Wie sport moet weten waar de lijn ligt (Dutch title)

This leaflet promotes the website of the Flemisch Doping Authority and their Doping Hotline.

Doping is gevaarlijk (Dutch title)

This leaflet explains the risks of doping (medication) and nutritional supplements.The leaflet is made by the Flemish Government.

Ablauf einer Urinkontrolle (Dopingkontrollfilm der NADA Deutschland)

This video shows a doping control in which an urine sample is obtained.
This video is made by NADA Germany.

Ablauf einer Blutkontrolle (Dopingkontrollfilm der NADA Deutschland)

This video shows a doping control in which a blood sample is obtained. This video is made by NADA Germany.

CAS 2005/A/828 Mr. Stefan Koubek v/ International Tennis Federation

On 18 Januari 2005 the ITF Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the tennis player Stefan Koubek after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Triamcinolone acetonide.

In first instance the Panel accepted that the violation was not intentional and the result of the medical treatment he underwent for his injury.

Hereafter in January 2005 the Athlete appealed the ITF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and asserted that the imposed sanction wasn't admissible and appropriate. He argued that due to the medical treatment he underwent he acted with No Fault of Negligence.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed the Athlete's conduct in this case and establishes that the Athlete could and should have been
more serious in educating himself about anti-doping measures and more responsible in implementing what he had learnt.

The Sole Arbitrator agrees with the Anti-Doping Tribunal’s foregoing findings and considers the sanction of three months – compared to a possible maximum penalty of one year – to be reasonable given the Athlete’s attitude towards doping issues in general.

The Arbitrator deems that the Athlete disregarded  the rules of conduct required of tennis players in relation to the wallet cards and to act without any particular precaution when dealing with his doctor.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 April 2005:

1.) Dismisses the appeal filed by Stefan Koubek on 31 January 2005.

2.) Declares that the award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) already paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS.

3.) Orders Stefan Koubek to pay an amount of CHF 2’500 (two thousand five hundred Swiss Francs) to the ITF as a contribution towards its costs.

CAS 99/A/223 International Tennis Federation (ITF) / K.

• Tennis
• Doping (nandrolone)
• Collection procedure
• Exceptional circumstances

1. Pursuant to the ITF Anti-doping Programme, any deviation or deviations from the anti-doping control procedures, including, but not limited to, sample collection, chain-of-custody or laboratory analysis, do not invalidate any finding, procedure or positive test result, unless that deviation or deviations raises a material doubt as to the reliability of the finding, procedure, decision or positive test result.

2. It is for the ITF to establish with appropriately convincing evidence the existence of a doping offence, including compliance with anti-doping control procedures. A player who seeks to rely upon 'Exceptional Circumstances' to mitigate penalty must do so on the balance of probabilities. Exceptional circumstances are defined to mean that circumstances occurred in which the player had no knowledge that he had taken or been administered the prohibited substance found in his body.

In March 1999 the ITF filed an Appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the light sanction imposed on K. after his A and B samples tested positive for 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 August 1999:

1.) The appeal by the ITF is upheld.
2.) The decision of the Appeals Committee of the ITF of 22 December 1998 shall be modified as follows:
K. is suspended for a period of 12 months from 1 September 1999 to 31 August 2000.
(...)

CAS 2011/A/2518 Robert Kendrick v. International Tennis Federation (ITF)

Related case:

ITF 2011 ITF vs Robert Kendrick
July 29, 2011

• Tennis
• Doping (methylhexaneamine)
• Specified substance
• Scope of the panel’s powers in an appeal procedure
• No Fault or Negligence
• No Significant Fault or Negligence

1. Where, as is the case with Article R57 of the Code, rules or legislation confer on an appellate body full power to review the facts and the law, no deference to the tribunal below is required beyond the customary caution appropriate where the tribunal had a particular advantage, such as technical expertise or the opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses. This is not, of course to say that the independence, expertise and quality of the first instance tribunal or the quality of its decision will be irrelevant to a CAS panel. The more cogent and well-reasoned the decision itself, the less likely a CAS panel would be to overrule it; nor will a CAS panel concern itself in its appellate capacity with the periphery rather than the core of such a decision. However, the fact that a CAS panel might not lightly overrule the decision of a first instance tribunal, would not mean that there is in principle any inhibition on its power to do so.

2. To succeed with a plea of “No Fault or Negligence”, an athlete must show that he or she used “utmost caution” to keep him- or herself clean of any prohibited substances, i.e. that the athlete did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected, even with the exercise of utmost caution, that he or she had ingested the prohibited substance. The athlete must show that he or she has fully complied with this duty of utmost caution, that is, that he or she has made every conceivable effort to avoid taking a prohibited substance and that the substance got into his or her system despite all due care on his or part.

3. The major difference regarding a plea of “No Significant Fault or Negligence” in a Specified Substance case compared to a Prohibited Substance case is that there is no 50% cap limiting a panel’s discretion to reduce the presumptive period of ineligibility. Instead, the Panel can make whatever reduction it considers properly reflects the athlete’s degree of fault, within the zero to 24 month spectrum. The analysis of relative fault is exactly the same that is made by reference to the degree to which the athlete has departed from the standards of behaviour expected of him or her.

On 29 July 2011 the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a 12 month period of inelgibility on the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 4-Methylhexan-2-amine (methylhexaneamine, 1,3-dimethylamylamine, 1,3 DMAA). Undisputed in this case was that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete used the product Zija to counteract the negative effects of jetlag.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the ITF Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete admitted the violations and requested the Panel for a reduced sanction.

The Panel assessed and addressed whether there should be any deferece to the Appealed Decision and whether the Athlete's degree of fault merits a reduction or change of the period of ineligibility of 12 months imposed by the ITF Decision.

Having regard to all of the circumstances, including the evidence which was not before the ITF panel, the CAS Panel finds that the 12 month sanction imposed by the ITF Decision was too severe. This Panel has not, however, been persuaded that a 3 month sanction, put forward by the Athlete, would be appropriate.

Having regard to Athlete’s degree of fault and, to both the mitigating and aggravating factors in this case, the Panel concludes that an appropriate sanction would be a period of Ineligibility of 8 months.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 10 November 2011:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Robert Kendrick on 2 August 2011 against the International Tennis Federation (ITF) concerning the decision taken by the International Tennis Federation Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal on 29 July 2011 is partially upheld.

2.) The decision of the International Tennis Federation Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal of 29 July 2011 is set aside.

3.) Mr Robert Kendrick is suspended for a period of eight months from 22 May 2011.

4.) Mr Robert Kendrick’s individual results obtained at the French Open 2011 are disqualified. The 10 ranking points and EUR 15,000 in prize money obtained by Mr Robert Kendrick at the French Open 2011 are forfeited.

5.) Mr Robert Kendrick is permitted to retain the prize money obtained by him from his participation in the subsequent UNICEF Open.

(…)

8.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

CAS 2006/A/1130 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Darko Stanic & Swiss Olympic

• Handball
• Doping (benzoylecgonine; methylecgonine)
• Athlete’s burden of establishing how the prohibited substance entered her/his body
• Applicable standard of proof

1. In attempting to establish “no fault or negligence” or “no significant fault or negligence”, an athlete must in all events meet the precondition of establishing how the prohibited substance entered her/his system. This precondition is important and necessary; otherwise an athlete’s degree of diligence or absence of fault would be examined in relation to circumstances that are speculative and that could be partly or entirely made up. To allow any such speculation as to the circumstances in which an athlete ingested a prohibited substance would undermine the strict liability principle.

2. The balance of probabilities is the most adequate standard of proof to apply where an athlete is seeking to establish how a substance entered her/his system because the principle of strict liability under which a positive test creates a presumption of fault is already demanding on athletes.

On 6 July 2006 the disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic decided to impose a reduced 6 month period of ineligibility on the handball player Darko Stanic after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. The disciplinary Chamber accepted that the Athlete out-of-competition had smoked a cigarette while he was unaware the it contained Cocaine.

Hereafter in July 2006 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the Swiss Olympic decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Since the existence of a doping offence as defined by Swiss Olympic’s doping Statute is not contested, the only question to examine is whether the Athlete was correctly sanctioned for such offence by the disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic, under the applicable rules.

The Panel considers that on the balance of probabilities the Athlete has clearly not provided evidence making it more probable than not that Cocaine or crack entered his system as a result of him smoking a cigarette that he asked a stranger for in a discotheque.

As a result the Panel finds that the Athlete has not met the conditions required to prove lack of fault or no significant negligence. Consequently the Panel deems that the Athlete must be suspended for a period of two years.

The Panel would like to stress that this finding does not imply or mean that the Athlete has been untruthful or that he intentionally doped himself. It simply means that he did not meet the burden of proving how the Cocaine entered his system, as required by the applicable rules based on the principle of strict liability.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 January 2007 that:

1.) The decision of the Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic dated 6 July 2006 is set aside.

2.) Darko Stanic shall be declared ineligible for competition for two years commencing on 22 May 2006.

(…).

CAS 2006/A/1133 WADA v/Michel Stauber & Swiss Olympic

In April 2006 Swiss Olympic reported an anti-doping rule violation against the amateur handball player after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide.

Following the positive test the Athlete was granted a TUE for the prescribed use of the medication Co-Diovan© for the treatment of his High Blood Pressure. Furthermore in July 2006 the Athlete retired from handball.

On 6 July 2006, the Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic decided to impose only a warning and a reprimand considering the prescribed medication Co-Diovan© was used for a Legitimate Medical Treatment.

Hereafter the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the Swiss Olympic decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Panel rendered a decision based on the written submissions on the Parties.

WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a minimum 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and asserted that he was unaware the prescribed medication Co-Diovan© contained a prohibited substance.

The Athlete's team doctor, a specialist in sport medicine, testified and confirmed his failure to check this medication. As a result he made no application for a TUE nor informed the Athlete about this medication containing a prohibited substance.

In view of the evidence the Panel accepts that the Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence in view of the prescribed medication he used for his high blood pressure as Legitimate Medical Treatment. Under the Rules the Panel deems there are grounds for a reduced sanction, starting on the date of the Athlete's retirement.

Therefore on 18 December 2012 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

1.) The appeal filed by WADA is admissible;

2.) The decision rendered on 6 July 2006 by the Disciplinary Chamber for doping cases of Swiss Olympic is set aside;

3.) Mr Stauber is suspended for a period of one year, i.e. the minimum period of ineligibility provided for by the Statute. The period of ineligibility shall start retroactively from May 31, 2006;

4.) Each party shall bear all of its own legal and other costs incurred in connection with this arbitration.

CAS 2007/A/1413 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG) & Nadzeya Vysotskaya

• Gymnastics
• Doping (furosemide)
• Time limit to appeal a decision according to the WADA Rules
• Doping offense and intended purpose for using the prohibited substance
• Minor athletes and elimination or reduction of the fault or negligence

1. Provisions set out in the rules governing sports associations may derogate to Article 75 of the Swiss Civil Code. In particular, they may provide for a different statute of limitations or they may provide that the time limit starts to run when the decision has been formally notified to the appellant. In this respect, the mere fact that a press release was posted on the FIG’s website is in itself not sufficient to impose a good faith obligation on WADA to enquire about a decision issued by such federation.

2. In accordance with Article 2.1.1 of the FIG Antidoping Rules, the presence of a prohibited substance, such as furosemide, in the bodily specimens of a gymnast is sufficient in itself to constitute a doping offence. In this respect, the intended purpose for using the substance is irrelevant.

3. The fact that a gymnast was a minor at the time s/he was tested does not constitute either a circumstance eliminating or reducing his/her fault or negligence. The FIG Antidoping Rules do not anticipate a different regime for minors. There is no automatic exception based on age. Such an exception is not spelled out in the Rules and would not only potentially cause unequal treatment of gymnasts, but could also put in peril the whole framework and logic of anti-doping rules, not least in the light of the fact that in gymnastics (like in other sport) it is not uncommon to have minors compete at the highest level.

In September 2006 the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Belarussian gymnast after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

Consequently the FIG Disciplinary Commission decided on 12 November 2006 to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete, from 13 May 2006 unit 31 December 2006.

Hereafter in September 2007 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the FIG Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Preliminary the Panel concludes that WADA's appeal is admissible due to FIG had not timely notified its decisions to WADA. As a result it had received the Appealed Decision in September 2007, almost one year after it had been rendered.

The Panel holds that it is undisputed that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation.

In view of the evidence the Panel deems that the mere statement by the Athlete is far from sufficient to establish how Furosemide had entered her body since in essence her defense is limited to a speculative suggestion that her drink could have been spiked, without any evidence of any such action.

Although the Athlete was a minor at the time she was tested the Panel regards that under the Rules there are no grounds for elimination or reduction of the period of ineligibility.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 June 2008:

1.) The decision of the FIG Disciplinaiy Commission of 12 November 2006 is set aside.

2.) Ms Nadzeya Vysotskaya is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility, starting on 12 September 2006 and ending on 12 September 2008.

3.) All results achieved during the foregoing period of ineligibility are disqualified and any medals, points and prizes obtained are forfeited.

4.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served on the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne jointly by the FIG and Ms Nadzeya Vysotskaya.

5.) The FIG and Ms Nadzeya Vysotskaya shall pay jointly to WADA an amount of CHF 5,000 (five thousand Swiss Francs) as compensation for expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.

6.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.