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 January 2022 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian tennis player Elizavetka Demina after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted the provisional suspension and the decision rendered by the ITF. The Athlete admitted that prior in August 2021 she had used Mildronate over two week in order to recover after a period of intense training.

The ITF finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. The ITF deems that the Athlete had not attempted to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional and considers that she gave an early admission and acceptance of sanction.

Therefore the ITF decides on 30 March 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 January 2022.

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 2025, 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.

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. 

CAS 2017/A/5209 Clara Victoria Patrugan v. Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency

• Canoe
• Doping (prohibited method; meldonium)
• Arbitration agreement
• Arbitration agreement conferring jurisdiction to CAS based on a private act incorporating normative statutory act
• Athlete Support Personnel

1. An arbitration agreement conferring jurisdiction to the CAS must be based on a private act between the relevant parties. Such act can either derive from a specific contract or express agreement, or otherwise from membership or other affiliation with a (private) sports organization or sports governing body and reference to an arbitration clause provided in the statutes or regulations of that sports federation. By contrast, a judicial body whose competence is based on a statutory provision enacted by the legislator (only) does not qualify as a court of arbitration under Swiss law, but rather as a special court established by statutory law.

2. In case a sports federation, in its statutes or regulations, expresses its commitment to respect and follow the national anti-doping provisions, the respective national provisions are to be understood as incorporated into, or to be applied under the statutes and regulations of the sports federation. If furthermore the respective national anti-doping provisions recognize the CAS as the highest adjudicatory body, an individual affiliated to the sports federation and therefore bound by the latter’s rules and regulations may be considered to have concluded, with the respective federation, an arbitration agreement conferring jurisdiction to the CAS. Specifically, the arbitration agreement conferring jurisdiction to the CAS is based on a private act attributable to the parties (i.e. the statutes or regulations of the sports federation) which incorporates the normative statutory act (i.e. the national anti-doping rules recognizing the CAS as the highest adjudicatory body).

3. A medical doctor who, in official correspondence denotes himself “Medical doctor Kayak – Canoe Olympic Pool” and who furthermore renders himself to training camps of athletes affiliated with a national federation in order to perform treatments to the athletes falls into the category of “Athlete Support Personnel” under Appendix 1 to the World Anti-Doping Code (and the respective identic national anti-doping rules), given that he treated and assisted athletes participating in, or preparing for, sports competitions pursuant to said rule. In order to qualify as Athlete Support Personnel it is irrelevant whether the individual in question holds a specific degree (e.g. sports medicine) or similar. Furthermore, by participating in the activities of the national federation and those of its athletes, the medical doctor consented to the statutes and regulations of the national federation; provided those statutes and regulations foresee the possibility of arbitration of anti-doping rule violations, the consent expressed by means of participation also includes that possibility of arbitration.

On 27 July 2016 the Hearing Commission of the Romanian National Anti-Doping Commission (ANAD) decided to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the medical doctor Clara Victoria Patrugan for the treatment of athletes with ozone-therapy. Also ANAD prosecuted the doctor for her failure to report the use of Meldonium when she became aware that some athletes were using this prohibited substance.

Hereafter the doctor appealed, yet the ANAD Appeal Commission confirmed on 3 April 2017 the sanction whereas on 27 November 2017 the Bucharest Court of Appeal concluded that it had no competence to hear the appeal.

Meanwhile in June 2017 the doctor had also appealed the ANAD Appeal Decision of 3 April 2017 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete questioned the jurisdiction of CAS, but alternatively, she requested the Panel to annul the Appealed Decision.

The doctor denied she committed anti-doping rule violations because she does not qualify as Athlete Support Personnel under the Rules. She admitted that she applied ozone-therapy to athletes and withheld certain information regarding the use of Meldonium by athletes.

She argued that she applied the ozone-therapy only as physician specialized in family medicine and that she was unaware that this was forbidden for athletes. Further she argued that in December 2015 the use of the substance Meldonium by the athletes was still allowed.

The Sole Arbitrator establishes that Ms Petrugan worked as medical doctor for the Olympic kayak-canoe team and the Romanian Kayak and Canoe Federation (RKCF). This undoubtedly qualifies her as Athlete Support Personnel and that she has standing to be sued by ANAD.

The Arbitrator holds that it is undisputed that the doctor applied ozone-therapy to athletes and as a medical doctor supporting athletes she should have known that this treatment offered by her was a prohibited method under the Rules.

The Arbitrator establishes that at the relevant time the doctor had conducted research and that she was aware that athletes could still be tested positive for Meldonium once its ban had come into force. Conversely the doctor failed in her duty to inform the RKCF and ANAD in order to act properly thereafter.

With this information RKCF and ANAD could submitt the athletes for target testing and warn athletes that the use of Meldonium was prohibited as from 1 January 2016. This could have possibly have prevented the athletes from any furher use of the substance whereas later in spring 2016 a number of kayak athletes tested positive for the use of Meldonium.

The Sole Arbitrator deems that the doctor committed a considerable offence and regards that only 9 athletes had received 10 ozone-therapy treatments. There was also no evidence that the doctor was involved into a large anti-doping conspiracy or scheme that justifies the imposition of a lifetime ban.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 28 June 2018 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Ms Clara Victoria Patrugan against the decision rendered on 3 April 2017 by the Appeal Commission of the Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency is partially upheld.

2.) The decision rendered on 3 April 2017 by the Appeal Commission of the Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency is amended as follows as far as the period of ineligibility is concerned:

Ms Clara Victoria Patrugan shall be ineligible for a period of 6 (six) years to participate in any competition or activity authorized or organized by a signatory of the WADC, to act in any capacity within a sport body of a signatory of the WADC, to enter any contract relationship with or to act as volunteer for a signatory of the WADC. The period of ineligibility shall be deemed to have started on 3 April 2017.

(…)

5. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

In March 2017 Anti-Doping Norway (ADNO) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the foreign kickboxer after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. Without a hearing the NIF Judging Committee settled the case based on the written submissions of the parties. 

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He asserted that he was only an amateur Athlete and that he had not received anti-doping education, nor support in this matter from the Norwegian Kickboxing Federation.

Initially the he didn’t know how the Meldonium had entered his system. Later he explained that his foreign ex-girlfriend had provided him Mildronate (Meldonium) tablets in January 2017 as treatment for his fever, headache and cold whereas he believed it was a painkiller. 

ADNO did not accept the Athlete’s explanation and contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor how it entered his system. ADNO established that the Athlete’s Mildronate was produced in October 2016, thus after the Athlete allegedly had used the tablets in January 2016. He didn’t demonstrate the origin of the Mildronate box, neither showed any evidence of purchase of this medication.

Further the Athlete’s girlfriend did not respond to the communications of ADNO and prior he had testified that he had used a high number of medications and supplements. He failed to mention his medication on the Doping Control Form nor was there any evidence that he suffered from a medical condition that needed treatment with Meldonium. 

The NIF Judging Committee finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete’s samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Considering the evidence the Committee rejected the Athlete’s explanation and holds that he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, neither No Significant Fault or Negligence. 

Therefore the NIF Juding Committee decides on 16 May 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 March 2017.

Prohibited List January 2022 : The World Anti-Doping Code International Standard / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2021

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 2022.