ISR 2013 KNKF Decision Disciplinary Committee 2013075 T

18 Feb 2014

Facts
The Royal Netherlands Power Sport and Fitness Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Krachtsport en Fitnessfederatie, KNKF) has reported an anti doping rule violation against the athlete. The athlete had provided a sample during a wrestling match for doping control purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of nandrolone. Nandrolone is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete failed to file a statement in his defence nor did he attend the hearing of the KNKF Disciplinary Committee. The Committee settled the case based on the written submissions.

Without the Athlete's response the Committee deems that he failed to establish how the substance entered his system nor grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the KNKF Disciplinary Committee decides on 18 February 2014 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension.
Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the Person.

CAS A2_2006 AWF vs Jenna Myers

24 Feb 2006

CAS A2/2006 Australian Weightlifting Federation vs. Jenna Myers

In January 2006 the Australian Weightlifting Federation (AWF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Jenna Meyers after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Benzylpiperazine.

Following notification - without a provisional suspension - the case was referrred to the Oceania Registry Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. She argued that she was tested before without issues, she had mentioned the supplements she used on the Doping Control Form and she had properly checked the safety of the products before using.

The Athlete stated that she had used a Fortius Synephrine product in order to reduce her body weight. She was not aware that this product contained the prohibited substance due to Benzylpiperazine was not listed as an ingredient on the lable of the bottle.

This product was recommended by another weightlifter and considered safe to use. Yet, the Athlete was later advised that other weightlifters also had tested positive after using this product.

In January 2006 Fortius Products confirmed that the batch in question used by the athletes was contaminated with Benzylpiperazine. On being asked their manufacturer and supplier of this product failed to provide an explanation about this contamination.

The AWF contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that she acted with No (Significant) Fault or Negligence. She failed to read the read the warnings on the website of the Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA) nor had checked properly her supplements before using the products.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Undisputed is that the product Fortius Synephrine was the source of the prohibited substance and that the violation was not intentional. Considering the Athlete's conduct the Arbitrator finds that she acted with Significant Fault or Negligence regarding the products she had used.

Therefore The Court of Arbitration for Sport Rules that:

1.) Jenna Myers has breached Article 5.1 of the Anti-Doping Policy of the Australian Weightlifting Federation and has thereby committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation.

2.) Jenna Myers individual results obtained in the Australian Weightlifting Championships held in Brisbane, Queensland in October 2005 are disqualified; accordingly Jenna Myers forfeits her first placing achieved at that Championship including all medals, points, national records and prizes, pursuant to Article 13.1 of the Anti-Doping Policy of the Australian Weightlifting Federation.

3.) Jenna Myers is ineligible to compete during the period commencing on 3 February 2006 and expiring at midnight on 2 February 2008.

4.) Jenna Myers is required to pay the sum of $1000.00 in respect of costs to the Australian Weightlifting Federation.

No dope to cope (anti-doping music video)

20 Jul 2011

An anti-doping music video made by the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO).

The Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) works towards fostering a doping-free environment in Jamaica that promotes the ethics and spirit of sports and determines the use of banned doping practices in sport through education, testing, advocacy and co-ordination of the Jamaica Anti-Doping Programme.

show » details »
Type:
video

CAS A1_2007 ASADA vs Sevdalin Marinov

9 Mar 2007

CAS A1/2007 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority vs. Sevdalin Marinov

Related case:

CAS 2007_A_1311 Sevdalin Marinov vs ASADA
September 26, 2007


On 14 November 2003 three packets each containing substances later certified to contain derivatives of prohibited substances were found by two members of the Victoria Police Force on a shelf in a wardrobe in a bedroom occupied by the Bulgarian Coach Sevdalin Marinov from August 2003 until sometime in November 2003.

Previously the Police had intercepted the car belonging to the owner of the house and found illegal drugs in his car. After the police obtained a search warrant to search the house they found great quantities of other illegal substances including the three packets in the bedroom belonging to the Coach.

Three years later in December 2006 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) reported anti-doping rule violations against the Coach for the possession and trafficking of prohibited substances in November 2003.

Thereupon in February 2007 the case was referred to the CAS Oceania Registry in February 2007 for a first instance decision.

ASADA contended that the Tribunal should be comfortably satisfied that the Coach was in continued occupation of the second bedroom in the house and the contents of the
wardrobe, from about July 2003 until he left for Canada on 12 November 2003, and knew that the three packets were in the wardrobe on the shelf during all or part of that period and
that the packets contained prohibited substances.

The Coach denied the violations and argued that there was no corroborating evidence that he was involved in possession and trafficking of prohibited subsances. He stated that at the material time that the packets were found in the wardrobe he was not longer living in that house whereas he was out of the country and had been out of the country for some time.

Following assessment of the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator determines that:

  • The Coach was the sole occupier of the bedroom on the
    first floor of the house from sometime in August 2003 until
    sometime after 14 November 2003.
  • There were sufficient items of his clothing and personal effects in the bedroom, including photographs of his children, to conclude that he had not moved out.
  • The Coach had custody or control of the three packets on 14 November 2003 and since August 2003.
  • He occupied the bedroom exclusively from August 2003.
  • He had custody or control (possession) of the room and its contents in which the prohibited substances were found.
  • There is no evidence that the Coach was involved in supplying, distributing, offering, selling, exchanging or brokering the prohibited substances.
  • The Coach committed a doping offence of trafficking by possessing and holding prohibited substances.
  • Because this is the Coach his second anti-doping rule violation a lifetime period of ineligibility shall be imposed.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 June 2007 that:

1.) The respondent has committed a doping offence contrary to clause 3.2(a) of the 2002 Australian Weightlifting Federation Anti-Doping Policy by being knowingly involved in trafficking constituted by his possessing and holding, in November 2003, prohibited substances, namely anabolic and androgenic steroidal agents.

2.) The respondent is, for the period of his life, banned from selection to represent Australia in international competition, from competing in any events and competitions conducted by or under the auspices of the Australian Weightlifting Federation, from receiving direct or indirect funding assistance from the Australian Weightlifting Federation and from holding any position within the Australian Weightlifting Federation.

3.) The period of ineligibility is to commence from 14 November 2003 the date of the offence.

4.) The respondent is to contribute the sum of $7000 towards the applicant’s costs to be paid within 60 days of this Award unless the parties come to an arrangement for payment to be made on terms acceptable to them.

5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined by the CAS Court Office and served on the parties in due course, shall be borne by the parties in the following proportions: 50% of the costs by the Appellant and 50% of the costs by the Respondent.

6.) This Award and the annexed Partial Awards be made public.

CAS 2010_A_2293 Saeid Ali-Hosseini vs IWF

24 Aug 2011

CAS 2010/A/2293 Saeid Ali-Hosseini v. International Weightlifting Federation

CAS 2010/A/2293 Saeid Ali-Hosseini vs IWF

  • Weightlifting
  • Doping (metandienone)
  • Athlete’s notification of the date, time and place of the B-sample test
  • Federation’s policy imposing lifetime bans on athletes and revision of the WADA Code

1. There is no violation of an athlete’s rights with regard to the testing of the B sample if the athlete returned the filled-out doping control report requesting the B sample be tested and declining to be present for the B sample analysis. Under these circumstances, there is no reason for the federation to notify the athlete of the date, time and place of the B sample test, and the federation does not violate the athlete’s rights in failing to do so.

2. Even if under earlier versions of the WADA Code a federation had a policy of imposing lifetime bans in an effort to deter doping, it is article 10.7.1 that provides for the range of possible sanctions on athletes who committed a second anti-doping rule violation under the revised 2009 WADA Code and IWF Anti-Doping Policy. In light of this, a federation’s past policy is not necessarily relevant in deciding the appropriate sanction under the current version of article 10.7.1.



On 20 September 2010 the IWF Hearing Panel decided to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility in the Iranian weightlifter Saeid Ali-Hosseini for his second anti-doping rule violation after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methandienone.

Hereafter in November 2010 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 annul the imposed sanction.

The Athlete contended that there are 3 different grounds for annulment of the Appealed Decision. However, in his Appeal Brief and at the hearing the Athlete only developed his argument that the Panel should annul the Decision because he was not given an opportunity to attend or be represented at the opening and testing of his B sample.

Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that:

  • The Athlete’s request to annul the Decision is rejected in its entirety.
  • The Iran WF was acting on the Athletes behalf when it requested testing of the his B sample and declined to be present during the B-sample analysis.
  • Under these circumstances, IWF did not violate the Athlete's fundamental rights when it failed to inform him of the time, date and place of the B-sample analysis.
  • The results of the B-sample analysis stand and confirm the results of the A-sample analysis.
  • IWF has established that the Athlete committed a second doping violation.
  • Taking into account the particular facts and circumstances of this case a sanction of 12 years is imposed.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 August 2011:

1.) The appeal of Mr. Hosseini is partially upheld.

2.) The Decision dated 20 September 2010 of IWF’s Doping Hearing Panel is annulled only to the extent it imposed a lifetime ban on Mr. Hosseini.

3.) Mr. Hosseini’s period of ineligibility shall be for twelve years from 24 October 2009.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

6.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

3 strikes

5 Jun 2012

The Drug Free Sport NZ education video handles the criteria in deciding whether to include a substance or method on the Prohibited List

Drug Free Sport NZ (DFSNZ) is New Zealand's sports anti-doping organisation that works to keep sport drug-free. DFSNZ is responsible for implementing and applying the World Anti-Doping Code. The priorities are enforcement, education, and influence.

show » details »
Type:
video

Doping Control video Drug Free Sport NZ

5 Jun 2012

In order to provide athletes with basic information about their rights and responsibilities in the doping control process, Drug Free Sport NZ has developed a doping control video.

Drug Free Sport NZ (DFSNZ) is New Zealand's sports anti-doping organisation that works to keep sport drug-free.
DFSNZ is responsible for implementing and applying the World Anti-Doping Code. The priorities are enforcement, education, and influence.

show » details »
Type:
video

Cannabis education video

17 Jun 2012

The Drug Free Sport NZ cannabis education video handles the effect and side effects of cannabis use in sport.

Drug Free Sport NZ (DFSNZ) is New Zealand's sports anti-doping organisation that works to keep sport drug-free. DFSNZ is responsible for implementing and applying the World Anti-Doping Code. The priorities are enforcement, education, and influence.

show » details »
Type:
video

Strong Enough to be Clean Music Video

29 Jun 2012

The Pure Playing Field Nation (PPFN) provides 'common ground' for all athletes who uphold the values and behaviour that come as a result of competing clean. It's a community of athletes, coaches, support staff and supporters that have signed "The Pledge" to say they are "Strong Enough to be Clean", they share a sense of pride in the way kiwis play their sport.

Drug Free Sport NZ (DFSNZ) is New Zealand's sports anti-doping organisation that works to keep sport drug-free. DFSNZ is responsible for implementing and applying the World Anti-Doping Code. The priorities are enforcement, education, and influence.

show » details »
Type:
video

CAS 2008_A_1473 Joe Warren vs USADA

24 Jul 2008

CAS 2008/A/1473 Joe Warren v. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)

Related case:

AAA 2007 No. 30 190 00782 07 USADA vs Joe Warren
January 14, 2007


  • Wrestling
  • Doping (marijuana)
    Presence of a specified substance
  • Condition of reduction of the ineligibility period based on exceptional circumstances
  • Condition of reduction of the ineligibility period based on the principles of proportionality
  • Determination of the applicable sanction for a second violation for the use of a specified substance

1. An anti-doping rule violation has been committed when the presence of a “specified substance” at a concentration greater than what is authorised in an athlete’s bodily specimen has been demonstrated.

2. To benefit from a reduced sanction, an athlete can establish the existence of exceptional circumstances. A pre-condition to obtaining a reduced period of ineligibility based on exceptional circumstances is that the appellant must establish how the prohibited substance entered his system. Under the circumstances of a particular case, it is not necessary to require the athlete to establish with precision when the prohibited substance use giving rise to the positive test occurred in order for him to meet his burden of establishing how the substance entered his system. Doubts about when and/or how often the athlete used the substance could, however, have a bearing on the athlete’s credibility generally. In any event, where the medical evidence demonstrates that the athlete was able to differentiate between right and wrong it cannot be accepted that his actions and decisions can be relegated to the category of “no significant fault or negligence” especially when the use of the prohibited substance was neither prescribed nor medically necessary. In this regard, the acute stress the athlete was under can be at best understandable, but not excusable.

3. To benefit from a reduced sanction, an athlete can also persuade the panel that the proportionality principle can and should be applied to reduce the otherwise applicable sanction. However, it is not appropriate to invoke principles of proportionality to vary a sanction which, even though it seems severe in all of the circumstances, is nevertheless in accordance with the rules in force at the time of the infraction, at the time of the hearing before the first instance authority and at the time of the hearing before the CAS panel.

4. If a doping violation involving a specified substance occurs for the second time for the same athlete and if the athlete concerned has not established that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, no reduced sanction based on exceptional circumstances can be granted. Moreover where there is no basis for departing from the sanctions provided for by the regulations based on the proper application to the principles of proportionality, the minimum penalty is a two year period of ineligibility.



On 14 January 2008 the American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel (AAA) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the wrestler Joe Warren for his second anti-doping rule violation after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.

Hereafter in February 2008 the Athlete appealed the AAA 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 Athlete admitted that he had committing an anti-doping violation for which the minimum penalty is a two year period of ineligibility. He asserted that in first instance the Panel misapprehended the evidence and erred in failing to reduce the sanction based on exceptional circumstances and/or application of the principles of proportionality.

Following assessment of the evidence and the Athlete's conduct in this case the Panel determines:

  • a.) The Athlee has committed an anti-doping rule violation, namely, the presence in his Bodily Specimen of Carboxy-THC at a concentration greater than 15 ng/mL;
  • b.) Carboxy-THC is a cannabinoid and, as such, a “specified substance” for the purposes of Article 10.3 of the Regulations;
  • c.) This violation is the Athlete’s second anti-doping rule violation, the first such violation having involved the same Prohibited Substance and having occurred in April 2006;
  • d.) The violation arises from the Athlete’s use of marijuana prior to the test which gave rise to the positive finding noted above;
  • e.) The Athlete has not established that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence for this anti-doping rule violation and, as such, the Tribunal declines on that basis to set a reduced sanction based on exceptional circumstances under Article 10.5.2 of the Regulations;
  • f.) There is no basis for departing from the sanctions provided for by the Regulations based on the proper application to the principles of proportionality;
  • g.) The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 July 2008:

1.) The appeal filed at the Court of Arbitration for Sport by Mr Joe Warren on 2 February 2008, against the United States Anti-Doping Agency, is dismissed.

2.) The period of ineligibility of 2 years from 23 July 2007, imposed by the Doping Tribunal on Mr Warren, is confirmed.

(…)

5.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

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