 Répartition par sport des analyses EPO
77 Analyses aux fins de profilage
79 Substances mises en évidence lors de résultats anormaux
80 Délai de rendu des résultats d’analyse

ANNEXES
86 ACTIVITÉ DISCIPLINAIRE
87 Gestion des résultats de la violation des règles antidopage en France
88 Évolution du fondement des saisines de l’Agence (2010-2014)
89 Répartition des dossiers traités et des décisions prises par nature d’infractions
90 Ventilation des dossiers traités par l’AFLD par type de décision prise
91 Ventilation des décisions disciplinaires prises par le Collège de l’AFLD par type de décision
92 Répartition par fédération des suites données aux décisions fédérales par le Collège de l’AFLD en 2014

ANNEXES
97 GESTION ET FONCTIONNEMENT DE L’AGENCE EN 2014
98 Évolution des recettes
98 Évolution des dépenses de fonctionnement
98 Investissements
98 Indicateur de performance - Coût moyen des contrôles et analyses
99 Compte de charges
99 Compte de produits
100 Bilan Actif
101 Bilan Passif

Related case:
UKAD 2016 UKAD vs Ross Bevan
December 16, 2016

Facts
In February 2015 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ross Bevan after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance drostanolone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

History
The player’s evidence was that he never received any anti-doping education and was naïve about doping issues. He insisted that he never took steroids to enhance his sporting performance, only for body building purposes. He admitted to have used steroids in 2014, but at that time he was not a registered player. His conduct in 2014, viewed retrospectively in 2015, cannot sensibly be treated as liable to lead to breach of a future prohibition. The sample was taken on February 9, 2015, at that time the new ruling for 2015 was not in force. The panel sees no reasons for reduction of the period of ineligibility of two years.

Decision
The period of ineligibility is two years from 26 February 2015, expiring at midnight on 25 February 2017.

Facts
The British Weight Lifting Association (BWLA) alleged Andrew Riddiford, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping rules. On March 8, 2015, UKAD collected an in-competition sample from the Athlete. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of stanozolol and clenbuterol. Stanozolol and clenbuterol are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2015 prohibited list. They are regarden as non-specified substances.

History
The athlete admitted the charge and waved his right for a B sample analysis.

Decision
- The period of ineligibility is four years.
- The period of ineligibility is deemed to have commenced from March 8, 2015, and will end at midnight on March 7, 2019.

find iNADO Update #50 features anti-doping developments from Australia, Switzerland, the United States and India.

iNADO Update #52 features anti-doping resources of many types that will assist you improve your programmes. Other recent matters of note are covered as well.

iNADO Update #53 summarises documents of particular interest to NADOs and RADOs for the upcoming WADA ExCo/FB meetings of November 15-16, 2014.

iNADO Update #54 features news of national anti-doping laws, of WADA’s plans for 2015 Code compliance, and many other developments.