World Athletics 2019 WA vs Elijah Manangoi

10 Nov 2020

In July 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics has reported an an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Elijah Managoi for his Whereabouts Filing Failures resulting in 3 Missed Tests within a 12 month period, beginning in July 2019.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The AIU’s finds in this case that the Athlete's degree of risk is significant. It holds that there is an inherent and increased risk of inaccuracies and delays to filing and updating Whereabouts information in circumstances where an athlete delegates those responsibilities to a third-party.

The Athlete accepted that he simply ‘trusted’ the Delegate to maintain his Whereabouts information and to make updates on his behalf. This was done without any oversight and without the Athlete checking whether the information in his Whereabouts Filing (and any updates made to that information) was accurate. As a result the Athlete failed to exercise any care or investigation in relation to what should have been the perceived significant level of risk in these circumstances.

Therefore the AIU decides on 10 November 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting backdated on the date of third Whereabouts Faulure, i.e. 22 December 2019.

CAS 2019_A_6180 WADA vs USADA & Ryan Hudson - Settlement

23 Oct 2020

CAS 2019_A_6180 WADA vs USADA & Ryan Hudson - Settlement 


Related case:

CAS 2019_A_6180 WADA vs USADA & Ryan Hudson - Preliminary Award
March 10, 2020


Previously in December 2016 the American weightlifter Ryan Hudson was sanctioned with a 4 year period of ineligibility after he tested positive in 2015 for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. 

In July 2017 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (DHCMT).

USADA deemed on 27 November 2018 that there where grounds for the imposition of a sanction of 4 years for the Athlete’s second anti-doping rule violation instead of the otherwise applicable 8 year period of ineligibility. 

Hereafter in March 2019 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the USADA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

In this case the Sole Arbitrator on 10 March 2020 already settled preliminairy issues between WADA and USADA and ruled that the Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction over the present Appeal.

During the proceedings the Parties reached a settlement and requested the CAS Sole Arbitrator to ratify the Settlement Agreement into a Consent Award.

The Parties agreed as follows:

  • The Acceptance of Sanction form signed by the Athlete and USADA on 27 November 2018 shall be set aside;
  • The Athlete is sanctioned with an 8 year period of ineligibility, starting on 27 November 2018; and
  • USADA shall bear the arbitration costs for the CAS Appeal.

The Sole Arbitrator, having reviewed the text of the Settlement Agreement and the evidence on file, finds no reason to object to or to disapprove of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and is satisfied that the agreement constitutes a bona fide
settlement of the dispute of which he was seized.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 23 October 2020 that:

1.) The Settlement Agreement submitted to the CAS Court Office by the Parties on 4 June 2020 is hereby ratified by the CAS with the consent of the Parties and its relevant terms
are incorporated into this arbitral A ward.

2.) Each Party is hereby ordered to perform the obligations and duties as per the Settlement Agreement referred to above.

3.) The arbitral procedure CAS 2019/A/6180 World Anti-Doping Agency v. United States Anti-Doping Agency & Ryan Hudson is terminated and deleted from the CAS roll.

4.) In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the arbitration costs, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the United States Anti-Doping Agency.

5.) The United States Anti-Doping Agency shall pay to the World Anti-Doping Agency the amount of CHF 9,000 (nine thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution to the costs and
expenses the latter incurred in connection with the present proceedings. Ryan Hudson shall bear his own costs and expenses incurred in these proceedings.

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

CAS 2019_A_6180 WADA vs USADA & Ryan Hudson - Preliminary Award

10 Mar 2020

CAS 2019/A/6180 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and Ryan Hudson - Preliminary Award


Related case:

CAS 2019_A_6180 WADA vs USADA & Ryan Hudson - Settlement
October 23, 2020


Previously in December 2016 the American weightlifter Ryan Hudson was sanctioned with a 4 year period of ineligibility after he tested positive in 2015 for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. 

In July 2017 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (DHCMT).

Here USADA deemed on 27 November 2018 that there where grounds for the imposition of a sanction of 4 years for the Athlete’s second anti-doping rule violation instead of the otherwise applicable 8 year period of ineligibility. 

Hereafter in March 2019 the World Anti-Doping Agency appealed the USADA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

This Award centres around these preliminairy issues: 

  • whether the CAS has jurisdiction over the appeal;
  • if the CAS does have jurisdiction, what is the scope of the appeal, i.e. does it extend to whether the Athlete committed a second ADRV or is it limited to the sanction for such violation; and
  • whether a "presence" violation is committed (for the purposes of Article 10.7.4.1 of the WADC) on the date of ingestion of a prohibited substance or on the date of the doping control test.

WADA's essential submission is that:

  • The issue of whether the Athlete committed a second ADRV has been already determined;
  • WADA's prayer for relief that the CAS find the Athlete has committed a second ADRV, is a mere formality.

USADA's essential submission is that:

  • It is for WADA to establish that the Athlete committed a second ADRV before any question of sanction can arise;
  • WADA's prayers for relief that the CAS find the Athlete has committed a second ADRV, has made whether he has done so an issue in these proceedings.

Considering the submissions of the parties the Sole Arbitrator holds that there is a specific arbitration agreement in the Appealed Decision entitling WADA to appeal it to the CAS. Moreover, an applicable regulation – the USADA Protocol – properly interpreted, also provides such a right of appeal to WADA. 

The Sole Arbitrator deems that USADA's attempt to change the basis of the agreed sanction i.e. that the DHCMT positive should be treated as a second ADRV - should not be entertained. The fact of the Athlete's second ADRV is the very premise of WADA's appeal and hence outwith its scope. The scope of WADA's appeal is limited to the appropriate sanction for the Athlete's second ADRV; his commission of that second violation is to be treated as res judicata. 

Further the Sole Arbitrator concludes that an ADRV contrary to Article 2.1 WADC (i.e. a "presence" violation) cannot be committed on any date other than the date of the sample on which the prohibited sample is found to be present. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 10 March 2020 in this Preliminary Award that: 

1.) The Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction over the appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 4 March 2019 against the decision rendered by the United States Anti-Doping Agency on 27 November 2018, regarding Ryan Hudson.

2.) The scope of the appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 4 March 2019 is limited to the appropriate sanction for Ryan Hudson's second Anti-Doping Rule Violation; his commission of that second violation is to be treated as res judicata.

3.) An Anti-Doping Rule Violation contrary to Article 2.1 (i.e. a "presence" violation) of the World Anti-Doping Code cannot be committed on any date other than the date of the collection of the sample in which the prohibited substance is found to be present.

4.) The substantive proceedings will now go forward in the basis of the above premises 1-3.

5.) The costs of this award will be allocated in the final award.

6.) All other claims or issues will be assessed and determined in the final award.

CAS 2018_A_5904 Diego Dominguez vs FIA - Settlement

7 Aug 2019

CAS 2018/A/5904 Diego Dominguez v. Federation Internationale de I' Automobile

In October 2015 the International Automobile Federation (FIA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Paraguayan rally driver after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Amfetamine.

Here the Athlete established that from 2006 had used prescribed medication for his condition and since 2014 he had been prescribed a different medication that contained the Prohibited Substance.

FIA accepted that the violation was not intentional and granted in March 2016 the Athlete's application for a prospective TUE. However the FIA TUE Committee (TUEC) denied repeately the Athlete's applications for a retroactive TUE between October 2015 and July 2018.

Hereafter in September 2018 the Athlete appealed the latest negative FIA TUEC Decision of 3 July 2018 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

During the proceedings the parties reached a settlement and requested the CAS Panel to ratify the Settlement Agreement into a Consent Award.

The parties agree as follows:

  1. The Decision dated 3 July 2018 is confirmed, and so the Athlete's application for a retroactive TUE is denied.
  2. The Appellant committed an anti-doping rule violation as a result of the presence of amphetamine (and its metabolite) in the urine sample collected from him on 28 August 2015 at the Event.
  3. The Athlete did not intend to cheat and therefore his violation was not intentional within the meaning of FIA ADR Article 10.2. 3.
  4. The Athlete bears No Significant Fault or Negligence for his violation and is entitled to the maximum reduction permitted under FIA ADR Article 10.5.2, so that the period of ineligibility applicable to him shall be one year.
  5. In accordance with FIA ADR Articles 10.11.1 and 10.11.3, the period of ineligibility will start on the date of sample collection (28 August 2015), will include the period of provisional suspension (from 5 October 2015 to 1 April
    2016), and so will expire at midnight on 27 August 2016. No period of ineligibility will be served going forward.
  6. Pursuant to FIA ADR Article 9, the results achieved by the Athlete at the Event are disqualified, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of trophies,
    medals, points and prizes awarded based on those results. In accordance with FIA ADR Article 10.8, all results obtained subsequent to the Event during the period of ineligibility are also disqualified (with all resulting consequences).
  7. The parties will pay the CAS arbitration costs in equal shares, and each party will bear its own legal and other costs.

After reviewing the terms of the Settlement Agreement and a prima facie review of the evidence on file, the Panel finds no grounds to object or disapprove the terms of the Settlement Agreement and is satisfied that the Settlement Agreement constitutes a bona fide settlement of the dispute brought to its attention. The Panel considers the Settlement Agreement reached by the parties and the outcome of the present proceedings not ureasonable. The Panel also notes that the present award may be published, considering that a sanction has been imposed on the Athlete.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 August 2019:

1.) The procedure CAS 2018/A/5904 Diego Dominguez v. Federation Internationale de l 'Automobile is terminated and removed from the CAS roll.

2.) The Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties on 28 June 2019 is hereby ratified by the Court of Arbitration for Sport with the consent of the parties and its terms are incorporated into this arbitral award.

3.) Each party is hereby ordered to perform its obligations and duties as per the Settlement Agreement.

4.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne in equal shares by Mr Diego Dominguez and by the Federation
Internationale de l 'Automobile.

5.) Both parties shall bear their own legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with the present arbitration proceedings.

ITF 2020 ITF vs Alejandro Licea

5 Nov 2020

In July 2020 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Salvadorian tennis player Alejandro Licea (16) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substace Clostebol.

After notification the minor Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspenson and the sanction proposed by the ITF.

The Ahtlete explained with medical evidence that in January 2020 he underwent medical treatment for wounds he had sustained to his hands and fingers and prescribed Neobol spray used. He was unaware that the Neobol spray contained Clostebol and he used it daily until his wounds had healed until the end of February.

He didn't mention the Neobol spray on the Doping Control Form since he already had stopped using the spray 7 days before the sample collection. The physician who prescribed the Neobol spray knew the Athlete was a tennis player while the Athlete advised two coaches of his injury and the Neobol treatment but neither coach told him that the Neobol might contain a prohibited substance.

The ITF accepts that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete demonstrated how the prohibited substance entered his system. It concludes that the Athlete bears only a light degree of fault and considers that he gave a prompt admission and that he is an inexperienced minor Athlete that prior had not received anti-doping education.

Therefore the ITF decides on 5 November 2020 to impose a 14 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 7 March 2020.

FINA 2020 FINA vs Bibigul Menlibaeva

30 Oct 2020

In March 2020 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Uzbek swimmer Bibigul Menlibaeva after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 1,4-dimethylpentylamine.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted a provisional suspension and waived her right for a hearing. The FINA Doping Panel settled the case based on the written submissions of the parties.

The Athlete denied the intentional use and submitted that she had used a supplement C4, without consulting a doctor or a trainer, unaware that it contained a prohibited substance. FINA accepted that the violations was not intentional and requested the Panel to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility.

The Panel finds 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. The Panel considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission and failed to establish with evidence how the substance entered her system.

Therefore the FINA Doping Panel decides on 30 October 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 25 September 2019.

ITF 2020 ITF vs Ashley Kratzer

28 Oct 2020

In March 2020 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American tennis player Ashley Kratzer after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance GHRP-6.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the ITF Independent Tribunal. Analysis of the creams and supplements she had used revealed that a Cream contained a significant amount of GHRP-6.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and accepted the test results. She demonstrated that she suffered from a longstanding, severe blistering problem on her heels, toes and sides of her feet. The blisters often turn into open sores and cause her to bleed through her shoes. She had consulted several doctors and physiotherapists for this problem and underwent a variety of treatmens without any lasting success.

She testified that in China, in April 2019 prior to a Tournament, she suffered from severe blistering. As treatment there she used a Cream provided in an unlabelled bottle by a trainer whom she was told was associated with the Chinese Tennis Federation. She was never curious about what the Cream contained and acknowledged that she didn't mention the use of the Cream on the Doping Control Form.

The Athlete stated that afterwards the Athlete was unsuccesfull in her attempts to locate the trainer. She was not in the registered testing pool, she was tested twice in her career and had limited anti-doping education.

The ITF contended that the Athlete established that the Cream was the source of the prohibited substance buty failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

The Tribunal accepts that the Athlete had little anti-doping education and that she did not deliberately used the prohibited substance. However the Tribunal finds that Athlete engaged in conduct knowing that there was a significant risk that it might result in an anti-doping rule violation and that she manifestly disregarded that risk. The Tribunal deems that she has not dischardged her burden of rebutting the presumpiton of intentional use.

Therefore the Tribunal decides on 28 October 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 28 March 2020.

World Athletics 2019 WA vs Elena Orlova

21 Aug 2020

Ms Elena Orlova is the Senior Coordinator for the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF).

In August 2018 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation of Tampering against the high jumper Danil Lysenko after the AIU had opened an investigation against the Athlete regarding his Whereabouts Failures.

With the assistance of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) the AIU discovered that the Athlete had forged medical documents to the AIU. It also concluded that RusAF officials had been involved in the provision of false explanations and forged documents to the AIU in order to explain whereabouts failures by the Athlete. 

During their investigation the AIU believed that relevant information may be stored on the email and document servers of RusAF, hard drives, tapes, disks or other storage devices. Mobile storage devices and electronic communications devices (sucht as mobile telephones, tablets, personal computers, laptop computer, USBs and hard drives) that were the property of RusAF were also considered containing relevant information. 

In May 2019 the AIU and RUSADA conducted an investigation at the offices of RusAF in Moscow. Ms. Orlova, as RusAF Senior Coordinator, provided access to a computer for inspection, copying relevant information. However she failed to hand over her mobile telephone(s) on the basis that it was her personal property and did not belong to RusAF.

Hereafter Ms Orlova rejected in May 2019 an AIU Demand for the inspection, copying and/or downloading of her electronic storage devices. She further failed to comply with an Order of the Disciplinary Tribunal issued on 15 July 2019 following the determination of an objection to the AIU Demand filed by her. 

In July 2019 Ms. Orlova appeared to comply and provided to the AIU a single mobile telephone. After deliberations she also provided in August 2019 log-in credentials for the purpose of accessing, inspecting and downloading information stored on any cloud-based servers linked to her personal mobile that she handed over.

However the AIU deemed that the provided telephone number was not Ms. Orlova’s personal mobile telephone number (or was not her only personal mobile telephone number) and therefore deemed that the mobile telephone she provided was not the personal mobile telephone (or not the only personal mobile telephone) that she was required to provide pursuant the Demand and in accordance with the Order. 

The AIU contended that Ms. Orlova repeatedly failed to comply with the Demand issued to her on 17 May 2019 and failed to comply with the Order of the Disciplinary Tribunal issued on 15 July 2019. Ms Orlova denied the charges and claimed that compliance to provide acces to her device(s) breached Russian law and expose her to a real risk of prosecution. 

Meanwhile in November 2019, as a result of their investigations in the Lysenko case, the AIU also reported separate charges against Ms Elena Orlova for anti-doping rule violations of Tampering and/or Complicity and provisionally suspended her with immediate effect. Ms Orlava did not contest the charges nor the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility. 

In the matter of the Demand the chairperson Panel finds that Ms. Orlova’s compliance would not have put her in breach of Russian law and it rejects her evidence that she had no devices other that the mobile telephone she provided to the AIU. The Panel holds that her conduct is consistent with a desire to impede the AIU and that she refused to co-operate in order to prevent the AIU having access to incriminating material. 

Therefore the Panel decides on 21 August 2020 to impose an 6 year period of ineligibility on Ms. Orlova for her failure to comply the Demand of 17 May 2019 and the Order of 15 July 2019 starting on the date of this Decision. 

The Panel considers that previously Ms. Orlova had not contested a 4 year period of ineligibility for her participation in the Tampering and it decides that this sanction shall be served consecutively with the 6 year sanction imposed on her for her failure to comply with the Demand leading to a 10 year period of ineligibility.

World Athletics 2019 WA vs Elena Ikonnikova

6 Mar 2020

Ms Elena Ikonnikova is an Anti-Doping Coordinator for the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF). 

In August 2018 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of the IAAF (now: World Athletics) has reported an anti-doping rule violation of Tampering against the high jumper Danil Lysenko after the AIU had opened an investigation against the Athlete regarding his Whereabouts Failures.

With the assistance of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) the AIU discovered that the Athlete had forged medical documents to the AIU. The AIU also concluded that RusAF officials had been involved in the provision of false explanations and forged documents to the AIU in order to explain whereabouts failures by the Athlete. 

During their investigation the AIU believed that relevant information may be stored on the email and document servers of RusAF, hard drives, tapes, disks or other storage devices. Mobile storage devices and electronic communications devices (sucht as mobile telephones, tablets, personal computers, laptop computer, USBs and hard drives) that were the property of RusAF were also considered containing relevant information. 

In May 2019 the AIU and RUSADA conducted an investigation at the offices of RusAF in Moscow. Ms. Ikonnikova, as RusAF Anti-Doping Coordinator, provided access to a computer for inspection, copying relevant information. However she failed to hand over her mobile telephone(s) on the basis that it was her personal property and did not belong to RusAF.

Hereafter Ms Ikonnikova rejected in May 2019 an AIU Demand for the inspection, copying and/or downloading of her electronic storage devices. She further failed to comply with an Order of the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal issued on 15 July 2019 following the determination of an objection to the AIU Demand filed by her. 

The AIU contended that Ms. Ikonnikova failed to comply with the Demand issued to her on 17 May 2019 and failed to comply with an Order of the Disciplinary Tribunal issued in a ruling dated 15 July 2019. Consequently the AIU requested the Panel to impose a severe sanction on Ms. Ikkonikova as a result of her failure to comply considering aggravating factors. 

Ms Ikonnikova denied the charges and claimed that compliance to provide acces to her device(s) breached Russian law and expose her to a real risk of prosecution. The AIU denied these facts but contended that it would not excuse her failure to comply but would at most affect the sanction. 

The chairperson Panel deems that Ms. Ikonnikova seeked to avoid exposing material on her telephone which would itself evidence the involvement of her and other in RusAF in the Lysenko violation. The Panel holds that Ms. Ikonnikova’s misconduct, as a Anti-Doping Coordinator for RusAF, in failing to comply is particularly serious, especially given her particular knowledge, experience and responsibilities. 

The Panel concludes that without compelling justification Ms. Ikonnikova failed to provide immediately her electronic storage devices (including her mobile telephone) for inspection, copying and downloading by the AIU in May 2019. In addition she failed to comply with the Order issued by the Disciplinary Tribunal on 15 July 2019. 

Considering all aggravating circumstances in this case the Panel decides on 6 March 2020 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on Ms. Ikonnikova.


In November 2019 as a result of their investigations in the Lysenko case the AIU also reported separate individual charges against Ms Elena Ikonnikova for anti-doping rule violations of Tampering and/or Complicity and provisionally suspended her with immediate effect.

The charges of Tampering and/or Complicity were also issued against a number of senior federation officials, including the RusAF President, Dmitry Shlyakhtin, and Executive Director, Alexander Parkin, the Athlete Danil Lysenko and his coach. 

Single-dose administration of clenbuterol is detectable in dried blood spots

4 Jun 2020

Single-dose administration of clenbuterol is detectable in dried blood spots /  Sara Amalie Solheim, Søren Jessen, Jakob Mørkeberg, Mario Thevis, Yvette Dehnes, Kasper Eibye, Morten Hostrup, Nikolai Baastrup Nordsborg. -  (Drug Testing and Analysis 12 (2020) 9 (September); p. 1366-1372)

  • PMID: 32495983
  • DOI: 10.1002/dta.2872


Abstract

Clenbuterol is a β2 -agonist prescribed for asthmatic patients in some countries. Based on its anabolic and lipolytic effects observed in studies on rodents and in livestock destined for food production, clenbuterol is abused by bodybuilders and athletes seeking leanness. Urinary clenbuterol analysis is part of routine doping analysis. However, the collection of urine samples is time-consuming and can be intimidating for athletes. Dried blood spot (DBS) appears attractive as an alternative matrix, but the detectability of clenbuterol in humans through DBS has not been investigated. This study evaluated if clenbuterol could be detected in DBS and urine collected from six healthy men after oral intake of 80 μg clenbuterol. The DBS and urine samples were collected at 0, 3, 8, 24, and 72 h post-ingestion, with additional urine collections on days 7 and 10. Using LC-MS/MS, it was shown that clenbuterol could be detected in all DBS samples for 24 h post-ingestion and with 50% sensitivity 3 days after ingestion. The DBS method was 100% specific. Evaluation of analyte stability showed that clenbuterol is stable in DBS for at least 365 days at room temperature when using desiccant and avoiding light exposure. In urine, clenbuterol was detectable for at least 7-10 days after ingestion. Urinary clenbuterol concentrations below 5 ng/mL were present in some subjects 24 h after administration. Collectively, these data indicate that DBS are suitable for routine doping control analysis of clenbuterol with a detection window of at least 3 days after oral administration of 80 μg.

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