Εθνικός Οργανισμός Καταπολέμησης του Ντόπινγκ (EOKAN) Ετήσέιακθεσ 2021 / Hellenic Anti-Doping Agency (HADA). - Maroussi, 2023

NADA Annual Report 2022 / National Anti Doping Agency of Germany. - Bonn : Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA), 2023
NADA Material No. 102

Anti-Doping Agency of Armenia Annual Report 2022 / Anti-Doping Agency of Armenia (ARM-NADO). - Yerevan, ARM-NADO, 2023

Prohibited List January 2024 : The World Anti-Doping Code International Standard / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2023

The Prohibited List is a mandatory International Standard as part of the World Anti-Doping Program.
The List is updated annually following an extensive consultation process facilitated by WADA. The effective date of the List is 1 January 2024.

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.

2021 Anti-Doping Testing Figures / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2023

Contents:

• Executive Summary - pp. 2-9 (7 pages)
• Laboratory Report -– pp. 10-39 (30 pages)
• Sport Report - pp. 40-153 (114 pages)
• Testing Authority Report - pp. 154-267 (114 pages)
• ABP Report-Blood Analysis - pp. 268-311 (44 pages)

Report Highlights:

• A 61.2% increase in the number of samples (both urine and non-ABP blood samples) analyzed
  and reported into ADAMS: 149,758 in 2020 to 241,430 in 2021.
• An increase in the total number of samples analyzed and reported by nearly all WADAaccredited
  laboratories and WADA-approved laboratories into ADAMS in 2021 compared to 2020.
• An increase in the total number and percentage of non-ABP blood samples analyzed: 7.3%
  (10,940 of 149,758 samples) in 2020 to 9.3% (22,398 Blood + DBS samples out of 241,430).
• An increase of 36% in the number of ABP blood samples analyzed: 22,666 in 2020 to 30,821
  in 2021.
• A decrease in the total percentage of AAFs: 0.67% in 2020 (1,009 AAFs from 149,758
  samples) to 0.65% (1,560 AAFs from 241,430 samples).
• An increase in the total number of AAFs for growth hormone (GH): 1 in 2020 to 7 in 2021,
  including the first reported AAF for a GH biomarker.
• 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 2021 Testing Figures Report (2021 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 2021.

This is the first set of global testing figures under the 2021 World Anti-Doping Code (Code) that came into effect in January 2021. The 2021 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).

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.

Prohibited List January 2023 : The World Anti-Doping Code International Standard / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2022

The Prohibited List is a mandatory International Standard as part of the World Anti-Doping Program.
The List is updated annually following an extensive consultation process facilitated by WADA. The effective date of the List is 01 January 2023.