NADO Flanders 2016 Disciplinary Council 20147424 - Appeal

4 Nov 2016

Related case:

NADO Flanders 2014 Disciplinary Commission 20147424
March 10, 2015

On 10 March 2015 the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for multiple prohibited substances: Boldenone, Clenbuterol, Drostanolone, Furosemide, Mesterolone and Oxymetholone.

Hereafter September 2016 the Athlete filed an Appeal with the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Council. However in October 2016 the Athlete notified the Council that he renounced his Appeal.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Council establishes on 4 November 2016 that the Athlete has renounced his Appeal.

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

NADO Flanders 2014 Disciplinary Commission 20147424

10 Mar 2015

NADO Flanders 2014 Disciplinary Commission 20147424

Related case:

NADO Flanders 2016 Disciplinary Council 20147424 - Appeal
November 4, 2016

In January 2015 NADO Flanders has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for multiple prohibited substances: Boldenone, Clenbuterol, Drostanolone, Furosemide, Mesterolone and Oxymetholone.

After notification the Athlete was heard for the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission. The Athlete admitted that he had used the prohibited substances.

The Disciplinary Commission finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete’s sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Commission deems that the Athlete acted imputable and culpable.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 10 March 2015 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the Decision.

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

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Luvo Manyong

11 Jun 2021

Related case:

SAIDS 2012_11 SAIDS vs Luvo Manyonga
June 1, 2012

In December 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) for World Athletics had reported an anti-doping rule violation against the South African Athlete Luvo Manyong for his 3 Whereabouts Filing Faulures and 1 Missed test within a 12 month period. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

Previously in June 2012 an 18 month period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete for the use of the prohibited substance methamphetamine.

In his submission the Athlete denied that he had committed the violation. Hereafter he failed to cooperatie with the hearing process, he didn't file a statement in his defence, nor attended the hearing of the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal.

Based on the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator finds that World Athletics has demonstrated that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Sole Arbitrator considers that this is the Athlete's second anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 11 June 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 December 2020.

ITA report on IWF: Anti-Doping Rule Violations and related allegations of misconduct from 2009 to 2019

24 Jun 2021

ITA report on IWF: Anti-Doping Rule Violations and related allegations of misconduct from 2009 to 2019 : Final Report / International Testing Agency (ITA). - Lausanne : ITA, 2021



The International Testing Agency (ITA) has published a report on Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) following a series of allegations of misconduct by the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF), providing an overview of the findings of the investigation into approximately 146 unresolved cases over the 2009-2019 period. The report notably uncovers mishandling and impropriety on the part of certain IWF officials in relation to its anti-doping program. As a consequence of these discoveries, the ITA has – among other follow-up actions – asserted ADRVs against former IWF President Tamas Ajan, IWF Vice-President Nicolae Vlad, and Hassan Akkus, President of the European Weightlifting Confederation.

As background, allegations of misconduct by the IWF regarding its anti-doping program were uncovered and publicly exposed by different sources over the past 18 months. Following a documentary by the German broadcaster ARD, which conveyed allegations of financial and electoral corruption and unsanctioned doping offences under the auspices of the IWF, the IWF Executive Board appointed Professor Richard H. McLaren to carry out an investigation into these claims. Prof. McLaren’s resulting report uncovered irregularities in the IWF anti-doping program, including the discovery of a large number of unprocessed cases of ADRVs predating the delegation by the IWF of its anti-doping program to the ITA. Those cases were passed to the ITA for investigation and appropriate action where possible.

In October 2020, the Intelligence & Investigations Department of WADA (WADA I&I) issued a public report to convey its work into the IWF since 2017. The document described four investigations which looked into wrongdoings related to anti-doping practices in the sport of weightlifting, including “Operation Arrow” pertaining to the practice of urine substitution by athletes and the use of doppelgängers within the sport of weightlifting.

Over the course of the past eight months, the ITA has gathered and reviewed evidence and conducted interviews with interested parties and whistleblowers with the aim to draw evidence-based conclusions only. The ITA was hampered by the depth and breadth of the IWF’s past years of inaction, which resulted into 29 unsanctioned doping violations being impossible to prosecute due to statute of limitation and/or destruction of evidence. The reasons why these cases were unprocessed and/or unsanctioned, ranged from mere administrative oversight, poor record keeping, chaotic organisational processes, or jurisdictional errors – on one end of the spectrum – to indifference, outright negligence, complicity, or – at worst – blatant and intentional cover-ups.

Over the course of the ITA investigation, it transpired that some IWF and national Member Federation officials had themselves also committed ADRVs of complicity and tampering in relation to certain cases. In the scope of the ITA’s mandate to vigorously pursue all potential ADRVs under the IWF’s jurisdiction, the ITA has thus asserted ADRVs against current and former IWF officials Tamas Ajan, former IWF President, Nicolae Vlad IWF Vice-President and current President of the Romanian Weightlifting Federation and Hassan Akkus, President of the European Weightlifting Confederation and former President of the Turkish Weightlifting Federation. The exact charges and evidence against these three officials are detailed in the ITA report and include covering up, delaying and obstructing results management for certain athletes that committed ADRVs in order for them to participate in high-level sporting events such as the Olympic Games and collusion to avoid potential fines and suspensions.

The ITA has also followed up on many of the doping allegations initially exposed by the ARD documentary and has launched proceedings against athletes for urine sample manipulation based on cases passed on by WADA I&I. It has also identified a number of action items that could help further reinforce the global anti-doping system and will be liaising with WADA as the global anti-doping regulator to address these constraints. The ITA suggests encouraging the systematic storage and re-analysis of samples, and that special attention is given to other key areas such as whereabouts management, identity management, ADAMS access, results management follow-ups, doping control officers’ supervision and certification, and an intelligence-based approach to anti-doping.

Whilst this large-scale investigation necessarily triggers other investigations and follow up actions by the ITA, it is ITA’s belief and intent that this report will enable the IWF to get to the bottom of the past misconduct, fix its issues and focus on the development of its sport and promotion of its athletes while the ITA ensures professional and independent anti-doping operations free from any political, national or sporting interests.

CAS 2020_A_7536 Ashley Kratzer vs ITF

15 Jun 2021

CAS 2020/A/7536 Ashley Kratzer v. International Tennis Federation

Related case:

ITF 2020 ITF vs Ashley Kratzer
October 28, 2020

On 28 October 2020 the ITF Independent Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the American tennis player Ashley Kratzer after she tested positive for the prohibited substance GHRP-6.

In First Instance the Athlete demonstrated that she suffered from a longstanding, severe blistering problem on her heels, toes and sides of her feet. During her stay in China in April 2019 and thereafter she had used an effective Cream provided in an unlabelled bottle. Analysis of this Cream revealed that it contained a significant amount of GHRP-6.

Although the Tribunal accepted that the Athlete had not deliberately used the prohibited substance it deemed that she engaged in conduct knowing that there was a significant risk that it might result in an anti-doping rule violation and that she manifestly disregarded that risk.

Hereafter in November 2020 the Athlete appealed the ITF Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Sole Arbitrator Panel to set aside the ITF Decision of 28 October and for the imposition of a reduced sanction.

Undisputed between the Parties are the positive test results for GHRP-6 and that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. What is contested between the Parties is the appropriate period of ineligibility as a consequence of this anti-doping rule violation.

The Athlete denied that she intentionally tried to cheat or that she knew that the Cream contained a prohibited substance while it only was used as medical treatment for her severe blistering problems. She asserted that did not know that there was a risk of an anti-doping rule violation and consequently that she manifestly had disregarded such risk.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that it is more likely than not that the Athlete recognized her conduct to be akin to self-medication and that she knew that there was a significant doping risk when applying or administering substances for therapeutic purposes.

Considering the circumstances in this case the Sole Arbitrator finds that during her stay in China in April 2019 the Athlete did not act intentionally or recklessly. However in view of her conduct in the months after she had returned from China the Sole Arbitrator deems that she indeed acted intentionally.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 June 2021 that:

1. The appeal filed by Ms Ashley Kratzer on 18 November 2020 against the International Tennis Federation with respect to the decision rendered by the Independent Tribunal on 28 October 2020 is dismissed.

2. All results obtained by Ms. Ashley Kratzer from 28 March 2020 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any titles, ranking points, and prize money obtained at the Oracle Challengers Tournament in Newport Beach, California, USA.

3. The Award is pronounced without costs with the exception of the Court Office fee, already paid by Ms Ashley and which is retained by CAS.

4. Ms. Ashley Kratzer is ordered to pay the International Tennis Federation a total amount of CHF 4,000 (four thousand Swiss francs) as contribution towards the expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

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

ADAK 2020 ADAK vs Alphas Leken Kishoyian

6 May 2021

In July 2020 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Alphas Leken Kishoyian after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal.

ADAK requested the Tribunal for the imposition of a sanction of 4 years and contended that the Athlete had failed to establish the source of the prohibited substance, nor grounds No Fault or Negligence.

At first the Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and he mentioned some probable sources that could have caused the postive test result. Later in February 2021 the Athlete admitted that he had used Deca Durabolin to gain body weight.

The Athlete argued that the use of the product occurred Out-Of-Competition during the COVID-19 lockdown when competitions were cancelled and he had no benefit from the substance's performance enhancement. Further he asserted that he had provided substantial assistance to ADAK and acknowledged that he had not mentioned the products he had used on the Doping Control Form.

Considering the evidence in this case the Tribunal finds that the presence of the prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation as admitted by the Athlete.

The Tribunal considers whether the Athlete had provided substantial assistance and ordered ADAK to investigate this matter. The Tribunal concludes that the Athlete had used the substance intentionally and without a medical prescribtion to enhance his body weight. As a result the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor grounds for No Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the Tribunal decides on 6 May 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 28 July 2020.

UKAD 2020 UKAD vs Morgan Jones

12 Apr 2021

In March 2020 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Morgan Jones after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. 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.

The Athlete admitted the violation and testified with evidence that he was coping with his personal circumstances and sought release through alcohol and drugs. He is still under care of a consultant in substance misuse and psychiatry. He acknowledged that he had used Cocaine 3 times that night and had consumed a considerable amount of alcohol.

In this case there were deliberations between the Parties about the applicability of lex mitior since the WADC 2021 and the 2021 ADR had come into force with the option for the imposition of a 3 month period of ineligibility when the ingestion of the substance occurred Out-Of-Competition and was unrelated to sport performance.

UKAD accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete bears No Significant Fault of Negligence. However UKAD denied the applicability of lex mitior. It contended that the use of Cocaine occurred not Out-Of-Competition since the Athlete had admitted that he had used the substance between 00:00 en 01:00 on the day of the competition while he knew he was due to be playing there.

The Panel established that the Athlete had admitted the violation and that the use of the Cocaine was unrelated to sport performance. The Panel rejected UKAD's contentions and considered that UKAD already had accepted the applicability of lex mitior in respect of six other cases.

Based on lex mitior the Panel deems that the Athlete should be able to benefit from a lower sanction that had become available. Further the Panel regards that there were delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete and that he had respected the imposed provisional suspension.

Therefore on 12 April 2021 the National Anti-Doping Panel decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete which he has already served during the provisional suspension. Accordingly the Athlete is free to resume alle sporting activities with immediate effect.

UKAD 2020 UKAD vs Carl Hone

6 May 2021

In October 2020 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Carl Hone after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Boldenone in a low concentration. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that the only possible source of the Boldenone was horse waste with which he must have come into contact when doing carpentry work at a barn adjacent to some stabling.

The London Lab confirmed that the concentration found in the Athlete's system was very low and it could no exclude the possibility of the Athlete's theory being correct.

UKAD contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional on the balance of probability based on the contamination with horse waste theory.

The Panel considers it very unlikely that the Athlete as a low level amateur player had injected himself with the substance for performance enhancing. Nevertheless the Panel concludes that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and that he failed to provide sufficient evidence that on the balance of probability horse waste was in fact the source of the prohibited substance in his system.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 6 May 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 6 February 2020.

World Athletics 2021 WA vs Dzmitry Nabokau

10 Jun 2021

Related case:

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Dzmitry Nabokau
September 1, 2020

On 1 September 2020 the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Belarussian Athlete Dzmitry Nabokau after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide in a concentration of 17ng/mL. Here allegedly contaminants in food had caused the Athlete's postive test result.

On 31 May 2021 the WADA Executive Committee approved WADA Technical Letter TL24: reporting levels for certain diuretics that are known contaminants of pharmaceutical products which came into force on 1 June 2021.

TL24 stipulates new Minimum Reporting Levels for 6 diuretics set at 20 ng/mL in order to risk of sanctioning Athletes who test positive due to the use of contaminated medications.

In light of the introduction of TL24 the Athlete Dzmitry Nabokau made an application to the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) for an urgent review of his case. The Athlete had already served nearly 20 months of his 24 month period of ineligibility.

The AIU considers that the effect of TL24 is to remove Furosemide from the Prohibited List as far as reported concentrations of 20 ng/mL or less are concerned.

Therefore the AIU decides on 10 June 2021 out of fairness to the Athlete to reduce the remaining period of his ineligibility such that he is eligible to return to competition with immediate effect.

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Youssef Sbaai

28 May 2021

In November 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Maroccan Athlete Youssef Sbaai after his samples after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Sole Arbitrator of the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal rendered a decision based on the Parties’ written submissions.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and alleged that he was the victim of sabotage due the water bottle he had used during the competition in question contained EPO.

The AIU contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how EPO had entered his system and requested the Tribunal for the imposition of a sanction of 4 year. The AIU rejected the Athlete’s explanation and contended that the substance EPO only can enter the Athlete’s system through injection and not orally. 

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of the prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete’s sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator holds that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete’s explanation are speculative and based on assumptions while there are no grounds for a reduced sanction. 

Therefore the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 28 May 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 November 2020.

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