WADA has produced a series 15-second video clips to help drive its ‘Say NO! To Doping’ awareness campaign.

The clips, designed to reinforce the sporting concept of fair play and integrity, are also available to stakeholders to utilize for their own awareness initiatives.

WADA hopes that the clips will be used as widely as possible to deliver the message that success in the sporting arena can only be achieved through hard work, dedication, respect for your fellow competitors, and respect for the rules of sport.

WADA has produced a series 15-second video clips to help drive its ‘Say NO! To Doping’ awareness campaign.

The clips, designed to reinforce the sporting concept of fair play and integrity, are also available to stakeholders to utilize for their own awareness initiatives.

WADA hopes that the clips will be used as widely as possible to deliver the message that success in the sporting arena can only be achieved through hard work, dedication, respect for your fellow competitors, and respect for the rules of sport.

WADA has produced a series 15-second video clips to help drive its ‘Say NO! To Doping’ awareness campaign.

The clips, designed to reinforce the sporting concept of fair play and integrity, are also available to stakeholders to utilize for their own awareness initiatives.

WADA hopes that the clips will be used as widely as possible to deliver the message that success in the sporting arena can only be achieved through hard work, dedication, respect for your fellow competitors, and respect for the rules of sport.

WADA has produced a series 15-second video clips to help drive its ‘Say NO! To Doping’ awareness campaign.

The clips, designed to reinforce the sporting concept of fair play and integrity, are also available to stakeholders to utilize for their own awareness initiatives.

WADA hopes that the clips will be used as widely as possible to deliver the message that success in the sporting arena can only be achieved through hard work, dedication, respect for your fellow competitors, and respect for the rules of sport.

TAS 2011/A/2585 Agence Mondial Antidopage c. Ramior Marino & Union Ciclista Republica Argentina (UCRA)

CAS 2011/A/2585 WADA vs Ramiro Marino & UCRA

In April 2011 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Argentinian cyclist Ramiro Marino after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (1,3-dimethylamylamine).

Thereupon on 5 July 2011 the Anti-Doping Commission of the Cycling Union of the Argentine Republic (UCRA) decided to impose a reprimand and a warning on the Athlete, without a period of ineligibility. The UCRA deemed that the concentration of the substance found in the Athletes sample was very low and that the violation was not intentional.

Although the UCI filed no appeal, in October 2011 WADA appealed the UCRA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

UCRA initiated a review of the Athlete’s case and ruled on 5 December 2011 to uphold the Appealed Decision based on new facts that discharged the Athlete.
The Athlete explained that he underwent a spleen transplantation in May 1999 and asserted that the prohibited substance had to be in the antiflu medication he used to prevent infections following his transplantation. The UCRA found that the presence of the prohibited substance was justified due to the Athlete’s transplantation and not an anti-doping rule violation.

By contrast the CAS Panel finds that an anti-doping rule violation has been established and that the UCRA must reform the Appealed decision.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete had acted with significant negligent because he failed to research the ingredients of the antiflu medication before using. He also failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that the antiflu medication he used indeed was the source of the positive test result.

Therefore on 21 May 2012 the Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

TAS 2007/A/1368 Union Cycliste International c. Michele Scarponi & Federazione Cyclistica Italiana

CAS 2007/A/1368 UCI vs Michele Scarponi & Federazione Ciclistica Italiana

• Cyclisme
• Dopage
• Justification de la réduction d’une suspension du fait d’une aide substantielle en matière de lutte contre le dopage fournie par le licencié
• Point de départ de la durée de la suspension
• Tentative d'usage d'une substance ou d’une méthode interdite considérée comme une infraction en soi

1. L’objectif fondamental de l’article 266 RAD étant l’incitation des athlètes et de leur entourage à collaborer activement à la lutte antidopage, il permet la réduction de la période de suspension en cas d’aide substantielle fournie par le licencié à partir des paramètres suivants: l’objectif d’un moyen de lutte contre le dopage; l’utilisation rigoureuse de ce moyen de lutte contre le dopage; la nécessité de disposer d’une aide substantielle; le principe d’un pouvoir discrétionnaire. La réduction elle-même est non seulement facultative, mais sa durée dépend également de la libre appréciation du TAS au vu des circonstances du cas d’espèce.

2. La période d’inactivité du coureur consécutive à une interdiction de participer à des compétitions et à une auto-suspension est prise en compte pour le calcul de la suspension.

3. Les art. 2.2 CMA et 15.2 RAD règlent le cas de la tentative d'usage d'une substance ou méthode interdite et le qualifie comme une infraction en soi. La sanction pour la tentative et l'acte consommé est ainsi la même. Les deux dispositions précisent en outre que le succès ou l'échec de l'action n'est pas déterminant. L’absence d’amélioration des performances sportives n'est donc pas déterminante.

In 2004 the Spanish Guardia Civil and the Investigating magistrate no. 31 of Madrid opened an investigation that has come to be known as "Operation Puerto".

Pursuant to this investigation, on 23 May 2006 searches were carried out of two Madrid apartments belonging to Spanish physician Dr. Eufeniiano Fuentes. Documents and other materials were seized from the apartments, including evidence of possible doping offences by athletes.

Following investigations conducted by the Guardia Civil the UCI was unsuccesful in opening disciplinary proceedings in Spain against the Athlete. However the International Cycling Union (UCI) and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) were succesful in having access to the entire criminal investigation file.

In April 2007 the Ufficio di Procura Antidoping (UPA), the CONI Anti-Doping Prosecution Office received from the Guardia Civil the investigation files. Thereupon it opened disciplinary proceedings against Italian riders involved in Operation Puerto.

Ultimately the Italian Cycling Federation (FCI) decided on 13 July to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete for the use of prohibited substances and methods. Hereafter in August 2007 the UCI appealed the FCI Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

In this appeal the Panel assessed and addressed the following issues:

• is the reduced sanction impose on the Athlete justified because of the substantial assistance he had provided?
• on which date is the commencement of the sanction calculated?
• can the Athlete receive a more reduced sanction for his cessation of his doping attempt?

Considering the circumstances the Panel finds that the reduced sanction was sufficient and adequate. A sanction of 21 months must be imposed on the Athlete from 13 July 2007 and he shall be credited for the 254 days of suspension he already had served. Further the Panel deems that there are no grounds to grant the Athlete a further 6 month reduction of the sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decides on 25 March 2008 to impose a 21 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 13 July 2007.

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Athens) 04/003 Torri Edwards v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) & USA Track & Field (USATF)

Related cases:

• AAA No. 30 190 00675 04 USADA vs Torri Edwards - Final Award
  August 10, 2004 AAA No. 30 190 00675 04 USADA vs Torri Edwards - Interim Award
  July 22, 2007
• CAS 2008_A_1545 Andrea Anderson, LaTasha Colander Clark, Jearl Miles-Clark, Torri Edwards, Chryste Gaines, Monique Hennagan, Passion Richardson vs IOC
  July 16, 2010
  
  

• Athletics
• Doping (nikethamide)
• CAS ad hoc Division power of review
• Exceptional circumstances
• Negligence
• Sanction

1. The limitation in the IAAF Rules of the scope of review by CAS is not in line with Article 16 of the CAS ad hoc Rules, under which the Panel shall have unrestricted authority to review the facts and the law. It is also not in line with the WADA Code and, in particular, with the IAAF’s commitment thereunder to “incorporate (…) without any substantive changes”, inter alia, Article 13 (Appeals) of that Code.

2. Under the IAAF Rules, the exceptional circumstances provisions can only apply either when there is “no fault or no negligence”, as defined, in which case the athlete may have the period or ineligibility “eliminated”. Alternatively, if the athlete can demonstrate that there is “no significant fault or no significant negligence”, as defined, then the period of ineligibility may be reduced but the reduced period may not be less than half the minimum period of ineligibility otherwise applicable.

3. There is an obligation and a duty on an elite athlete to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his/her body, tissues or fluid. There is negligence in failing to inquire or ascertain whether a product contains a prohibited substance. The negligence (at a minimum) of the athlete’s chiropractor who had access to the box which stated the substances contained in the product (including nikethamide) and to the leaflet which even contained a warning for athletes must be attributed to the athlete who uses him in supplying either a food source or a supplement. It would put an end to any meaningful fight against doping if an athlete was able to shift his/her responsibility with respect to substances which enter the body to someone else and avoid being sanctioned because the athlete himself/herself did not know of that substance.

4. In the fight against doping in sport, federations must be supported in their adoption of the WADA Code. Therefore, a sanction of two years of ineligibility in application of the newly promulgated IAAF rules is not inequitable even if all Olympic Movement sports athletes are currently not subject to the same sanction for the same type of doping offence because not all federations have yet implemented the WADA Code.

In June 2004 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Torrie Edwards after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Nikethamide.

Consequently on 10 August 2004 the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Panel decided in its final award to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete including disqualification of all her results.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the AAA decision of 10 August 2004 with the CAS ad hoc Division.

The Appellant didn't contest the occurrence of the doping infraction or the fact that Nikethamide was detected in her body fluids, but she argued that exceptional circumstances exist that should allow her to have the sanction eliminated or reduced pursuant to IAAF Rules 40.2, 40.3 and 40.4.

The Panel has considered, and was entitled to consider the materials before the IAAF Doping Review Board, its decision and the submissions and additional evidence placed by the parties before the Panel to determine whether or not the decision under appeal was correct. The Panel is satisfied that the determination of the IAAF Doping Review Board is the correct decision according to the terms of the IAAF Rules.

On the basis of the facts and legal aspects, the ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport renders the following decision on 17 August 2004:

1.) The appeal by Ms Edwards is dismissed.

2.) The decision issued by the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel dated 10 August 2004 is upheld.

• CAS 2008/A/1585 Yücel Kop vs IAAF & TAF
• CAS 2008/A/1586 Süreyya Ayhan Kop vs IAAF & TAF

CAS 2008/A/1585 Yücel Kop v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) & Turkish Athletics Federation (TAF) and CAS 2008/A/1586 Süreyya Ayhan Kop v. IAAF & TAF

Related cases:

• CAS 2008_A_1586 Süreyya Ayhan Kop vs IAAF & TAF
  November 10, 2009
• Swiss Federal Court 4A_624_2009 Süreyya Ayhan Kop vs IAAF & TAF
  April 12, 2009
  
  

• Athletics
• Doping (multiple doping offences)
  Interpretation of Article 13.2.1 of the WADA Code
• Justification of a life ban for the second doping offence
• CAS power to rule de novo and limitation through the parties’ requests

1. The purpose of article 13.2.1 of the WADA Code is not to exclude the possibility for anti-doping organizations to institute a review system below the CAS for decisions concerning international-level athletes but rather to ensure that CAS is the final body to which decisions concerning an international-level athletes may be appealed, thereby providing them with the same treatment under unified rules and practices that ultimately guarantee a more level playing field in international competitions, in the interest of fairness and equality of treatment.

2. An athlete who committed at least two standard sanctions, which under the applicable rules require an ineligibility sanction of between 8 years and a life ban, leaves no other option to a CAS panel than to find a life ban would apply under the 2009 IAAF Rules when both violations must be deemed very serious in nature, while at the same time no tangible elements of proof allow to consider that the athlete did not intentionally commit the violations in both instances. In this respect, there is no more need to establish whether the violations would formally qualify as being committed in aggravating circumstances under the 2009 IAAF Rules.

3. A CAS Panel has the authority to evaluate and decide the case de novo; and has therefore the power to vary a sanction in either direction provided that such variation has been duly requested by a party.

Mr Kop has been the athlete's trainer and husband throughout her career (i.e. Süreyya Ayhan Kop) as an international-level athlete. In that respect he functioned as 'athlete support personnel' as defined by the IAAF Rules.

On 25 January 2008, Mr Kop was sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility by the Turkish Athletic Federation (TAF) Disciplinary Commission in relation to the athlete's second anti-doping rule violation but on the principal basis that he had been negligent in his coaching duties.

Mr Kop appealed this decision to the Turkish Youth and Sport Arbitral Tribunal. On 30 May 2008, in a decision with reference numbers 2008/55 and 2008/10, the Turkish Youth and Sport Arbitral Tribunal confirmed a two-year sanction.

Hereafter Mr Kop decided to appeal the foregoing decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Following assessment of the case the Panel determindes that it has neither heard nor seen any evidence that Mr Kop violated any anti-doping rule or any disciplinary rule connected with his duties as athlete support personnel in the meaning of the lAAF Rules.

Furthermore, the appealed decision of the Turkish Youth and Sport Arbitral Tribunal failed to explain on what basis Mr Kop was sanctioned in that connection.

Therefore the CAS Panel decides on 10 November 2009 to set aside the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal of the Turkish General Directorate of Youth and Sport and to lift the 2 year period of ineligibililty on Mr Yücel Kop.

CAS 2004/O/645 United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) v. M. & International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF)

• Athletics
• Doping (THG)
• Absence of any adverse analytical finding (“non-analytical positive” case)
• Burden and standard of proof
• Uncontroverted testimony
• Adverse inference
• Admission of the use of a prohibited substance
• Sanction

1. USADA bears the burden of proving, by strong evidence commensurate with the serious claims it makes that the athlete committed the doping offences. It makes little, if indeed any difference, whether a „beyond reasonable doubt‟ or „comfortable satisfaction‟ standard is applied to determine the claims against the athlete.

2. Doping offences can be proved by a variety of means. In the absence of any adverse analytical finding (“non-analytical positive” cases), other types of evidence can be substantiated. Among these is the uncontroverted testimony of a wholly credible witness, which can be sufficient to establish that the athlete has indeed admitted to have used prohibited substances in violation of applicable anti-doping rules.

3. The admission of the use of prohibited substances merits a period of ineligibility under IAAF Rules of two years. The date of commencement of the sanction takes into consideration the numerous delays in the hearing process which are not attributable to the Athlete. The retroactive cancellation of all the athlete results, rankings, awards and winnings as of the date of admission of the use of prohibited substances has to take place.

In June 2004 USADA seeks a four-year sanction of the Athlete Tim Montgomery for participating in a wide-ranging doping conspiracy implemented by the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO). USADA charges that, for a period of several years, the Athlete had used various performance-enhancing drugs provided by BALCO.

Althought Montgomery has never had a single drug test found to be a positive doping violation, the charges made by USADA are based on:

• all of the blood and urine tests he had provided in recent years;
• documents seized by the U.S. government from BALCO that have been delivered to USADA;
• statements made by BALCO officials and other documents.

USADA contended that BALCO was involved in a conspiracy for the purpose of the distribution and use of doping substances and techniques. They were either undetectable or difficult to detect in routine drug testing.

Further BALCO is alleged to have distributed several types of banned doping agents to professional athletes in track and field, baseball and football. Among these agents were tetrahydrogestrinome (THG), otherwise known as “the Clear” by BALCO and its users.

THG is a designer steroid that could not be identified by routine anti-doping testing until 2003, when a track and field coach provided a sample of it to USADA. It is undisputed that the Clear is a prohibited substance under the IAAF Rules.

After deliberations between the parties this case was transferred in July 2004 to the Court of Aribitration for Sport (CAS).

The Panel has no doubt in this case, and is more than comfortably satisfied, that the Athlete committed the doping rule violation in question. It has been presented with strong, indeed uncontroverted, evidence of doping by the Athlete.

The Panel establishes that there is an admission contained in his statements made to W. and to others while in her presence. On this basis, the Tribunal finds that the Athlete Tim is Montgomery guilty of a doping offence.

Therefore on 13 December 2005 the CAS Panel decides that:

1.) Respondent is guilty of the offence of admitting having used a prohibited substance under IAAF Rules 55.2(iii) and 60.1(iii).

2.) The following sanctions shall be imposed on Respondent:

• a) A period of ineligibility under IAAF Rules for two years commencing as of 6 June 2005, including his ineligibility from participating in U.S. Olympic, Pan American or Paralympic Games, trials or qualifying events, being a member of any U.S. Olympic, Pan American or Paralympic Games team and having access to the training facilities of the United States Olympic Committee (“USOC”) Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC including, but not limited to, grants, awards, or employment pursuant to the USOC Anti-Doping Policies;
• b) The retroactive cancellation of all awards or additions to Respondent's trust fund to which he would have been entitled by virtue of his appearance and/or performance at any athletics meeting occurring between 31 March 2001 and the date of this Award.

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

5.) This Award deals definitively with all charges brought against Respondent by Claimant in this arbitration. All charges not expressly dealt with herein are dismissed.

TAS 2006/A/1159 IAAF c/ Ligue Royale Belge d'Athlétisme (LBFA) & M. Ridouane Es-Saadi

CAS 2006/A/1159 IAAF vs Belgian Athletics Federation & Ridouane Es-Saadi

In July 2004 an anti-doping rule violation was reported by the administration of the Flanders region against the Athlete Ridouane Es-Saadi after a search in his house resulted in the charge for possession of prohibited substances: growth hormones, EPO and clenbuterol.

Consequently on 4 March 2005 the Disciplinary Commission of the Flemish Ministery imposed a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete and 12 months conditional for a 2 year period.

Hereafter in January 2006 a new anti-doping rule violation was reported against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methadone.

The Athlete stated that he had used an prescribed compounded medication. His pharmacist testified that not could be exluded that the prohibited substance found was the result of contamination from medication prepared for other patients.

Considering the witness statement and that Methadone is atypical substance to be used for long distance sport the Disciplinary Commissions of the Flemish Ministery decided on 8 June 2006 for acquittal of the Athlete. Hereafter in September 2006 the IAAF appealed the Belgian decision of 8 June 2006 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

The IAAF requested to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his second violation. Supported by an expert witness the IAAF contended that the concentration found in the Athlete’s sample was too high to be attributed to contamination of his medication.

In view of the evidence the Panel finds that the Athlete failed to explain how the prohibited substance had entered his body. He also failed to establish exceptional circumstances, nor that he acted without significant fault or negligence .

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides on 23 May 2007 to set aside the decision of the Disciplinary Commission of the Flemish Ministery of 8 June 2006, and to impose a lifetime ban on the Athlete.