The 2009 Prohibited List International Standard : The World Anti-Doping Code / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2008.
- The official text of the Prohibited List shall be maintained by WADA and shall be published in English and French. In the event of any conflict between the English and French versions, the English version shall prevail.
- This List shall come into effect on 1 January 2009
The 2010 Prohibited List International Standard : The World Anti-Doping Code / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2009.
- The official text of the Prohibited List shall be maintained by WADA and shall be published in English and French. In the event of any conflict between the English and French versions, the English version shall prevail.
- This List shall come into effect on 1 January 2010
CAS 2008/A/1608 International Association of Athletics Federations v/ Athletic Federation of Slovenia & Ms Helena Javornik
In April 2008 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Slovenian Athlete Helena Javornik after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO).
However on 19 June 2008 the Athletic Federation of Slovenia (AFS) decided that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation and that the imposed provisional suspension was invalid.
In first instance the AFS deemed that the analytical results of the Athlete’s sample did not establish the presence of a prohibited substance, since they didn’t fulfil the criteria set in the WADA Technical Document TD2007EPO.
Hereafter in July 2008 the IAAF appealed the Slovenian decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The IAAF requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
The IAAF rejected the grounds to declare the Athlete not guilty for a doping offence and considers the AFS decision to be erroneous and procedurally unsound. The IAAF contended that the tests results were valid, in accordance with the ISL and the relevant WADA Technical Document.
The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence in this case and concludes that the IAAF has established, to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel, that the anti-doping rule violation has been committed. The Panel concludes that the analyses of the A sample and of the B sample of the Athlete’s urine show positive results. Such results cannot be held to amount to falsely positive results.
Further the Panel finds that no departures occurred and, in any case, that the validity of the analytical findings in the Athlete’s sample was not undermined. Also the Panel holds, in any case, that it has been demonstrated that the collection, storage and transport conditions of the Athlete’s sample did not undermine the validity of adverse analytical finding established in the Seibersdorf Lab.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 March 2009 that:
1.) The appeal filed by the International Association of Athletics Federations against the decision issued on 19 June 2008 by the Antidoping Commission of the Athletic Federation of Slovenia is upheld.
2.) The decision adopted on 19 June 2008 by the Antidoping Commission of the Athletic Federation of Slovenia is set aside.
3.) Ms Helena Javornik is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation under IAAF Competition Rule 32.2(a) and is declared ineligible for a period of 2 years commencing on 11 June 2008.
4.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.
5.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the court office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) paid by the International Association of Athletics Federations, which is retained by the CAS.
6.) Each party shall bear its own costs.
CAS 2009/A/1805 IAAF v. RFEA & Josephine Onyia
CAS 2009/A/1847 IAAF v. RFEA & Josephine Onyia
In September 2008 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Spanish Athlete Josephina Onyia after her A and B samples - provided on two occasions in Lausanne and in Stuttgart in September 2008 - tested positive for the prohibited substances Clenbuterol and Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
However on 21 January 2009 and on 12 March 2009 the Royal Spanish Athletics Federation (RFEA) concluded in both cases that the Athlete had committed no anti-doping rule violation and decided to lift the ordered provisional suspension.
The RFEA concluded regarding the reported presence of Clenbuterol that:
In the matter of the reported presence of Methylhexaneamine the RFEA concluded that:
Hereafter in April 2009 the IAAF appealed the two Spanish decisions with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The IAAF rejected the grounds to exonerate the Athlete and argued that:
The Panel finds that in each case the Athlete was shown, to the requisite standard of proof (i.e. to a standard greater than a mere balance of probability), to have a prohibited substance in her samples. In each case therefore she has been shown to have committed an anti-doping rule violation.
The Panel determines that in neither case was the Athlete able to impugn the analysis or provide evidence to show, on the balance of probabilities, how the Prohibited Substance had come to be in her samples. She was therefore not in a position to assert that she bore no, or no significant, fault or negligence for the violations.
The appeals by the IAAF will therefore be allowed. The two anti-doping rule violations are to be considered as one single first anti-doping rule violation.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 September 2009 that:
1.) The appeals of the International Association of Athletics Federations are allowed.
2.) Ms Josephine Onyia is declared ineligible for all competition in respect of the two anti-doping rule violations for a period of two years, commencing on 22 September 2009.
However, credit is given for the periods of ineligibility already served because of the provisional suspensions totaling 316 days from 30 September 2008 to 21 January 2009 and from 4 March 2009 to 21 September 2009.
3.) Ms Josephine Onyia is disqualified from the 100m hurdles at the IAAF Golden League meeting "Athletissima" held in Lausanne on 2 September 2008 and from all subsequent events until the commencement date of the period of ineligibility with all resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.
4.) (…)
CAS 2011/A/2353 Erik Tysse v. Norwegian Athletics Federation (NAF) & International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)
1. To establish a CERA doping violation, the applicable TD2009EPO (Technical Document issued by WADA) provides that the criteria of analysis has been established to ensure harmonization in the performance of the EPO test. For the detection of EPO, and in particular of EPO CERA, the isoelectrofocusing (IEF) analysis method must first meet the acceptance criteria. Once the analysis meets the acceptance criteria, TD2009EPO requires that the lab apply the identification criteria. Once the identification criteria is met and an Adverse Analytical Finding is suspected, the lab, in the confirmation phase, must perform a stability test on the sample.
2. Iron injections cannot explain an adverse analytical finding of EPO CERA where the evidence of an athlete’s experts is not supported by any reliable evidence.
3. Regarding any alleged breaches or departures in general, the IAAF Rules provides that the laboratory is presumed to have conducted the analysis in accordance with the International Standards for Testing. An athlete may of course rebut this presumption, but must do so on the balance of probabilities.
4. Even if it were applicable, there is no violation of the European Convention for Human Rights due to the fact that the No Fault and No Significant Fault provisions in both the WADA Code and the IAAF Rules protect athletes against any violation in this respect.
On 31 January 2011 the Norwegian Athletics Federation (NAF) Tribunal decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the race walker Erik Tysse after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA).
Hereafter in February 2011 the Athlete appealed the Norwegian decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete asserted that the NAF Tribunal erred in confusing the quality of the tests and the interpretation of the test results and, as such, incorrectly concluded that his doping tests were positive. He argued that the method used by the Rome Laboratory to detect CERA is unreliable nevertheless when interpreted correctly does not show the presence of CERA.
Also the results from the Rome Lab do not meet the standards as set out in the WADA Technical Document in question and there were several procedural errors in the Rome Lab.
The NAF and IAAF rejected the Athlete’s arguments and asserted that a validated and reliable method for detecting rhEPO and analogues and the analytical data from the Athlete’s test was correctly interpreted in accordance with the WADA Technical Document.
The Panel finds that the presence has been established of CERA in the Athlete’s sample and that the Athlete’s expert’s evidence in this case is not relevant. Regarding the requirements in the WADA Technical Document, the Panel finds that the acceptance criteria, the identification criteria, and the stability criteria are met in this case.
Further the Panel finds that the evidence establishes that the used IEF method is both valid and has a high degree of specificity. The Panel finds that the medical records show no direct evidence that the Athlete suffers from any kidney condition.
The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to establish any departure on the balance of probabilities.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 August 2011 that:
(1) The appeal filed by the Appellant Mr Erik Tysse on 16 February 2011 is dismissed.
(2) The decision of the NAF Tribunal dated 31 January 2011 is hereby confirmed.
(3) (…)
Dopingautoriteit jaarverslag 2007 / Dopingautoriteit. - Capelle aan den IJssel, 2008
This is the second Annual Report from the Anti-Doping
Authority of the Netherlands. The organisation was
established on 23 June 2006 with the merger of the
Netherlands Centre for Doping Affairs and Doping
Control Netherlands.
The merger has become more than just the sum of
the parts: the activities of both merger partners will be
recognisable in this report, but the new structure has
changed the way those activities are positioned in the
organisation and had an impact on their implementation.
In addition to the two operational departments dealing
with Prevention and Control, the Doping Authority has a
staff which serves both departments and the management.
This grouping of knowledge and expertise is one
of the added values generated by the merger.
We hope that this annual report will provide you with a
clear picture of the work our organisation has done in
the first complete reporting year of our existence.
The board of management
This is the third Annual Report from the Anti-Doping Authority of the Netherlands. The organisation was established on 23 June 2006 with the merger of the Netherlands Centre for Doping Affairs and Doping Control Netherlands.
The Doping Authority has now proven that housing Prevention and Control in a single organisation was an important step. The merger has allowed us to operate more effectively. Public awareness of the organisation and the organisation’s profile also received a major boost.
Changes in policy were introduced in 2008 in areas where the Doping Authority is active, largely as a result of the decisions taken in late 2007 by the General Meeting of the NOC*NSF. Those decisions constituted the basis for the formation of the ‘registered testing pool’ and the obligations incumbent upon the people included in that testing pool.
As a result, it was possible to conduct doping controls in a more targeted and effective way and our educational activities reached many more elite athletes than in previous years.
The changes in the regulations have resulted in an increasing number of protracted follow-up investigations so that it can sometimes take more than six months before definitive decisions can be made about the result of a doping control. That is one of the reasons it was not possible to publish this annual report earlier.
We hope that this annual report will provide you with a clear picture of the work of our organisation.
The board of management
Dopingautoriteit jaarverslag 2009 / Dopingautoriteit. - Capelle aan den IJssel, 2010
This is the fourth Annual Report from the Anti-Doping Authority of the Netherlands.
In recent years, our organisation has proven increasingly able to fulfil effectively the responsibilities delegated to us by the government and organised sports. At the same time, it undeniable that this increased efficacy – and our associated reputation and high profile – are powering opposing forces in our society as a whole and in the world of sports in particular.
In 2009, there was a broad – and necessary –public discussion about the anti-doping policy and the way it is implemented. A range of groups in society criticised the global policy and – albeit to a lesser extent – the way in which that policy is implemented in the Netherlands. In a number of complex and high-profile cases, that policy and that implementation have been, and continue tobe, tested.
These developments will all contributeto our ultimate objective: clean, fair sport.
Despite the efforts that went into dealing with doping violations, our organisation continues to focus to an important extent on preventing cases of this kind. Prevention and education continue to be of undiminished importance.
We hope that this annual report will provide you, once again, with a clear picture of the work of our organisation.
The board of management
Dopingautoriteit jaarverslag 2010 / Dopingautoriteit. - Capelle aan de IJssel, 2011
Annual Report 2010
This is the fifth Annual Report from the Anti-Doping Authority of the Netherlands.
In several respects, 2010 was a transitional year. First of all because it became clear during the course of the year that the Doping Authority will not escape government cutbacks.
As a result, in the years to come, we can expect to get smaller rather than grow.
2010 was also a transitional year: the basic principles were drawn up for changes in the national doping policy and they will affect the work of the Doping Authority in 2011, and later, in several respects.
We look back with satisfaction at a fruitful year and we hope that this annual report will provide you, once again, with a clear picture of the work of our organisation.
CAS 2010/A/2296 Simon Vroemen v/ Koninklijke Nederlandse Atletiek Unie & Anti-Doping Autoriteit Nederland
CAS 2010/A/2296 Simon Vroemen v. Koninklijke Nederlandse Atletiek Unie (KNAU) & Anti-Doping Autoriteit Nederland (ADAN)
1. According to the applicable provisions of the Dutch Institute for Sports Law (ISR) Doping Regulations, when an adverse analytical finding is reported by a WADA-accredited laboratory, there is a presumption that the applicable International Standards were respected throughout the whole anti-doping process. The burden is thus on the athlete to establish, by a balance of probability, a departure from the International Standard for Testing (IST) or International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) either during the collection, handling and transport of the samples or during the analysis, custodial and review procedures in the laboratory. If the athlete does prove any such departure, the burden shifts back to the anti-doping organization to prove – to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made – that the departure did not cause the adverse analytical finding.
2. Where on the balance of probability, an athlete’s allegations concerning the sample collection and storage procedure have not been proven, it must be concluded that the anti-doping test performed by the Doping Control Officer (DCO) on the athlete was properly carried out and that the samples were properly stored in accordance with the applicable collection procedures.
3. A declaration signed by an athlete that s/he was satisfied with the sample collection procedure cures any minor documentation defect such as the absence on the Doping Control Form of the athlete’s address and sport discipline, which, as a consequence and in terms of the applicable rules, cannot even be regarded as a true “departure” from the IST.
4. Three and half days between the end of the sample collection and the arrival of the sample at an accredited Lab does not constitute an unacceptable period of transport and certainly cannot be characterized as being “too long” in terms of the IST. This time-frame is arguably not ideal but it is in line with common testing practice, especially when sample collection occurs far away from a WADA-accredited laboratory.
5. No departure from ISL relating to the “different analyst rule” prohibiting the same person to participate in the A and B sample analysis can be retained if an athlete did not satisfy his/her burden of proof in this respect on the balance of probability.
6. A CAS panel cannot place in question whether an ISO accreditation was correctly attributed to a laboratory, because this would render the whole international standardization and certification system meaningless and because, notoriously, compliance with ISO accreditation requirements is regularly checked by external auditors. However, a CAS panel may certainly verify whether a given method used by a laboratory is covered by the accreditation or not. In any event, it is for an athlete to establish on a balance of probability, that either method is not validated for specificity.
7. No rule obliges an accredited Lab to deliver the Laboratory’s standard operating procedures (SOPs). In fact, pursuant to the WADA Technical Document TD2003LDOC, the Laboratory is not required to support an Adverse Analytical Finding by producing SOPs, general quality management documents (e.g., ISO compliance documents) or any other documents not specifically required. However, the above WADA provision does not and may not preclude a CAS panel, if the conditions set forth by article R44.3 of the CAS Code are met, from ordering an anti-doping organization to produce specified and relevant extracts from the SOPs of a WADA-accredited laboratory.
8. ISL provisions make clear that, in the case of a non-threshold substance, the laboratory method for analyzing the B sample is not aimed at having identical analytical results or at gaining information on the background or the quantification, but only at confirming the presence of the prohibited substance. In other terms, the ISL only requires the identification in the B sample of the same prohibited substance that was found in the A sample.
In June 2008 the Royal Dutch Athletics Association (KNAU) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Dutch Athlete Simon Vroemen after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone.
In first instance the Athlete disputed the irregularities in the sample collection procedure, the chain of custody and the competence and capability of the Cologne Laboratory. The KNAU Decision Disciplinary Committee accepted the Athlete's arguments and decided ultimately on 28 January 2010 for acquittal of the Athlete.
The Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands (ADAN) appealed this decision and thereupon on 22 September 2010 the KNAU Appeal Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
Hereafter in November 2010 the Athlete appealed the KNAU Appeal Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the CAS Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to acquit him.
The Panel assessed and addressed the following issues raised by the Athlete:
The Panel determines that the Athlete has not satisfied his burden of proving, in accordance with the balance of probability standard, that these alleged departures had caused his adverse analytical finding.
By contrast the KNAU and ADAN have discharged their burden of proving to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that a metabolite of Metandienone was present in the Athlete's urine samples.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 12 September 2011:
1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Simon Vroemen against the decision issued on 10 November 2010 by the Appeal Committee of the Dutch Institute for Sports Law is dismissed.
2.) The decision issued on 10 November 2010 by the Appeal Committee of the Dutch Institute for Sports Law is hereby confirmed.
3.) Mr. Simon Vroemen is declared ineligible for a period of two years, starting from 10 November 2010, whereby the period of ineligibility already served by Mr. Vroemen on the basis of the decision of the KNAU dated 21 July 2008 shall be credited to this sanction.
(…)
6.) All other requests, motions or prayers for relief are rejected.
