• CAS 2021/A/8262 Russian Anti-Doping Agency v. Yuriy Selikhov
• CAS 2021/A/8380 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency & Yuriy Selikhov

In June 2020 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bobsleigh Athlete Yuriy Selikhov after reanalysis of his 2013 sample revealed the presence of the prohibited substance Oral Turinabol (Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone).

However on 27 May 2021 the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) ruled that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation. The DADC deemed that RUSADA has not fulfilled the condition regarding the burden of proof.

Hereafter in August 2021 RUSADA and in October 2021 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the DADC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Both Parties requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 4 years on the Athlete.

WADA and RUSADA contended that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The fact that the Limit of Detection (LoD) in question was not provided to the DADC was irrelevant.

They deemed that the Athlete acted intentionally and failed to demonstrate how the substance had entered his system. Moreover there are aggravating circumstances because the Athlete was a protected athlete under the Russian doping scheme.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence in this case and determines that:

• The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample.
• He committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• He failed to demonstrate how the substance had entered his system.
• The McLaren Reports revealed that the Athlete was a participant in the washout testing program and that he had used multiple prohibited substances.
• There are aggravating circumstances present for the imposition of a more severe sanction.
• Fairness requires that the Athlete's results shall be disqualified for a period of 3 years.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 July 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 26 August 2021 by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 123/2021 rendered on 27 May 2021 (CAS 2021/A/8262 Russian Anti-Doping Agency v. Yuriy Selikhov) is upheld.

2.) The appeal filed on 4 October 2021 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 123/2021 rendered on 27 May 2021 (CAS 2021/A/8380 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency & Yuriy Selikhov) is upheld.

3.) The decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 123/2021 rendered on 27 May 2021 is set aside.

4.) Yuriy Selikhov is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the All-Russian Anti-Doping Rules of April 13, 2011.

5.) A period of three (3) years ineligibility is imposed on Yuriy Selikhov, starting on the date of this Award. The period of provisional suspension served by Yuriy Selikhov between 8 June 2020 and 27 May 2021 shall be credited against the period of ineligibility imposed.

6.) All competitive results achieved by Yuriy Selikhov from 15 October 2013 through to and including 14 October 2016 shall be disqualified, with all of the resulting consequences including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

7.) (…).

8.) (…).

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

• CAS 2021/A/8197 International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Natasha Rosa Figueiredo

• CAS 2021/A/8270 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) & Natasha Rosa Figueiredo

In May 2021 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian weightlifter Natasha Rosa Figueiredo after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide.

Thereupon on 22 July 2021 the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) Tribunal decided to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Tribunal deemed that this case was one of contaminated supplements and that the Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Hereafter both IWF and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the CAS ADD Decision with the CAS Appeal Division. They requested the Sole Arbitrator to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Both Parties accepted that the admitted violation was not intentional. Yet, they contended that the Athlete acted negligently with her supplements and that there are no grounds for a further reduced sanction.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence and the Parties' arguments in this case and determines that:

• The Atlete admitted the violation and accepted the test results.
• She demonstrated with evidence that she had purchase and used the supplement in question.
• She failed to mention the use of this supplement on the Doping Control Form.
• She established with corroborating evidence that the supplement contained prohibited contaminants.
• The Athlete could have done more to ensure that the supplement was safe before administering it.
• There are grounds for a reduced sanction because of No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 November 2023 that:

1.) The appeals filed on 12 and 26 August 2021 respectively by the International Weightlifting Federation and the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision issued on 22 July 2021 by the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport are partially upheld.

2.) The decision issued on 22 July 2021 by the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport is set aside.

3.) Ms Natasha Rosa Figueiredo committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation pursuant to Article 2.1 of the International Weightlifting Federation Anti-Doping Rules.

4.) Ms Natasha Rosa Figueiredo is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 16 (sixteen) months, commencing on the date of the present arbitral Award. The provisional suspension imposed on Ms Natasha Rosa Figueiredo from 7 May 2021 until 1 July 2021 shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility.

5.) All competitive results of Ms Natasha Figueiredo from 1 July 2021 until the date of the present Award shall not be disqualified. The results of Ms Figueiredo between 31 March 2021 and 7 May 2021 are not disqualified, with the exception of the results obtained during the 2020 Pan-American Championships in Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic), which are disqualified with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

6.) (…).

7.) (…).

8.) All other and further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

• CAS 2021/A/8126 Russian Anti-Doping Agency v. Rodion Bochkov
• CAS 2021/A/8152 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency & Rodion Bochkov

In May 2020 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Rodion Bochkow after reanalysis of his 2015 sample revealed the presence of the prohibited substance Oral Turinabol (Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone).

However on 27 May 2021 the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) ruled that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation. The DADC deemed that RUSADA has not fulfilled the condition regarding the burden of proof.

Hereafter in July 2021 RUSADA and in August 2021 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the DADC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Both Parties requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 4 years on the Athlete.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He argued that contaminated meat or contaminated supplements likely have caused the positive test.

WADA and RUSADA contended that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The fact that the Limit of Detection (LoD) in question was not provided to the DADC was irrelevant.

They deemed that the Athlete acted intentionally and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction. Further he failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that contaminated meat or contaminated supplements were the source of the positive test.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence in this case and determines that:

• Following the presence of a prohibited substance in his sample the Athlete had admitted an anti-doping rule violation.
• The Athlete failed to demonstrate that contaminated meat or contaminated supplements were the source of the prohibited substance in his sample.
• The Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 28 November 2023 that:

1.) The appeals filed by Russian Anti-Doping Agency and World Anti-Doping Agency against the Decision No. 99/21 rendered by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of Russian Anti-Doping Agency “RUSADA” on 27 May 2021 are partially upheld.

2.) The Decision No. 99/21 rendered by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of Russian Anti-Doping Agency “RUSADA” on 27 May 2021 is set aside.

3.) Mr. Rodion Bochkov is found to have committed a violation of Article 2.1 of the All-Russian Anti-Doping Rules.

4.) Mr. Rodion Bochkov is imposed a period of Ineligibility of four (4) years. The period of Ineligibility shall commence on the date of this decision, with credit being applied in respect of the provisional suspension already served by Mr. Bochkov.

5.) All competitive results obtained by Rodion Rochkov from and including 17 September 2015 to 18 May 2020 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes).

6.) (…).

7.) (…).

8.) All other and further claims or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2016_A_4694 Daniel Jonás Gurtner Morales vs Agencia Nacional Antidopaje de Guatemala & Asociación de Golf de Guatemala

On 9 June 2016 the National Anti-Doping Agency Guatemala (ANADO-GUA) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the golf player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Clostebol.

Hereafter in June 2016 appealed the ANADO-GUA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to annul the Appealed Decision.

The Athlete argued that during the preliminary proceedings and during the Doping Control there had been several failures:

• Delay in the procedure regarding the preliminary hearing;
• Partiality of the ANADO-GUA Panel in first instance;
• The Doping Control Officer was not authorised;
• No proper notification about the sample collection;
• No communication that he could be accompanied by a representative;
• Significant departures of the ISTI during sample collection and chain of custody.

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and the Parties' arguments and determines that:

• There had been various procedural failures in first instance;
• The ANADO-GUA Panel acted impartial;
• There had been several proven departures of the ISTI and the Athlete's privacy during Doping Control;
• There is uncertainty of the location and custordy of the samples for 10 days;
• The established departures of the ISTI possibly could have caused the adverse analytical finding.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 18 April 2017 that:

• The Athlete's appeal is admissible;
• The Appealed Decision is set aside;
• The impose sanction of 2 years is annulled.

In July 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazillian Athlete Thiago Braz Da Silva after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Ostarine in a low concentration.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He argued that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence and requested for a reduced sanction.

He assumed that a contaminated supplement had caused the positive test results. He had used his supplements in question since September 2022 and these products were provided by his sports nutritionist and a compound pharmacy.

The Athlete's Scienza Farma supplements were tested in three laboratories, including the Cologne Laboratory. Analysis revealed the presence of Ostarine contaminants in 3 supplements he had used. 

The Athlete was assured that these supplements did not contain banned substances. Moreover his team took substantial precautionary measures to avoid the risk of contamination.

The AIU contended that there was insufficient evidence of supplement contamination and that the Athlete failed to demonstrate the origin of the prohibited substance in his samples. The AIU deems that the actions of the Athlete and his team in relation to compound pharmacies was not sufficient to show that he did not manifestly diesregard the risk.

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence of the Parties and their expert witnesses and determines that:

• The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly he committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• The Ostarine detected in the Athlete's samples originates from the Scienza Farma contaminated supplements.
• The Athlete has proven on a balance of probabilities the source of the positive tests.
• The Athlete has established that the violation was not intentional and that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.
• Nevertheless he should have been more cautious in his trust of his medical team, requested more specific information and documents, and should have made reasonable searches himself.

Therefore the Panel by majority decides on 20 May 2024 to impose a 16 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 28 July 2023.

Elimination profiles of microdosed ostarine mimicking contaminated products ingestion / Katja Walpurgis, Ana Rubio, Felicitas Wagener, Oliver Krug, Andre Knoop, Christian Görgens, Sven Guddat, Mario Thevis

• Drug Testing and Analysis 12 (2020) 11-12 (November-December), p. 1570-1580
• Special Issue: The 38th Manfred Donike workshop on doping analysis
• PMID: 32959982

• DOI: 10.1002/dta.2933

Abstract

The possibility of nutritional supplement contamination with minute amounts of the selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM) ostarine has become a major concern for athletes and result managing authorities. In case of an adverse analytical finding (AAF), affected athletes need to provide conclusive information, demonstrating that the test result originates from a contamination scenario rather than doping. The aim of this research project was to study the elimination profiles of microdosed ostarine and characterize the time-dependent urinary excretion of the drug and selected metabolites. Single- and multi-dose administration studies with 1, 10, and 50 μg of ostarine were conducted, and collected urine samples were analyzed by LC-MS/MS following solid-phase extraction or enzymatic hydrolysis combined with liquid-liquid extraction. In the post-administration samples, both the maximum urine concentrations/abundance ratios and detection times of ostarine and its phase-I and phase-II metabolites were found to correlate with the administered drug dose. With regard to the observed maximum levels of ostarine, the time points of peak urinary concentrations / abundance ratios, and detection windows, a high inter-individual variation was observed. However, the study demonstrated that a single oral dose of as little as 1 μg can be detected for up to 9 (5) days by monitoring ostarine (glucuronide), and hydroxylated metabolites (especially M1a) appear to offer a considerably shorter detection window. The obtained data on ostarine (metabolite) detection times and urinary concentrations following different administration schemes support the interpretation of AAFs, in particular when scenarios of proven supplement contamination are discussed and supplement administration protocols exist.

In May 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf on World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Josephine Chepkoech after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone and its adiols.

Previously the Athlete had served a sanction of 2 years until 14 March 2017 for the presence of Nandrolone. 

Following notification the Athlete timely admitted the violation, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The AIU considers that this is the Athlete's second anti-doping rule violation. Because she had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form she received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 21 May 2024 to impose a 7 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 May 2024.

Detection of PPARδ agonists GW1516 and GW0742 and their metabolites in human urine / Tim Sobolevsky, Marina Dikunets, Irina Sukhanova, Edward Virus, Grigory Rodchenkov

• Drug Testing and Analysis 4 (2012) 4 (October), p. 754-760
• Special Issue: Advances in Sports Drug Testing
• PMID: 22977012
• DOI: 10.1002/dta.1413

Abstract

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-δ (PPARδ) agonists are the drug candidates with potential performance-enhancing properties, and therefore their illegitimate use in sports should be controlled. To simulate the metabolism of PPARδ agonist GW0742, in vitro reactions were performed which demonstrated that the main metabolic pathway is oxidation of the acyclic divalent sulfur to give the respective sulfoxide and sulfone. After being characterized by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), these metabolites were evaluated in urine samples collected after a controlled excretion study. For comparative purposes, GW1516 excretion study was also performed. It has been shown that GW1516 and GW0742 are best monitored as the sulfone metabolites which are detectable in urine using LC-MS/MS based procedure up to 40 and 20 days after a single oral dose of 15 mg each, respectively. The unmetabolized compounds are measurable only for a short period of time and at low ng/ml level. The sulfoxide-to-sulfone ratio for both GW1516 and GW0742 changed irregularly in the range of 1:3 to 1:15 depending on time elapsed after administration with a tendency of increasing the ratio with time. The other important finding was that the abundance of GW0742 and its metabolites in urine is about ten times lower than in case of GW1516.

In August 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Surname Athlete Issamade Asinga after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance GW 1516.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal.

The Athlete accepted the test results, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He asserted with evidence and expert witnesses that a contaminated product had caused the positive test results.

In August 2023 the Athlete had sent open and sealed containers of a supplement for analysis to the Salt Lake City Laboratory. However analysis revealed no prohibited substances in this supplement.

Thereupon in September 2023 the Athlete sent 8 other products for analysis. In December 2023 the Salt Lake City Laboratory reported the presence of GW1516 in two unsealed containers of the supplement Gatorade Recovery Gummies.

The AIU contended that the Athlete failed to explain how the prohibited substance had entered his system. The AIU did not rule out deliberate adulteration of the product in the absence of a factory-sealed version of the Gatorade Recovery Gummies with the same lot number tested.

Neither did the AIU accept that unclean equipment or contaminated raw ingredients were the source of the positive test. Moreover the AIU established that two different lot numbers in question in this case had been applied for one batch of Gatorade Recovery Gummies in September 2022.

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence of the Parties and their expert witnesses and determines that:

• The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly he committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• The only batch of Gatorade Recovery Gummies with two different lot numbers in question were produced as part of one batch and sealed on the same day on production line 1 on 21 September 2021.
• There is inconsistency between the test results of the unsealed containers provided the Athlete with the testing results of the other sealed containers.
• The hypothesis that contamination was caused by the presence of GW1516 in a raw ingredient of the Gatorade Recovery Gummies is very unlikely.
• Unexplained is how traces of GW1516 could have entered the interior of the Gatorade Recovery Gummies tested by the Salt Lake City Laboratory.
• The Athlete did not succeed in establishing that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.

Therefore the Panel decides on 17 May 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 9 August 2023.

In December 2023 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the swimmer Ruslan Gaziev for 3 Whereabouts Failures within a 12 month period. CCES recorded one filing failure in January 2023 and two missed tests in May and August 2023.

Following Notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, signed an Agreement on Consequences, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the Centre. CCES accepted that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that he acted with with a normal degree of fault.

Therefore the CCES decides on 23 May 2024 to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 1 December 2023.