The Royal Dutch Cycling Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie, KNWU) has reported a violating the Anti-Doping Rules of the ISR during a Mountainbike contest. In the A sample of the doping test the prohibited substance 17α-methyl-β-androstane-3α, 17β-diol (a metabolite of methyltestosterone) was found.

After this analysis is concerned with immediate effect provisionally suspended. This is confirmed by the B sample. Person has filed a defence and the case was orally treated.
The Disciplinary Committee decides that it Disciplinary and Doping Rules came into force on January 1, 2012, will apply in assessing the declaration.

During the drug testing has indicated the individual drugs Multivitamins Vitamin B, Vitamin C and Caffeine has been used. Shall be no dispensation for the banned substance in his body was found.

The defence is concerned, four observations. First person contests the jurisdiction of the CAS. According to the Disciplinary Committee is not relevant in this case. Secondly, the person concerned was detrimental to the 'new' rules to use. But the Disciplinary Committee is not substantiated. With respect to the third comment, relating to the role of DA in the phase prior to the declaration, notice the Disciplinary Commission that in the course of any irregularities and that no evidence from any person involved altering the investigation or subsequent proceedings by the DA.

Even with the fourth remark concerned, it relates to the opacity of the regulations, the Disciplinary Commission disagrees. Also asserts that no person doping violation has occurred. There is a false positive check result that is caused by deviations from the ISL and ISPPPI. But the Disciplinary Commission considers that no individual deviation from the ISL has shown. And on the basis of a previous decision, the Disciplinary Commission also rejected the last defence of the person concerned.

The Disciplinary Commission considers that the KNWU evidence of violation of the Anti-Doping Rules has delivered. A first offense is punishable with an ineligibility for a period of two years, unless the relevant conditions for the cancellation, reduction or extension of the penalty period, all of which has not happened. The provisional suspension is deducted. The case related costs will be borne by individual.

CAS 2010/A/2245 Andrey Plotniy v. International Tennis Federation (ITF)

Related case:

ITF 2010 ITF vs Andrei Plotniy
September 20, 2010

• Tennis
• Doping (carphedon)
• Applicable standard in respect of the definition of “No Significant Fault or Negligence”
• Additional sanction

1. Only where the departure of the athlete from the required conduct under the duty of utmost care was not significant, the sanctioning body may apply “No Significant Fault or Negligence” and depart from the standard sanction.

2. The Tennis Anti-Doping Programme envisages that any reduced sanction would run concurrently with the original sanction imposed, as any other interpretation of the rules could result in players having a lengthy sentence in effect reduced through breaching the sanction of ineligibility, in circumstances where they breached their sanction early in their period of ineligibility with No Significant Fault or Negligence, and therefore restarted a period of ineligibility now reduced by up to half.

On 9 March 2010 the Russian tennis player Andrey Plotniy admitted he had committed an anti-doping rule violation after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Fonturacetam (Carphedon). He signed an Acceptance of Sanction and a 15 month period of ineligibility was imposed, starting on 1 November 2009.

Hereafter in August 2010 the German Tennis Federation reported that the Athlete had participated in 5 tennis competitions in Germany. The Athlete acknowledged his participation in these 5 competitions and asserted that he was unaware he was ineligibile to participated in tennis competitions at a national level not hosted by the ITF or the WTA.

The ITF concluded that the Athlete failed to establish No Significant Fault of Negligence for breaching ineligibilty. Consequently the ITF decided on 20 September 2010 that the original 15 month period of ineligibility shall start again from the date of his last participation, i.e. 22 August 2010.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the ITF Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Panel considered the particular circumstances of this case and establishes that the Athlete made, on his own admission, no enquiry into the nature and extent of his sanction other than asking his own representative. At the time he made that enquiry, he knew himself to be ineligible to play in international tournaments, and in the national Russian Championship.

The Panel accordingly upholds the ITF’s decision dated 20 September 2010 and dismisses the Appeal of the Athlete in its entirety. The present award is rendered by majority, pursuant to Article R59 of the Code.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 11 April 2011:

1.) The appeal filed on 7 October 2010 by Mr Andrey Plotniy is dismissed.

2.) The decision rendered by the ITF Anti-Doping Manager on 20 September 2010 is confirmed.

(…)

5.) All other prayers for relief are rejected.

CAS 2009/A/1898 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. International DanceSport Federation (IDSF) & Boris Maltsev & Zarina Shamsutdinova

• Dance sport
• Doping (refusal to submit to doping control)
• Applicability of the principle of equality of treatment between athletes
• Absence of justification for the refusal to submit to control
• Absence of mitigating factors for the otherwise applicable sanction

1. Neither the equality of treatment between elite athletes competing in different sports at a worldwide level, nor the rationale of anti-doping rules, allow to follow the reasoning according to which the level of awareness of competing athletes regarding applicable rules might be inferior in small federations with less means, which should lead to more indulgence when examining their required degree of diligence. Both the World Anti-Doping Programme and the rules of the federation make this clear and forbid doping. Indeed, the purpose of the World Anti-Doping Code is to protect the athletes’ fundamental right to participate in doping-free sport and thus promote health, fairness and equality for athletes worldwide and to ensure harmonized, coordinated and effective anti-doping programs at the international level with regard to detection, deterrence and prevention of doping.

2. According to the applicable rule, an athlete shall only be entitled to refuse to provide a blood or urine sample in circumstances where the “mandatory procedures and safeguards” set out in the regulations are not observed. The reference to mandatory procedures and safeguards must be understood as a reference to the rules and procedures that exist to enable doping controls to be organized in an efficient, orderly, safe and fair manner. In this respect, the absence of a representative of the national federation cannot be deemed a violation of a mandatory safeguard, as no rule exists that provides for such a presence. Likewise, the absence of a warning that doping control might occur cannot be considered a violation of any mandatory procedure or safeguard either. Finally, the federation’s rules neither have the purpose nor the effect of making the duty of submitting to a doping control subject to the signing of a consent form; the athletes acquire that duty by participating in the competition.

3. There is no necessary causal link between the actions of the various sport authorities which might not have properly implemented the anti-doping rules and the fault of the athletes which relieves the latter from their own responsibility. Presenting excuses after the facts cannot be considered as a mitigating factor of the violation consisting in the refusal to undergo the doping test. If no elements can be deemed mitigating factors, the athletes are deemed significantly negligent in refusing to undergo a test. As a result the sanction cannot be reduced and the ineligibility period to be applied is two years.

In December 2008 the Asian DanceSport Federation (ADSF) reported an anti-doping rule violation aginst the Kazakh dancers Boris Maltsev and Zarina Shamsutdinova for their refusal to submit to sample collection at the 2008 IDSF Asian Championships Latin on 7 December 2008. Consequently on 3 June 2009 the IDSF Disciplinary Council decided to sanction the Athletes for 1 year.

Hereafter in July 2009 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the IDSF Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 2 years on the Athletes.

Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that:

• The Athletes' refusal to submit to a doping control is undisputed.
• They refused the test, although they were warned twice about the gravity and the consequences of such refusal.
• No “mandatory procedures and safeguards” protecting athletes have been violated in this case.
• There exists no justification for the refusal to submit to the control, with the consequence that the Athletes must be deemed to have committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• There are no elements, which can be deemed mitigating factors.
• The Athletes were significantly negligent in refusing to undergo the test.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 3 March 2010:

1.) The appeal of WADA against the decision of the IDSF Disciplinary Council, dated 3 June 2009, is declared admissible and upheld.

2.) The decision of the IDSF Disciplinary Council, dated 3 June 2009, in the matter of Boris Maltsev and Zarina Shamsutdinova is set aside.

3.) Boris Maltsev and Zarina Shamsutdinova are sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility starting on 7 December 2009, with the period of one year of ineligibility already served by the Athletes being credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Boris Maltsev and Zarina Shamsutdinova from 7 December 2008 through the date of this award shall be disqualified with all of the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

(…)

7.) All other claims and prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2002/A/370 Lazutina v/ IOC
CAS 2002/A/370 L. / International Olympic Committee (IOC)

Related cases:

• IOC 2002 IOC vs Larissa Lazutina
  February 24, 2002
• IOC 2002 IOC vs Olga Danilova
  February 24, 2002
• Swiss Federal Court 4P.267_2002 Larissa Lazutina & Olga Danilova vs IOC and FIS
• Swiss Federal Court 4P.268_2002 Larissa Lazutina & Olga Danilova vs IOC and FIS
• Swiss Federal Court 4P.269_2002 Larissa Lazutina & Olga Danilova vs IOC and FIS
• Swiss Federal Court 4P.270_2002 Larissa Lazutina & Olga Danilova vs IOC and FIS
  May 27, 2003

• Cross Country Skiing/Olympic Games
• Doping (darbepoetin)
• Reliability of the testing method

1. Although darbepoetin is not specifically listed as a prohibited substance in the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code (“OMAC”), it is an analogue or mimetic of erythropoietin which is recombinant EPO in that it is an artificial substance which is not naturally produced by the human body unlike natural EPO. Therefore it is a prohibited substance. In accordance with the OMAC, its use is permitted only to treat insulin-dependent diabetes and even then, only if written notification has been given prior to the particular competition by an endocrinologist or the team physician. In the present case no written notification has been given.

2. Contrary to the allegation that the methodology of testing for darbepoetin is experimental and not legally nor scientifically accepted, evidence was given as to the methodology and reliability of the combined blood and urine test. The existing test for EPO whether natural or recombinant can be used without modification to detect darbepoetin. On the basis of the existing evidence, the CAS considers that the methodology of testing for erythropoietin and darbepoetin is scientifically sound, and that the results produced by the tests are reliable.

Ms. Larissa Lazutina is a Russian Athlete competing in the 4x5 kilometer women’s relay cross-country skiing race ath the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympic Games.

In February 2002 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Darbepoetin (dEPO)

The IOC Disciplinary Commission concluded that the Athlete had committed a doping offence. On the 24 February 2002 the IOC Executive Board accepted the conclusions and recommendations of the Disciplinary Commission. The Disciplinary commission disqualified the Athlete from the women’s 30 kilometre classical cross-country skiing race, ordered the withdrawal of her medal and diploma and ordered her exclusion from the Olympic Winter Games 2002.

As a result of the Athlete's violation the FIS decided on 3 June 2002 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter the Athlete filed several appeals against the imposed sanctions with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS 2002/A/371 [IOC] and CAS 2002/A/398 [FIS]).

The issue in this appeal can be shortly stated. The Athlete  contends that the methodology of testing for darbepoeitin is experimental, and is neither legally nor scientifically accepted. In particular, she contends that it is not permissible to use the method of testing for erythropoietin in order to test for darbepoetin.

Furthermore, she contends that the test on the B sample was improperly carried out as the urine sample was poured from the sample bottle into a dirty, non-sterile container. There was, therefore, she submits, a danger of contamination.

Considering the evidence, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the methodology of testing for erythropoietin and darbepoetin is scientifically sound, and that the results produced by the tests are reliable.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 November that:

1.) The appeal filed by Larissa Lazutina on 13th March 2002 is dismissed.

2.) The decision of the IOC Executive Board of 24th February 2002 is confirmed.

3. (...).

Anabolic androgenic steroids--use and correlates among gym users--an assessment study using questionnaires and observations at gyms in the Stockholm region / Håkan Leifman, Charlotta Rehnman, Erika Sjöblom, Stefan Holgersson. - (Environmetnal Reseach and Public Health 8 (2011) 7 (29 June); p. 2656-2674)

• PMID: 21845151
• PMCID: PMC3155322
• DOI: 10.3390/ijerph8072656

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of anabolic androgenic steroid (AAS) use and offers to use among gym users in Stockholm County (Sweden), and to conduct a comparison of concordance in estimates of AAS and supplements at gyms between two data collection methods. A questionnaire was distributed to members at 36 training facilities and 1,752 gym users participated in the study. An observation study was conducted as covert participant observations at 64 gyms. According to the questionnaire, 3.9% of men reported life time use of AAS, 1.4% use during the past 12 months and 0.4% AAS use during past 30 days. Not only were there similar patterns found in the two methods, i.e., similar age and gender distributions for AAS use, but analyses of concordance showed that gyms with a higher prevalence of self-reported AAS-use and supplement use (questionnaire) showed a significantly higher proportion of observer-assessed AAS users. Analyses of individual predictors showed that AAS users were almost always young men, regular weight trainers and more often users of drugs and nutritional supplements. The higher prevalence of AAS use among gym users than in the general population makes the former an appropriate target group for AAS prevention. The connection between supplements, drugs and AAS use suggests that effective AAS prevention need to focus on several risk factors for AAS use. The clear resemblance in estimates between the observation and questionnaire data strengthen the credibility of the two methods.

Andreas Buttner and Detlef Thieme
D. Thieme and P. Hemmersbach (eds.), Doping in Sports,
Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology 195,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-79088-4_19, # Springer‐Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Abstract
Side effects of anabolic steroids with relevance in forensic medicine are mainly due to life-threatening health risks with potential fatal outcome and cases of uncertain limitations of criminal liability after steroid administration. Both problems are typically associated with long-term abuse and excessive overdose of anabolic steroids. Side effects may be due to direct genomic or nongenomic activities (myotrophic, hepatotoxic), can result from down-regulation of endogenous biosynthesis (antiandrogenic) or be indirect consequence of steroid biotransformation (estrogenic). Logically, there are no systematic clinical studies available and the number of causally determined fatalities is fairly limited. The following compilation reviews typical abundant observations in cases where nonnatural deaths (mostly liver failure and sudden cardiac death) were concurrent with steroid abuse. Moreover, frequent associations between structural characteristics and typical side effects are summarized.

CAS 2008/A/1664 International Rugby Board (IRB) v. Luke Troy & Australian Rugby Union (ARU)

Related cases:

• CAS 2008_A_1652 WADA vs Luke Troy & ARU - Preliminary Award
  March 18, 2009
• CAS 2008_A_1664 IRB vs Luke Troy & ARU - Partial Award
  August 6, 2009
  
  

• Rugby
• Doping (attempt use of prohibited substance)
• Determination of the applicable sanction

An athlete having committed an anti-doping rule violation by engaging in conduct pursuant to which he sought to acquire “Prohibited Substances” over the internet, should be sanctioned with a two years suspension. The period during which time the athlete was provisionally suspended shall be deducted from the end date of the sanction imposed.

By a Partial Arbitral Award delivered by the Panel on 2 June 2009 the appeal of the International Rugby Board (IRB) against the decision of the ARU judicial committee of 12 March 2008 was in part allowed and the decision of the ARU judicial committee was set aside.

By lts Award the Panel ruled that Mr Troy had committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to By-Law 5.2.2 of the ARU Anti-Doping By-Laws by engaging in conduct pursuant to which he sought to acquire "Prohibited Substances" over the internet.

It was further ruled by that Award that the question of sanction be reserved and directions were given as to the filing in the CAS Oceania Registry of written submissions by the parties as to sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 August 2009 that:

1.) The period of ineligibility of Mr Luke Troy will be two years from 2 June 2009.

2.) The period of ineligibility of Mr Luke Troy referred to in order 1 above will be reduced by a period of 28 days and will terminate on 5 May 2011.

3.) (…).

NIDA (National Institute of Drug Abuse)

Throughout much of the last century, scientists studying drug abuse labored in the shadows of powerful myths and misconceptions about the nature of addiction. When science began to study addictive behavior in the 1930s, people addicted to drugs were thought to be morally flawed and lacking in willpower. Those views shaped society’s responses to drug abuse, treating it as a moral failing rather than a health problem, which led to an emphasis on punitive rather than preventative and therapeutic actions. Today, thanks to science, our views and our responses to drug abuse have changed dramatically. Groundbreaking discoveries about the brain have revolutionized our understanding of drug addiction, enabling us to respond effectively to the problem.
As a result of scientific research, we know that addiction is a disease that affects both brain and behavior. We have identified many of the biological and environmental factors and are beginning to search for the genetic variations that contribute to the development and progression of the disease. Scientists use this knowledge to develop effective prevention and treatment approaches that reduce the toll drug abuse takes on individuals, families, and communities. Despite these advances, many people today do not understand why individuals become addicted to drugs or how drugs change the brain to foster compulsive drug abuse. This booklet aims to fill that knowledge gap by providing scientific information about the disease of drug addiction, including the many harmful consequences of drug abuse and the basic approaches that have been developed to prevent and treat the disease. At the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), we believe that increased understanding of the basics of addiction will empower people to make informed choices in their own lives, adopt science-based policies and programs that reduce drug abuse and addiction in their communities, and support scientific research that improves the Nation’s well-being.

Nora D. Volkow, M.D.
Director National Institute on Drug Abuse

NIH Pub No. 10-5605 Revised August 2010

CAS 2006/A/1067 International Rugby Board (IRB) v. Jason Keyter

• Rugby
• Doping (benzoylecgonine)
• Burden and standard of proof
• Duty to establish the route of ingestion
• Significant negligence

1. The burden of proof is initially on the party asserting that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. As to the standard of proof, the same party shall establish “to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body” that a violation has occurred. This standard of proof is greater than “a mere balance of probability” but less than “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. Once the Sport Federation has discharged the above burdens, the athlete accused of the anti-doping rule violation is subject to “strict liability”. This means that the presence in the athlete’s body or bodily specimen of a prohibited substance, regardless of the athlete’s intent, knowledge, fault or negligence, is sufficient to establish an anti-doping rule violation and thus the athlete’s presumptive guilt. The athlete may rebut the presumption of guilt by proving absence of fault or negligence or, alternatively, absence of significant fault or negligence. The athlete is required to establish that the fault or negligence was not significant on the “balance of probability”.

2. The failure to establish how the prohibited substance entered the athlete’s bodily specimen means that exceptional circumstances have not been established and there can be no reduction in the sanction from the otherwise established two year suspension. The mere allegation that the athlete has no idea how a forbidden substance entered into his body, and relies as a possible explanation on the ingestion of cocaine through a “spiked drink” that was offered him by strangers in a night club is not sufficient to establish the route of ingestion.

3. An athlete is significantly negligent when he/she failed to exercise any caution (let alone the utmost caution), thereby failing both the “No Fault or Negligence” test and the “No Significant Fault or Negligence” test. The submission that getting drunk, and possibly not realizing and/or remembering what was going on, cannot be considered as an exceptional circumstance excusing an athlete from his/her fault or negligence.

On 16 March 2006 the Review Panel of the Rugby Football Union (RFU) decided to uphold the sanction of 12 months imposed on the rugby player Jason Keyter after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. 

Hereafter in April 2006 the International Rugby Board (IRB) appealed the RFU Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). IRB requested the Panel to set aside the appealed decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that:

• The Athlete alleged to have committed a doping violation bears the burden of persuading the judging body that the occurrence of a specified circumstance is more probable than its non-occurrence.
• The Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation is proven to its comfortable satisfaction, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation.
• The Athlete's failure to establish how the prohibited substance had entered his bodily specimen means that exceptional circumstances have not been established and there can be no reduction in the sanction from the otherwise established two year suspension.

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

1.) The appeal filed by the International Rugby Board on 7 April 2006 is upheld and the Decision issued by the Review Panel of the RFU on 16 March 2006 is varied to impose a two year sanction.

2.) Mr Jason Keyter is declared ineligible for a period of two years, from 15 November 2005 to 14 November 2007.

(…).

CAS 2011/A/2675 Mita Overvliet v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)

• Weightlifting
• Doping (norandrosterone; furosemide)
• Scope and applicability of the WADA Code
• Interpretation of statutes and regulations of a federation
• Interpretation of an IF’s rule providing a four years ineligibility for a first offence contrary to the WADA Code
• Compatibility with Swiss law

1. The WADA Code is neither a law nor an international treaty. It is rather a contractual instrument binding its signatories in accordance with private international law. To become applicable, the WADA Code must be accepted and implemented according to the signatory’s authority and within its relevant spheres of responsibility. To become applicable, the WADA Code and its provisions need to be transformed into the regulations of a signatory.

2. According to Swiss law, statutes and regulations of associations have to be construed and interpreted in the same way as public laws. The Swiss Federal Tribunal and leading commentators tend to interpret the statutes and regulations of associations in an objective way, comparable to the interpretation of statutory law. Accordingly, CAS jurisprudence requires the interpretation of the statutes and rules of sport associations to be objective and always to start with the wording of the rule. It follows that the adjudicating body has to consider the meaning of the rule, looking at the language used, the appropriate grammar and the syntax. The intentions (objectively construed) of the association including any relevant historical background may be taken into consideration.

3. By way of interpretation of an International Federation’s (IF) Anti-Doping Program (ADP) it has to be examined whether the ADP provides a four or a two years’ ineligibility for a first doping violation. The wording of the relevant article of the ADP is specific, clear and unambiguous and provides for a four years’ ineligibility for a first violation. However, there is an inconsistency between the preface of the ADP, which forms an integral part of the ADP, and the relevant article since in the preface it is stated that the IF accepted the revised (2009) WADA Code providing a two years’ ineligibility. Interpreted from the perspective of a systematic interpretation, the article providing specifically a four years’ period should prevail over the preface of the IF’s ADP and its general reference to the WADA Code as it is a lex specialis.

4. The four years’ sanction of ineligibility for a first doping offence does not violate the personality rights of an athlete nor Swiss public policy.

On 2 December 2012 teh IWF Doping Hearing Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Dutch weightlifter Mita Overvliet after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Furosemide and 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Hereafter in December 2012 the Athlete appealed the IWF Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed these issues raised by the Athlete:

• Scope and applicability of the WADA Code;
• WADA's compliance reports are not decisive;
• Has the 2 years' period of ineligibility become part of the IWF's own regulations?;
• No discretion to reduce the period of ineligibility;
• Article 10.2 IWF ADP does it violate Swiss Law.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 25 May 2012:

1.) The Appeal filed by Ms. Mita Overvliet on 23 December 2011 against the decision dated 2 December 2011 rendered by the IWF Doping Hearing Panel is dismissed.

2.) The decision rendered by the IWF Doping Hearing Panel on 2 December 2012 is confirmed. Ms. Mita Overvliet being ineligible to compete in weightlifting competitions for a period of four years starting from 23 May 2011.

(…)

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