CAS 2001/A/328 F. / International Sports Organization for the Disabled (ISOD), International Paralympic Committee (IPC), Disabled Sports USA (DS/USA)

Doping (nandrolone)
Stay of the execution of a sanction

The Appellant, an athlete affiliated to Disabled Sports USA (DS/USA), underwent a doping control on the occasion of the 11th Paralympic Summer Games in Sydney.
The Appellant provided two urine samples on 21 October 2000 (“A” sample) and on 25 October 2000 (“B” sample). The doping control performed by the Australian Drug Testing Laboratory (ADTL) revealed a prohibited trace amount of nandrolone metabolites. The report of the testing laboratory concerning this doping control does not mention the exact concentration of nandrolone metabolites found in Appellant's urine.
On 29 October 2000, the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), upon the recommendation of the IPC medical Commission decided to suspend the Appellant from all competitions for 4 years, including the 12th Paralympic Summer Games in 2004.

The CAS Panel finds that in the instant case a hearing of the Appeal cannot take place prior to the 10 August 2001 because the IPC’s offices will be closed and the IPC representatives will not be able to respond and/or participate until that date. The Panel finds that if the Appellant’s request for provisional relief is denied, he will be ineligible to compete in the International Challenge Track and Field Championship even if he is successful in his appeal of the decision of DS/USA; The interests of the Respondents in maintaining the suspension would appear to be minimally affected by the granting of limited interim relief.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 3 August 2001:
1.) Grants the request for a stay of the suspension of F. until the final award.
2.) States that the present order is pronounced without costs.

World Anti-Doping Code 2003 / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2003

The World Anti-Doping Code (Code) is the core document that harmonizes anti-doping policies, rules and regulations within sport organizations and among public authorities around the world. It works in conjunction with six International Standards which aim to foster consistency among anti-doping organizations in various areas: testing; laboratories; Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs); the List of Prohibited Substances and Methods; the protection of privacy and personal information; and Code Compliance by Signatories.

This unified approach addresses problems that previously arose from disjointed and uncoordinated anti-doping efforts, including, among others: a scarcity and splintering of resources required to conduct research and testing; a lack of knowledge about specific substances and procedures being used and to what degree; and an inconsistent approach to sanctions for those athletes found guilty of doping.

Ever since it entered into force on 1 January 2004, the Code has proven to be a powerful and effective tool in the harmonization of anti-doping efforts worldwide. This has been demonstrated by the overwhelming support of governments and sports in accepting the Code, in addition to the growing body of jurisprudence from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in supporting the principles of the Code.

The adoption of the Code led to several significant advances in the global fight against doping in sport, including the formalization of certain rules and the clarification of stakeholder responsibilities. This new approach to anti-doping brought consistency to a previously disjointed system.

The Code has also been instrumental in introducing the concept of “non-analytical” rule violations. Non-analytical rule violations have allowed anti-doping organizations to apply sanctions in cases where there is no positive doping sample, but where there may still be evidence that a doping violation has occurred (e.g. through a combination of three missed tests / whereabouts failures; longitudinal testing; evidence brought forward through an investigation).

The 2011 Prohibited List International Standard : The World Anti-Doping Code / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2010.

- The official text of the Prohibited List shall be maintained by WADA and shall be published in English and French. In the event of any conflict between the English and French versions, the English version shall prevail.
- This List shall come into effect on 1 January 2011

Doping Dokumente : Von der Forschung zum Betrug / Birgit Berendonk. - Berlin : Springer Verlag, 1991

• ISBN 3540537422
• ISBN 0387537422

First edition of the book on East German Anti-doping.

Geahnt und befürchtet hatten die Sportbegeisterten und -zuschauer schon seit langem, daß im Leistungssport gedopt wird. Trotz gelegentlicher Selbstbekenntnisse von Sportlern aber wurde dies von offizieller Seite stets bestritten und Vermutungen als bösartig und falsch abgetan. Noch bestand Hoffnung, daß Fairness und natürliche Freude am Wettkampf im Spitzensport ausschlaggebend sei. Erst als sich deutliche Hinweise - u.a. Ben Johnson in Seoul - nicht mehr abstreiten ließen, fanden in den USA, in Canada und Australien offizielle Untersuchungen statt. Bei den dabei unter Eid gemachten Aussagen von Sportlern, Trainern, Sportmedizinern und Funktionären kam das ungeheure Ausmaß des Dopingmißbrauchs langsam ans Tageslicht. Auch in der Bundesrepublik wurde eine Kommission eingesetzt, deren nun vorliegender Bericht zeigt, daß zumindest in der ehemaligen DDR flächendeckend gedopt wurde. Die offizielle Empfehlung lautet allerdings: keinen Schuldigen nennen, schweigen - und schweigend weiterdopen, um auch bei den nächsten internationalen Sportfesten glänzen zu können. Ohne die genauen Fakten und Namen der Verantwortlichen und Mittäter zu nennen, wird es aber keine Reinigung des Sports vom Doping und keine Zukunft für einen menschenwürdigen Leistungssport geben. Noch gelten die Anabolika-unterstützten Rekorde als Vorgaben. Deshalb und besonders auch der zahlreichen Opfer wegen - der ohne ihr Wissen mit Hormonen behandelten oft jugendlichen Sportler auf der einen Seite sowie derjenigen, die vergeblich versucht hatten, auf faire Art sportliche Leistungen zu erbringen - hat sich die Autorin entschlossen, mit diesem Buch die Wahrheit an die Öffentlichkeit zu bringen. Dokumentiert wird auch, welche gesundheitlichen und psychischen Schäden durch Dopingmittel (androgene Hormone) besonders im Frauensport angerichtet werden, und wie Sportmediziner und Wissenschaftler mitgewirkt haben an Menschen-Versuchen und Forschungsvorhaben mit dem Ziel, neue, stärkere Mittel zu entwickeln und Dopingkontrollen effektiver zu umgehen. Brigitte Berendonk war viele Jahre erfolgreich im Spitzensport - u.a. Deutsche Jugendmeisterin in der damaligen DDR, dann in der BRD, später Deutsche Meisterin im Diskuswerfen und Kugelstoßen und zweifache Olympiateilnehmerin. Insgesamt 39 mal startete sie in der deutschen Leichtathletik-Nationalmannschaft der Frauen. Ein Hamburger Nachrichten-Magazin wird zum Erscheinen über Doping Dokumente berichten.

The 2012 Prohibited List International Standard : The World Anti-Doping Code / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2011.

- The official text of the Prohibited List shall be maintained by WADA and shall be published in English and French. In the event of any conflict between the English and French versions, the English version shall prevail.
- This List shall come into effect on 1 January 2012

CAS 2010/A/2090 Finnish Ski Association & Aino-Kaisa Saarinen v. FIS

On 20 December 2009, the FIS disqualified Ms Saarinen after a World Cup 15 km race at Rogla, Slovenia for a violation of the ICR Article 392.5 (intentional obstruction during a race).
On 22 December 2009, the Appeals Commission of the FIS dismissed her appeal.
On 5 March 2010, the FIS Court dismissed her further appeal against the decision of the Appeals Commission, that this appeal is brought.
On 1 April 2010, Ms Saarinen and the FSA filed their statement of appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel has no means (any more than the FIS Court did) of comparing Ms Saarinen's case with others of necessity unexplored before it. It is in any event axiomatic that reasonable people (including sporting bodies) may reasonably have different views as to the gravity of different breaches of the rules of the sports and the sanctions appropriate to them. While CAS enjoys the power to form its own view on the proportionality of any sanction, it ought
not to ignore the expertise of the bodies involved in the particular sport in determining what sanctions are appropriate to what offence. It is notable that in this case three separate ski bodies reached the same conclusion as to penalty even if by different routes. The Panel considers that the FIS Court had a margin of appreciation not exceeded in this case.

The Panel finds that Ms Saarinen can at least be consoled by this that on the finding of the FIS Court she was not guilty of a deliberate effort to frustrate in an improper manner a competitor. She was guilty only of an offence of lesser seriousness. She is an experienced, successful and well respected cross country skier. This incident has caused, the Panel trusts, only a transient blow to her
reputation.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport rules on 7 February 2011 that:
1. The appeal filed by the Finnish Ski Association & Aino-Kaisa Saarinen on 1 April 2010 is dismissed.
2. The decision rendered by the FIS Court on 5 March 2010 is confirmed.
3. (...)