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.

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.

Ethical aspects of doping and anti-doping : in search of an alternative policy / Bengt Kayser. - Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven), 2018. - Dissertation KU Leuven presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor in Kinesiology.
- With summary in Dutch: p. ix - xii

Abstract:

The general aim of this thesis is to contribute to the discussion on doping and anti-doping, and to sketch the outlines of an alternative way of dealing with doping inside and outside of sport. After a short introduction (Chapter 1) that sketches the historical background of the main issues, an analysis of modern anti-doping in elite sport is presented, highlighting some paradoxes and weaknesses at the basis of today’s anti-doping policies (Chapter 2). Chapter 3 provides an analysis of the argument that allowing doping would merely result in a uniform shift of the playing field at the cost of greater health risks. It is shown that this is unlikely to be the case and a counterargument in favour of allowing some regulated forms of doping, because potentially leading to a more dynamic playing field, is then presented. Chapter 4 provides a perspective accounting for some of the side effects of modern anti-doping, also from a legal perspective. It highlights some of these side-effects and shows that anti-doping comes at a considerable cost to the individual athlete and the community. Chapter 5 then introduces the idea of using a harm reduction approach in the realm of doping in sport. First the principle of harm reduction is explained, building upon the evidence base in the field of recreational substance use. This is followed by a first attempt of applying its principles to doping practices in sport. Chapter 6 then takes the reasoning of the preceding chapter further by completing it with a specific analysis of the ethical implications of such a harm reduction approach for doping, concluding that such an approach can be defended. Chapter 7 finally provides a general discussion that ends with some conclusions and perspectives. The overarching conclusion of the thesis is that there is no society-wide solution to the problem of doping. Therefore practical ways of dealing with its presence aimed at containing its potential risks may represent preferable policy alternatives as compared to today’s runaway effects of globalisation of anti-doping efforts, all while promising to enrich the spectacle of modern elite sport.

Contents:

1.) Introductory remarks
2.) Current anti-doping policy: a critical appraisal
3.) What if we relaxed the anti-doping rule: towards a Red Queen effect?
4.) On the presumption of guilt without proof of intentionality and other consequences of current anti-doping policy
5.) Doping and performance enhancement: harms and harm reduction
6.) Ethics of a relaxed anti-doping rule accompanied by harm-reduction measures
7.) Discussion, conclusions and perspectives
- Appositions
- Short CV
- Publications on doping and anti-doping
- Acknowledgements, Personal contributions, Conflict of interest statement
A.) French speaking athletes’ experience and perception regarding the whereabouts reporting system and therapeutic use exemptions
B.) The anti-doping industry coming of age: in search of new markets
C.) Do public perception and the ‘spirit of sport’ justify the criminalisation of doping? A reply to Claire Sumner

CAS 2017/A/4954 World Antidoping Agency (WADA) v. Belarus Taekwondo Federation (BTF) & Arman-Marshall Silla

On 23 November 2016 the Disciplinary Committee of the Belarus Taekwondo Federation (BTF) decided not to impose any period of ineligibility on the Athlete Arman-Marshall Silla after his samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium.
Here the BTF Disciplinary Committee considered that there was a hostile environment and fierce competition between the members of the National Taekwondo Team with personal animosity between two coaches and the Athlete’s coach leading to the Athlete’s unintentional use of the substance.

Hereafter in January 2017 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the Belarus decisions with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the BTF decision of 23 November 2016 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

WADA argued that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor did he establish how the prohibited substance entered his system. Further, WADA disputed the State Security Committee’s decision to close their investigation in January 2017 while an expert report published thereafter by the (not WADA-accredited) Minsk Lab contained unsubstantiated assertions.

The Athlete accepted the test results and argued that the violation was not intentional and the result of his use of a contaminated supplement as confirmed in the expert report of the Minsk Lab.
The Athlete asserted that he investigated how the substance entered his system; he filed a police report and filed a request for an expert opinion. Also the Athlete presented the results of a polygraph examination that shows that he and his coach told the truth.

In order to establish No Significant Fault the Sole Arbitrator finds that there were many inconsistencies in the Athlete’s statements and he failed to produce credible evidence that indicates exactly how the supplement in question was used. The Sole Arbitrator notes that much of the evidence was filed very late in the proceedings and holds that a polygraph test is inadmissible as evidence. The mentioned hostile environment and the animosity within the National Taekwondo Team give little weight in assessing the Athlete’s degree of fault.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 July 2017 that:

1.) The appeal filed on January 17, 2017 by World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision rendered by the Disciplinary Committee of the Belarus Taekwondo Federation on November 23, 2016 in the matter of Arman-Marshall Silla is upheld.
2.) The decision rendered by the Disciplinary Committee of the Belarus Taekwondo Federation on November 23, 2016 in the matter of Mr Annan-Marshall Silla is set aside.
3.) Mr Alman-Marshall Silla is sanctioned with a four-year (4) period of ineligibility starting on the date on which this CAS award enters into force. Any period of provisional suspension or ineligibility effectively served by Mr Arman-Marshall Silla before the entry into force of this CAS award shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.
4.) All competitive results obtained by Mr Annan-Marshall Silla from and including July 13, 2016 until August 11, 2016, are disqualified.
5.) The costs of the present arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, are to be jointly and severally borne by the Belarus Taekwondo Federation and Mr Arman-Marshall Silla.
6.) The parties shall bear their own costs.
7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Review of the national anti-doping policy of the Russian Federation in the context of the Policy Advice Project / Bureau of the Conference of Parities (COP). - Paris : United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2017.
- Item 8 of the agenda Conference of Parties to the International Convention against Doping in Sport, Sixt session, Paris, UNESCO Headquarters, Room XI, 25-26 September 2017.
- (ICDS/6CP/Doc.8, 19 September 2017)

Summary:

At the extraordinary meeting of the Bureau of the Conference of Parties (COP), held on 1 August 2016, following the publication of the McLaren report, the Bureau of the COP recommended a review of the national anti-doping policy of the Russian Federation, in accordance with the practices of the Conference of Parties. Thus, the review of the national anti-doping policy of the Russian Federation was conducted in 2017 using the methodology described in document ICDS/5CP/Doc.10.

The annexes to the present document contain the report of the independent international consultants and the report of the national consultants, under the supervision of the Bureau of the COP.

Annex I - Mission To Evaluate The Russian Federation’s Public Policy On The Fight Against Doping In The Light Of The Commitments Under And Objectives Of The Unesco International Convention Against Doping In Sport / Jean-François Vilotte, Theresa Zabell, Elena Grimau, Rhadamès Killy. - Paris : UNESCO, 2017

Contents:

1.) The Russian Federation and the fight against doping: historical context
2.) Overall reform of the anti-doping system in Russia
3. Social aspects: the need to increase public awareness of the importance of clean sport
4.) Review of the fight against doping worldwide: weak points and recommendations
5.) Conclusions and international perspectives

Annex 2 - Feedback Report On The Anti-Doping Policy Advice Project : Country Assessment Report, Russia / Valeriy Fedoreev, Boris Tarasov, Mikhail Gershkovich. - Paris : UNESCO, 2017

Contents:

I. Introduction
II. Description Of The Project
III. Goals Of The Report
IV. Evaluation Of The Policies Applied
- 4.1 Anti-Doping Activities At The National Level
- 4.2 International Cooperation
- 4.3 Education And Training
- 4.4 Research
V. Conclusions
VI. Recommendations For Improvement
Annex I: National Anti-Doping Plan
Annex II: Set Of Measures Approved By The Russian Government For Implementation Of The National Anti-Doping Plan

CAS 2016/A/4840 International Skating Union (ISU) v. Alexandra Malkova, Russian Skating Union (RSU) & Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA)

Skating (short track speed skating)
Doping (tuaminoheptane)
Consumption out-of-competition of substance prohibited in-competition only
Assessment of the level of fault
Principle of equal treatment
Threshold for review by CAS panel of sanction imposed in first instance

1. The taking out-of-competition of a substance prohibited in-competition only does not constitute itself doping or illicit behaviour. The violation is not the ingestion of the substance, but the participation in competition while the substance (or its metabolites) is still in the athlete’s body. The illicit behaviour lies in the fact that the athlete returned to competition too early, or at least earlier than when the substance taken out of competition had cleared his/her system for drug testing purposes in competition.

2. As regards the level of fault by the athlete it has to be taken into account that requiring from an athlete in such cases not to ingest the substance at all would lead to enlarging the list of substances prohibited at all times to include the substances contained in the in-competition list. It follows from this that if the substance forbidden in-competition only is taken out-of-competition, the range of sanctions applicable to the athlete is from a reprimand to 16 months (because, in principle, no significant fault can be attributed to the athlete). However, exceptions to this general rule have to be made in cases where an athlete could easily have made the link between the intake of the substance and the risks being run, e.g. where the product is a medicine designed for a therapeutic purpose. This is because in this scenario, a particular danger arises that calls for a higher duty of care, as medicines are known to have prohibited substances in them.

3. Whereas the principle of equal treatment is not a circumstance envisaged in the definition of No Significant Fault as a circumstance to be taken into account in the assessment of its degree and the appropriate sanction consequent upon it, the principle and rationale for it is generally accepted as part of the lex ludica.

4. When reviewing the sanction imposed by a tribunal of first instance the sanction imposed has to be “grossly disproportionate” for a CAS panel to substitute it by a new sanction rather than for it to show deference to the expertise of the body from whom an appeal is brought. The threshold for review is the same whether the sanction imposed by the tribunal of first instance is too high or too low.

On 29 July 2016 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the short track speed skater Alexandra Malkova (18) after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Tuaminoheptane. The decision was adopted by the Russian Skating Union (RSU) on 7 September 2016.

In this case the Athlete admitted the violation and explained that she had used prescribed medication Rinofluimucil in the out-of-competition period as treatment for her actute sinusitis and without intention to enhance het performance. The Athlete knew that the substance in her medication was on the prohibited list and she stopped using this medication 2 weeks before the competition.

In October 2016 the International Skating Union (ISU) appealed the decisions of RUSADA and RSU with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The ISU argued that the Athlete failed to establish No Significant Fault or Negligence and that the imposed sanction was disproportionately low.

RUSADA contended that the imposed sanction was proportional and the prescribed medication was used out-of-competition while the Athlete had used this medication before and never tested positive.
She is a young Athlete; lacked the anti-doping education provided to the national team; and could not be expected to know the precise excretion time of the prohibited substance.

The Panel accepts the arguments in favour of the young Athlete and considers that there are grounds to reduce the standard sanction of 2 years. The Panel holds that RUSADA’s justification to impose a sanction of 3 months for the inadvertent use of the Tuaminoheptane should not be taken for the future as providing appropriate guidance in similar cases.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 November 2017:

1.) The appeal filed by the International Skating Union on 28 October 2016 against the decision rendered by RUSADA on 29 July 2016 and the decision rendered by the Executive Committee of the Russian Skating Union on 7 September 2016, is upheld.
2.) The decision rendered by RUSADA on 29 July 2016 and the decision rendered by the Executive Committee of the Russian Skating Union on 7 September 2016, are set aside.
3.) Ms Malkova is sanctioned by 20 months ineligibility with effect from 26 April 2016.
4.) All competitive results obtained by Ms Malkova between 17 March 2016 and the beginning of her period of ineligibility shall be disqualified, with all of the consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by RUSADA and RSU.
6.) RUSADA and RSU are ordered to pay each to ISU an amount of CHF 2,500 (two thousand five hundred Swiss francs) as a contribution towards its legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings. Otherwise each party shall bear its own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.
7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Independent Observers Report of the XXIII Olympic Winter Games Pyeongchang 2018 / McDevitt, Ben. - Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2018