Facts
The Rugby Football Union (RFU) charged Luke Crunden, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The athlete was selected for an individual doping control test conducted at training on October 28, 2014. The sample tested positive on Nandrolone and clomiphene which are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. They are regarded as non-specified substances.

History
The athlete was provisionally suspended and admitted the use of the prohibited substances. During recovery of an operation on his shoulder he had used supplements to strengthen his shoulder believing he used natural ingredients. The athlete does not wish to appeal and admitted consuming these substances he waived his right to attend a disciplinary hearing. The panel took in consideration that it was an early admission and a first violation.

Decision
The period of ineligibility imposed was two years commencing on the date of his provisionally suspension November 14, 2014.

Facts
The United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) charges Russell Kendall, the athlete, for the attempting use of human Growth Hormone (hGH) which is a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules.

History
On 8 June 2014, the UK Border Force seized a consignment of hGH in a package addressed to “Mr A. Kendall” at the Athlete’s home. The athlete claims at first that the hGH was for himself and another person. He had used it in the past to heal an injured shoulder, but later in the process he changes his story. The product was ordered by his sister-in-law who wanted it as a treatment for her mother as an anti-aging product.
However the tribunal regards this as a false story because he became aware during the process of the illegality of importing hGH and fabricated his case.

Decision
The period of ineligibility is three years and three months starting from November 10, 2014, expiring at midnight on February 9, 2018.

CAS 2014/A/3488 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Juha Lallukka

• Cross-country skiing
• Doping (human growth hormone – hGH)
• Admissibility of new documents
• Role of a judging panel faced with a conflict of expert evidence
• Lack of evidence regarding external factors apt to lead to a false positive
• Inapplicability of the principle of non-retroactivity to evidence
• Absence of aggravating factor leading to a higher sanction
• Starting date for disqualification

1. If new documents filed by a party were only made available to that party after the final deadline for the submission of its appeal brief, are at the core of essential questions raised in these proceedings and no objection was made by the other party to their production as new evidence, they must be admitted on record based on Article R56 of the Code, as the circumstances were exceptional and the documents were of relevance for the issue of the present decision.

2. It is not the function of a judging panel to step into the shoes of scientific experts, or to seek to repeat the exercises carried out by those experts. Any Tribunal faced with a conflict of expert evidence must approach the evidence with care and with an awareness as to its lack of scientific expertise in the area under examination. Bearing in mind the prescribed provisions as to burden and standard of proof, the role of a judging panel in applying the applicable standards as an appellate body is to determine whether the experts’ evaluations are soundly based on the facts, and whether the experts consequent appreciation of the conclusion be derived from those facts is equally sound. In carrying out this task the judging panel is bound to form a view as to which of possibly competing expert views it considers to be more persuasive.

3. If an athlete has not submitted any evidence indicating that his/her ratios values could have been affected by individual circumstances (such as extensive exercise, stress, altitude, age, personal biological profile, etc.), nor has offered any explanation regarding the difference between his/her ratio values at two different dates, the athlete is not in a position to prove according to the standard of comfortable satisfaction that external factors may have had an impact on his/her ratio values, which could have led to a false positive.

4. Decision limits are not rules as such, in the sense of defining what an anti-doping violation is. They are described as “Guidelines”, and they merely constitute figures upon which reliance may be placed by means of evidence to determine whether an anti-doping violation has or has not occurred in application of the rules. Accordingly, reliance on these guidelines may not be said to amount to a retroactive application of legal rule, as the rule against retroactivity does not apply to evidentiary matters.

5. The submission according to which the administration of exogenous hGH constitutes an aggravating factor has no foundation in the applicable anti-doping rules, which do not differentiate between various forms of first offence or suggest that doping with hGH attracts ratione materiae a higher sanction than the presence of another prohibited substance. It is the circumstances of the offence, not the offence itself which may aggravate.

6. Fairness requires that an athlete’s results should not be disqualified, including his event medals, his points and prizes, if any, that were obtained in respect to a period during which he was allowed to compete

On 19 June 2013 the FINADA Supervisory Board ruled that the Athlete Juha Lallukka had not committed an anti-doping rule violation following a challenged positive test for the prohibited substance Human Growth hormone (hGH). After an appeal filed by FINADA the Finnish Sports Arbitration Board decided on 5 December to uphold this Decision.

Hereafter the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the Decision of 5 December with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction on the Athlete between 2 and 4 years.

WADA contended that the Athlete’s values recorded in September 2011 were so high that they constitute overwhelming evidence of administration of exogenous hGH, irrespective of whether the decision limits as set in WADA’s Guidelines are reliable or not.

Further WADA asserted that two independent statistical studies had established:
a) that the decision limits as set by the 2014 hGH Guidelines are reliable; and
b) that the Athlete’s assay ratios measured in the A- and B-samples 441131 can only be explained by the use of exogenous hGH.

The main issues to be resolved by the Panel in deciding this dispute are the following:

• A.) Has an anti-doping rule violation been committed?
• B.) If an anti-doping rule violation has been committed, what is the sanction?

Following assessment of the evidence the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the analytical values of assay ratios relating to the Athlete’s samples reveal the presence of recombinant hGH. The Athlete has not advanced and established any valid reason for the Panel to find differently.

Furthermore, it is undisputed that exogenous hGH is a non-specified substance included in the category S2(a) on the 2011 WADA Prohibited List. Exogenous hGH is prohibited both in- and outside of competition.

Consequently and in conclusion, the Panel considers that an anti-doping rule violation occurred. The Panel considers it appropriate to declare that the Athlete ineligible for a period of two years.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 November 2014 that:

1.) The appeal filed by WADA against the decision issued on 5 December 2013 by the Finnish Sports Arbitration Board is partially upheld.

2.) The decision issued on 5 December 2013 by the Finnish Sports Arbitration Board is annulled.

3.) Mr Juha Lallukka is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation and is declared ineligible for a period of two years running from the notification of the present award. The period of provisional ineligibility of 602 days served by Mr Juha Lallukka between 27 October 2011 and 19 June 2013 is credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.

4.) Mr Juha Lallukka’s results, including his event medals, his points and prizes, obtained through the commencement of his period of provisional ineligibility (27 October 2011) and in the period from 19 June 2013 to the date of the notification of the present award are not forfeited.

5.) (…)

6.) (…)

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

CAS 2014/A/3496 Anti-Doping Autoriteit Nededand v. 2013035

In June 2013 the Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands (Dopingautoriteit) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cricket player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Cocaine and Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA).

Consequently the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal Netherlands Cricket Association (KNCB) decided on 2 August 2013 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. However the KNCB Appeals Committee decided on 27 January 2014 to reduce the perod of ineligibility to 1 year.

Hereafter in February 2014 the Dopingautoriteit appealed the KNCB Appeal Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Dopingautoriteit asserted that this appeal procedure before CAS is expressly aimed at setting aside the Appealed Decision as far as the grounds and motivations are concemed. The appeal is not aimed at contesting:

a.) The decision by the KNCB Committee of Appeal that the Athlete committed a violation of Article 3 KNCB DR;

b.) the period of ineligibility imposed by the KNCB Committee of Appeal; nor

c.) the commencement date of the period of ineligibility.

As such, "this appeal can be characterized as cassation in the interest of the uniform application of the law". The Dopingautoriteit maintains that the Appealed Decision is incorrect and fundamentally flawed for several reasons.

The main issues to be resolved by the Panel are:

• Is there standing to appeal for the NADO and standing to be sued for the Athlete?
• If so, is the Athlete guilty of violating article 3 of the KNCB DR?
• If so, is the standard two-year period of ineligibility to be reduced to one year?

Following consideration of all the evidence produced and all the arguments made, the Panel concludes that the Dopingautoriteit has no standing to appeal and the Athlete has no standing to be sued. This shall however in no event be interpreted as a determinatîon that the Sole Arbitrator supports the reasoning adopted by the Appeals Committee of the KNCB.

As result the Dopingautoriteit's appeal must be dismissed, leaving the remaining issues without merit.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 March 2015 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 17 February 2014 by the Dopingautoriteit against the Decision issued on 27 January 2014 by the Appeals Committee of the KNCB is dismissed.

2.) The decision issued on 27 January 2014 by the Appeals Committee of the KNCB is confirmed.

3.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne entirety by the Dopingautoriteit.

4.) Each party shall bear its/his own legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with this procedure.

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

Facts
The appellant appeals against the decision, dated 5-2-2014, of the ISR-KNKF Disciplinary Committee related to the charge of the Royal Netherlands Power Sport and Fitness Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Krachtsport en Fitnessfederatie, KNKF) for tampering, the penalty imposed was a period of ineligibility lasting two years.

History
The coach of the athlete selected for the doping control told the Doping Control Official (DCO) that the athlete would not undergo the doping control and signed the doping control form with a false name.
In his written defence and at the hearing the oach/representative argues:
1.) the decision came right after the hearing which could indicate the decision was already made beforehand;
2.) the violation was established only by telephone calls with the DCO;
3.) the reason for tampering was not determined by the Disciplinary Committee;
4.) the Dopingautoriteit (DA) also has no interest in the conviction of the appellant;
5.) the Appeal Committee does not allow to plea for a significant fault or negligence because the doping test never took place.

The ISR-KNKF Appeal Committee submissions to this:
1.) disagrees that the decision was made ready beforehand the decision was already know February 28, 2014, after a meeting the date of the decision was also the date of the verdict, February 5, 2014.
2.) There was no violation concerning fair trial.
3.) The Appeal Committee confirms the first instance decision of the disciplinary committee except that there was also attempting tampering. The coach acted as support personnel, in writing and orally he made clear that there would be no collaboration for a doping test. The selection to take part of a doping test also is a part of the doping test.
4.) The argument that the DA has no interest in the conviction is not true because it is the duty of the DA to make sure that the Anti-Doping rules are handled correctly and in compliance with the ruling.
5.) The coach failed to explain his conduct. For that reason it is not possible to have a reduction of the period of ineligibility because there is no reason to speak of significant fault or negligence.

Decision
1. The sanction was 2 year period of ineligibility starting on the date of the decision.
2. The costs of the tribunal and appeal will be borne by the coach.

Facts
The Royal Netherlands Power Sport and Fitness Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Krachtsport en Fitnessfederatie, KNKF) charged a coach for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules during a sport event abroad.

History
The coach was sentenced for a period of ineligibility of two years. The coach told the Doping Control Official (DCO) that the athlete will not undergo the doping control and signed the doping control form with a false name. This is regarded as tampering with the doping control process.

Decision
1. The ISR-KNKF Disciplinary Committee imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the coach starting on the date of this decision.
2. The costs of the tribunal will be borne by the coach.

Related case:
Dutch Distict Court 2015 Athlete 2014040 vs KNAU
July 21, 2015

Facts
The Royal Dutch Athletics Association (Koninklijke Nederlandse Atletiek Unie, KNAU) charged the athlete for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an in-competition doping test samples were taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the samples showed a high ratio of testosterone on epitestosterone and an additional IRMS test showed the presence of exogenous testosterone. Exogenous testosterone is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a non-specified substance.

History
The counsel of the athlete doesn't uphold the initial argument that the positive test was caused by the use of medication and/or supplements. However he claims that the sample taking, transport and handling of the collection vessel violated the International Standards for Testing (IST) and the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL). Due to language problems the athlete wasn't informed correctly of his rights. The doping control area hadn't been closed when de DCO (Doping Control Officer) and the athlete had left the area. It took some time for the athlete to comply with the sufficient amount for testing, during this time period the collection vessel could have been contaminated in the locker room. The DCO forgot to mention that the collected sample wasn't sufficient. The sample wasn't kept cool during a period of 15 hours. The same annalist had analysed the A- and B-sample, it is in the regulations that nobody can check his own work. The analysis of the A- and B-sample have some inconsistencies: there was a deviation of the ISO-standards which are seen as fundamentals for the WADA-accreditation for laboratories, also the were inconsistencies in the calibration, digital marking, writing errors and the correction of the margins of the test results also the identity of the associate who took care of the ADAMS-administration is not clear.
The Doping Authority explains that the deviation varies because of the amount of metabolites, but the counsel hasn't made concrete that the deviations are the cause for the positive test.
The Disciplinary Committee agrees that even though deviations have occurred, the result of the test is positive.
The Counsel of the athlete refers to a verdict of the Courthouse of Amsterdam that even though there is no deviation of the international standards there are still consideration towards the strict liability in handling the way of sample collection. However the Disciplinary committee puts this argument aside.
The athlete didn't provide any explanation about how the prohibited substance had entered his body, the examined supplement didn't show traces of it.
The DA emphasis that because of the incorrect acquisitions towards the DCO a longer period of ineligibility should be considered, but the Disciplinary Committee doesn't go along with the idea that there was a planned deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid a doping sentence. A four years ban is not considered by the panel.

Decision
The ISR KNAU Disciplinary Committee regards itself as competent for handling this case. The Disciplinary Committee is convinced that the athlete had committed the violation but the period of ineligibility of two years will be reduced by the time spent in voluntary suspension. The legal cost will be borne by the athlete.

In June 2014 and in September 2014 the Royal Dutch Athletics Association (KNAU) has reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete after her A and B samples - provided on two separate occasions - tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the ISR KNAU Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete asserted that she bears No Fault or Negligence and explained that the prohibited substance entered her body through skin to skin contact with her partner who had used testosterone-gel.

The Disciplinary Committee did not accept the Athlete's explanataion and concludes that she failed to demonstrate how the substance entered her system.
The Committee establishes that the athlete was notified about her second violation before the notification of the first violation. As a result both violations are considered as one single violation.

Therefore the ISR KNAU Disciplinary Committee decides on 21 January 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the Athlete.

Cycling Independent Reform Commission : report to the president of the Union Cycliste International / Ulrich Haas, Dick Marty, Peter Nicholson. - Cycling Independent Reform Commission (CIRC). - CIRC, 2015

The Cycling Independent Reform Commission (Commission or CIRC) was established by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) “to conduct a wide ranging independent investigation into the causes of the pattern of doping that developed within cycling and allegations which implicate the UCI and other governing bodies and officials over ineffective investigation of such doping practices.”.

This Executive Summary sets out the CIRC’s key findings on the serious allegations of corruption made against UCI and its officials, allegations that it failed to apply and enforce its own antidoping rules, and CIRC’s conclusions following an assessment of UCI’s governance structures and anti-doping policies. The summary then addresses the state of doping in cycling today, and the main factors that led to a doping culture, before listing some of the key recommendations.

CAS 2013/A/3080 Alemitu Bekele Degfa v. Turkish Athletics Federation and International Association of Athletics Federations

• Athletics
• Doping (Athlete Biological Passport - ABP)
• Standard and burden of proof regarding the commission of a doping offence
• Aggravating circumstances
• Determination of the applicable sanction

1 According to the standard of comfortable satisfaction and to the applicable rules, the abnormality of an athlete’s hematological profile identified as being abnormal by the federation’s adaptive model with a probability of more than 99% demonstrates clearly the commission of doping offences. On the contrary, suspicion related to a further doping offence is not enough to comfortably satisfy a CAS panel as to an athlete’s guilt.

2. Any conduct in advance of the taking of tested samples, involving a course of conduct over a considerable period, amounts to a doping plan or scheme implying an athlete’s knowledge and constitutes an aggravating circumstance. According to the applicable rules, the fact that such conduct is likely to imply the help or assistance of others constitutes another aggravating circumstance. Likewise, the use or possession of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method on multiple occasions is also an aggravating circumstance. Conversely, as most, if not all doping practices are timed to avoid detection, to constitute an aggravating circumstance, the avoidance of detection is likely to require a further element of deception.

3. Aggravating circumstances may justify the imposition of a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction of two-year ineligibility. However, the words “up to a maximum of four (4) years” do not mean that in every case in which there are aggravating circumstances a period of ineligibility of four years must be imposed. In any event, the appropriate period of ineligibility should be determined taking into account the gravity of the aggravating circumstances and the particular circumstances of the case.

In September 2010, the IAAF received what it describes as a "tip-off from an anonymous Turkish athlete which suggested, inter alia, that Ms Bekele was engaged in doping practices."
As a result of this information and the ABP results from Ms Bekele in 2009 and 2010 (which the IAAF regarded as "highly suspicious") her name was added to the IAAF's "Registered Testing Pool" in October 2010.

Because of the results from the IAAF ABP tests, an investigation into a potential doping violation was triggered by the IAAF pursuant to the Anti-Doping Rules. Her case was referred to an independent Expert Panel and they concluded that it was highly likely that her blood profile was the result of the use of a prohibited substance or method.

Ms Bekele was invited to provide an explanation for her abnormal profile, which she did through her national federation. Her explanation was considered but rejected by the Expert Panel and she was then charged with a breach of Rule 32.2(b) by a letter dated 3 April 2012.

On 4 December 2012 the Turkish Athletics Federation (TAF) Penal Board decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 15 February 2012.

Hereafter in February 2013 the Athlete filed two appeals with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and with the Arbitrtion Panel of the Turkish Directorate of Youth and Sport. However the Turkish national appeal body rejected the Athlete’s appeal and decided to uphold the TAF Penal Board decision.

Thereupon the Athlete requested the CAS Panel to set aside the TAF decision of 4 December 2012 and filed a number of issues in her defence:

• the possibility of incorrect flagging of abnormality;
• alleged flaws in the sampling process, the analysis of the samples, and the conclusions which could be drawn from the analysis; and
• the effects of severe malaria on the values found in some of the samples.

In March 2013 the IAAF asserted the right to intervene as a party in the CAS case and requested the Panel to uphold the TAF Penal Board decision of 4 December 2012 considering aggravating circumstances.

The Panel is comfortably satisfied that Ms Bekele committed anti-doping rule violations in 2010. The Panel is also comfortably satisfied that there are in this case aggravating circumstances.

The Panel finds that Ms Bekele has failed to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that she did not knowingly commit anti-doping rule violations. The Panel deems her assertions that she had never engaged in any doping practice or method entirely unconvincing.

In all these circumstances of the cases, and having taken account of all the matters placed before the Panel, the Panel's view is this is not a case in which the period of ineligibility should be increased to the maximum available. To do so would be to suggest that in all cases of blood doping a four-year period of ineligibility would under the rules as they stand be almost de rigueur, when the rules do not make specific provision for a more severe penalty in blood doping cases.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 14 March 2014 that:

1.) The appeal of Ms Bekele is allowed in part.

2.) The decision of the TAF is varied to the extent that Ms Bekele's period of ineligibility shall be for a period of two years and nine months commencing on the date of this award but giving credit for the period of ineligibility already served from 3 April 2012.

3.) Each party shall pay one third of the costs of the arbitration, such costs to be determined by the Court Office of the CAS.

4.) Each of the parties shall bear their own legal costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.

5.) All other claims are dismissed.