In 2009, rugby player Ian Sibbit has been reprimanded by the Rugby Football League for the overuse of the anti-asthma drug salbutamol. In this video he warns others for the risk of unintentional doping use by using medication.

100% me is UK Anti-Doping's education programme which aims to prevent doping in sport. 100% me is about being a true athlete. It's about being able to say my performance is 100% me. There is no secret to my success - just hard work, determination and talent.

UK Anti-Doping is responsible for protecting sport from the threat of doping in the UK. This involves planning, implementing and monitoring the UK’s anti-doping policy and implementing effective anti-doping programmes.

Marion Jones won five medals at the 2000 Summer Olympics in Australia. In October 2007 she admitted to have taken performance-enhancing drugs for the biggest part of her carreer. Consequently, she was striped off all medals and prizes dating back September 2000. Marion Jones was one of the most famous athletes to be linked to the BALCO case on the development and distribution of the designer steroid THG.

100% me is UK Anti-Doping's education programme which aims to prevent doping in sport. 100% me is about being a true athlete. It's about being able to say my performance is 100% me. There is no secret to my success - just hard work, determination and talent.

UK Anti-Doping is responsible for protecting sport from the threat of doping in the UK. This involves planning, implementing and monitoring the UK’s anti-doping policy and implementing effective anti-doping programmes.

CAS 2008/A/1545 Andrea Anderson, LaTasha Colander Clark, Jearl Miles-Clark, Torri Edwards, Chryste Gaines, Monique Hennagan, Passion Richardson v/ IOC

Ms Andrea Anderson, Ms LaTasha Colander Clark, Ms Jearl Miles-Clark, Ms Torri Edwards, Ms Chryste Gaines, Ms Monique Hennagan and Ms Passion Richardson are all track and field athletes from the United States of America. The Athletes participated in the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000 as members
of the U.S. Olympic team sent by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC).

The issue to be solved in this case is whether, under the applicable rules in force at the time of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the results obtained by the US track and field
teams in the women’s 4×100m and 4×400m relay events should be annulled and the medals withdrawn from those teams because one team member – Ms Marion Jones –
has been subsequently disqualified due to an admitted anti-doping rule violation.

Following investigations the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported in 2003 that the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO) was involved in a conspiracy for the purpose of the distribution and use of doping substances and techniques. These substances were either undetectable or difficult to detect in routine drug testing.

BALCO is alleged to have distributed several types of banned doping agents to professional athletes in track and field, baseball and football. Thereupon multiple athlete's were charged and convicted for the use of various performance-enhancing drugs.

Consequently on 10 April 2008 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to disqualify the USOC women relay teams and their results obtained at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games because of their use of prohibited substances provided by BALCO.

Hereafter in April 2008 the Athlete appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athletes requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to reverse the disqualifcation of their results obtained at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.

The Athletes argue that the IOC violated their rights to due process, fundamental fairness and natural justice through proceedings conducted in violation of the Olympic Charter.

In particular, according to the Athletes, the IOC knowingly and repeatedly disregarded the Olympic Charter and violated their right to be heard in the following ways:

• a) the IOC consistently refused to acquaint the Athletes with the charges and evidence against them;
• b) the Athletes were not granted any meaningful opportunity to tender a defence, in writing or in person;
• c) the IOC Disciplinary Commission and Executive Board were composed of individuals who had prejudged the matter, as demonstrated by some public statements;
• d) the Executive Board never adopted a valid decision.

Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that at the time of the Sydney Olympic Games there was no express IOC rule or IAAF rule that clearly allowed the IOC to annul the relay team results if one team member was found to have committed a doping offence.

As a result, the Panel is unanimously of the opinion that, on the basis of the IOC and IAAF rules applicable at the time of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the Appealed Decision taken by the IOC Executive Board on 10 April 2008 is incorrect and must be set aside. The Panel reaches this conclusion with all due respect to the IOC Executive Board and its fundamental role under the Olympic Charter.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 Juy 2010:

1.) The appeal filed by the Appellants Ms Andrea Anderson, Ms LaTasha Colander Clark, Ms Jearl Miles-Clark, Ms Torri Edwards, Ms Chryste Gaines, Ms Monique Hennagan and Ms Passion Richardson on 30 April 2008 is upheld.

2.) The Decision of the IOC Executive Board dated 10 April 2008 is hereby set aside.

3.) On the basis of the IOC and IAAF Rules in force and applicable at the time of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the United States’ teams that competed in the women’s 4×100m and 4×400m athletics relay events at those Games shall not be disqualified; the medals and diplomas awarded to the above noted Appellants in those events shall not be returned to the IOC.

4.) All other requests, motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

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

6.) The IOC shall pay a global amount of CHF 10’000.- to the above noted Appellants as contribution towards their expenses incurred in this arbitration.

The World Anti-Doping Code / UK Anti-Doping (UKAD)

Explanation of the World Anti-Doping Code, the five International Standards and the principle of Strict Liaibility by UK Anti-Doping.

100% me is UK Anti-Doping's education programme which aims to prevent doping in sport. 100% me is about being a true athlete. It's about being able to say my performance is 100% me. There is no secret to my success - just hard work, determination and talent.

UK Anti-Doping is responsible for protecting sport from the threat of doping in the UK. This involves planning, implementing and monitoring the UK’s anti-doping policy and implementing effective anti-doping programmes.

Panelists discuss about the challenges facing the World Anti-Doping Agency. Speakers include UK Anti-Doping CEO Andy Parkinson, British Olympic Association Director of Elite Performance Sir Clive Woodward, three-time London Marathon winner Paula Radcliffe, and 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Ambassador Steve Cram.

100% me is UK Anti-Doping's education programme which aims to prevent doping in sport. 100% me is about being a true athlete. It's about being able to say my performance is 100% me. There is no secret to my success - just hard work, determination and talent.

UK Anti-Doping is responsible for protecting sport from the threat of doping in the UK. This involves planning, implementing and monitoring the UK’s anti-doping policy and implementing effective anti-doping programmes.

Some UK's top athletes talk about 100% me and what it means to them.

100% me is UK Anti-Doping's education programme which aims to prevent doping in sport. 100% me is about being a true athlete. It's about being able to say my performance is 100% me. There is no secret to my success - just hard work, determination and talent.

UK Anti-Doping is responsible for protecting sport from the threat of doping in the UK. This involves planning, implementing and monitoring the UK’s anti-doping policy and implementing effective anti-doping programmes

Win Clean / UK Anti-Doping (UKAD)

Win Clean is an international campaign aiming to alert athletes coming to the UK for the London 2012 Olympic Games of their rights and responsibilities surrounding anti-doping.

UK Anti-Doping is responsible for protecting sport from the threat of doping in the UK. This involves planning, implementing and monitoring the UK’s anti-doping policy and implementing effective anti-doping programmes.

http://www.wincleanuk.com/

TAS 2009/A/2018 Davide Rebellin c. CIO

CAS 2009/A/2018 Davide Rebellin vs IOC

Related case:

IOC 2009 IOC vs Davide Rebellin
November 17, 2009


Mr. Davide Rebellin is an Italian cyclist who competed at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

In January 2009 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to perform further testing on the Athlete’s samples collected during the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, due to a fully validated test to detect CERA became available. In April 2009 Thereupon the IOC reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance CERA.

After notification by the IOC in April 2009 the Athlete file a statement in his defence and was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission. The Cyclist stated he had used medication, supplements and vitamins prior to the Olympic Games and alleged in his defence that the burden of proof has not been met.

The IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that no departure from the ISL occurred in this case and concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation.
On 17 November 2009 the IOC Executive Board, recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, decides that:

1.) the Athlete be disqualified from the Men’s Cycling Road event of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, where he had placed 2nd.;
2.) shall have his medal and diploma in the above-mentioned event withdrawn.
3.) The Union Cycliste International (UCI) is requested to modify the results of the abovementioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
4.) The National Olympic Committee of Italy (CONI) is ordered to return to the IOC, as soon as possible, the medal and diploma awarded to the Athlete in relation to the abovementioned event.
5.) The NOC of Italy shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
6.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the IOC decision of 17 November 2009 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The Athlete disputed the reliability of the sample storage and testing which the IOC rejected in their reply.

Considering the evidence the Panel finds that the conducted tests on the Athlete’s samples in 2008 and 2009 are valid and concludes that the Athlete failed to establish that there has been a departure of the IST and ISL. The Panel concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation due to the positive test result.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides on 30 July 2010 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal and to uphold the IOC decision of 17 November 2009.

CAS 2007/A/1283 WADA v/ASADA & AWF & Karapetyn

In February 2007 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Alex Karapetyn for the use of the prohibited substance Benzylpiperazine.

Consequently ASADA decided on 5 April 2007 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Because of the principle of fairness ASADA determined not to disqualify the Athlete's results obtained between 27 June 2005 and 22 March 2006.

Hereafter in April 2007 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the ASADA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The primary issue for the Panel to determine is whether Mr. Karapetyn's individual results in all competitions subsequent to the Mermet Cup of 24-26 June 2005 should be disqualified, under article 13.8 of the Policy.

The Panel finds that there is no basis to WADA's assertion that Mr Karapetyn was not actually sanctioned because of the combination of Mr Karapetyns results not being disqualified between 26 June 2005 and the commencement of his period of ineligibiliity and his ineligibility period commencing after he elected to cease competing.

In fact, Mr Karapetyn ceased competing upon learning of the ASADA investigation, nor can he make a living as a professional weightlifter as he had done previously. This can most certainly be deemed a sanction.

Furthermore, the sanction eliminates his participation in the sport as a coach, trainer or in any other capacity. Those are real and continuing sanctions even if the athlete has no intention of competing in the future.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 November 2007:

1.) The apeal filed by WADA on 4 May 2007, against a decision of ASADA dated 5 April 2007, is dismissed.

2.) 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.) WADA shall contribute CHF 6,000 (six thousand Swiss francs) towards the legal costs incuired by ASADA in connection with this appeal. WADA, the AWF and Mr Karapetyn shall each bear their own costs.

CAS 2005/A/908 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Coetzee Wium

• Paralympic powerlifting
• Doping (testosterone)
• Departures from standards with regard to transportation, collection and testing
• Burden to establish the cause of the Adverse Analytical Finding
• Standard of proof required by CAS

1. In a case where departures from the WADC International Standard for Testing and/or the WADA Technical Documents for Laboratory Analysis are established, the question a CAS panel has to answer is: “Do these deviations cast sufficient doubt on the reliability of the test results to an extent that the finding of a Prohibited Substance in the athlete’s urine was not sufficient to establish a doping offence to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel”?

2. If an athlete establish that departures occurred during transportation, collection and/or testing, then the Anti-Doping Organisation shall have the burden to establish that such departures did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding.

3. The standard of proof required by CAS in all such cases is comfortable satisfaction, that is, greater than mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

On 14 March 2005 the IPC Anti-Doping Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the South African Parathlete Coetzee Wium after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone with a T/A ratio above the WADA threshold.

Thereupon on 2 May 2005 the IPC Management Committee decided to reinstate the Parathlete because a significant departure of the ISTI had occurred.

The IPC deemed that the chain of custody was broken because following the sample collection the Parathlete's samples were left unattended for 45 minutes, during which time they sealed Berlinger Test Kit had been moved around by a cleaning lady. Accordingly the IPC could not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that these events had not caused the Adverse Analytical Finding.

Hereafter in June 2005 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the IPC 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.

The Parathlete asserted that departures from standards occurred with regard to transportation, collection and testing. He argued that the case was conducted far away from standards.

WADA admitted that a departure from standards did occur, but holds that this was of minor significance and that, by no means, did this departure have any impact on the result of the IPC establishing an Adverse Analytical Finding for Testosterone in the Parathlete’s sample.

Following assessment of the evidence the Panel determines that:

• The delayd pick-up by DHL of the Athlete's samples resulting in a delay of one day could not cast any doubt on the reliability of test results under the given circumstances.
• The athlete could not rebut the presumption that a WADA-accredited laboratory conducted Sample Analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the WADC International Standard for Laboratories.
• No departure from the International Standard, which would undermine the validity of the Adverse Analytical Finding, was established, once the exogenous origin of the Prohibited Substance had become clear.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 25 November 2005 that:

1.) The appeal filed by WADA on 21 June 2005 is upheld.

2.) The decision of the IPC Management Committee of 2 May 2005 is annulled.

3.) Coetzee Wium is sanctioned under art. 12.2 IPC Anti-Doping Code by a two (2) years ineligibility period, which starts on the date of this decision. The period of suspension from 13 December 2004 – 2 May 2005 shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.

4.) Coetzee Wium is sanctioned under art. 12.7 IPC Anti-Doping Code by the disqualification of all competitive results obtained by Coetzee Wium from 13 December 2004. This includes forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

(…).