In December 2018 and in January 2019 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and in March 2019 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) have reported anti-dopng rule violations against the swimmer Conor Dwyer after his samples - provided in November and in December 2018 - tested positive for the prohibitied substance Testosterone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the Tribunal of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). FINA referred the results management to USADA to consolidate with the existing proceedings.

The Athlete accepted the test results, argued that the violation was not intentional and requested for a reduced sanction. He testified that for many months, he had been suffering from health issues such as brain fog, low mental and physical energy, difficulty sleeping, depression and anxiety. As treatment for his diagnosed testosterone deficiency prescription BioTe pellets (in fact Testosterone) were surgically implanted by his physician in a short procedure in October 2018.

The Athlete asserted that he did not know that the insertion of the BioTE pellets would result in an anti-doping rule violation and that he was not concerned with his swimming performance, but rather his overall mental health and well-being.
The Athlete had assurances from his long-time trusted adviser and coach that the pellet therapy was not prohibited by the Code; the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee was consulted about this treatment by his physician; and he had no doubt what his adviser and physician told him about the treatment.

USADA accepts that the prescribed BioTe pellets were the source of the positive test and contended that the Athlete failed to establish that he bears No Significant Fault of Negligence.

In this case, the Panel considers that the Athlete took the primary step of consulting with a doctor, who reported getting the treatment approved. In his view, the doctor had the necessary expertise, as the Athlete understood it, the doctor was reliable based on his advisor’s experience, and the doctor was not consulted for performance enhancing reasons. However the Panel holds that he also failed to conduct other steps to ensure that the treatment is not prohibited.

The Panel finds that balancing all of the objective factors, both in favor of and against Athlete’s case, the Athlete’s level of fault falls within the “normal” degree of fault. When considering the subjective elements, they are not exceptional such as to change his level of fault, so his fault remains within the “normal” range, leading to a suspension in the 16-20 months range.

Therefore the Panel decides on 11 October 2019:

A.) Respondent has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the Code, for Use of a Prohibited Substance;
B.) The default period of ineligibility for the anti-doping rule violation under Article l 0.2.3 of the Code is two years, subject to further reduction;
C.) Respondent has sustained his burden of proofunder Article 10.5.2 of the Code that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence for the anti-doping rule violation, and the period of Ineligibility is reduced from two years to 20 months;
D.) The start date of Respondent's period of Ineligibility is the date of his provisional suspension, December 21, 2018, and the period of ineligibility expires on August 20, 2020;
E.) Respondent's competitive results from the date of his sample collection, November 15, 2018 through his acceptance of Provisional Suspension, on December 21, 2018, if any, are to be disqualified, and any medals, points and prizes earned during that period shall be forfeited;
F.) The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs associated with this Arbitration;
G.) The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association, and the compensation and expenses of the Panel, shall be borne by USADA and the United States Olympic Committee; and
H.) This Award shall be in full and final resolution of all claims and counterclaims submitted to this Arbitration, All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby denied.

Prohibited List January 2020 : The World Anti-Doping Code International Standard / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2019.

- 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 2020

Related case:

NADO Flanders 2018 Disciplinary Commission 20186668
June 25, 2019

On 25 June 2019 the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Bulgarian Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone and Meldonium.

In First Instance the Disciplinary Commission deemed that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional nor did she produce any evidence that showed that the supplement she had usued was contaminated.

Hereafter in July 2019 the Bulgarian Athlete appealed the Decision of 25 June 2019 with the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Council.

The Disciplinary Council considers the evidence in this case and finds that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. Analysis of the supplement, the Athlete allegedly had used, in the Ghent Lab showed the presence of the prohibited substances.

However the Council holds that due to the Athlete's failure to mention this supplement on the Doping Control Form there is no evidence that she indeed had used this supplement prior to the sample collection. Neither is there evidence that prior she had purchased this supplement.

Research on the internet conducted by NADO Flanders revealed no information about the supplement and the lack of information on the label of this product prevented any attempt to check its ingredients for prohibited substances.

As a result the Council concludes that the Athlete only had produced unsubstantiated assertions and clearly had acted recklessly and with Significant Fault or Negligence regarding the use of her supplements.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Council decides on 13 september to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Decision of the Disciplinary Commission.

Fees and expenses for this Council shall be borne partially by the Athlete.

CAS 2019/A/6249 Roman Balandin v. Association Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA)

• Basketball
• Doping (meldonium)

Criteria for the determination of the intentionality of an ADRV
CAS panels have to conduct fact-based and case-specific analyses. In the case of a young professional player not contesting the anti-doping rule violation (ADRV), the following elements can be relied upon in order to determine intent: relative experience level (with the sport and the relevant anti-doping rules), general anti-doping education (or lack thereof), level of awareness of previous cases involving the same prohibited substance, motivation to consume the product containing the prohibited substance, circumstances surrounding the player’s visit to his team’s doctor and the accounts of the various participants and witnesses, consistency of the player’s explanations with the levels of prohibited substance found in his system.

On 28 June 2018 the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Russian basketball player Roman Balandin after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium. 

Hereafter in April 2019 the Athlete appealed the DADC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the DADC decision of 28 June 2018 and to impose a reduced sanction on the basis of No Significant Fault or Negligence. 

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance, argued that he is very young and lacked any formal anti-doping education. He acknowledged that his behavior was careless but not intentional nor significantly negligent.

He explained that he had used the Meldonium as an over-the-counter product. It was recommended by their team doctor and he further had confirmed that he could take this product. Only later the Athlete became aware that the product was prohibited in sports he stopped using it. The team doctor later admitted his fault in allowing the Athlete to use the meldonium which ultimately led to his dismissal from the basketball club. 

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete very narrowly, by a balance of probabilities, has met his burden of proving that his violation was not intentional. However the Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete’s level of fault is significant and considerable. Consequently that there are no grounds to further reduce the period of ineligibility. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 September 2019 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Roman Balandin on 16 April 2019 against the decision issued by the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee on 28 June 2018 is partially upheld.

2.) The decision issued by the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee on 28 June 2018 is set aside.

3.) Mr Roman Balandin is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility commencing as from the date of his provisional suspension (i.e.19 May 2017).

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

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

Anti-Doping Poland Annual Report 2018 / Polska Agencja Antydopigowa (POLADA). - Warszawa : POLADA, 2019

Related case:

NADO Flanders 2018 Disciplinary Council 20186668 - Appeal
September 9, 2019


In August 2018 NADO Flanders reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Bulgarian Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone and Meldonium.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission. Later she failed to attend the final hearing.

The Athlete accepted the test result and could not explain how the substances entered her system. She believed that one of the supplements she used was contaminated.

The Commission finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete’s sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Commission deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional nor did she produce any evidence that shows that the supplement was contaminated.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 25 June 2019 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 August 2018.

Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne partially by the Athlete.

Annual Report 2018 / Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (AEPSAD). - Madrid : Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, 2019

Rapport d'activité 2018 / Agence Française de Lutte contre le Dopage (AFLD). - Paris : AFLD, 2019