In August 2021 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Uzbek American tennis player after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Adrafinil and Modafinil in a low concentration.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the ITF Independent Tribunal.

The Athlete accepted the test results, denied the intentional use of the substances and attempted to find the source of the positive test. Yet she could not explain how the substances had entered her system. Following the notification of the positive samples the conducted analysis in a laboratory of the supplements in her possession revealed no prohibited substances.

The Athlete argued that she had been tested nearly 60 times in her career, and prior to the positive test she also had been tested without issues. Since she tested positive for Meldonium in 2016 - establishing No Fault Or Negligence - she asserted that she became extremely careful about what she ingested.

ITF contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the prohibited substances had entered her system and failed to mention any medication or supplement on the Doping Control Form.

ITF finds that the Athlete's explanations were very vague about what she had consumed, and also vague about the reseach she conducted on the products before using. Further ITF questioned the qualifications of her holistic nutritionist who had recommended and provided some supplements and then used by the Athlete without being tested in a laboratory.

The Panel agrees that the Athlete provided a vague account of supplement use, non of which was disclosed on the Doping Control Form, which raises more questions than answers. The Panel holds that there is in fact no evidence whatsoever that the supplements in question were the source of the prohibited substances.

Considering the lack of corroborating evidence the Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate the source of the prohibited substances. Neither did the Athlete demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor established grounds for a reduced sanction on the basis of proportionality.

Therefore the ITF Independent Tribunal decides on 3 March 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional  suspension, i.e. on 19 August 2021.

In January 2022 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian tennis player Elizavetka Demina after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted the provisional suspension and the decision rendered by the ITF. The Athlete admitted that prior in August 2021 she had used Mildronate over two week in order to recover after a period of intense training.

The ITF finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. The ITF deems that the Athlete had not attempted to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional and considers that she gave an early admission and acceptance of sanction.

Therefore the ITF decides on 30 March 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 January 2022.

Related case:
CAS 2018_A_5768 Dylan Scott vs ITF
September 11, 2019

In August 2017 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American tennis player Dylan Scott for the use of the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (DHCMT) ‘Turinabol’ after the metabolite 4-chloro-18nor-17β-hydroxymethyl, 17α-methyl-5-andros-13-en3-ol was found in his sample. Later in March 2018 the Athlete also tested positive for DHCMT.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the ITF Independent Tribunal.

The Athlete argued - with an expert witness - that the metabolite found in his positive sample was not caused by the substance DHCMT but maybe caused by his use of the product Halodrol 22 months earlier. This product has a similar chemical structure to DHCMT and is not listed as a prohibited substance on the WADA List.

The ITF asserted that the Athlete’s theory about the ingestion of the supplement Quad (Halodrol) some 22 months earliers as the source was wholly speculative and unjustified by the scientific evidence. The IFT contended that the Athlete had not on the balance of probability proved the source of the prohibited substance. The ITF finds that undoubtedly the Athlete had been at fault as he deliberately had used a prohormone product Quad that also had an explicit warning on its label.

The Tribunal holds that it is clear from the evidence that the found metabolite is not exclusively and necessarily a metabolite of DHCMT. It may be produced in the body from the ingestion of other exogenous anabolic steroids. These include Halodrol, as relied upon by the Athlete. They also include the steroids known as Promagnon and Methylclostebol. It was noted that Methasterone, a steroid specifically named on the Prohibited List, might also produce this metabolite in question.

The Tribunal accepts the ITF scientific evidence and concludes that Halodrol, Promagnon and Methylclostebol are all substances with a similar chemical structure to DHCMT and that they all constitute Prohibited Substances for the purpose of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP).

The Tribunal holds that there was an Anti-Doping Rule Violation and that the Athlete failed to establish that the violaton was not intentional. He also failed to demonstrate that his consumption of Quad 22 months earlier was more likely than not the source of his positive test in July 2017. In addition the similar concentration found in his positive sample in March 2018 makes the Athlete’s theory more unlikely.

Therefore the ITF Independent Tribunal decides on 9 May 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension i.e. on 19 August 2017.

Related case:
CAS 2016/A/4643 Maria Sharapova vs ITF
September 30, 2016

In March 2016 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Maria Sharapova after her samples, provided on 26 January and 2 February 2016 tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldronate (Meldonium). This substance is added on the WADA Prohibited List from 1 January 2016.
After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission for the use of the substance, filed a statement with medical evidence in her defence and was heard for the ITF Independent Tribunal.

The Athlete stated she used the substance as medication since 2006 prescribed by Dr. Anatoly Skalny as treatment for her cold-related and inflammatory diseases. She admited that she does bear some fault because she did not know that the substance was prohibited since 1 january 2016. The use of the Mildronate was not known to any of the Athlete’s team members, the Athlete did not consult the WTA wallet card with prohibited substances and failed to mention the Meldronate on any Doping Control Form between 2014 en 2016.

The Tribunal concludes that the violation of the anti-doping rules was not intentional as the Athlete did not appreciate that Mildronate contained a substance prohibited from 1 January 2016. However she does bear sole responsibility for the violation, and very significant fault, in failing to take any steps to check whether the continued use of this medicine was permissible. If she had not concealed her use of Mildronate from the anti-doping authorities, members of her own support team and the doctors whom she consulted, but had sought advice, then the violation would have been avoided. She is the sole author of her own misfortune.

Therefore the Tribunal decides on 6 June 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineliglibility on the Athlete Maria Sharapova starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 26 January 2016.

Related case:
CAS 2017_A_5112 Arsan Arashov vs ITF
November 21, 2017

In September 2016 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Kazakh player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with objections in his defence and he was heard for the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of Meldonium and suggested that the sample containers might have been contaminated with Meldonium or the bottles of water from which he drank at the doping control station. He contended that the blood sample he provided the previous day did not show the presence of Meldonium and alleged that departures occurred of the applicable Rules and Standards.

The ITF rejected the Athlete’s contentions and explained that the previous collected blood sample had not been tested for Meldonium. The Athlete had failed to give a plausible explanation for the presence of Meldonium in his sample and no departures occurred from relevant procedures in this case.

The Tribunal was unable to accept the Athlete’s evidence and assertions and concludes that he indeed committed the anti-doping rule violation. Notwithstanding the Athlete’s firm denials, the Tribunal finds that he did in fact ingest Meldonium prior to the sample collection; he failed to assist the Tribunal with helpful and accurate evidence; and failed to establish that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the ITF Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 10 April 2017 to impose a proportionate 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 September 2016.

Olympic Athlete From Russia Implementation Group Report / Olympic Athlete From Russia Implementation Group (OARIG). - Lausanne : International Olympic Committee (IOC), 2018

Contents:

1. IOC EB decision of 5 December 20173
2. Monitoring of the OAR at Games-time
2.1. Athletes and Officials
2.2. Media Operations
2.3. Hospitality House
2.4. Spectators
2.5. Payment
2.6. Anti-Doping Rule Violation
3. Additional elements for consideration
3.1. Legal challenges to IOC decisions
3.2. Reaction to CAS decisions
3.3. Feedback from athletes and IOC members
4. Conclusion
5. Annexes to the Olympic Athlete From Russia Implementation Group Report
5.1. Annex 1 - IOC EB decision of 5 December 2017
5.2. Annex 2 - OAR Conduct Guidelines
5.3. Annex 3 - OAR Integrity Declaration forms (Athletes and Officials)
5.4. Annex 4 - Additional guidelines for the Russian media (produced by OAR)

iNADO Update (2017) 89 (23 November)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

- iNADO Athlete and Leader Symposium (Oct. 30-31 in Switzerland)
- SAVE the DATE - iNADO Workshop 2018 and WADA ADO Symposium
- Results of Survey by Top Athletes on Anti-Doping in Switzerland
- SAVE the DATE - Anti-Doping Seminar in Sofia, Bulgaria (Jan 24-25)
- Update: Sanctions from IOC Disciplinary Commission incl. Sochi 2014
- Collaboration in the Development of an E-Learning Platform - NADA Germany & the German Sports Institute
- Conditions to Participate for Russian Athletes in PyeongChang Paralympic Winter Games
- New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

Correction 24 November 2017:

The article “Conditions to Participate for Russian Athletes in PyeongChang Paralympic Winter Games” contained following mistake: It states that “the LIM will allow Russian Athletes to compete as "neutrals" in in Snow Sports of the PyeongChang 2018 Winter Paralympic Games”. However, the IPC GB’s decision only allow Russian athletes to compete at “qualification games”, not the Paralympic Games. Text is further corrected further in the pdf-file.

iNADO Update (2017) 86 (6 september)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

- New Member
- Summary of WADA 2016 Testing Figures
- CAS Decision on Therese Johaug reinforces Athlete Strict Liability
- iNADO Members exchange Ideas using iNADO Basecamp Groups
- Recent Study regarding the Prevalence of Doping will be discussed at the iNADO Athlete & Leader Symposium
- Athlete Counselling Service
- New Berlinger Product Line offers Enhanced Security Measures
- ASADA Partnership with CGF for the Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games
- New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center