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.

CAS OG 22/08 - CAS OG 22/09 - CAS OG 22/10 International Olympic Committee (IOC), World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) & International Skating Union (ISU) v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA), Kamila Valieva, Russian Olympic Committee (ROC)

• Skating (figure skating)
• Lifting of a provisional suspension imposed on an athlete for doping
• Jurisdiction ratione materiae of the CAS ad hoc Division
• Jurisdiction ratione temporis of the CAS ad hoc Division
• Protected Person
• Mandatory provisional suspension for Protected Persons
• Filling of a lacuna in the World Anti-Doping Code
• Treatment of provisional suspensions for Protected Persons as optional provisional suspensions
• Irreparable harm
• Delay in the process of samples

1. The CAS ad hoc Division has jurisdiction over disputes envisaged under Article 61(2) of the Olympic Charter, i.e. dispute “arising on the occasion or in connection with the Olympic Games” which means that attention should be paid to the dispute and what the dispute is about. Therefore, even if an alleged anti-doping violation has not been committed on the occasion or in connection with the Olympic Games and the provisional suspension imposed as a result of the alleged anti-doping violation does not specifically target the Olympic Games, the dispute might nevertheless be directly connected with the Olympic Games if the dispute is about whether or not the decision to lift such provisional suspension should be confirmed and the outcome of the dispute is relevant for the athlete’s further participation in the Olympic Games.

2. If the decision which gave rise to the dispute was rendered during the period considered to be relevant under Article 1 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules, the CAS ad hoc Division has jurisdiction ratione temporis over the dispute. In this respect, it is irrelevant whether the initial facts at the basis of the dispute may have arisen at a previous stage.

3. The World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) 2021 intends to treat Protected Persons differently than other Athletes or Persons in certain circumstances based on the understanding that, below a certain age or intellectual capacity, an Athlete or other Person may not possess the mental capacity to understand and appreciate the prohibitions against conduct contained in the Code.

4. The WADC does not provide an exemption to a mandatory Provisional Suspension for a non-specified substance used by a Protected Person even though the ultimate sanction range for the Protected Person is the same as for other categories of athletes who can avoid a mandatory Provisional Suspension. Put differently, a Protected Person is subject to the same ultimate sanction as other athletes who avoid a mandatory Provisional Suspension. But only Protected Persons can potentially receive a public reprimand and no period of ineligibility and yet be subject to a mandatory Provisional Suspension preventing them from competing for months while their case is being handled. This different and harsher treatment for Protected Persons is inconsistent with the oft-expressed intent of the Code drafters to make the Code apply more leniently and flexibly to Protected Persons in light of their age and inexperience, and their diminished responsibility for rule violations. Exempting older athletes from mandatory Provisional Suspensions in most instances in which they might ultimately be able to establish basis for a short sanction or reprimand but not exempting younger, legally incapable, and immature Protected Persons who might be entitled to a short sanction or reprimand appears clearly to be an unintended gap in the Code.

5. When CAS panels find a lacuna, or a gap, in the WADC, this has been the basis for a CAS panel to find a gap filling construct that would ameliorate an overly harsh or inconsistent outcome applying the overarching principle of justice and proportionality on which all systems of law, and the WADC itself, is based. This is an exercise in interpretation, not in rewriting rules or making policies that are better made by sporting bodies exercising proper governance.

6. In cases involving Protected Persons, Provisional Suspensions should be evaluated as optional Provisional Suspensions under the WADC 2021 and its progeny.

7. While it is not in itself sufficient that an athlete is prevented from competing in sports events to justify a stay in itself, given the finite and brief career of most athletes, a suspension (subsequently found to be unjustified) can cause irreparable harm, especially when it bars the athlete from participating in a major sports event.

8. While athletes are held to a high standard in meeting their anti-doping obligations, at the same time, the anti-doping authorities are subject to mere recommendations on time deadlines that are designed to protect athletes from late- or inconveniently-arising claims. The flexibility of the recommendations and guidelines applicable to WADA-accredited labs contrasts with the stringency of the rules on Provisional Suspensions. Although all athletes’ samples are anonymous, it should be possible for anti-doping laboratories and authorities to handle anti-doping tests in a swift manner when the samples are collected at significant pre-events that may constitute selection events for the Olympic Games.

In February 2022 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva (15) after her sample, collected on 25 December 2021, tested positive for the prohibited substance Trimetazidine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered on 8 Februay 2022 and consequently the Athlete was prohibited from participation in the 2022 Beijing Olympic Games.

Yet the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) decided on 9 February 2022 to lift the Athlete's provisional suspension as it established that under the Russian ADR and the WADC 2021 the minor Athlete is a Protected Person.

The DADC accepted the explanation and evidence that the prohibited substance entered the Athlete's system through the use of a contaminated product, i.e. the medication used by her grandfather.

Hereafter on 11 and 12 February the IOC, WADA and ISU appealed the DADC Decision of 9 February with the CAS Ad Hoc Division at the Beijing Olympic Games. IOC, WADA and ISU requested the Ad Hoc Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to re-instate the Provisional Suspension imposed by RUSADA on 8 February 2022.

The Athlete in her defence argued that:

• The source of the inadvertent contamination has been established by the DADC after careful analysis, in connection with her interacton with her grandfather, who regularly takes the medicine Trimetazidine.
• The DADC correctly had acknowledged that the Athlete is a Protected Person due to her age;
• The DADC accepted that the Athlete would not have any competitive advantages by consuming the Trimetazidine based on the medical experts' testimonies.
• Under the Rules the conditions are met in order to lift the Provisional Suspension.

RUSADA contended that the analysis in the Stockholm Lab was delayed due to pandemic-related staff shortages and is confident that the Athlete will be able to complete her submission with respect of evidenc in the proceedings before CAS whereas she has a lesser burden of proof as a Protected Person.

The ROC asserted that in the present case concrete evidence showing the source of the contamination is not required (as the Athlete is a Protected Person) and are not available (due to the undue delay in the reporting of the adverse analytical finding by the Anti-Doping Laboratory). As a result the Panel must rely on circumstantial evidence and decide to confirm the Appealed Decision if the scenario submitted by the Athlete with regard to contamination with the Prohibited Substance is more likely that the different scenario of a voluntary ingestion.

The CAS Ad Hoc Panel holds that it is uncontested that the Athlete is clearly a Protected Person under the Russian ADR and that the WADC 2021 intends to give special treatment to the Protected Persons like the Athlete.

The Panel finds that in cases involving Protected Persons, their Provisional Suspensions should be evaluated as optional Provisional Suspensions under WADC 2021 Article 7.4.2 and its progeny.

The Panel determines that the Athlete was entitled to benefit from being subject to an optional Provisional Suspension as a Protected Person and that, under the facts and circumstances, the option not to impose a Provisional Suspension should have been exercised so that she would not be prevented to compete in the Games.

Further the Panel considers in this case:

• the length of time it took for the laboratory to submit its report of an AAF involving the Athlete;
• the timing of that relative to the conduct of the Women’s Single Skating event at the Games;
• the difficulty to be faced in the Athlete not being able in
  the current situation, right in the middle of the Games, to muster proof to support her defence of the ADRV being asserted against her;
• the relatively low level of the prohibited substance found
  in her sample;
• the fact that she has tested negative in multiple tests before;
• after the test in question the case she has attempted to muster on contamination whether in a product or through domestic contamination, and the likely low level of sanction
  she will face if found to have committed an ADRV.

The Panel deems that athletes should not be subject to the risk of serious harm occasioned by anti-doping authorities’ failure to function effectively at a high level of performance and in a manner designed to protect the integrity of the operation of the Games. Accordingly the Panel finds that the Provisional Suspension should remain lifted.

Therefore the CAS Ad Hoc Division decides on 17 February 2022:

1. The Ad Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction to determine the Applications filed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and International Skating Union (ISU).
2. The Applications filed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and International Skating Union (ISU) are dismissed.

2021 Annual Statistical Report On Doping Control / Bulgarian Anti-Doping Centre (ADC). - Sofia : ADC, 2022

CAS 2021/ADD/23 World Triathlon v. Elena Danilova

• Triathlon
• Doping (trimetazidine)
• Definition of Use under World Triathlon rules
• Standard of proof to characterize an ADRV for Use
• “Reliable means” of evidence
• Beginning and duration of the period of ineligibility and fairness exception

1. In accordance with article 2.2.2 of the World Triathlon Anti-Doping Rules (WTADR), the mere fact an athlete used a prohibited substance or prohibited method is per se sufficient.

2. World Triathlon has the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether World Triathlon has established an ADRV to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. The gravity of the particular alleged wrongdoing is relevant to the application of the comfortable satisfaction standard in any given case .The standard of proof itself is not a variable one. The standard remains constant, but inherent within that immutable standard is a requirement that the more serious the allegation, the more cogent the supporting evidence must be in order for the allegation to be found proven.

3. In accordance with article 3.2 WTADR, unlike an ADRV for “presence”, the commission of an ADRV for Use may be proven by any number of means, so long as they are “reliable”. The term “any reliable means” within the meaning of Article 3.2 WTADR (which mirrors Article 3.2 of the WADC) is not supposed to be limited. Article 2.2. of the WADC provides inter alia that Use “may be established based upon reliable analytical data”.

4. The purpose of the retroactive effect of the disqualification of competitive results, is tied to the integrity of sporting competition with a view to rectifying the record books for the sport and turning the dial back as it were as if the cheating had not occurred. It should be taken into account that, in certain exceptional circumstances, the strict application of the disqualification rule can produce an unjust result. In particular, this may be the case when the potential disqualification period covers a very long term. CAS panels have frequently applied the fairness exception and let results remain partly in force when the potential disqualification period extends over many years and there is no evidence that the athlete has committed ADRVs over the whole period from the ADRV to the commencement of the provisional suspension or the ineligibility period. To find out, whether a sanction is excessive, CAS panels must review the type and scope of the proved rule-violation, the individual circumstances of the case, and the overall effect of the sanction on the offender. CAS panels have a broad discretion when making that assessment.

In 2016, Professor Richard McLaren issued two reports about systemic doping in Russia. These reports identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered.

Hereafter in January 2019 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) recovered the internal database of the Moscow Laboratory (LIMS). Following investigation of allegations of organized doping practices, and in particular of the LIMS, WADA provided international federations with investigation reports on the athletes implicated in these organized doping practices.

As a result in May 2020 World Triathlon (WT) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Elena Danilova for the use of the prohibited substance Trimetazidine in June 2014, August 2014 and in June 2015.

Thereupon in June 2021 the Athlete's case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.

The Athlete denied the violations and disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by WADA, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov. Further she provided a number of possible explanations as to the findings of Trimetazidine in her samples.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the following issues:

• Did the Moscow Laboratory conduct its sample analysis in accordance with the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL)?
• Is the data within the 2015 LIMS Database reliable evidence with regard to the Athlete?
• Was the Athlete part of the Protection Scheme as promulgated by the Moscow Laboratory and RUSADA?
• Was there Trimetazidine in the Athlete’s Samples?
• If the 2015 LIMS Database is reliable with regard to the Athlete, has an ADRV for Use been established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator?

The Athlete has consistently denied Use of Trimetazidine and/or involvement in the Disappearing positive methodology (DPM) or of the Russian Protection Scheme. The Sole Arbitrator deems that she has provided no credible account for the Trimetazidine that was found to be in each of her Samples.

Furthermore the Athlete raised a series of possible alternative sources for the evidence of Trimetazidine in her Samples such as her medical use of Meldonium and the unreliability of the 2015 LIMS Database from which the digital evidence of the Trimetazidine arises.

Following consideration the Sole Arbitrator determines that the Athlete provided only suggestions and unsubstantiated claims without corresponding evidence that could demonstrate that the Use of Trimetazidine by her was not intentional. Consequently the Athlete is subject to a 4 year period of ineligibility.

Finally the Sole Arbitrator finds that fairness and proportionality requires that the Athlete's results are only disqualified over a period of time of 4 years, i.e. the same duration as the period of inelgibility, starting from the date of Sampe 3.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 17 January 2022 that:

1.) Ms Elena Danilova is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.2 of the 2015 World Triathlon ADR Rules between 2014 and June 2015 for the Use of the Prohibited Substance trimetazidine.

2.) Ms Elena Danilova is sanctioned with a 4-year period of ineligibility commencing on the date of this Award.

3.) The period of ineligibility shall commence from 26 May 2021 which is the date when the provisional suspension imposed on Ms Elena Danilova started to run.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Ms Elena Danilova from 6 June 2015 to 5 June 2019 with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes) are disqualified.

5.) (…).

6.) (…).

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

Annual Report 2021 / Kazakhstan National Anti-Doping Centre (KazNADC). - Almaty : KazNADC, 2022

2020 Anti-Doping Testing Figures / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2021

Contents:

• Executive Summary - pp. 2-9 (7 pages)
• Laboratory Report -– pp. 10-36 (27 pages)
• Sport Report - pp. 37-137 (101 pages)
• Testing Authority Report - pp. 138-244 (107 pages)
• ABP Report-Blood Analysis - pp. 245-279 (35 pages)

Report Highlights:

• A 46% decrease in the overall number of samples analyzed: 278,047 in 2019 to 149,758 in 2020.
• A decrease in the total percentage of Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs): 0.97% in 2019 (2,702 AAFs from 278,047 samples) to 0.67% in 2020 (1,009 AAFs from 149,758 samples).
• All WADA-accredited Laboratories saw a decrease in the total number of samples recorded.
• A decrease in the total number and percentage of non-Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) blood samples analyzed: 9.1% in 2019 (25,339 of 278,047) and 7.3% (10,940 of 149,758) in 2020.
• A decrease of 38% in the number of ABP blood samples tested: 36,401 in 2019 to 22,666 in 2020.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has publishes its 2020 Testing Figures Report (2020 Report), which summarizes the results of all the samples WADA-accredited Laboratories analyzed and reported in WADA’s Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS) in 2020.

This is the sixth and last set of global testing figures under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code (Code) that came into effect in January 2015. The 2020 Report – which includes an Executive Summary and sub-reports by Laboratory, Sport, Testing Authority and Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) Blood Analysis – includes in- and out-of-competition urine samples; blood and ABP blood data; and, the resulting Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs) and Atypical Findings (ATFs).

Annual banned-substance review: analytical approaches in human sports drug testing / Mario Thevis, Tiia Kuuranne, Hans Geyer

• Drug Testing and Analysis 13 (2021) 17 November
• PMID: 34788500
• DOI: 10.1002/dta.3199

Contents:

• Introduction
• Anabolic Agent
  • Anabolic-androgenic steroids
  • Initial testing procedures: Comprehensive screening, metabolism studies
  • Steroid profiling in urine and serum
  • Confirmatory testing procedures – IRMS
  • Other anabolic agents
• Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, Related Substances, and Mimetics
  • Erythropoietin-receptor agonists and hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) activating agents
  • Growth hormone, its fragments and releasing factors, chorionic gonadotrophin and luteinizing hormone (LH)
• β2‐Agonists
• Hormone and Metabolic Modulators
• Diuretics and other Masking Agents, Stimulants
• Glucocorticoids and cannabinoids
• Manipulation of blood and blood components
• Gene Doping
• Conclusion

Abstract

Most core areas of anti-doping research exploit and rely on analytical chemistry, applied to studies aiming at further improving the test methods' analytical sensitivity, the assays' comprehensiveness, the interpretation of metabolic profiles and patterns, but also at facilitating the differentiation of natural/endogenous substances from structurally identical but synthetically derived compounds and comprehending the athlete's exposome. Further, a continuously growing number of advantages of complementary matrices such as dried blood spots have been identified and transferred from research to sports drug testing routine applications, with an overall gain of valuable additions to the anti-doping field. In this edition of the annual banned-substance review, literature on recent developments in anti-doping published between October 2020 and September 2021 is summarized and discussed, particularly focusing on human doping controls and potential applications of new testing strategies to substances and methods of doping specified in the World Anti-Doping Agency's 2021 Prohibited List. 

Annual Report 2020 / Kazakhstan National Anti-Doping Centre (KazNADC). - Almaty : KazNADC, 2021