Dopingautoriteit Annual Report 2018 (Netherlands) / Anti-doping Authority Netherlands (Dopingautoriteit). - Capelle aan den IJssel : Dopingautoriteit, 2019

Contents:

Chapter 1 – Prevention
Chapter 2 – Therapeutic Use Exemptions
Chapter 3 – Doping control
Chapter 4 – Intelligence & Investigations
Chapter 5 – Disciplinary Proceedings
Chapter 6 – International Affairs
Chapter 7 – Legal Affairs
Chapter 8 – Scientific research
Chapter 9 – Knowledge management
Chapter 10 – People & organisation
--------------------------
Annex 1 - Financial overview
Annex 2 - Members of the Board of Management, Advisory Board and Committees
Annex 3 - Office staff
Annex 4 - Overview of doping control officials
Annex 5 - Overview of publications and presentations
Annex 6 - Secondary positions
Annex 7 - Abbreviations

In May 2019 the National Anti-Doping Commission (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Vitaly Molotkoff after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium.

After notification the Athlete did not accept the provisional suspension and he filed a statement in his defence. Hereafter he failed to respond to the communications nor did he attend the hearing of the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel.

In his submission the Athlete admitted the violation and acknowledged that he was aware that his substance was prohibited. He stated that he had already had stopped using this product when he was tested.

The Panel finds that the Athlete had admitten the violation, that he failed to provide evidence that the violation was not intentional nor that he had applied for a TUE. Further the Panel considers that there were delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 22 May 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 9 February 2019.

In October 2018 the Georgian Anti-Doping Agency (GADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist David Ashurava after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Meldonium, Metandienone, Stanozolol.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of the Georgian Anti-Doping Agency and Eastern Europe Anti-Doping Organization.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and believed that the supplement he had purchased on the internet was the source of the prohibited substances.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that the committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Panel considers that the Athlete failed to provide evidence that the alleged supplement was the source of the positive test.

Therefore the Panel decides on 22 April 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 October 2018.

In November 2016 the International Motorcycling Federation (FIM) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian rider Anastasiy Nifontova after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

The Athlete demonstrated with medical evidence that the violation was not intentional because she underwent treatment for her health problems and had used prescribed medication which she mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

FIM accepts that the violation was not intentional due to the prescribed medication for a legitimate medical condition but deems that there are no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The parties in this case reached a settlement agreement and accordingly on 13 March 2019 a 2 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 November 2016.

2018 Annual Statistical Report On Doping Control / Bulgarian Anti-Doping Centre (ADC). - Sofia : ADC, 2019

CAS anti-doping Division (OG PyeongChang) AD 18/003 World Curling Federation (WCF) v. Aleksandr Krushelnickii

Related case:

CAS OG_AD_2018_03 IOC vs Aleksandr Krushelnitckii - Partial Award
February 22, 2018

• Curling
• Doping (meldonium)
• Burden and standard of proof
• Admissibility of polygraph test results and expert opinion in relation to such results
• Principles applicable to the source of the prohibited substance
• Establishment of the source of the prohibited substance as proof of absence of intent
• Sabotage

1. According to Article 3.1 of the WCF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR), WCF shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether WCF has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. The standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where these anti-doping rules place the burden of proof upon the athlete alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified acts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability.

2. Where there is no challenge to the conduct of a polygraph test or the expertise of the tester, the evidence should be admitted and taken into account knowing that it rises no higher than adding some force to the athlete’s declaration of innocence but not supplanting the need to carefully consider all other evidence in the case in determining whether the burden of proof has been discharged.

3. It is for an athlete to establish the source of the prohibited substance, not for the anti-doping organization to prove an alternative source to that contended for by the athlete. An athlete has to do so on the balance of probabilities. Evidence establishing that a scenario is possible is not enough to establish the origin of the prohibited substance. An athlete must do so with evidence, not speculation. It is insufficient for an athlete to deny deliberate ingestion of a prohibited substance and, accordingly, to assert that there must be an innocent explanation for its presence in his system. If there are two competing explanations for the presence of the prohibited substance, the rejection of one does not oblige (though it may permit) the hearing body to opt for the other. The conclusion that the other is not proven is always available to the hearing body. In such a situation there are three choices, not just two, for the hearing body.

4. Establishment of the source of the prohibited substance in a sample is not mandated in order to prove an absence of intent. However, the likelihood of finding lack of intent in the absence of proof of source would be extremely rare, and if an athlete cannot prove source it leaves the narrowest of corridors through which the athlete must pass to discharge the burden which lies upon him.

5. The threshold for establishing sabotage as the reason for an ADRV is very high. Any proposed sabotage theory must be supported by reliable and credible evidence, not speculation or assertions of absence of motive. It is insufficient for an athlete to simply raise a hypothesis of sabotage without corroborating evidence and then to simply declare that sabotage is the only possible explanation.

Mr Aleksandr Krushelnitckii is a Russian Athlete competing in the Curling events at the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Winter Games.

On 18 February 2018 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples - provided on 12 and 13 February 2018 - tested positive for the prohibited susbstance Meldonium.

Following notification the Athlete accepted the test results and requested to be heard for the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel (CAS ADD). The World Curling Federation (WCF) requested the Panel to order a provisional suspension beyond the period of the Games.

In a Partial Award the CAS ADD decided on 22 February 2018 to exclude the Athlete from the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Winter Games and to disqualify his obtained results in the Mixed Doubles Curling event at the Olympic Winter Games.

Hereafter the WCF requested the Sole Arbitrator to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. 

Supported by expert witnesses the Athlete argued that the only possible explanation for the presence of Meldonium in his urine samples is that the Meldonium was somehow added into his food or drink after he arrived in the Olympic Village, without his knowledge or involvement. So likely he was the victim of sabotage and should not be suspended at all in accordance with Article 10.4 of the WCF ADR.

In this procedure the Sole Arbitrator addressed the following issues:

• As it has been established that an ADRV has occurred under Article 2.1 WCF ADR, has the Athlete established that the ADRV was not intentional under Article 10.2.1.1?
• Has the athlete established that he bears no fault or negligence under Article 10.4 WCF ADR?
• Has the Athlete established that he bears no significant fault or negligence under Article 10.5.1 WCF ADR?
• Has the athlete established that the mandatory period of ineligibility of four years should be reduced by reason of Prompt Admission under article 10.6.3, or by reason of the principle of proportionality?
• What is the quantum of any sanction that should be imposed?
• What is the commencement date of any period of ineligibility pursuant to Article 10.11 WCF ADR?

The Sole Arbitrator concludes:

• The Athlete has not established that the ADRV was not intentional under Article 10.2.1 WCF ADR.
• The Athlete has not established the source of the Prohibited Substance and is not entitled to elimination or reduction of the period of ineligibility under Article 10.4 or Article 10.5 WCF ADR.
• The Athlete has not established an entitlement to reduction of a period of ineligibility under Article 10.6.3 WCF ADR.
• The Athlete has not established that there should be any reduction in a period of ineligibility on the basis of the proportionality principle.

Therefore the CAS Anti-doping Division decides on 3 December 2018:

1.) The application of the World Curling Federation is granted and therefore, Mr Aleksandr Krushelnickii is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four years commencing on the date of his voluntary provisional suspension (i.e. 12 February 2018).

2.) The present award is rendered free of charge.

3.) (…).

4.) All other or further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Annual banned-substance review: Analytical approaches in human sports drug testing / Mario Thevis, Tiia Kuuranne, Hans Geyer. - (Drug Testing and Analysis 11 (2019) 1 (January; p. 8-26)

• PMID: 30488582
• DOI: 10.1002/dta.2549

Contents:

• Introduction
• Non-Approved Substances
• Anabolic Agents
  • Anabolic-androgenic steroids
  • Initial testing procedures: Comprehensive screening, metabolism studies, and new target analytes
  • Steroid profiling
  • Confirmatory testing procedures – IRMS
  • Other anabolic agents
• Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, Related Substances, and Mimetics
  • Erythropoietin-receptor agonists
  • Hypoxia-inducible factor stabilizers and activators
  • Transforming growth factor-beta (TGR- β) inhibitors
  • Growth hormone, its fragments and releasing factors, and chorionic gonadotrophin
•  β2‐Agonists
• Hormone and Metabolic Modulators
• Diuretics and other Masking Agents, Stimulants, Narcotics, and Glucocorticoids
• Chemical and Physical Manipulation / Gene Doping
• Monitoring Program
• Conclusion
  
  

Abstract

A number of high profile revelations concerning anti‐doping rule violations over the past 12 months have outlined the importance of tackling prevailing challenges and reducing the limitations of the current anti‐doping system. At this time, the necessity to enhance, expand, and improve analytical test methods in response to the substances outlined in the World Anti‐Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List represents an increasingly crucial task for modern sports drug testing programs. The ability to improve analytical testing methods often relies on the expedient application of novel information regarding superior target analytes for sports drug testing assays, drug elimination profiles, and alternative sample matrices, together with recent advances in instrumental developments. This annual banned‐substance review evaluates literature published between October 2017 and September 2018 offering an in‐depth evaluation of developments in these arenas and their potential application to substances reported in WADA's 2018 Prohibited List.

Anti-Doping Poland Annual Report 2017 / Polska Agencja Antydopigowa (POLADA). - Warszawa : POLADA, 2018