The theme of iNADO Update #55 is professional development. It features news of coming events, of the Asian Games WADA IO Report and of a recent CAS decision on departures from the International Standard for Testing (or not).

NADO Update #56 features the registration links for two events that will help you to put into operation the 2015 World Anti-Doping Programme: the Singapore Anti-Doping Intelligence and Investigation Seminar, and the 2015 iNADO Workshop and AGM.

iNADO Update #57 features a variety of matters including:
• the dangers of traditional medicines
• applying 2015 Code sanctions
• first steps in developing an intelligence and investigations capacity
• prevention of doping in recreational sport

iNADO Update #59 summarises documents of particular interest to NADOs and RADOs for the upcoming WADA ExCo/FB meetings of May 12-13, 2015. iNADO hopes it will assist NADOs & RADOs prepare the Public Authorities representatives for the meetings.

In March 2015 the Irish Sports Council (ISC) has reported an Anti-Doping Rule Violation against the Athlete IS-3103 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.

The Athlete in question was a trainer of Gaelic football and also participated in competition. He admitted the doping offence and stated that he had used tablets Anavar10 as pain relief for his injury. The tablets were analyzed and they tested positive on Stanozolol. He prompt admitted the violation, but wished to dispute and/or seek to mitigate the consequence before the Gaelic Athletic Association Anti-Doping Hearing Committee (GAAADHC). He disputed the authority of the ISC. However the ISC showed that each athlete in an competition can be tested.

The Committee concludes that the Athlete unknowingly had taken steroids and that his violation was not intentional.
Therefore the Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the notification of the violation.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014
ISBN: 978-92-79-43542-3
DOI: 10.2766/86776
© European Union, 2014

Historically, anti-doping efforts have focused on the detection and deterrence of doping in elite and competitive sport. There is, however, a growing concern that doping is occurring outside the organised sporting system; giving rise to the belief that the misuse of doping agents in recreational sport has become a societal problem and a public health issue that must be addressed. The EU Commission awarded a contract (EAC/2013/0617) to a Consortium to undertake this Study with the aim of developing the evidence-base for policies designed to combat doping in recreational sport. Fourteen internationally recognized experts shaped the Study which comprised (i) the collection of primary data through a structured survey, and (ii) secondary data through literature searches and website analysis. All 28 Member States participated in the information-gathering process. Specifically, this involved a systematic study of the ethical considerations, legal position, prevention research landscape, and current practice in relation to the prevention of doping in recreational sport. The Study provides a comprehensive overview of current practice and legislation as it applies to the prevention of doping and promotes and supports the sharing of best practices in the EU regarding the fight against doping in recreational sport. It concludes with seven recommendations for future action that focus on the need for a coordinated response in relation to the problems arising from doping in recreational sport.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports charges François Valiquette, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On June 15, 2014, in Lachute, Québec, during an out-of-competition doping control, the Athlete provided an urine sample for doping control purposes. The analysis indicates the presence of a metabolite of metandienone. Metandienone is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 Prohibited List.

History
The athlete claimed the positive test derived from the use of creatine. An unsealed specimen and two sealed specimens were examined, one of the sealed specimens was of the same batch. Only the unsealed specimen contained metandienone. It is not possible to determine how the prohibited substance had became part of the unsealed specimen.

Decision
The period of ineligibility is set to two years. The ineligibility period will be served, starting from the date of the sample collection, from June 15, 2014 to June 15, 2016.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports charges Jordan Arkko, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On March 3, 2014 Jordan Arkko, the Athlete, provided a sample collected
during an out of competition doping control in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The sample showed the presence of GHRP - 2, classified as a prohibited substance according to the 2014 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List.

History
The athlete was provisionally suspended as of April 25, 2014. In writing the athlete claimed he had no intention to enhance sport performance. The athlete wanted to attend the hearing by telephone conference, but failed to settle a date. By this he failed to provide any evidence which would enable this tribunal to find "exceptional circumstances" to reduce the period of ineligibility. The arbitrator reached a decision based on the submissions.

Decision
- The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years.

TAS 2013/A/3347 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Polish Olympic Committee & Przeniyslaw Koterba

CAS 2013/A/3347 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Polish Olympic Committee (POC) & Przemyslaw Koterba

• Weightlifting
• Doping (amphetamine)
• Non-participation of the respondent to an appeal proceeding
• Factors to be considered in reducing the period of ineligibility under Article 10.5.2 ADR
• Balance of probability as the applicable standard of proof
• Period of ineligibility and reasons of “fairness” for backdating the starting date of the suspension.

1. The participation of the respondent is mandatory to an appeal proceeding. Otherwise the appeal would be inadmissible due to the absence of a valid legal procedural-relationship between the parties to the proceedings. Especially in doping proceedings that involve – as does the case at hand – the magnification of the sanction imposed on the athlete, it would be procedurally unacceptable to make a decision on the merits if the athlete concerned has not been properly included in the proceedings; at the very least, he/she should receive knowledge of the proceedings in such a way that enables the person to legally defend him/herself. Only if the respondent had knowledge of the appeal proceedings and the knowledge he had was of such a nature as to enable him to defend himself and his legal interests is it possible to conduct the proceedings in his absence.

2. For purposes of assessing the athlete’s or other person’s fault under Article 10.5.2 (no significant fault or negligence) of the relevant Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR), the evidence considered must be specific and relevant to explain the athlete’s or other person’s departure from the expected standard of behaviour. Thus, for example the fact that an athlete would lose the opportunity to earn large sums of money during a period of ineligibility or the fact that the athlete only has a short time left in his or her career or the timing of the sporting calendar would not be relevant factors to be considered in reducing the period of ineligibility under this article.

3. The standard of proof for anti-doping rule violations is expressed in Article 3.1 ADR. Where the rules place the burden of proof upon the athlete or other person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be one of a balance of probability, except as provided in Articles 10.4 and 10.6 where the athlete must satisfy a higher burden of proof. It follows that the athlete has to establish how the prohibited substance entered his body by a balance of probability. According to CAS case law, the balance of probability means that the athlete has to convince the adjudicating authority that the occurrence of the circumstances on which his/her defence is based is more probable than the non-occurrence or than other possible explanations of the charges pertaining to doping. Mere speculations, unsupported by any evidence of any kind cannot pass the balance of probability test.

4. The strict application of Article 10.9 ADR dealing with the starting date of the period of ineligibility could lead to apparently unfair situations: an athlete, for instance, could serve his/her sanction years after the adverse analytical finding; or, having already served a portion of a sanction following a provisional suspension stayed or on the basis of a first instance decision, find him/herself in the situation of serving, some time thereafter, a second part of the sanction – which actually appears to be a second sanction. The former situation was underlined by various CAS panels to be a reason of “fairness” for backdating the starting date of the suspension.

On May 15 2012 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Commission of the Polish Weightlifting Federation decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Amphetamine.

Following the appeled filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) the Polish Olympic Committee (CAS POC) decided on 3 September 2013 to uphold the sanction of 2 months.

Hereafter in October 2013 WADA appealed the decision of CAS POC with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 2 years.

WADA contended that the Athlete failed to establish that he had he had acted with No Fault or Negligence. WADA did not accept the Athlete's explanation that it was most likely that his drink had been spiked during a party.

In view of the Athlete's absentia the Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete had knowledge of the appeal proceedings and the knowledge he had was of such a nature as to enable him to defend himself and his legal interests.

The Sole Arbitrator determines that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and that he failed to demonstrate on the balance of probability that the Amphetamine entered his body during the party without his intent.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 December 2014:

1.) The appeal filed by WADA on 11 October 2013 against the decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport of the Polish Olympic Committee issued on 3 September 2013 is upheld.

2.) The decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport of the Polish Olympic Committee issued on 3 September is set aside.

3.) Przemysław Koterba is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility, the commencement date of which is backdated to 1 January 2013. The period of ineligibility already served by Przemysław Koterba in connection with his anti-doping violation of 26 May 2012 shall be credited against the two-year period of ineligibility.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Przemysław Koterba from 26 May 2012, including the results in the Polish National Senior Championships, through the date of expiry of the two-year period of ineligibility shall be disqualified with all the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prices.

(…)

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

TAS 2014_A_3751 Athlete X vs WADA

CAS 2014/A/3751 X vs WADA

On 9 September 2014 the TUE Committee of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) partially dismissed the Athlete's TUE application for the use of the substance hydrocortisone (HC) and dismissed in total the Athlete's TUE application for the use of the substance Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA).

As a result this Appealed Decision rendered by WADA reversed the Athlete's TUE applications that previously had been granted by the ITF TUE Committee (TUEC).

Hereafter in September 2014 the Athlete appealed the WADA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Sole Arbitrator to set aside the Appealed Decision and to reinstate the ITF TUEC's decision.

In view of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator establishes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate:

(1) an adrenal insufficiency at the time of the Athlete's November 2012 application for her first HC TUE;

(2) a properly diagnosed medical condition responsible for the adrenal insufficiency afflicting the Athlete since 2013; and

(3) that the recommended treatment, and specifically DHEA,
relates to her medical condition.

Because of the Athlete's medical condition the Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete must be authorized to continue to take HC, at levels no higher than permitted in the Appealed Decision until the Athlete is granted a new TUE by the ITF TUEC, based on a proper medical diagnosis but in any event no later than 30 April 30 2015. For the avoidance of doubt, the Appealed Decision's revocation of the DHEA TUE is confirmed.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decides on 10 February 2015 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the Athlete against WADA's decision of
September 9, 2014 is dismissed.

2.) WADA's September 9, 2014 reversal of the DHEA TUE is upheld, except to the extent that the Appellant's current existing HC TUE is extended until the Appellant is granted a new TUE by the ITF TUEC, based on a proper medical diagnosis, but
no later than April 30, 2015.

3.) The arbitration costs, to be determined by the CAS Court Office and notified by separate letter to the parties, shall be paid by the Athlete.

4.) Each party shall bear her/its own legal and other costs incurred in relation with the present proceedings.

5.) All further prayers for relief are hereby dismissed.