Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority 2017-18 annual report / Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA). - Canberra : ASADA, 2018
Contents:
01: OVERVIEW
02: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STATEMENT
03: OUR OPERATIONS
04: 2018 COMMONWEALTH GAMES
05: MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
06: FINANCIAL INFORMATION
07: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
08: ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATION PANEL
09: AUSTRALIAN SPORTS DRUG MEDICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
10: APPENDIXES, ABBREVIATIONS, GLOSSARY
11: INDEXES
CAS 2017/A/5477 Aaron Sloan v. Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) & Baseball Australia (BA)
In April 2017 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the baseball player Aaron Sloan after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance D-Methamfetamine.
Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and ASADA proposed a sanction of 4 years. However the Athlete failed to repond within the set deadline. On 30 November 2017 he was deemed to have admitted the violation, to have waived his right for a hearing and to have accepted the sanction of 4 years proposed by ASADA.
Hereafter in December 2017 the Athlete appealed the Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). He requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.
The Athlete admitted the recreational use of D-Methamfetamine and explained that the night before the competition he had consumed alcohol with friends and used the substance. He asserted that the use occurred out-of-competition and not within the relevant 12 hours before the competition the next day.
ASADA and Baseball Australia contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the use of D-Methamfetamine was not intentional, nor that it was used in a context unrelated sport performance. With expert evidence they challenged the Athlete's assertion that he had not used the substance within the relevant 12 hours prior to the competition.
Following assessment of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator concludes the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. He could not demonstrate that the D-Methamfetamine was used out-of-competition nor in a context unrelated to sport performance.
Furthermore the Sole Arbitrator is satisfied that the Athlete has not discharged his onus of proving that he did not know there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and that he did not manifestly disregard that risk.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 12 October 2017 that:
1.) The Appeal filed by Mr Aaron Sloan on 21 December 2017 against the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and Baseball Australia concerning the decision of Baseball Australia rendered on 30 November 2017 is dismissed.
2.) The decision of Baseball Australia dated 30 November 2017 to impose a sanction of four years ineligibility upon Mr Aaron Sloan commencing on 26 April 2017 is confirmed.
(…)
5.) All further requests for relief are dismissed.
Annual Report 2017 / Finnish Center for Integrity in Sports (FINCIS). - Helsinki : Suomen urheilun eettinen keskus (SUEK), 2018
In March 2017 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Adrian Gabriel Chiper after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the World Rugby Judicial Committee.
The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use and was unaware that there was anti-doping information on the internet neither that steroids were prohibited. He stated that he had purchased the substance as medication on the internet as treatment for his knee injury. He acknowledged that he didn’t report his injury to the team officials and failed to mention his medication on the Doping Control Form. He only discussed his medication with his team doctor after de sample collection.
World Rugby contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional nor how the substance entered his system. It requested the Committee for the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility.
On the balance of probabilities, the Judicial Committee is skeptical about the Athlete’s statement. The Committee holds that to self-diagnose and to self-treat a knee injury in the sport of rugby, based on advice from Google, is difficult to understand. The Committee finds it difficult to accept the Athlete’s version how the prohibited substance entered his system. While not absolutely essential to proving that the violation was unintentional, any question about the source of the prohibited substance severely undercuts the Athlete’s case on this point.
Therefore the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 20 August 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 November 2017.
Related case:
ISR 2017 KNBSB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2017013 T
November 30, 2017
On 30 November 2017 the ISR-KNBSB Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Person after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis. Here the Person failed to file a statement in his defence nor did he request to be heard.
During the disciplinary proceedings the Person made in June 2017 a TUE application for the use of Cannabis which was refused by the Dutch TUE Commission on 18 July 2017. When sanctioned for 2 years on 30 November 2017 the Person appealed in December 2017 this KNBSB decision.
Further in January 2017 the Person made a second application with the TUE Commission for the medical use of Cannabis. In support of his appelication the Person filed medical information, a copy of his first TUE application from June 2017 and a medical certificate from his doctor.
However the Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands (Dopingautoriteit) reported in January 2018 that the signature of the Person's doctor in the first TUE application was different from the signature used in the second TUE application. On being asked the doctor in question confirmed to the Dopingautoriteit that the medical certificate and signature in the second TUE application were not rendered by him.
Hereafter the Person resigned in January 2018 his KNBSB membership and in March 2018 he withdrew his appeal. The Dopingautoriteit reported in April 2018 a second anti-doping rule violation against the Person for Tampering due to his falsification of a medical certificate.
After notification the Person failed again to file a statement in his defence nor did he request to be heard for the ISR-KNBSB Disciplinary Committee. The case was settled based on the filed submissions.
In spite of the Person’s membership resignation the ISR-KNBSB Disciplinary Committee holds that under the Rules the Person was still a member of the KNBSB until the end of the year 2018 and accordingly still submitted to the Anti-Doping Rules.
The Disciplinary Committee accepts the filed evidence in this case against the Person and concludes that he committed a second anti-doping rule violation as a result of writing a false medical certificate and falsification of the doctor’s signature.
Since the Person didn't file a statement in his defence the Committee holds that the Person failed to establish grounds for a reduced sanction.
Therefore the ISR-KNBSB Disciplinary Committee decides on 8 August 2018 to impose a 8 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on the date of the decision.
Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the Person.
Ideology, Doping and the Spirit of Sport / Vincent Geeraets. - (Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 12 (2018) 3 (26 July); p. 255-271)
Abstract
The current World Anti-doping Code can be characterised as a tough approach to doping. In this paper we investigate how the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) justifies this tough approach. To this end, WADA advances two justificatory arguments. It maintains, first, that protection of the spirit of sport warrants tough measures and, second, that athletes have voluntarily consented to the Code. We argue that in the way they are presented by WADA, neither of these arguments can withstand scrutiny. In the second part of the paper, we go on to show that these arguments are in fact ideological in nature. The specific aim of these arguments is not to be correct, but rather to distort social reality, because in this way they can be used to ward off any critical discussion of the Code. We conclude that WADA’s interest is to create a façade of justice, not in serving justice itself.
2017 Anti-Doping Testing Figures / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2018
Contents:
- Executive Summary - pp. 2-9 (7 pages)
- Laboratory Report -– pp. 10-36 (26 pages)
- Sport Report - pp. 37-158 (121 pages)
- Testing Authority Report - pp. 159-298 (139 pages)
- ABP Report-Blood Analysis - pp. 299-336 (37 pages)
Results of the WADA monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the 2018 Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport.
These substances are:
In Competition Monitoring:
- Tramadol
- Codeine
- Hydrocodone
In and Out of Competition Monitoring:
- Beta-2 Agonists
- Bemitil
- Glucocorticoids
