Related case:

ADDPI 2023_133 INADA vs Pankaj Mukheja
October 25, 2023

On 25 October 2023 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the shooter Pankaj Mukheja after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Propranolol.

The ADDPI accepted that the violation was not intentional and deemed that the Athlete had acted negligently with his medication. Moreover he had already available valid medication prescribed by his doctor.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the ADDPI Decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He argued that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence and requested for a reduced sanction.

He explained that he had used several medications prescribed by his doctors as treatment for the multiple conditions he suffered. He argued that his doctor had not advised him to stom using the medication in question.

He asserted that he had informed his doctors that he was an Athlete. He also had mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form and after notification he made an application for a TUE.

INADA contended that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation because he had used a prohibited substance without a valid TUE. Although the violation was not intentional INADA finds that he acted negligently with his medications.

The Appeal Panel determines that the Athlete is an experienced international level professional who blaimed his doctors while he acted negligently with his medications. He had already received a prescription for a valid medication whereas his TUE application was rejected for the same reason.

The Appeal Panel agrees that the Athlete's violation was not intentional. Yet, it deems that there are no grounds for a more reduced sanction as asserted by the Athlete.

Therefore the ADAPI decides on 8 April 2024 to uphold the ADDPI Decision of 25 October 2023 and to confirm the sanction of 2 years imposed on the Athlete.

On 21 July 2023 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the wrestler Seema Bisla for her 3 Whereabouts Failures within a 12 month period.

• 1 Q3 Filing Failure recorded on 14 December 2022;
• 1 Q4 Filing Failure recorded on 29 December 2022;
• 1 Missed Test on 4 December 2022, recorded on 3 May 2023

Hereafter both the Athlete and the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI).

The Athlete explained that she comes from a poor and humble background and at the material time she struggled with her father's cancer and his death. She argued that she had not received proper anti-doping education whereas she ultimately filed her Q4 2022 Whereabouts.

She deemed that the recorded Missed Test and the anti-doping rule violation should be annuled. She asserted that on the same day of the Missed Test she provided a sample that tested negative.

The Appeal Panel determined that the Athlete indeed had a Missed Test on 4 December 2022, despite she provided a sample on the same day. As a result the Athlete's 3rd Whereabouts Failure stands and consequently she committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Further the Panel considered that Athlete's conduct in this case and finds that she acted with a low degree of fault. The Panel deems that the sanction of 1 year is appropriate in this case.

Therefore the ADAPI decides on 8 April 2024 to uphold the ADDPI Decision of 21 July 2023 and to confirm the sanction of 1 year imposed on the Athlete.

CAS 2023/A/9926 Kanak Jha v. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)

Related case:

AAA 2022 No. 01 22 0005 2588 USADA vs Kanak Jha
March 15, 2023

In December 2022 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the table tennis player Kanak Jha for this 3 whereabouts filing failures and 3 missed tests within a 12 month period.

Consequently the AAA Tribunal decided on 15 March 2023 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 1 December 2022.

Additionally USADA reported in May 2023 that the Athlete had violated his provisional suspension. This would effect the starting date of the period of ineligibility imposed on the Athlete.

Thereupon in August 2023 the Athlete appealed the AAA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete denied the violation and requested to receive credit for the time he was provisionally suspended.

The Athlete denied that his participation into an exhibition on 14 December 2022 should be considered a violation of the provisional suspension. He argued that his appearance at the exhibition was not a prohibited, nor was he aware that this event was affiliated with USA Table Tennis (USATT).

USADA contended that the Athlete was explicitly warned that he was prohibited from participating in activities authorized or organized by WADC signatories. Nevertheless he violated his provisional suspension when he participated into an exhibition on 14 December 2022.

USADA asserted that the Athlete accordingly shall not receive credit for the time he spent provisionally suspended. As a result his period of ineligibility shall start on the date of the AAA decision, i.e. on 15 March 2023.

The Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence and arguments presented by the Parties and determines that:

• The Athlete took part in the event on 14 December 2022 and as a result he violated his provisional suspension.
• Accordingly the Athlete can not receive credit for the time he was provisionally suspended, i.e. the period from 1 December until 15 March 2023.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 28 November 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 23 August 2023 by Kanak Jha against the United States Anti-Doping Agency with respect to the decision taken by the United States Anti-Doping Agency on 19 Mary 2023 is admissible.

2.) The appeal filed on 23 August 2023 by Kanak Jha against the United States Anti-Doping Agency with respect to the decision taken by the United States Anti-Doping Agency on 19 Mary 2023 is dismissed.

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

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

CAS 2023/A/9525 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Anti-Doping Control Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina & Doris Živković

In December 2022 the Anti-Doping Control Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ADA BH) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the kickboxer after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide. Consequently the ADA BH Hearing Panel decided on 7 February 2023 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in March 2023 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the ADA BH Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 4 years on the Athlete.

The Athlete (19) admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She asserted that as treatment for her infection Lasix was used as presribed medication and not to lose weight.

WADA contended that the there was no medical justification for the use of Lasix and that the Athlete knew that Lasix had weight-loss properties. She failed to mention this product on the Doping Control Form and for the treatment of her infection a different medication had been prescribed.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence in this case and determines that:

• The Athlete had admitted the violation and accepted the test result.
• She committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• She acted with direct intent and recklessly when using Lasix.
• She failed to research her medication for banned substances.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 September 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 24 March 2023 against the Anti-Doping Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Doris Živković with respect to the decision rendered on 7 February 2022 by the Hearing Panel of the Anti-Doping Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered on 7 February 2022 by the Hearing Panel of Anti-Doping Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina is set aside.

3.) Doris Živković is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years, commencing on the date of the notification of this award, with credit given for the period of ineligibility already served.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

6.) All other and further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

TAS 2022/A/9319 NADO Italia v. Jose Luis Palomino

In July 2022 the Procura Nazionale Antidoping (PNA), the Italian National Anti-Doping Prosecutor Office, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Jose Luis Palomino after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Clostebol.

On 22 November 2022 the Italian National Anti-Doping Tribunal decided not to impose any sanction on the Athlete because he was deemed not liable for the anti-doping rule violation.

Hereafter NADO Italia appealed the Tribunal decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). NADO Italia requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 2 years on the Athlete.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He asserted that contamination from a vetinary medication had caused the positive test result.

The Athlete demonstrated with evidence that at the material time an unprescribed vetinary spray Veterabol had been used as treatment for his dog's injury. Analysis of the hair of his dog revealed the presence of Clostebol whereas he was not aware that this vetinary product contained a prohibited substance.

NADO Italia contended that the Athlete had acted negligently and failed to establish how the prohibited substance had entered his system. Moreover it deemed that there were inconsistencies in the explanation that the treatment of his dog with the vetinary spray had caused the positive test result.

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence in this case and determines that:

• The Athlete had admitted the violation and accepted the test results.
• NADO Italia did not demonstrate with corroborating evidence that the Athlete acted intentionally
• NADO Italia did not present an alternative scenario on the source of the banned substance.
• The Clostebol entered the Athlete's system through contact with his dog.
• Only after the positive test the Athlete became aware that the vetinary spray used for his dog contained Clostebol. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 27 September 2023 to dismiss NADO Italia's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision.

CAS 2022/A/9286 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) & Mariya Guschina

In August 2020 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cross-country skier for the use of a a prohibited method as unintentional violation.

The Athlete admitted the violation and explained that she had received plasmapheresis procedures as treatment for her medical condition. She had mentioned this treatment on the Doping Control Form, although thereupon her application for a retroactive TUE was dismissed.

On 23 June 2022 the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) decided only to impose a reprimand on the Athlete without a period of ineligibility.

Hereafter in November 2022 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the DADC Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to sanction the Athlete for 1 year.

WADA considers that the Athlete had admitted the use of plasmapheresis procedures and that the violation was not intentional. Yet, WADA deemed that the Athlete failed to demonstrated that she acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

RUSADA and the Athlete acknowledged that the violation was not intentional and admitted by the Athlete. They asserted that that her degree of fault was not significant and that there are grounds for a reduced sanction.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence in this case and determines that:

• Undisputed is that the Athlete committed not intentionally an anti-doping rule violation.
• The Athlete was an experienced athlete in anti-doping matters and underwent more than 30 anti-doping tests.
• The Athlete should have perceived that there was a high risk that the use of plasmapheresis could constitute and anti-doping rule violation.
• The Athlete significantly failed in her duty of care to prevent the use of a prohibited method.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 27 October 2023:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) and Ms Mariya Guschina with respect to the decision rendered by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the RUSADA on 23 June 2022 is partially upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the RUSADA on 23 June 2022 is partially set aside.

3.) Ms Mariya Guschina is sanctioned with a twelve (12) months period of ineligibility, starting on the date of the present Award. Any results achieved by Ms Mariya Guschina between 17 June 2020 and 16 June 2021 shall be disqualified with all resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

6.) All other and further claims or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2022/A/9246 Shashank J. Rai v. National Anti-Doping Agency, India

Related case:

ADDPI 2022_216 INADA vs Shashank J. Ray
October 13, 2022

On 13 October 2022 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the basketball player Shashank J. Ray after he tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Hereafter in November 2022 the Athlete appealed the ADDPI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete asserted that his appeal is admissible and that CAS has jurisdiction because he is an International Level Athlete.

INADA denied that the Athlete is an International Level Athtlete and requested the Panel to dismiss this appeal. INADA contended that the Appealed Decision should have been addressed to the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI).

In view of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator agrees with INADA's submissions and concludes that the Athlete's appeal must be rejected.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 17 July 2023 that:

1.) The Court of Arbitration for Sport has no jurisdiction to decide upon the appeal brought by Mr. Shashank J Rai on 2 November 2022 against the decision of the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of the National Anti-Doping Agency of India dated 11 October 2022.

2.) (…).

3.) (…).

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

CAS 2022/A/9222 Association Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) v. World Triathlon & Valentina Riasova

In November 2021 World Triathlon reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine.

Prior in October 2021 the Russian triathlete Valentina Riasove had already informed World Triathlon that she inadvertently had ingested her husband's supplement containing Methylhexaneamine. As a result she had concerns that her samples provided after 14 September 2021 might test positive for this prohibited substance.

Moreover the Seibersdorf Laboratory confirmed in January 2022 that her husband's supplement contained prohibited contaminants. Additionally reanalysis of the Athlete's sample established the presence of Methylhexaneamine.

Thereupon in July 2022 the Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. Ultimately on 12 September 2022 World Triathlon decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete because of her use of a contaminated supplement.

Hereafter in October 2022 RUSADA appealed the World Triathlon Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). RUSADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a more severe sanction on the Athlete.

RUSADA contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the prohibited substance had entered her system. Furthermore RUSADA deemed that the Athlete acted with Significant Fault or Negligence.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence in this case and determines that:

• The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample.
• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• The Athlete established how the prohibited substance had entered her system.
• The violation was not intentional because of the inadvertent ingestion of a contaminated product.
• The Athlete has not demonstrated that she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence.
• There are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 September 2023:

1.) The appeal filed by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency against the decision rendered by World Triathlon of 12 September 2022 is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by World Triathlon on 12 September 2022 is set aside.

3.) Valentina Riasova is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of two years starting from the date of this Award. Any period of ineligibility, whether imposed on, or voluntarily accepted by Valentina Riasova before the entry into force of the CAS award, shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Valentina Riasova from 25 September 2021 to 25 March 2022 inclusive shall be disqualified with all the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

5.) (…).

6.) (…).

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

• CAS 2022/A/9128 Association Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) v. Tatiana Kashirina
• CAS 2022/A/9217 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Association Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) & Tatiana Kashirina

In 2016, Professor Richard McLaren issued two reports about systemic doping in Russia. These reports identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered.

Hereafter in January 2019 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) recovered the internal database of the Moscow Laboratory (LIMS). Following investigation of allegations of organized doping practices, and in particular of the LIMS, WADA provided international federations with investigation reports on the athletes implicated in these organized doping practices.

As a result in November 2020 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Tatiana Kashirina for the use of the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Oral Turinabol) in April and in June 2013.

Previously in September 2006 the IWF had sanctioned the Athlete (age 15) for 2 years after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Mesteronone.

However the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) decided on 30 June 2022 that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Committee deemed that more convincing evidence was required in this matter.

Hereafter in September 2022 RUSADA and in October 2022 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the DADC Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Both Parties requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 8 years on the Athlete.

RUSADA and WADA contended that the Athlete's 2 official samples contained a prohibited substance and that the Moscow Laboratory falsely reported these samples as negative in ADAMS in 2013. This would prove that the Athlete was a protected athlete as part of the Russian Doping Scheme.

The Athlete denied the use of the prohibited substance and requested the Panel to dismiss the charges against her. Further she disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by WADA, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov.

The Panel assessed and addressed the Parties' evidence and arguments and determines that:

• There was a Russian Doping Scheme described by Prof. McLaren in the McLaren Reports.
• Analysis in the Moscow Laboratory of the Athlete's 2013 samples showed the presence of the prohibited substance.
• The Moscow Laboratory reported the analytical results of the 2013 samples in ADAMS as negative.
• In April and in June 2013 the Athlete used the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone.
• The Athlete committed a second anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 28 August 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 5 September 2022 by the Association Russian Anti-Doping Agency against the decision by the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee rendered on 30 June 2022 (CAS 2022/A/9128 Association Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) v. Tatiana Kashirina) is upheld.

2.) The appeal filed on 14 October 2022 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision by the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee rendered on 30 June 2022 (CAS 2022/A/9217 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Association Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) and Tatiana Kashirina) is partially upheld.

3.) The decision rendered on 30 June 2022 by the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee is set aside.

4.) Ms. Tatiana Kashirina is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.2 of the 2011 All-Russian Anti-Doping Rules.

5.) Ms. Tatiana Kashirina is sanctioned with a period of Ineligibility of eight (8) years, commencing on the date of the notification of this award. The period of provisional suspension served by Tatiana Kashirina between 13 November 2020 and 30 June 2022 shall be credited against the period of Ineligibility imposed.

6.) All the competitive results obtained by Ms. Tatiana Kashirina from 1 April 2013 until 19 June 2017 are disqualified, with all the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

7.) (…).

8.) (…).

9.) (…).

10.) Any other and further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2022/A/8978 Natalia Kropska v. Polish Anti-Doping Agency (POLADA)

In October 2022 the Polish Anti-Doping Agency (POLADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the judoka Natalia Kropska after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide. Thereupon the POLADA Disciplinary Panel decided on 27 April 2022 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in June 2022 the Athlete appealed the POLADA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to reinstate her to sports.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the the substance and asserted that there had been fundamental departures of the ISTI.

• During the Doping Control the Doping Control Officer (DCO) did not comply with the Partial Sample Collection Process.
• The Doping Control was not organized in a manner required by the ISTI.
• The DCO blatant disregarded fundamental procedural safeguards during the Athlete's Doping Control.
• There was outside or environmental contamination of her sample.
• These proven departures from the ISTI could reasonably have caused the positive test result.
• The DCO breached the ISTI knowingly and intentionally.

POLADA contended that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and failed to demonstrate that the alleged departures from the ISTI reasonably have caused the postive test result. Moreover the Athlete failed to produce any evidence to support the alleged outside or environmental contamination of her sample.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the Parties evidence and arguments and determines that:

• The presence of the prohibited substance Furosemide has been established in the Athlete's sample.
• The DCO who obtained the sample of the Athlete violated provisions of the ISTI including general and specific provisions on the Collection of Urine Samples.
• The Athlete has not established grounds for an automatic invalidation of the test results.
• None of the ISTI departures, or other circumstances surrounding the Athlete's Doping Control can reasonably explain the Furosemide found in the Athlete's sample.
• The Athlete’s alleged contamination scenarios are solely hypothetical without concrete reference to a possible course of the contamination.
• The Athlete has not established that the alleged scenarios (based on the undisputed ISTI Departures) could have reasonably caused the ADRV.
• The Athlete committed the ADRV contemplated by Article 2.1 of the POLADA ADR.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 3 October 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Ms. Natalia Kropska on 21 June 2022 against the Anti-Doping Agency of Poland with respect to the decision rendered on 27 April 2022 and notified with grounds on 1 June 2022 by the Disciplinary Panel of POLADA is dismissed.

2.) The decision rendered by the POLADA Disciplinary Panel on 27 April 2022 is confirmed.

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

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