2016 Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) Report / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2018.
- Report compiled based on cases received by WADA before 31 December 2017

This is the fourth year that WADA publishes the ADRVs Report. The Report illustrates doping offences committed under the World Anti-Doping Code in 2016.

The Report includes the decisions of all adverse analytical findings (AAFs) for which the samples were collected by anti-doping organizations (ADOs) in 2016 and the results are reported in ADAMS as well as non-analytical anti-doping rule violations for decisions rendered in 2016. Discrepancy from ADOs’ published statistics may occur due to different reporting criteria.

The ADRVs Report is broken down as follows:

• An Introduction and an Executive Summary, which provide an overview of the Report and highlight the key observations of the 2016 ADRVs Report.
• Sections 1 and 2 present the results management outcomes (including ADRVs) of all AAFs detected by WADA-accredited Laboratories for samples collected from athletes in- and out-of-competition in 2016. They are presented by sport, discipline (Section 1) and testing authority (Section 2).
• Section 3 includes ADRVs that resulted from non-analytical findings committed by athletes (presented by sport and nationality) and by athlete support personnel (presented by nationality).
• Section 4 indicates the total number of ADRVs from athletes in 2016, which includes AAFs that resulted in an ADRV plus all non-analytical ADRVs. The data is presented by sport and nationality. The information is further broken down into type of samples (urine or blood), type of test (in- or out-of-competition) and athlete gender.

Contents:

Introduction
Executive Summary
Section 1: Outcomes of 2016 AAFs by Sport Category
Section 2: Outcomes of 2016 AAFs by Testing Authority Category
Section 3: Report of 2016 Non-Analytical ADRVs
Section 4: Report of 20165 Total Analytical and Non-Analytical ADRVs

In July 2017 United World Wrestling (UWW) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Indian Athlete Manish Manish after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete failed to respond to any of the communications from UWW. Without the Athlete’s response the UWW Anti-Doping Panel deems that the Athlete has admitted the charge, to have waived his right for a hearing and /or file a statement in his defence, and to have accepted the consequences.

Therefore the UWW Anti-Doping Panel decides on 25 July 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 19 July 2017. Further the Panel decides to impose a CHF 20’000 fine on the Indian Wrestling Federation.

On 19 December 2017 the Disciplinary Commission of the Olympic Council of Asia (OCA) decided to disqualify the results of the Turkmen wrestler Dinara Hallyyeva after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium. Previously at a hearing in November 2017 the Athlete could not explain how the substance entered her system.

Hereafter the case was transferred to United World Wrestling (UWW) and proceedings were opened in February 2018 against the Athlete. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete failed to respond to any of the communications from UWW.

Without the Athlete’s response the UWW Anti-Doping Panel deems that the Athlete has admitted the charge, to have waived her right for a hearing and /or file a statement in her defence, and to have accepted the consequences. Therefore the UWW Anti-Doping Panel decides on 7 March 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 9 February 2018.

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency 2016 Annual Report / United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). - Colorado Springs : USADA, 2017

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency 2015 Annual Report / United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). - Colorado Springs : USADA, 2016

Related case:
UKAD 2018 Adam Fedorciow vs UKAD - Appeal
May 29, 2018

In August 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weight lifter Adam Fedorciow after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Higenamine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP).

The Athlete gave a prompt admission, denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that his Fault or Negligence was not significant. He stated that he had used the product Mentality, an over-the-counter supplement containing higenamine hydrocholoride, and that he mentioned this product on the Doping Control Form. He stated that he purchased the product in December 2016 and checked the ingredients on the full 2016 Prohibited List including the Summary of Changes for the 2017 Prohibited List.

UKAD contended that the Athlete knew about the rules and their importance, particularly given his background in junior international rugby. He could not therefore take 'refuge in naivety and ignorance'. UKAD argued that when Higenamine was clearly put on the 2017 List, the Athlete did not do all that he reasonably could have done to acquaint himself with which substances were prohibited. A reasonable Athlete would have checked the ingredients against the full list.

The Panel considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission, that the violation was not intentional and that there are no grounds to reduce the period of ineligibility from 2 years. The Panel holds that he failed in his core responsibility to acquaint himself with the substances on the Prohibited List due to his search regarding the contents of the 2017 List was insufficient.

Therefore the NADP decides on 8 February 2018 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 15 July 2017.

In March 2017 the International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation (UIAA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete Pavel Atushev after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard in April 2017.

On 11 July 2017 the UIAA finds that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides to impose a 4 year period of inelibility starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 29 March 2017.

The proceedings of the 2017 Macolin Anti-Doping Summit : a fresh look at the science, legal and policy aspects of anti-Doping / Antonio Rigozzi, Emily Wisnosky, Brianna Quinn. - Bern. - Editions Weblaw, 2017. - ISBN 9783906836966

This book sets out the proceedings of the 2017 Macolin Anti-Doping Summit.

The Summit brought together many of the most experienced and knowledgeable specialists from various disciplines, encouraging open and thought-provoking discussions on each of the major facets of anti-doping (the science aspect, the legal aspect and the policy aspect), viewed through the lens of the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code in practice.

Speakers delved into issues as diverse as whether anti-doping science and regulation are keeping pace with doping, whether the law is jeopardising anti-doping efforts, the impact of the new emphasis on intelligence operations in anti-doping cases, what anti-doping can learn from the athlete?s perspective and the ethical challenges currently faced in anti-doping efforts.

Contents:

I. Introduction comments and acknowledgments
II. The <science> aspect
- 1. Session introduction: Professor Martial Saugy
- 2. A scientist's perspective: Professor David Cowan
- 3. A lawyer's perspective: Dr Marjolaine Viret
- 4. Panel discussion - Are anti-doping science and regulation keeping pace with doping?: Baron Dr Michel D'Hooghe, Dr Matthias Kamber, Dr Francesco Botre and Dr Peter Van Eenoo
III. The <legal> aspect
- 1. Session introduction: Mr Michele Bernasconi
- 2. Legal issues with minor athletes under the Code: Mr Herman Ram
- 3. Does the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code punish the <real cheaters> more harshly?: Ms Emily Wisnosky
- 4. Shifting the focus from testing to intelligence & investigations - Lessons learned: Mr Mathieu Holz
- 5. Addressing systematic failures within an anti-doping regime designed for individuals: Professor Ulrich Haas
- 6. Panel discussion - Is the law killing anti-doping efforts: Mr Michael Beloff QC, Mr Mike Morgan, Ms Brianna Quinn, Mr Jacques Radoux and Mr Mario Vigna
IV. The <policy> aspect
- 1. Session introduction: Professor Philippe Sands QC.
- 2. Overview of a current ethical challenge in anti-doping: Professor Andy Miah
- 3. Panel discussion - What can anti-doping learn from the athlete perspective?: Mr Obadele Thompson, Mr Johannes Eder and Mr Lucas Tramer
- 4. Psychological aspects of anti-doping - The decision to dope and the impact of getting caught: Dr Mattia Piffaretti
- 5. <Independence> of the anti-doping process - From the involvement of international federations to the role of CAS: Professor Antonio Rigozzi
- 6. Panel discussion - Outlook for the future of anti-doping: Full speed ahead or back to square one?: Mr Benjamin Cohen, Dr Paul Dimeo, Dr Bengt Kayser, Professor Denis Oswald and Mr Jaimie Fuller
V. Closing remarks