Anti-Doping in and beyond the European Commission’s White Paper on Sport

1 Jul 2008

Anti-Doping in and beyond the European Commission’s White Paper on Sport / Jacob Kornbeck. – (International Sports Law Journal (2008) 3-4 : p. 30-35)

Content:
1.) Introduction
2.) Discussion of anti-doping and the EU in legal literature
3.) The White Paper on Sport: nature, structure and rationale
4.) Proposals regarding the fight against doping
5.) Beyond the White Paper
6.) Conclusion

The White Paper on Sport has allowed the EU to make an entry on the anti-doping scene. This move has been generally well received by stakeholders. Although the White Paper does not propose legislative
action at EU level, it may have an informal impact on legislation nationally, and it certainly confirms the impression that a stronger role for governments is increasingly becoming acceptable. In the field of sport, this is more epochal than it might seem at first glance.
Although the EU does not have the ambition to step in and become a regulator of sport, the White Paper may later prove to have been part of a wider trend, and its doping section may have proven the point with particular clarity.

IOC 2004 IOC vs Nan Aye Khine

16 Aug 2004

Ms. Nan Aye Khine is a Myanmar Athlete competing in weightlifting at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games.

On 15 August 2004 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her sample tested positive for a prohibited anabolic steroid.
The Athlete admitted she used a herbal remedy on regular basis without research of the ingredients before using.

The IOC Disciplinary Commission unanimously concludes that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. Therefore on 16 August 2004 the IOC Executive Board decides, as recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, that the Athlete Ms Nan Aye:
1.) is disqualified from the women’s 48 kg weightlifting event, where she had placed fourth;
2.) is excluded from the Games of the XXVIII Olympiad in Athens in 2004; and
3.) shall have her Olympic identity and accreditation card be immediately withdrawn.
4.) The International Weightlifting Federation is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The National Olympic Committee of Myanmar is ordered to return to the IOC, as soon as possible, the diploma awarded to the Athlete in relation to the above-noted event.
6.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

IOC 2004 IOC vs David Munyasia

10 Aug 2004

Related case:
CAS OG_2004_04 David Munyasia vs IOC
August 15, 2004

Mr David Munyasia is a Kenyan Athlete competing in the boxing event at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games.

On 8 August 2004 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance cathine.
The Athlete denied taking any medical substance, other than an antibiotic and offered no explanation on how the prohibited substance came into his body.

The IOC Disciplinary Commission unanimously concludes that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. Therefore on 10 August 2004 the IOC Executive Board decides, as recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, that the Athlete David Munyasia:
1.) is excluded from the Games of the XXVIII Olympiad in Athens in 2004; and
2.) shall have his Olympic identity and accreditation card be immediately withdrawn.
3.) The International Boxing Association (AIBA) is requested to consider any further action within its own competence.
4.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

AAA 2012 No. 77 190 00225 12 USADA vs Johan Bruyneel, Pedro Celaya Lezama & José Martí Martí

21 Apr 2014

AAA No. 77190 00225 12 USADA vs Johan Bruyneel
AAA No. 77190 00226 12 USADA vs Pedro Celaya
AAA No. 77190 00227 12 USADA vs José Martí Martí

Related cases:
CAS 2013_A_3285 Johan Bruyneel vs USADA
May 13, 2014
Swiss Federal Court 4A_222_2015 Johan Bruyneel vs USADA & WADA
January 28, 2016
CAS 2014_A_3598 Johan Bruyneel & Jose Martí vs USADA | WADA vs Johan Bruyneel, Pedro Celaya Lezama, Jose Martí Martí & USADA - Partial Award
October 24, 2018


- Mr. Bruyneel served as a team director for the U.S. Postal Service team between 1999 and 2004 and the Discovery Channel team between 2005 and 2007.
- Dr. Celaya served a team physician for the U.S. Postal Service team in 1997, 1998, and 2004 and the Discovery Channel team between 2005 and 2007.
- Mr. José Martí served as a team trainer for the U.S. Postal Service team between 1999 and 2004 and the Discovery Channel team between 2005 and 2007.

On June 2012 USADA informed Respondents, Mr. Lance Armstrong and others that a formal action was opened based on evidence that each party had engaged in anti-doping violations under the UCI Rules from 1998 to 2012, the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) from inception to 2012 and the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing from inception to 2012.

All three Respondents are charged of possession, trafficking, administration and to have assisted, encouraged, and facilitated the use of prohibited doping agents to the professional cyclists on these U.S.-based teams. The banned doping agents and methods alleged to have been administered in this case: erythropoietin, hGH, blood transfusions, cortisone, testosterone and/or saline, plasma or glycerol infusions.

After given notice by USADA, the Respondents filed several objections and evidence in their defence and were heard for the Panel of the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport (NACAS).
The Panel was asked by USADA here to consider applying equitable doctrines to extend the applicable statute of limitations period beyond the express period set forth in Article 17 of the WADC.
The Panel allowed USADA to present all of its evidence, including acts undertaken before the limitations period. The Panel did not consider that evidence in making this Award, even for corroborating the evidence of acts within the limitations period.

Against the Respondents, USADA submitted in this case several affidavits and sworn testimonies of cyclists and riders for the U.S Postal Service and Discovery Channel teams:
- Michael Barry
- Tom Danielson
- Tyler Hamilton
- George Hincapie
- Floyd Landis
- Levi Leipheimer
- Christian Vande Velde
- David Zabriskie

The Panel of the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport (NACAS) concludes that USADA had presented sufficient evidence of acts in violation of the UCI ADR taken within the limitations period to support the charges against each Respondent. On the basis of the facts, legal analysis, and conclusions of fact, this Panel renders the following decision:

(A) USADA has sustained its burden of proof as to all Respondents. As a result, Respondents have each committed their first doping violations under Article 2.1 of the 2009 version of the WADA Code, with the presence of aggravating circumstances. Therefore, the Panel imposes a period of ineligibility for each Respondent as follows:

(1) Mr. Johann Bruyneel: 10 years, starting from June 12, 2012 and continuing through and including June 11, 2022;
(2) Dr. Pedro Celaya: 8 years, starting from June 12, 2012 and continuing through and including June 11, 2020; and
(3) Mr. José Martí Martí: 8 years, starting from June 12, 2012 and continuing through and including June 11, 2020.

(B) The parties shall bear their own attorney’s fees and costs associated with this arbitration;
(C) The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association, and the compensation and expenses of the arbitrators and the Panel, shall be borne entirely by USADA and the United States Olympic Committee;
(D) This Award shall be in full and final resolution of all claims and counterclaims submitted to this Arbitration. The Panel has considered all of the arguments made by the parties, whether or not they are specifically referenced in this Award. All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby denied; and
(E) This Award may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall constitute together one and the same instrument.

AAA 2013 No. 77 190 00587 13 USADA vs Walter Davis

15 Apr 2014

Respondent Walter Davis is a 34-year old athlete and member of USA Track & Field.

The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against Respondent after he failed to file his whereabouts information on three separate occasions between 1 July 2012 and 1 July 2013.

After notice Respondent waived his right to be heard for Tribunal and didn’t filed a statement in his defence.
During the preliminary hearing in January 2014, the Respondent admitted that he failed to timely submit his whereabouts information and claimed that there was no violation due to he had retired from competition. Respondent did not provide any evidence to substantiate this claim.
USADA stated that Respondent was still compelled to report his whereabouts and neither USADA nor USATF received a retirement notice from Respondent. Also USADA showed that Respondent continued to submit whereaubouts information to USADA on an intermittent basis until August 2013, more that a full year after Respondent claims he retired.

Considering the evidence, the Arbitrator of the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport (NACAS) decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent, starting on 16 April 2014 and ending on 15 April 2015.
Consequently, all competitive results, medals, points and prizes obtained by Respondent on or subsequent to 1 July 2013, the date of his third whereabouts failure, are hereby cancelled with retroactive effect.

Doping As a Crime? : The Policy Issue Concering the Choice of Method to Deal with Doping

1 Apr 2008

Doping As a Crime? : The Policy Issue Concering the Choice of Method to Deal with Doping / Julia Völlmecke. – (International Sports Law Journal (2008) 1-2 : p. 49-56)

Content:
- Introduction
- The situation in Germany
- The Debate
- The pro arguments
- The contra arguments
• Consitutional difficulties
• Procedural difficulties
- The new Anti-Doping Law
- Results
- Criminal Provisions
- The Criminal Code
- Crimes against life and bodily integrity
- Fraud
- Crimes against competition
- Other provisions
- Results
- Conclusions

The new Anti-Doping Law in Germany may be seen as an innovative step towards the fight against doping. Certainly, its aims and intentions recognise the immense dimension doping has reached within the sports world. Provisions which entrust police work with more power on a national and international basis and those that intend to combat against criminally organised networks seem to be helpful in the fight against doping. Apart from that, the new legislation resembles no more than a failed attempt to get governmentally involved in doping affairs.

Analyzing the New World Anti-Doping Code : A Different Perspective

1 Apr 2008

Analyzing the New World Anti-Doping Code : A Different Perspective / Steven Teitler, Herman Ram. – (International Sports Law Journal (2008) 1-2 : 42-49)

Content:
1.) Introduction
2.) Who are cheats?
3.) Recreational use
4.) By-catch of morally innocent cheats?
5.) Additional flexibility
6.) Breach of a sanction
7.) No more gaps
8.) Privacy
9.) Open List
10.) New rights of appeal

Observations regarding the World Anti-Doping Code can often be
divided in two distinct categories. One the one hand, there are those that defend the doping regulations, stressing the necessity of the described elements of the anti-doping programs and policies. On the other hand are those observations that detail the unfairness of these programs and policies, or the Code’s disregard for the privacy and other interests of (professional) athletes.
Marshall and Hale have written a more neutral analysis of the provisions in the new, 2009 Code, pointing out the major changes and offering a critical view to various aspects of the 2009 Code. The authors' contribution will take the analysis and views of Marshall and Hale as a starting point, offering additional insights and opinions concerning the 2009 Code and the way this set of rules will work out in practice.

Will the New WADA Code Plug All The Gabs? Will There Be By-Catch?

1 Apr 2008

Will the New WADA Code Plug All The Gabs? Will There Be By-Catch? / John Marshall, Amy Catherine Hale. – (International Sports Law Journal (2008) 1-2 : 37-44)

Content:
A.) Introduction
B.) WADA and the Code
B.1.) Background
B.2.) Impact
C.) The Changes
D.) Harmonisation with Flexibility
E.) Whereabouts Requirements
F.) Privacy?
G.) Atypical Findings
H.) Provisional Suspension after A Sample
I.) Breach of Sanction
J.) Sanctions on Teams
K.) New Rights of Appeal
L.) ‘Party’, ‘Recreational’ of ‘Illicit’ Drugs
M.) Conclusion

The World Anti-Doping Agency, WADA adopted substantial
amendments to the WADA Code (“the Code”) at its conference in
Spain in mid November 2007. This paper looks at the new amendments which will be operational by 1 January 2009.

Manifesto: “Stop the doping inquisition”!

1 Jul 2007

Manifesto: “Stop the doping inquisition”! / Paul Ruijsenaars, … [et al.]. – (International Sports Law Journal (2007) 3-4 : p. 84-85)

Content:
- Chain gangs
- Medival Practices
- Perspective
- Monitoring task

Because the treatment of athletes by doping hunters bears a strong resemblance to the inquisition which victimised so many people eight hundred years ago. Replace the term ‘doping’ by ‘heresy’, inspectors by inquisitors and church authorities by IOC, doping authorities, sports associations (ASO) and organisations like ASO, and you have your comparison.

Doping in Sport, the Rules on “Missed Tests”, “Non-Analytical Finding” Cases and the Legal Implications

1 Jul 2007

Doping in Sport, the Rules on “Missed Tests”, “Non-Analytical Finding” Cases and the Legal Implications / Gregory Ioannidis. – (International Sports Law Journal (2007) 3-4 : p. 19-27)

Content:

  • Factual Analysis
  • The Need for Stricter Rules
  • The rule on Missed Test: “Dead Man Walking”
  • Conclusion

The article’s focus is on the IAAF’s (International Association of Athletics Federations) rule on missed tests and critically analyse its definition and application, particularly at the charging stage. This would enable us to test the validity of the rule, by examining its application on potential alleged offenders and would also provide us with a unique opportunity to interpret the intention of the legislator.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin