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.

CAS 2007_A_1332 Audunn Jónsson vs The International Powerlifting Federation (IPF)

21 Dec 2007

CAS 2007/A/1332 Jónsson v/ The International Powerlifting Federation (IPF)

  • Powerlifting
  • Doping (metandienone)
  • Distinction between In-Competition Testing and Out-of-Competition Testing
  • Burden of proof regarding departures from the International Standard
  • De novo hearing
  • Disciplinary sanction

1. According to the definitions of the applicable anti-doping Rules an “Event” is a series of individual competitions conducted together under the ruling body (e.g., the Olympic Games) whereas a “Competition” is, a single race, match, game or singular athletic contest (e.g. the finals of the Olympic 100-meter dash). For the purpose of differentiating between In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing, unless provided otherwise in the rules of an international federation or other relevant anti-doping organization, an In-Competition test is a test where an athlete is selected for testing in connection with a specific competition. “Out-of-Competition” is defined as “any doping control which is not in-competition”. Therefore, a testing which takes place during an event between two competitions shall be considered as an Out-of-Competition Testing according to the International Standard of Testing.

2. According to the applicable anti-doping rules, departures from the International Standard for Testing which did not cause an Adverse Analytical Finding shall not invalidate such result. If an athlete establish that departures from the International Standard have occurred during testing, then the federation shall have the burden to establish that such departures did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or the factual basis for the anti-doping violation. In this regard, the fact that a doping session has been conducted by one person instead of two is a departure from the applicable guidelines. Likewise, the fact that a Doping Control Officer (DCO) failed to identify himself with the official identification card provided by the international federation is a technical departure from the guidelines. However, where on the basis of the evidence presented by the parties, no circumstances indicate that the departures from the rules did in fact have an effect on the result of the test, the federation will have to be deemed to have discharged its burden of proof.

3. Although it is inadequate and not proper in the sense of a fair hearing to choose a member of a federation’s doping hearing body as DCO, under Art. R57 of the CAS Code, a CAS panel has the full power to review the facts and the law. Therefore a CAS panel holds a trial de novo, evaluating all facts and legal issues involved in a dispute. This means that an athlete’s challenge of the federation’s doping hearing panel as not being impartial can be remedied by a de novo examination by CAS.

4. The athlete who has not given any explanation as to how an exogenous banned substance entered into his system nor rebut the presumption that the WADA accredited Laboratory has conducted sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the International Standard for laboratory analysis, must be considered as having committed a doping offence involving a prohibited substance and must take responsibility for it.



The case concerns the issue whether the drug test of Audunn Jónsson should be invalidated because of an alleged breach of the applicable rules, in particular the IPF Anti-Doping Rules and the International Standard for Testing.

CAS Panel concludes that possible departures from the International Standard for Testing that may have occurred in this case did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding. The CAS is therefore entitled to rely on the test results in its decision.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport on 21 December 2007:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Audunn Jónsson on 18 July 2007 against a decision of the IPF Doping Hearing Panel is dismissed.

2.) The appealed decision issued on 20 June 2007 by the IPF Doping Hearing Panel is upheld.

3.) Mr Audunn Jónsson shall be declared ineligible for two years from 8 November 2006.

4.) This award is rendered without costs except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss francs) already paid by Mr Audunn Jónsson, which is retained by the CAS.

5.) Each party shall bear its own legal and other costs.

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

UK Anti-doping: world's first growth hormone anti-doping rule violation

22 Feb 2010

An interview with UK Anti-Doping CEO Andy Parkinson and Christiaan Bartlett from Drug Control Centre King's College on the world's first growth hormone anti-doping rule violation.

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.

show » details »
Type:
video

Fall from grace: the Ben Johnson story

6 May 2010

At the Olympic Games 1988 in Seoul, Ben Johnson won the 100 meter Track & Field sprint final. He lowered his own world record to 9.79 seconds. Three days later he was disqualified, because his urine samples were found to contain the prohibited substance stanozolol.

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.

show » details »
Type:
video

Fall from grace

6 May 2010

The 'Fall from grace' video shows a few of the world's greatest athletes, who have been tested positive for doping. The athletes are Tommy Simpson, Diego Maradona, Marion Jones, Ben Johnson and Michelle Smith. The goal of the video is to show the true values of sport.

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.

show » details »
Type:
video

Fall from grace: the Ian Sibbit story

6 May 2010

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.

show » details »
Type:
video

Fall from grace: the Marion Jones story

6 May 2010

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.

show » details »
Type:
video
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