AFLD 2012 FFBB vs Respondent M110

5 Dec 2012

Facts
The French Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M110 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on May 27, 2012, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisolone and prednisone. Prednisolone and prednisone are prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list, they are regarded as specified substances.

History
The positive test is caused by medication the respondent used to treat chronicle sinusitis. The use of the medication was mentioned on the doping test form. He has proof of subscriptions for this condition.

Decision
1. The respondent receives a warning.
2. The decision dated August 31, 2012, from the disciplinary committee of the FFBB will be cancelled.
3. The decision will start on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

ISR 2007 KNKF Decision Appeal Committee 2007068 B

28 Apr 2008

Facts
Defendant appeals against a decision of the Disciplinary Committee from the Dutch Royal Strength Sport Fitness Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Krachtsport en Fitnessfederatie, KNKF).

History
Defendant didn't attend a doping test out of competition. The Defendant wasn't a member of the KNKF at that time and wasn't practicing his sport anymore. Due to sport injuries he ended his membership.

Submission appeal committee
Although a membership ends on the end of the calender year it is obvious the defendant ended his participation in active sport.

Decision
The Committee agrees that the defendant is released form all the charges and penalties. Legal costs and fees will be borne by the KNKF.

The Supply Of Doping Products And The Potential Of Criminal Law Enforcement In Anti-Doping: An Examination Of Italy’s Experience

30 Jan 2013

The supply of doping products and the potential of criminal law enforcement in anti-doping : an examination of Italy's experience : executive summary / Letizia Paoli, Alessandro Donati. - KU Leuven, 2013



Motivation and Aims of the Study:

The present study draws its main motivation from the growing dissatisfaction of World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and numerous international and national policy-makers with the traditional anti-doping approach. This has developed since the 1960s through the interaction of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), international sports federations, and national governments, and since 2001, WADA, “focus[ing] squarely on the athlete[s]” (WADA, 2010b) and their testing. The 2012 London Olympics again demonstrated the limits of athletes’ testing: despite the 6,000 tests conducted, only two athletes tested positive during the Olympics, whereas seven others were “caught” in the preceding two weeks, which also belong to the official testing period for the games (Associated Press, 2012; Niggli, 2013, personal communication).
Today, there is a growing consensus among national and international policy-makers and many scholars (e.g., Bannenberg and Rössner, 2006; Rössner, 2011; Howman, 2011; Houlihan and García, 2012; see also AFP, 2011) that a broader approach is needed, including the use of criminal law instruments and, specifically, the repression of “trafficking.” According to the WADA (2010), for example, “it is imperative that additional strategies be combined with testing, research and education to ensure an efficient and effective anti-doping fight.” Testing alone cannot tackle five of the eight core violations listed in the WADA Anti-Doping Code, which constitutes the cornerstone of the current international drug 3 control regime and is implemented by national governments through the ratification of the 2005 UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport.

In this study, we have examined Italy’s anti-doping criminal law experience with the two main aims:
1) analyzing the production and distribution (collectively referred to as trade or supply) of doping products—an expression that includes both doping substances and methods and
2) understanding how anti-doping criminal provisions and their enforcement can contribute to improve the fight against doping within and outside the sports world. Since the late 1990s, in fact, Italy has played a pioneering role in the criminal law control of doping, and numerous investigations have shed light in Italy on different facets of the problem of doping and specifically of the supply of doping products.

By implementing a multi-method research design (see below), we have mapped the distribution system of doping products from producers to final users in Italy and built a typology of suppliers, identifying their motivations, modus operandi and mutual relationships and assessing their revenues and profits. On the basis of the same and other secondary sources, we have also evaluated the legislative bases, actors and outcomes of Italy’s anti-doping criminal law action, identifying a series of challenges that this action faces. To provide necessary context for assessing the supply of doping products, we have also estimated the size and financial dimensions of the Italian market for doping products—to our knowledge our study constitutes the first attempt to estimate these aspects of a national market for doping products.

Melanotan II injection resulting in systemic toxicity and rhabdomyolysis

1 Dec 2012

Melanotan II injection resulting in systemic toxicity and rhabdomyolysis / Nelson ME, Bryant SM, Aks SE
Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2012 Dec;50(10):1169-73

INTRODUCTION:
Melanotan products are currently purchased over the Internet and are designed to induce melanogenesis to create sunless tanning as well are used as sexual stimulants. We report a novel case of systemic toxicity with sympathomimetic excess and rhabdomyolysis after use of Melanotan II.

CASE REPORT:
A 39 year-old Caucasian male injected subcutaneously 6 mg of Melanotan II purchased over the Internet in an attempt to darken his skin during wintertime. This dose was six times the recommended starting dose per the patient. In the emergency department two hours post injection, he complained of diffuse body aches, sweating, and a sensation of anxiety. Vital signs included BP 151/85 mmHg, HR 130 bpm that peaked at 146 bpm, and temperature of 97.8°F. Physical exam demonstrated a restless and anxious appearing male with mydriasis, diaphoresis, tachycardia, and diffuse muscle tremors. Pertinent laboratory values were creatinine 2.25 mg/dL, CPK 1760 IU/L, troponin 0.23 ng/mL, WBC 19.1 k/μL. Urinalysis demonstrated 3 + blood with red cell casts but 0-2 RBC/hpf. Qualitative urine drug screen was negative for metabolites of cocaine and amphetamines but positive for opiates. The patient received benzodiazepines for agitation and anxiety and had improvement in his symptoms. He was admitted to the ICU and during hospitalization his CPK elevated to 17773 IU/L 12 hours later. He continued to receive intravenous fluids with sodium bicarbonate for rhabdomyolysis and his CPK decreased to 2622 IU/L with improvement of creatinine to 1.23 mg/dL upon discharge from the ICU after 3 days. The substance, which he injected, was analyzed via mass spectrometry and was confirmed to be Melanotan II when compared with an industry purchased standard sample.

DISCUSSION:
Melanotan products are purchased via the Internet and have three main formulations (Melanotan I, Melanotan II, and bremelanotide). Melanotan I increases melanogenesis and eumelanin content to produce sunless tanning. Melanotan II also increases skin pigmentation but also produces spontaneous penile erections and sexual stimulation. Bremelanotide is a variation of Melanotan II that is specifically designed for sexual stimulation. This unique case highlights the potential of systemic toxicity with sympathomimetic excess, rhabdomyolysis, and renal dysfunction from Melanotan II use.

CONCLUSION:
Melanotan II use resulted in systemic toxicity including apparent sympathomimetic symptoms, rhabdomyolysis, and renal dysfunction.

Protein supplementation in strength and conditioning adepts: knowledge, dietary behavior and practice in Palermo, Italy

25 Aug 2011

Antonino Bianco, Caterina Mammina, Antonio Paoli, Marianna Bellafiore, Giuseppe Battaglia, Giovanni Caramazza, Antonio Palma, and Monèm Jemni
J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2011; 8: 25.

Background: It is known that supplement use is a widespread and accepted practice by athletes and people who attend commercial gyms. Little is known about protein supplement amongst people undertaking strength trainingin commercial gyms in Italy when compared to the US.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the use of protein supplementation, alone or in association with other supplements, and dietary behavior amongst regular fitness center attendees in Palermo, Italy.

Design: Resistance training information have been collected from 800 regular fitness center attendees for the initial analysis. A specific questionnaire was generated for the experimentation. Data were collected using a face-toface interview method. Supplement users were then compared to the non users and analyzed using a one-way ANOVA, Kruskall-Wallis, chi-square test or exact test of Fisher when appropriate.

Results: 30.1% of the respondents use dietary supplements during their training as a believe it is the “way to gain muscles and strength”. Whey protein shakes (50.0%) mixed with creatine and amino-acids (48.3%) were the most frequent choices amongst the users. A majority of the subjects (34.0%) appeared to rely on their gym instructors’ advice for their intake; a lower proportion (13.0%) consulted physicians, while none of them consulted nutritionists.
A high consumption of milk has been noticed in both users (67,7%) and non-users (52,8%); supplement non-users consumed significantly more snacks and bakery products than users per week (P < 0.001), while users consumed significantly more protein-rich foods (P < 0.01) with a particular preference for meat (48.0%).

Conclusions: A considerable number of regular strength training adepts consume protein supplements mixed with other products (mainly creatine and amino-acids). Limited numbers consult “dietary specialists” and rely mainly on their instructors. We emphasize on the importance of the dissemination of scientifically based
information about supplementation in this environment and the promotion of updated educational programs for the instructors.

Doping in Sweden – an inventory of its spread, consequences and interventions

1 Dec 2010

© SWEDISH NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH, ÖSTERSUND 2010

Forword
Just over 20 years ago, it became apparent that doping agents were also being used outside sports for reasons other than improving athletic performance. These problems ended up in the lime light, a law was passed to regulate use and authorities,
including the Swedish National Institute of Public Health (under a slightly different name at the time), devoted more focus to the issue for a few years. Activities conducted by society with regard to doping have since decreased. In order to take stock of the state of knowledge regarding the spread and consequences of doping as well as of what prevention efforts are being pursued, the
Swedish National Institute of Public Health conducted an inventory that resulted in the swedish version (R 2009:15) of the english translated review you have in hand. The topics covered include an overview of the medical, social medicine, sociological and legal aspects in the area.

The review begins by describing the law that regulates the handling of doping agents, as well as how users get hold of them. The discussion covers the current differences of opinion as to how widespread the use of doping agents is, and available data is presented for both the general population and individual groups. The underlying reasons for using doping agents are described, as well as the identified risk factors. In addition, available knowledge is presented with regard to patterns of use, including the mixed drug abuse that exists. The known physical, mental and social effects are presented, including the connection to aggressive behaviour and violence. The latter section of the report describes the prevention work under aimed at limiting use and concludes with a discussion of the treatment situation in Sweden.

CAS 2007_A_1286 Johannes Eder, Martin Tauber & Jürgen Pinter vs IOC

4 Jan 2008
  • CAS 2007/A/1286 Johannes Eder vs International Olympic Committee
  • CAS 2007/A/1288 Martin Tauber vs International Olympic Committee
  • CAS 2007/A/1289 Jürgen Pinter vs International Olympic Committee

    CAS 2007/A/1286 Johannes Eder v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) & CAS 2007/A/1288 Martin Tauber v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) & CAS 2007/A/1289 Jürgen Pinter v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)


  • Cross-country skiing
  • Doping (intravenous infusion)
  • Use and possession of a Prohibited Method
  • Due process
  • Prohibition of a second trial
  • Standard of proof
  • Legitimate acute medical treatment
  • Concept of “possession”
  • Concept of “acceptable justification”
  • Complicity

1. Article R57 of the CAS Code gives a Panel full power to review the facts and the law of the case. As a result, the Panel hears the case de novo, without being limited by the submissions and evidence that was available to the previous instance. Accordingly, even if there had been a lack of due process in the proceedings before the previous instance, any such deficiencies are cured by the CAS in its hearing of the full appeal.

2. Article 4 of Protocol 7 of the ECHR is restricted in its application to criminal proceedings brought by the same State. Accordingly, it is inapplicable to arbitration proceedings.

3. There is very little practical difference between the “balance of probability” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” standards of proof, particularly when read with the phrase “bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made”. Pursuant to this interpretation and the preceding CAS jurisprudence, the Respondent is required to prove its allegations with evidence that is sufficient to comfortably satisfy the Panel in light of the seriousness and consequences of the allegations made against the Appellant.

4. The administration of saline infusions in order to ensure that haemoglobin levels are within the range provided by the applicable regulations is not “legitimate acute medical treatment”.

5. The concept of “possession” within the meaning of Article 2.6.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Regulations must be considered in light of surrounding circumstances. Possession of a Prohibited Method is proved where it can be shown to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that, in all the circumstances, an athlete was in possession, either physical or constructive, of items which would enable that athlete to engage in a Prohibited Method. It is not necessary to establish the intent to use the Prohibited Method in addition to establishing actual or constructive possession.

6. “Other acceptable justification” is intended to cover situations in which emergency medical treatment is required, so that there is no opportunity to apply for a TUE. In the absence of a physical examination by a medical practitioner, the self-treatment of diarrhoea is not an “acceptable justification”. Likewise, in the absence of a FIS dispensation and if no protective ban has previously been issued, naturally high haemoglobin levels do not constitute an “acceptable justification”.

7. According to Swiss law, there are two types of conduct that may amount to “joint causation” or being an “accessory” to a tortious act: (1) active, physical assistance, or (2) psychological assistance. Such conduct is the first element of joint causation of damage. The second element under the Swiss Code requires that the assistance rendered by the accessory contributes to the damage caused.

8. In light of the plain language of the second part of Article 2.8 of the IOC Anti-Doping Regulations, an athlete will not only violate Article 2.8 if he or she is found to have assisted, encouraged, aided, abetted, covered up or engaged in “any other type of complicity” specifically in relation to the ADR violation(s) of another athlete (“horizontal complicity”); he or she will also violate Article 2.8 through “vertical complicity”, by which an athlete engages in an ADR violation that is facilitated by a coach or support staff, in circumstances where that coach or support staff also similarly facilitated the ADR violations of other athletes.



On 26 February 2002, shortly after the Salt Lake 2002 Olympic Winter Games, various items were found by a cleaner in a chalet in Midway, Utah, which was occupied by the Austrian cross-country and biathlon coach Walter Mayer along with his wife. It was subsequently determined that the chalet had been frequently visited by members of the Austrian cross-country and biathlon teams.

In light of the discovery of various items of equipment in Mayer’s chalet in Salt Lake City following the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games the IOC Board sanctioned on 26 May 2002 the Austrian team coach, the team chiropractor, and two Austrian athletes.

4 years later during the Torino 2006 Olympic Winter Games, the Italian police discovered numerous materials in the accommodation of several Austrian athletes and support staff which evidenced the possession of prohibited methods and substances.

Pursuant to the recommendations made by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, the IOC Executive Board on 25 April 2007 disqualified and declared ineligible for all future Olympic Games the following athletes:

  • Roland Diethart (cross-country);
  • Johannes Eder (cross-country);
  • Jürgen Pinter (cross-country);
  • Martin Tauber (cross-country);
  • Wolfgang Perner (biathlon); and
  • Wolfgang Rottmann (biathlon).

Hereafter the Austrian athletes Eder, Tauber and Pinter appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). They requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed IOC Decision.

The athletes each challenged the respective decision of the IOC Board on the basis that there was a lack of due process:

  • the Board failed to give grounds for its decision;
  • it did not provide the athletes with a right of audience;
  • it delegated its hearing function to the IOC Disciplinary Commission (in violation of the ECHR); and
  • its decision was based on insufficient evidence.

The Panel considers whether or not each of the athletes assisted, encouraged, aided, abetted or covered up the possession violations of his fellow Appellants in such a way as to contribute to causing his fellow athletes’ possession violations.

The IOC has proven to the Panel’s comfortable satisfaction that each athletes met these standards. The evidence demonstrate a broad pattern of cooperation and common activity, with the other athletes and with the coaches, in the possession of the Prohibited Method of blood doping.

The Panel holds that the anti-doping rule violations committed by the athletes in this case are extremely serious. The fact that the athletes engaged in these offences after the Salt Lake City affair exacerbates the seriousness of their anti-doping rule violations and illustrates that the athletes have failed to learn from the mistakes of members of the former Austrian cross-country ski team.

The Panel deems that in these circumstances, the athletes have shown a complete disregard for the principles of the Olympic Games and for the IOC ADR that protects the interests of all athletes at the Olympic Games.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 January 2008 that:

1.) The appeals filed by Johannes Eder, Martin Tauber and Jürgen Pinter against the decisions rendered on 25 April 2007 by the IOC Executive Board are dismissed.

2.) The decisions of the IOC Executive Board of 25 April 2007 declaring each of the Appellants to be ineligible permanently for all future Olympic Games in any capacity are affirmed.

3.) The counterclaim filed by Jürgen Pinter is denied.

(…)

CAS 2006_A_1102 Johannes Eder vs Ski Austria

13 Nov 2006

CAS 2006/A/1102 Johannes Eder v. Ski Austria &
TAS 2006/A/1146 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Johannes Eder & Ski Austria

CAS 2006/A/1102 Johannes Eder v/Ski Austria
TAS 2006/A/1146 Agence Mondiale Antidopage (AMA/WADA) c/Johannes Eder & Ski Austria

CAS 2006/A/1146 WADA vs Johannes Eder & Ski Austria

Related cases:

  • CAS 2006_A_1102 Johannes Eder vs Ski Austria
    November 13, 2006
  • CAS 2007_A_1286 Johannes Eder, Martin Tauber & Jürgen Pinter vs IOC
    January 4, 2008
  • IOC 2007 IOC vs Johannes Eder
    April 24, 2007


  • Cross-country skiing
  • Doping (intravenous infusion of a saline solution)
  • Validity of disciplinary sanctions under Austrian Law
  • Proportionality of the sanctions
  • Presumption of innocence
  • Requirements for legitimate medical treatment
  • No significant fault or negligence

1. In Austrian law, it is generally accepted that an association may impose disciplinary sanctions upon its members if they violate the rules and regulations of the association. The jurisdiction to impose such sanctions is based upon the freedom of associations to regulate their own affairs. The association is granted wide discretion in determining the violations which are subject to sanctions. By voluntarily acceding to the association, an athlete accepts the application of the disciplinary rules und its sanctions.

2. A standard suspension of two years is in compliance with the principle of proportionality, as well as a suspension of one year in case of no significant fault or negligence. Austrian law does not require a sanction lower than one year to be fixed in the case of no significant fault or negligence. The sanction is necessary and adequate to secure a worldwide standard in the application of anti-doping rules.

3. The presumption of innocence is a concept of criminal law. Disciplinary sanctions imposed by associations are subject to the civil law and must be clearly distinguished from criminal penalties. The shifting of the burden of proof to the athlete to demonstrate that he or she acted without (significant) fault does not conflict with the presumption of innocence. Athletes have a rigorous duty of care towards their competitors and the sports organization to keep their bodies free of prohibited substances. Anti-doping rule violations do not “just happen” but are, in most cases, the result of a breach of that duty of care. This justifies (i) to presume that the athlete acted with fault or negligence and (ii) to shift the burden of proof from the sanctioning body to the athlete to exonerate him- or herself. On the other hand, to impose on the sanctioning body to demonstrate that the athlete acted with fault or negligence would make the fight against doping extremely difficult or impossible.

4. The legitimacy of a medical treatment is to be judged according to six tests or criteria: 1) the medical treatment must be necessary to cure an illness or injury of the particular athlete; 2) under the given circumstances, there is no valid alternative treatment available, which would not fall under the definition of doping; 3) the medical treatment is not capable of enhancing the athlete’s performance; 4) the medical treatment is preceded by a medical diagnosis of the athlete; 5) the medical treatment is diligently applied by qualified medical personnel in an appropriate medical setting; and 6) adequate records of the medical treatment are kept and are available for inspection.

5. There is no significant fault where an athlete performs on himself an infusion of a product (e.g. saline solution) to cure an established disease, such treatment not being intended to enhance sporting performance but having been recommended by medical doctors in order to cure the disease and the remedy being suitable to it.



In February 2006 the Athlete Johannes Eder competed in the Austrian Men’s Team Sprint and the Men’s 4x10 km Relay during the Torino 2006 Olympic Winter Games.

On 18 February 2006 the Italian police searched the premises in which the Athlete resided of pursuant to a search and confiscation warrant. The Italian police found a number of items within the accommodation of the Austrian cross-country and biathlon teams, and their coaches and trainers, including numerous syringes (some used), blood bags (some used), butterfly valves for intravenous infusion, injection needles, bottles of saline and a device for measuring a person’s haemoglobin levels as well as a device for determining the blood group of a blood sample.

Specifically, in relation to the Athlete, the Italian police found under his bed one intravenous drip with needle containing a small quantity of transparent liquid. The Torino Prosecutor’s Office determined that the liquid within the infusion equipment seized from the Athlete was saline, which indicated that he had attempted to manipulate his “physiological parameters”.

The Austrian Olympic Committee (AOC) subsequently established an Inquiry Commission to investigate the conduct of the Austrian cross-country and biathlon teams at the Torino 2006 Olympic Winter Games. The AOC Inquiry Commission noted the that the Athlete had given himself an infusion.

In addition, the Austrian Ski Federation (ASF) investigated the conduct of the Athlete and they also concluded that he had self-injected saline during the Torino 2006 Olympic Winter Games. Hereafter Ski Austria’s Disciplinary Committee decided on 12 May 2006 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in In June 2006 the Athlete and thereupon the World Anti-Doping Agency appealed the decision of Ski Austria with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). 

The Athlete asserted that the prohibition of intravenous infusions provided for in Rule M2.b of the Prohibited List 2006 is incompatible with:

  • (i) the Austrian law of associations;
  • (ii) the principle of proportionality of the Austrian law;
  • (iii) the athlete’s personal right to choose the kind of therapy and to choose a most effective treatment of an illness;
  • (iv) the athlete’s freedom of economic pursuit protected by Article 6 “Staatsgrundgesetz” (StGG);
  • (v) the right to sufficient and efficient therapy pursuant to section 133 para. 2 of the “Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz” (ASVG); and
  • (vi) the principle “nulla poena sine lege stricta” pursuant to Article 18 “Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz” (B-VG) and Article 7 ECHR.

The Panel addressed the Athlete's assertions and deems that Rule M2.b of the Prohibited List as well as Articles 10.5.1 and Article 10.5.2 in connection with Article 10.2 of the FIS Anti-Doping Rules are in compliance with Austrian law, and, therefore, applicable in the case at hand.

The Panel has no basis to put into question that the Athlete suffered from severe diarrhoea on the evening of 18 February 2006. Nevertheless the Panel concludes that the infusion of a saline solution administered by the Athlete on himself did not comply with the requirements for legitimate medical treatment and therefore must be considered as a doping offence.

Following assessment of the Athlete's conduct the Panel concludes that the Athlete acted without significant fault.

Therefore the  Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 November 2006 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Johannes Eder on 2 June 2006 is dismissed.

2.) The appeal filed by WADA on 16 August 2006 is dismissed.

3.) The decision issued by the Austrian Ski Federation on 12 May 2006 is confirmed.

(…)

6.) All other claims are dismissed.

CAS 2005_A_918 Justyna Kowalczyk vs FIS

8 Dec 2005

CAS 2005/A/918 K. v. FIS

CAS 2005/A/918 Kowalczyk v/ FIS

  • Cross-country skiing
  • Doping (glucocorticosteroid)
  • Erroneous classification of Dexamethason
  • Unilateral and procedurally incorrect attempt by the FIS
  • Doping Panel to reconsider the doping offence
  • Difference of the sanctioning regimes contained in Art. 10.2 and 10.3 FIS-Rules
  • Burden of proof
  • Measure of the athlete's negligence

1. If an ineligibility sanction is to be considered in an Article 10.3 FIS-Rules, “first violation” case, the penalty reduction possibility set forth in Article 10.5 FIS-Rules cannot supersede, exclude or otherwise diminish the right also granted to the athlete under Article 10.3 FIS-Rules to plead against its imposition.

2. The Article 10.5.1 FIS-Rules defence of “no Fault or Negligence” must always be available to the accused athlete, regardless of whether an Article 10.2 FIS-Rules or an Article 10.3 FIS-Rules sanction is applicable. With regard to the Article 10.5.2 FIS-Rules defence of “no significant Fault or Negligence”, however, it would contradict the ratio legis of the “no enhancement” defence under Article 10.3 FIS-Rules if the reduction limit under Article 10.5.2 FIS-Rules (“not less than one half of the minimum period”) were to apply in parallel to the minimum “warning and reprimand” penalty for the first violation involving a Specified Substance.

3. Upon the athlete’s prima facie showing that her use of the substance was for medical reasons and was not intended to enhance performance, the burden of proof shifted to the FIS to prove the contrary, namely that the athlete used this substance as a doping agent. In order to provide this rebuttal, the FIS Doping Panel should have revoked its decision and called for a new hearing of the merits of the dispute on the basis of Article 10.3 FIS-Rules.

4. The athlete’s negligence derives not from any ignorance of the prohibited nature of Dexamethason; her negligence lies rather in her lack of knowledge and application of the proper TUE procedures for the Specified Substance in question. The measure of this negligence does not justify a one year term of ineligibility.



In February 2005 the International Ski Federation (FIS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dexamethasone without a TUE.

The Athlete admitted the violation and explained that she and her doctor had already completed an Abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemption (ATUE) form in December 2004 which she alleges to have submitted to the Polish Ski Association, but neglected to show to the testing authorities at the time of the doping control in January 2005. Following the notification of the violation the Athlete's application for a TUE was rejected in March 2005 by the Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (TUEC).

Considering the Athlete's negligence the FIS Doping Panel decided on 13 June 2005 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the FIS decision with the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS). Yet, at the same time the FIS Doping Panel had decided on 12 July 2005 to impose a new reduced sanction of 1 year instead of the imposed 2 years of ineligibility.

The CAS Panel holds that the one year period of ineligibility unilaterally imposed by the FIS Doping Panel has not only deprived the Athlete of her fundamental right to a fair hearing, but it also does not stand in fair and just proportion to the measure of her negligence. The Panel holds that a period of ineligibility ending 8 December 2005 provides the fair and proportionate measure of sanction.

Therefore on 8 December 2005 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

1.) The decision rendered by FIS Doping Panel on 13 June 2005 and amended by its announcement of 13 July 2005 shall be replaced by a de novo decision on the merits of this case.

2.) The Appellant is disqualified from all individual results obtained in the U23 OPA Intercontinental Cup Competition held on 23 January 2005. The period of ineligibility to be imposed upon the Appellant shall commence on 23 January 2005 and shall end on 8 December 2005.

(…)

CAS 2005_A_847 Hans Knauss vs FIS

20 Jul 2005

CAS 2005/A/847 Hans Knauss v. FIS

  • Alpine skiing
  • Doping (norandrosterone)
  • Contaminated nutritional supplements
  • Reduction of the sanction when the athlete both bears no significant fault or negligence and provides substantial assistance in establishing an anti-doping rule violation by another person
  • Principle of proportionality

1. The risk of contamination and/or mislabelling in nutritional supplements cannot and shall not have remained ignored by an experienced athlete who has competed at the highest levels for many years taking into consideration the express warnings of numerous federations and anti-doping organisations that clearly and repeatedly over the past years have emphasized the risk of contamination and/or mislabelling in nutritional supplements. In such case, the standard of care required for “no fault or negligence”, namely utmost caution cannot be considered.

2. The requirements to be met by the qualifying element “no significant fault or negligence” must not be set excessively high. The higher the threshold is set, the less opportunity remains for differentiating meaningfully and fairly within the (rather wide) range of the period of ineligibility sanctioning the fault or negligence. But the low end of the threshold must also not be set too low; for otherwise the period of ineligibility of two years laid down for an anti-doping rule violation would form the exception rather than the general rule.

3. Linking the applicability of the rule providing for a reduced period of ineligibility in case of the athlete’s substantial assistance in establishing an anti-doping rule violation by another person to a formal criterion such as whether and to what extent a federation may or may not have jurisdiction over this other person or the facts disclosed by the athlete under the anti-doping rules of the federation is an arbitrary and unsuitable criterion for distinguishing conduct which is worthy of preferential treatment from other conduct which does not qualify for such treatment.

4. In the opinion of the Swiss Federal Tribunal, sports bodies can limit in their rules the circumstances to be taken into account when fixing sanctions and thereby also restrict the application of the doctrine of proportionality. However, the sport associations exceed their autonomy if these rules constitute an attack on personal rights, the nature and scope of which is extremely serious and totally disproportionate to the behaviour penalised.



In December 2004 the International Ski Federation (FIS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). Consequently the FIS Panel decided on 1 March 2005 to impose an 18 month period of ineligbility on the Athlete.

In first instance the FIS Panel accepted that the Athlete did not act intentionally although he clearly acted negligently with the use of his supplements.

Analysis of the Athletes supplements showed that they were contaminated. Thereupon the Athlete had filed a criminal complaint against the importer of the nutritional supplement. This action resulted in a large amount of (contaminated) nutritional supplements being seized and confiscated.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the FIS decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Following assessment of the evidence in this case the Panel concludes that the Athlete did less rather than more than could be expected of him to minimise the risk associated with nutritional supplements about which he was warned, in particular, those originating from this company in question.

If one therefore weighs the efforts and precautions undertaken by the Athlete in their totality, they fall just under the threshold of “no significant fault or negligence”.

In the light of the particularities of the present case and the principle of proportionality, the Panel considers that the sanction of 18 months imposed by the FIS is fair and reasonable.

Therefore on 20 July 2005 The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides that:

1.) The appeal filed by Hans Knauss on 21 March 2003 is dismissed.

2.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500.- already paid by the Athlete and which is retained by the CAS.

3.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

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