Welcome

Welcome to Doping.nl, the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center.
This site has been established to host information about doping in the broadest sense of the word, and about doping prevention.

Initiator
The Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands (the Dutch Doping Authority for short) established this site and maintains it. The Doping Authority was founded in 1989 and it is one of the oldest NADOs in the world. Doping.nl was developed with financial support from the Dutch Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sport.

Goals
This website  was established because of the importance that the Doping Authority and the Ministry attach to the dissemination of information relevant to doping prevention. Disclosing and supplying relevant information is one of the cornerstones in the fight against doping in sport. However, in practice, a significant amount of information is still not available, or only available to a limited group of users. We therefore decided to bring together all the relevant information in a single site: Doping.nl.

Activities
The Doping Authority aims to supply as much information through this website as possible on an ongoing basis. The information will be varied but will focus primarily on: WADA documents like the World Anti-Doping Code, the International Standards like the Prohibited List, Doping Regulations, scientific articles and abstracts, decisions by disciplinary bodies (mainly CAS decisions).As well as making documents available, the Doping Authority aims to supply searchable documents when possible, and to add relevant keywords to ensure easy access.
In the future, Doping.nl will also become a digital archive containing older information that is no longer available elsewhere.

Target readers
This site has been designed for use by anti-doping professionals such as National Anti-Doping Organisations and International Federations but also for students, journalists and other people interested in the subject.

Register
To use the lightbox option, you need to register.

More information explaining how to use this website can be found under "help".

Recently added documents More »

ISR 2018 KNKF Decision Disciplinary Committee 2018005 T

In July 2018 the Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands (Dopingautoriteit) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clomiphene. The Dopingautoreit reported this violation within the time limit as the Royal Dutch Strength Sport and Fitness Federation (KNKF) refrained from doing this and neither imposed a provisional suspension. After notification the Person failed to file a statement in his defence nor did he request to be heard for the ISR-KNKF Disciplinary Committee. The case was settled based on the filed submissions. The Disciplinary Committee concludes that the evidence establish that the Person committed an anti-doping rule violation. Since the Person didn't file a statement in his defence the Committee holds that the Person failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Therefore the ISR-KNKF Disciplinary Committee decides on 22 October 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on 5 November 2018. Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the Person.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

ISR 2018 GLORY Decision Disciplinary Committee 2018004 T

In April 2018 Glory Sports International has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the foreign kickboxer after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Person filed a statement in his defence and waived his right to be heard for the ISR-GLORY Disciplinary Committee. The case was settled based on the filed submissions. In his submission the Person admitted the violation and explained that it was caused by a contaminated supplement he had used 8 months before in 2017. Consequently through his use he previously tested positive in the United States and he already had served a reduced 8 month suspension imposed by the Illinois Athletic Commission. He asserted that the residue of the prohibited substance was still present in his system after 8 months leading to the current positive test. The Person referred to 3 websites regarding the excretion time of the substance in the human body to sustain his a assertion. Glory Sports deemed that the presence of the prohibited substance in the Person’s system has been established and that the Person’s probable lack of intent can be considered not to sanction him again while he already had served a period of ineligibility for his anti-doping rule violation. However the Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands (Dopingautoriteit) requested the Committee to impose a sanction of 4 years and contended that the Person failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor that there are any grounds for a reduced sanction. The Dopingautoriteit did not accept the Person’s assertion about the presence in his system of the residue after 8 months. Here scientific literature demonstrates that a half-life over a period of 8 months only occurs with intentional use of the substance. Also the found concentration of the substance in his sample was too high to be consistent with his use of only a contaminated supplement 8 months before. The Committee rejects the Person’s explanation and concludes that he failed to establish how the substance entered his system. Neither did he establish that the violation was not intentional, nor that there are grounds for a reduced santion. Therefore the ISR-GLORY Disciplinary Committee decides on 12 September 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2014_A_3598 Johan Bruyneel & José Martí Martí vs USADA | WADA vs Johan Bruyneel, Pedro Celaya Lezama, José Martí Martí & USADA - Partial Award

CAS 2014/A/3598 Johan Bruyneel v. United States Anti-Doping Agency CAS 2014/A/3599 José Martí Martí v. United States Anti-Doping Agency CAS 2014/A/3618 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Johan Bruyneel, Pedro Celaya Lezama, José Martí Martí & United States Anti-Doping Agency Related cases: - AAA No. 77 190 00225 12 USADA vs Johan Bruyneel, Pedro Celaya Lezama & José Martí Martí April 21, 2014 - CAS 2013_A_3285 Johan Bruyneel vs USADA May 13, 2014 - Swiss Federal Court 4A_222_2015 Johan Bruyneel vs USADA & WADA January 28, 2016 - Mr. Bruyneel served as a team director for the U.S. Postal Service team between 1999 and 2004 and the Discovery Channel team between 2005 and 2007. - Dr. Celaya served a team physician for the U.S. Postal Service team in 1997, 1998, and 2004 and the Discovery Channel team between 2005 and 2007. - Mr. José Martí Martí served as a team trainer for the U.S. Postal Service team between 1999 and 2004 and the Discovery Channel team between 2005 and 2007. In June 2012 USADA informed Mr Bruyneel, Dr. Celaya, Mr. Martí and others that a formal action was opened based on evidence that each party had engaged in multiple anti-doping violations. Mr. Bruyneel, Dr. Celaya, and Mr. Martí were charged of trafficking, possession, administration and to have assisted, encouraged, and facilitated the use of prohibited doping agents to the professional cyclists on these U.S.-based teams. The banned doping agents and methods alleged to have been administered in this case: Erythropoietin, hGH, blood transfusions, Cortisone, Testosterone and/or Saline, Plasma or Glycerol infusions. Against these charges Mr. Bruyneel launced a number of appeals with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and with the Swiss Federal Court. All these appeals were dismissed. The Panel of the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport (NACAS) concluded that USADA has sustained its burden of proof as to all Respondents. As a result, the Respondents have each committed their first doping violations under Article 2.1 of the 2009 version of the WADA Code, with the presence of aggravating circumstances. Therefore, the Panel decided on 21 April 2014 to impose a period of ineligibility for each Respondent as follows: (1) Mr. Johan Bruyneel: 10 years, starting from June 12, 2012 and continuing through and including June 11, 2022; (2) Dr. Pedro Celaya: 8 years, starting from June 12, 2012 and continuing through and including June 11, 2020; and (3) Mr. José Martí Martí: 8 years, starting from June 12, 2012 and continuing through and including June 11, 2020. Hereafter in May 2014 Mr. Bruyneel, Mr. Martí and in June 2014 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the AAA decision of 21 April 2014 with CAS. Dr. Celaya did not appeal the AAA decision. Mr. Bruyneel and Mr. Martí requested the Panel for a reduced sanction while WADA seeked a lifetime period of ineligibility against Mr. Bruyneel, Mr. Martí and Dr. Celaya. In this case the Panel considers and determine: (A) whether USADA had result management jurisdiction and the AAA the disciplinary authority over Mr. Bruyneel, Mr. Martí and Dr. Celaya; (B) the scope of USADA's mandate; (C) whether USADA/WADA have breached any confidentiality obligation; and (D) whether USADA/WADA have sufficiently particularized the charges against Mr. Bruyneel, Mr. Martí and Dr. Celaya. (A) Considering the parties arguments the Panel finds that the delegation of powers by the UCI to USADA as the NADO which discovered the violation cannot be considered atypical, unusual or otherwise problematic within the sport disciplinary anti-doping system. Relying on the principle of confidence applied by the Swiss Federal Tribunal in the context of arbitration agreements by global reference, the Panel concludes that USADA had result management jurisdiction, and the AAA had disciplinary authority over Mr. Bruyneel and Mr. Martí. The UCI validly delegated those powers to USADA and the AAA pursuant to Swiss law. The case law of the Swiss Federal Tribunal point unequivocally in that direction. (B) The Panel holds that USADA is a fully independent entity and its powers cannot be limited by its contractual responsibilities to the USOC or Congress' statutory grant. Accordingly, the Panel rejects Mr. Bruyneel's argument that USADA acted ultra vires of its own mandate when it exercised jurisdiction over him. (C) Mr. Bruyneel asserted that USADA breached its confidentiality obligations by publishing extensive statements concerning Mr. Bruyneel 's alleged anti-doping violations in its reasoned decision against Lance Armstrong. In this matter the Panel considers that USADA, while fulfilling its obligation to publish a reasoned decision against Mr. Armstrong, could have also respected its confidentiality obligation vis-a-vis Mr. Bruyneel by redacting his name, as it did for other individuals. Accordingly, the Panel finds that USADA violated its confidentiality obligations vis-à-vis Mr. Bruyneel. Here the Panel denied Mr. Bruyneel’s request for relief. (D) The Panel, having reviewed USADA's Notice Letter of 12 June 2012, its reasoned decision, its submissions before the AAA and before the present Panel, sees no reason to depart from the AAA's finding on this issue. In its view, having regard to the totality of the material before it and the arguments and submissions of the Parties, the charges against Mr. Bruyneel and Mr. Martí have been more than adequately particularised, especially in circumstances of allegations of widespread doping such as in the present case. Accordingly the Panel rejects the arguments of Mr. Bruyneel and Mr. Martí in this matter. The Panel deems that the totality of the evidence paints a very clear picture for the Panel: from 1997 to 2007, Mr. Bruyneel, Mr. Martí and Dr. Celaya participated in an elaborate and highly successful doping scheme with Mr. Bruyneel at the apex of a multitude of doping violations and Mr. Martí and Dr. Celaya (and Dr. del Moral) as the indispensable participants in this widespread and systematic doping program. The Panel concludes that all charges against Mr. Bruyneel, Mr. Martí and Dr. Celaya within the limitation period have been established to its comfortable satisfaction. Even if evidence of conduct by Mr. Bruyneel, Mr. Martí and Dr. Celaya occurring before the limitation period was only considered by the Panel as evidence of a pattern of acts, it remains comfortably satisfied that USADA has established each and every one of the doping offences of which Mr. Bruyneel, Mr. Martí and Dr. Celaya stand accused. In this case there are no grounds for the application of the lex mitior doctrine regarding the imposed sanctions. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 October 2018 that: 1.) The appeal of Mr. Bruyneel against the decision rendered by the AAA on 21 April 2014 is denied. 2.) The appeal of Mr. Martí against the decision rendered by the AAA on 21 April 2014 is denied. 3.) The appeal of WADA against the decision rendered by the AAA on 21 April 2014 is partially upheld. 4.) The decision rendered by the AAA on 21 April 2014 is modified to the extent that: - (a) Mr. Bruyneel's period of ineligibility shall be for a lifetime; - (b) Dr. Celaya' s period of ineligibility shall be for a lifetime; - (c) Mr. Martí's period of ineligibility shall be for a period of fifteen (15) years commencing on the date of this Partial Award but giving him credit for the period of ineligibility already served from 12 June 2012. 5.) Costs reserved. 6.) All other claims are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

iNADO - International Anti-Doping Leaders stand united with international athlete community in calling for meaningful Reform of WADA Governance

International Anti-Doping Leaders stand united with international athlete community in calling for meaningful Reform of WADA Governance / Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2018. - (iNADO Media Release, 29 October 2018) The following National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs) support this release: 1. AFLD (Agence Française de lutte contre le dopage); 2. Anti Doping Denmark; 3. Anti-Doping Norway; 4. Anti-Doping Singapore; 5. ASADA (Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority); 6. CCES (Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport); 7. Dopingautoriteit; 8. Drug Free Sport New Zealand; 9. FINCIS (Finnish Center for Integrity in Sports); 10. NADA Austria; 11. NADA Germany; 12. POLADA (Poland Anti-Doping Agency); 13. Sport Ireland; 14. Swedish Sport Confederation; 15. Swiss Anti-Doping; 16. UKAD (UK Anti-Doping); 17. USADA (US Anti-Doping Agency) _________________________________________________ Following the unprecedented outcry from the world’s athletes over the recent actions and decisions of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the leaders of 18 National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs) came together for an emergency Summit, hosted by the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) in Paris to discuss the concerning state of the global anti-doping system and the urgent need to restore public and athlete faith in the global regulator (WADA). Confirming their ongoing and unwavering commitment to stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the global athlete community, and acknowledging the recent global athlete uproar following the process that led to the WADA Executive Committee’s controversial September 20 decision to reinstate the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA), the leaders, in a clear display of solidarity with athletes, stated: “While others may not be listening to your concerns and your solutions for how to improve WADA Governance, we wish to make it clear that we, the anti-doping leaders, do. We stand united with you. We hear and share your concerns, and we stand with you every step of the wayto strive to transform WADA so that it respects your rights and makes decisions in the interests of clean sport." Meeting for the third time this year, the NADO leaders reaffirmed their commitment and greater sense of urgency to the Copenhagen Reform Proposals, a series of reforms focused on independence, transparency and best governance practices, brought forth in August 2016 in the wake of the findings of the McLaren Report, while calling on the international sport community to bolster anti-doping efforts and restore athletes’ faith in fair competition around the globe. Following on the set of proposals for WADA Governance released by WADA’s Governance Working Grouplast week, the international leaders pledged their backing to the principles of the athlete-led Governance Reform Paper, The Alternative, launched on October 9, which has broad support across the anti-doping community. We encourage all current and future WADA Leadersto support the principles of the Alternative and Copenhagen documents. “Given the athletes’ concerns in WADA’s decision-making and governance process, and after all that we have regrettably witnessed in the wake of the Russian doping crisis, WADA’s limited proposals for governance reform fall far short of what the world’s athletes and other champions of clean sport have been calling for these past two years, and there should be a rethink”, the leaders said. Reiterating their condemnation of the recent decision by WADA to reinstate RUSADA, the international leaders encouraged the community to look forward. “We urge WADA not to repeat the mistakes it made in the process to reinstate RUSADA, and to conduct its actions in a more transparent and open fashion. Looking ahead to the crucial December 31 deadline, we call on WADA to runan open, transparent and clear process for securing the anti-doping samples and, given the gravity of the issue and level of athlete and public interest, for the WADA Compliance Review Committee to convene an urgent and robust meeting to make its recommendation on the compliance of RUSADA. The world is waiting, and the world is watching,” they added. In a significant development, the leaders also made a clear call for WADA to commission a thorough, transparent, independent investigation into the troubling public allegations of bullying. While discussing ways to move forward, the leaders committed their supportfor WADA to continue to be the global regulator, albeit with an improved governance structure. “We must continue to work to overhaul WADA Governance, and restore its credibility with athletes and the public.” Concluding the meeting, the leaders made a clear, unequivocal call for a strengthened WADA, and urged the global regulator to truly listen and incorporate views from athletes: “WADA will rise once again, but only when it embraces global athlete community concerns.” October 29, 2018 Paris, France

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2009_A_1985 Franchon Crews vs AIBA

CAS 2009/A/1985 Franchon Crews v. International Boxing Association (AIBA) Boxing Doping (phentermine) Invalidity of the constitution of an IF Anti-Doping Hearing Panel De novo hearing Negligence of the athlete excluding a finding of No Significant Fault or Negligence Consequences of the delay in the process on the applicable sanction 1. A federation doping hearing panel is to be considered an organ of the association and – as such – does not need to meet the same level of independence as an arbitral tribunal. A federation’s doping hearing panel which deals with an athlete case has to be properly appointed under the federation’s rules by which the athlete has agreed to be bound. It is only in cases where there is some allegation of misfeasance by the federation or some representative of it that questions might be raised as to the possibility of some apparent bias. The protection against this possibility lays in the provision that the appointed members shall have had no prior involvement with the case and shall not have the same nationality as the person alleged to have violated the anti-doping rules. This is a requirement which must be strictly observed. If the requirement is not observed, the proceedings of, and decision by, the panel are fatally flawed. 2. An appeal before CAS is treated as being an appeal by way of complete re-hearing rather than review. Therefore a CAS panel can reconsider the case de novo and thus cure the defect in the composition of the original federation’s anti-doping hearing panel. This CAS jurisprudence is in line with European Court of Human Rights decisions. 3. All athletes competing at international level are, or at the very least should be, well aware of the need to take extreme care as to what they allow to enter their bodies. For an athlete to accept a “sports drink” with a label in a language he/she cannot understand from a person he/she did not know to “help replenish her electrolytes” for competition and then to consume it without making any inquiry about its contents constitutes as clear and obvious a case of negligence as it is possible to envisage. Therefore it cannot be said that he/she “bore No Significant Fault or Negligence” justifying a reduction of the otherwise applicable sanction. 4. Whilst it is important that an international governing body of a major sport should deal properly and promptly with anti-doping matters, it does not follow that the appropriate way to do this is by allowing an athlete to escape the consequences of his/her actions. This would merely advantage the athlete and act to the disadvantage of those other athletes who had not committed doping offences. It is important that an athlete should not have been disadvantaged by the delay, but once it is established that there is no disadvantage, there is no reason why a sanction should not be imposed. Since the appropriate penalty is one of two years ineligibility and the period of ineligibility is to run from the date of the sample collection, there is no prejudice to the athlete in the delay. _________________________________________________ In November 2008 the International Boxing Association (AIBA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American boxer Franchon Crews after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Phentermine. After deliberations and delays the AIBA Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decided on 8 October 2009 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection. Hereafter in October 2009 the Athlete appealed the AIBA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS Panel regards that there is no dispute that the anti-doping test on the Athlete was properly carried out and that the prohibited substance was found in the A and B samples provided. The Athlete accepts that had a timely hearing been carried out by a duly constituted panel some sanction would have been imposed on her. She asserts that even in these circumstances the facts of the case are such that the usual penalty of two years ineligibility from the date of the taking of the sample ought to have been mitigated so that any period of ineligibility imposed should not exceed eighteen months. The Panel holds that the problems which have to be considered are: (1) the challenge to the constitution of the Anti-Doping Hearing Panel; (2) the delay in the hearing by the Anti-Doping Hearing Panel; and (3) the consequences of its findings in relation to those two matters. The panel must also consider the Athlete’s assertion that in any event the two-year ineligibility period should be reduced. The Panel deems that the delay in the hearing cannot be excused on the grounds given by AIBA. While it seems that there was some initial delay on the part of USA Boxing. From then until October there were unjustifiable delays on the part of AIBA. The Panel finds that there was no obligation of AIBA to appoint a panel which had no connection at all with AIBA. An AIBA Doping Hearing Panel is not an arbitral panel recognised as such under Swiss law. In the instant case the Athlete had agreed to be bound by the rules of the AIBA and the question to be answered is whether the AIBA Doping Hearing Panel which dealt with her case was properly appointed under those rules by which she had agreed to be bound, not whether the panel would pass muster as an independent arbitral tribunal under Swiss law. Also the Panel regards the allegation that there might have been actual bias on the part of the AIBA Panel was made unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. The Panel considers that the appointment of the third member of the AIBA Panel and regards that not could be said that this member had no prior involvement with the case. Therefore he was not eligible to be a member of the AIBA panel. It must follow from this that the proceedings of, and decision by, the AIBA panel are fatally flawed, whether or not the delay involved also affects the validity of the decision. The Panel finds that bases on the Athlete’s statement about how the Phentermine entered her system that she clearly failed to make any inquiry for the sports drink she consumed and constitutes an obvious case of negligence. The Panel deems that the Athlete should not have been disadvantaged by the delay in this case, but once it is established that there is no disadvantage, there is no reason why a sanction should not be imposed. Since in the present case the appropriate penalty is one of two years ineligibility and the period of ineligibility is to run from the date of the sample collection, there is no prejudice to the Athlete in the delay. The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 10 June 2010: 1.) The appeal filed by Ms Franchon Crews on 28 October 2009 against the decision rendered on 8 October 2009 by the AIBA Anti-Doping Hearing Panel is admissible and upheld. 2.) The decision rendered on 8 October 2009 by the AIBA Anti-Doping Hearing Panel is confirmed. (…) 5.) All other and further claims are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2009_A_1983 Mariana Ohata vs International Triathlon Union

CAS 2009/A/1983 Mariana Ohata v. International Triathlon Union (ITU) Triathlon Doping (furosemide) Legal effect of a decision that was not signed and sent by e-mail Difference between impartiality and independence of the Hearing Panel Breach of the ISL Multiple infraction and period of ineligibility 1. Whether or not a decision has to be signed by the members of a panel is a question as to the form of said decision. There is no provision in the ITU Anti-Doping Rules according to which the decision of the Doping Hearing Panel must bear the signatures of the panel members in order for the decision to enter into force or existence. The only form requirement to be found in the rules and regulations of the ITU is that the decision must be in writing and contain reasons. There are no recognised international law principles as to the form requirements relating to disciplinary decisions of international sports organisations. 2. The ITU Anti-Doping Rules do not define the terms “impartial” or “independent”. It is, therefore, not easy to distinguish clearly between both prerequisites. In principle, “independence” in Article 8.1.1 of the ITU Anti-Doping Rules concerns an objective situation prohibiting certain relationships, particularly of a financial nature, between a panel member and the ITU. “Impartiality” on the contrary is a more subjective notion referring to the absence of bias in the person acting as a member of the panel resulting from a “privileged” relationship with the matter to be decided. 3. According to the 2009 International Standards for Laboratories, the requirement that a different analyst perform the A and B analytical procedures does no longer exist. 4. According to the ITU Anti-Doping Rules, anti-doping rule violations committed prior to the entry into force of today’s ITU Anti-Doping Rules may be taken into account in cases involving multiple infraction as long as the second violation has taken place within the deadline established in the ITU Anti-Doping Rules. _________________________________________________ In July 2009 the International Triathlon Union (ITU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian triathlon Athlete Mariana Ohata after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Furesemide. Previously in 2002 the Athlete served a 60 day period of ineligibility for an anti-doping rule violation. As a result on 5 October 2009 the ITU Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 6 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for her second anti-doping rule violation. Hereafter in October 2009 the Athlete appealed the ITU decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to annul the ITU decision of 5 October 2009 and to impose a reduced sanction. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance, argued that there were procedural errors in the case against her and that there are grounds for No Fault or Negligence. The ITU requested the Panel to uphold the sanction and to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal. The Panel notes that in this case there are the following legal issues: a) Has the Decision any legal effect even though it has not been signed by the members of the ITU Doping Hearing Panel? b) Was the composition of the ITU Doping Hearing Panel in accordance with the ITU Anti-Doping Rules? c) Did the laboratory breach mandatory safeguards for the Athlete in the ISL? d) Has the Respondent established that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation according to the ITU Anti-Doping Rules? e) In case an anti-doping rule violation is established, what period of ineligibility applies to the case at hand? Considering the evidence the Panel holds that Athlete’s argument that de Decision is inexistent and void of any effects has to be rejected. The Panel finds that the Athlete failed to provide any facts that show (or might show) a bias of the persons acting as members of the ITU Doping Hearing Panel. Also the CAS Panel can reconsider the case de novo and, thus, cure any possible (procedural) defect in the composition of the origiginal ITU Doping Hearing Panel. The Panel considers that contrary to the Athlete’s allegation the evidence does not give rise to any suspicion that the laboratory lost control over de integrity or the identity of the samples. As the Athlete failed to demonstrate a departure from the ISL by the laboratory consequently the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete has committed a violation of the ITU Anti-Doping Rules. The Panel concludes that since the Athlete’s the first anti-doping rule violation qualifies as a No Significant Fault-case and the second anti-rule violation as a Significant Fault-case the applicable range for the period of ineligibility is 6 to 8 years ineligibility. Here the Athlete has not claimed nor submitted any evidence that would entitle her to a reduction or suspension of her sanction, the Panel is bound by the range for the period of ineligibility set out in in the ITU Anti-Doping Rules. According to this range the period of ineligibility cannot be below six years. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 July 2010: 1.) The appeal filed by Mrs Mariana Ohata on 23 October 2009 is dismissed. 2.) The decision rendered by the ITU Doping Hearing Panel on 5 October 2009 in the matter of the International Triathlon Union vs. Mrs Mariana Ohata is confirmed. 3.) (…). 4.) (…). 5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2009_A_1832 FINA vs Czech Swimming Federation & Zdenek Frantisák

CAS 2009/A/1832 Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) v. Czech Swimming Federation (CSF) & Zdenek Frantisák Aquatics (swimming) Doping (failure to provide whereabouts information) Admissibility of the appeal Applicable law Obligation to provide whereabouts information for an athlete included in the national registered testing pool Notification of the filing failure as a precondition for conviction Burden of proof 1. The principle of the prohibition against the retroactive application of law is subject to several exceptions, including an exception for law or rules which are of procedural nature. In the absence of an express provision to the contrary, laws and rules related to procedural matters apply immediately upon entering into force and regardless of when the facts to be judged occurred. Such is the case for the 2009 FINA Anti-Doping Rules, which provide for a direct appeal to the CAS. In any event, FINA’s entitlement to appeal a federation’s decision directly to CAS would also have been admissible on the basis of the 2008 FINA Doping Control Rules – the applicable substantive anti-doping rules – which provide that the decision may be appealed exclusively to CAS if an athlete is to be considered an international-level competitor. 2. As a matter of principle, the FINA Anti-Doping Control Rules are not directly applicable to doping violations on a national level and a member of FINA should therefore implement their own anti-doping rules and should, pursuant to the FINA Doping Control Rules, indicate that the FINA Anti-Doping Rules shall be deemed as incorporated and shall be directly applicable and shall be followed inter alia by the competitors. However, the national regulations for doping control and sanctions in sport also apply on athletes as clearly stated in the “Purpose and Scope” chapter of those rules. Therefore both anti-doping rules, those of FINA’s and the national regulations are mutually applicable. In this respect, it is the substantive anti-doping rules in effect at the time the alleged anti-doping rule violation occurred which apply unless the principle of “Lex mitior” applies under the circumstances of the case. 3. Once a swimmer is included in the National Registered Testing Pool list and in the absence of any official statement or notification that this swimmer is stroked out of the list, the swimmer remains on the list for the whole period of the validity of this list, regardless from the question whether or not s/he was a member of the national team. S/he is therefore under the obligation to comply with the whereabouts requirements. 4. The failure to provide whereabouts information, will be considered a violation under the applicable regulations only after the competent body had submitted a written warning to the swimmer. The written warning appears as a precondition to convict a swimmer for a failure to provide whereabouts information. Furthermore, it seems essential to establish the existence of duly notified warnings, as the aim of the warning is to bring athletes to the awareness that they should comply with the obligation to provide the whereabouts information. 5. FINA and its member federations shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. In this respect, the occurrence of an anti-doping violation should be established to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body. By not being in a position to produce the evidence of the formal written warnings, the minimum requirements for sanctioning an athlete for a failure to provide whereabouts information are not met and the anti-doping violation is not established. _________________________________________________ In September 2008 the Czech Anti-Doping Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the swimmer Zdenek Frantisák for his failure to provide whereabouts information on 3 occasions after being notified. As a result the Czech Swimming Federation (CSF) Disciplinary Commission decided on 22 November 2008 to impose a conditional suspension of 3 months with a probation period of 6 months. After deliberations between the Fédération Internationale De Natation (FINA) and the CSF about the rendered decision FINA filed its appeal in April 2009 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). FINA requested the Panel to set aside the CSF decision and to impose a sanction of 2 years on the Athlete. Although duly invited by CAS neither the CSF nor the Athlete responded to submit the requested documents or to attend the hearing. The Panel decided to settled the case based on the filed submissions. The Panel notes that there are the following main issues to be resolved in this case: a.) Was the swimmer included in the Registered Testing Pool on the dates of the notifications and therefore liable to comply with whereabouts requirements? b.) If so, did the swimmer commit a violation under the 2008 FINA Doping Control Rules? c.) If so, which sanction is to be deemed appropriate in the case at stake? The Panel finds that regardless of the fact that the swimmer was - or was not - selected in the Czech National Swimming Team at the time the alleged failures occurred, he was still part of the National Registered Testing Pool, since there is no evidence that he was off the list. In the Panel’s view, he was therefore still under the obligation to comply with the whereabouts requirements. The Panel establish that in this case the only evidence provided to the Panel relies on the CSF’s statement that the swimmer received “two notices”, which are not produced and which are not even referred to as “formal written warnings”. It is therefore the opinion of the Panel that the receipt by the swimmer of a formal written warning was not proven. Consequently the Panel holds that FINA has not succeeded in showing that formal written warnings have been sent to the swimmer after any one of his alleged failures to provide whereabouts information on April 17, July 22 and August 20, 2008. The only possible outcome in these circumstances is the rejection of FINA’s appeal. In the case at stake, the Panel has decided to dismiss FINA’s appeal mainly because FINA could not provide evidence that formal written warnings had been received by the swimmer. The Panel is perfectly aware of the fact that FINA cannot prove these elements if the CSF, which is the body that should have sent and kept copies of the written warnings, does not cooperate. Nevertheless, the Panel considers that this is a matter to be dealt with between an international federation and its affiliated member and it cannot condemn, confirm or extend the sanction of an athlete on the sole basis of assumptions. The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 January 2010: 1.) The appeal of The Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA), against the decision issued on 24 November 2008 by the Disciplinary Committee of the Czech Swimming Federation (CSF) and notified on 25 March 2009 to the Appellant, is dismissed. 2.) (…). 3.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2009_A_1831 FINA vs Czech Swimming Federation & Zofie Kvackova

CAS 2009/A/1831 Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) v. Czech Swimming Federation (CSF) & Zofie Kvackova Aquatics (swimming) Doping (failure to provide whereabouts information) Admissibility of the appeal Applicable law Obligation to provide whereabouts information for an athlete included in the national registered testing pool Notification of the filing failure as a precondition for conviction Burden of proof 1. The principle of the prohibition against the retroactive application of law is subject to several exceptions, including an exception for law or rules which are of procedural nature. In the absence of an express provision to the contrary, laws and rules related to procedural matters apply immediately upon entering into force and regardless of when the facts to be judged occurred. Such is the case for the 2009 FINA Anti-Doping Rules, which provide for a direct appeal to the CAS. In any event, FINA’s entitlement to appeal a federation’s decision directly to CAS would also have been admissible on the basis of the 2008 FINA Doping Control Rules – the applicable substantive anti-doping rules – which provide that the decision may be appealed exclusively to CAS if an athlete is to be considered an international-level competitor. 2. As a matter of principle, the FINA Anti-Doping Control Rules are not directly applicable to doping violations on a national level and a member of FINA should therefore implement their own anti-doping rules and should, pursuant to the FINA Doping Control Rules, indicate that the FINA Anti-Doping Rules shall be deemed as incorporated and shall be directly applicable and shall be followed inter alia by the competitors. However, the national regulations for doping control and sanctions in sport also apply on athletes as clearly stated in the “Purpose and Scope” chapter of those rules. Therefore both anti-doping rules, those of FINA’s and the national regulations are mutually applicable. In this respect, it is the substantive anti-doping rules in effect at the time the alleged anti-doping rule violation occurred which apply unless the principle of “Lex mitior” applies under the circumstances of the case. 3. Once a swimmer is included in the National Registered Testing Pool list and in the absence of any official statement or notification that this swimmer is stroked out of the list, the swimmer remains on the list for the whole period of the validity of this list, regardless from the question whether or not s/he was a member of the national team. S/he is therefore under the obligation to comply with the whereabouts requirements. 4. The failure to provide whereabouts information, will be considered a violation under the applicable regulations only after the competent body had submitted a written warning to the swimmer. The written warning appears as a precondition to convict a swimmer for a failure to provide whereabouts information. Furthermore, it seems essential to establish the existence of duly notified warnings, as the aim of the warning is to bring athletes to the awareness that they should comply with the obligation to provide the whereabouts information. 5. FINA and its member federations shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. In this respect, the occurrence of an anti-doping violation should be established to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body. By not being in a position to produce the evidence of the formal written warnings, the minimum requirements for sanctioning an athlete for a failure to provide whereabouts information are not met and the anti-doping violation is not established. _________________________________________________ In September 2008 the Czech Anti-Doping Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the swimmer Zofie Kvackova for her failure to provide whereabouts information on 3 occasions after being notified. As a result the Czech Swimming Federation (CSF) Disciplinary Commission decided on 22 November 2008 to impose a conditional suspension of 3 months with a probation period of 6 months. After deliberations between the Fédération Internationale De Natation (FINA) and the CSF about the rendered decision FINA filed its appeal in June 2009 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). FINA requested the Panel to set aside the CSF decision and to impose a sanction between 3 months and 2 years on the Athlete. Although duly invited by CAS neither the CSF nor the Athlete responded to submit the requested documents or to attend the hearing. The Panel decided to settled the case based on the filed submissions. The Panel notes that there are the following main issues to be resolved in this case: a.) Was the swimmer included in the Registered Testing Pool on the dates of the notifications and therefore liable to comply with whereabouts requirements? b.) If so, did the swimmer commit a violation under the 2008 FINA Doping Control Rules? c.) If so, which sanction is to be deemed appropriate in the case at stake? The Panel finds that regardless of the fact that the swimmer was - or was not - selected in the Czech National Swimming Team at the time the alleged failures occurred, she was still part of the National Registered Testing Pool, since there is no evidence that she was off the list. In the Panel’s view, she was therefore still under the obligation to comply with the whereabouts requirements. The Panel establish that in this case the only evidence provided to the Panel relies on the CSF’s statement that the swimmer received “two notices”, which are not produced and which are not even referred to as “formal written warnings”. It is therefore the opinion of the Panel that the receipt by the swimmer of a formal written warning was not proven. Consequently the Panel holds that FINA has not succeeded in showing that formal written warnings have been sent to the swimmer after any one of her alleged failures to provide whereabouts information on April 17, July 22 and August 20, 2008. The only possible outcome in these circumstances is the rejection of FINA’s appeal. In the case at stake, the Panel has decided to dismiss FINA’s appeal mainly because FINA could not provide evidence that formal written warnings had been received by the swimmer. The Panel is perfectly aware of the fact that FINA cannot prove these elements if the CSF, which is the body that should have sent and kept copies of the written warnings, does not cooperate. Nevertheless, the Panel considers that this is a matter to be dealt with between an international federation and its affiliated member and it cannot condemn, confirm or extend the sanction of an athlete on the sole basis of assumptions. The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 January 2010: 1.) The appeal of the Fédération Internationale De Natation (FINA), against the decision issued on 24 November 2008 by the Disciplinary Committee of the Czech Swimming Federation (CSF) and notified on 25 March 2009 to the Appellant, is dismissed. 2.) (…). 3.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2008_A_1625 Rodrigo Souto vs CONMEBOL & FIFA

CAS 2008/A/1625 Rodrigo Souto v. Confederación Sudamericana de Fútbol (CONMEBOL) & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) Football Doping (benzoylecgonine) Breach of the right to be heard Breach of doping procedural provisions 1. The right to be heard which is expressly recognised in the applicable FIFA Doping Control Regulations, shall be considered as a procedural principle universally recognised in all fields of law, and as such shall be respected in any case. A player’s right to be heard in a football private association’s doping procedure is disregarded when the player is unable to produce allegations and to express his position at any stage. The violation of the player’s fundamental right to be heard renders the procedure followed before the football association null and void, which implies that the outcome of the mentioned proceedings (i.e. the sanction imposed to the player) is left without effect. 2. According to the applicable regulations, a breach of doping procedural provisions occurs when the analysis of the sample has taken place in a laboratory which is not accredited by WADA. In such case, the legal steps and proceedings have not been observed and the result of the doping control cannot be considered as a valid result justifying a sanction. _________________________________________________ In June 2008 the South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian professional football player Rodrigo Souto after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. As a result on 9 July 2008 CONMEBOL imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. This sanction was extended worldwide by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee on 18 July 2008. Hereafter in July 2008 the Athlete appealed the CONMEBOL decision of 9 July 2008 with the FIFA Appeal Committee. On 21 August 2008 the FIFA Appeal Committee decided to revoke the worldwide extention of the sanction on the basis that the Athlete's right to be heard was not respected. Further the Appeal Committee regards that the Athlete's A-sample was tested in a Laboratory in Montevideo, Uruguay which is not accredited by WADA and not in accordance with the FIFA Rules. In July 2008 the Athlete also filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and requested the Panel to set aside the decision of 9 July 2008. The Athlete argued that his fundamental right to be heard has been violated in the proceedings before CONMEBOL and that several irregularities occurred. The Panel establish that that Athlete's right to be heard was indeed disregarded by CONMEBOL and holds that there were no alleged infringements of the Rules during the sample collection procedure. The Panel agrees that the analysis of the A-sample was not carried out in a laboratory accredited by WADA. Consequently the Panel deems that the breaches of rights and procedural irregularities are clear and indisputable. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 19 February 2009: 1.) The decision of CONMEBOL dated 9th July 2008 imposing a sanction of two years of suspension on Mr. Rodrigo Ribeiro Souto is set aside. 2.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed. (…).

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2007_A_1405 & 1418 Nat Cooper & Karl Grant vs British Weightlifting Association

CAS 2007/A/1405 & 1418 Nat Cooper & Karl Grant v. British Weightlifting Association (BWLA) Weightlifting Doping (testosterone; human chorionic gonadotropin) Contamination of the sample through using of the doping control room as a changing room Chain of custody Sample degradation through high temperature 1. Even if there is something in the air arising from the use of the doping control room as a changing room, and even if this finds its way into the athlete’s sample, it is highly unlikely to have any effect whatsoever on the measure of HCG. Further, had some degradation occurred, this would be likely to reduce the level of HCG and not to augment it. 2. It is axiomatic that the links in the chain of custody must be robust; there must be no chance that the samples which arrive at the doping control centre were not those taken at the doping control room or that they can have been tampered with en route. So long as the bottles containing the A and B samples arrive at the Doping Control Center with seals unbroken and there are no signs of tampering, and so long as the appealing parties produce no evidence to suggest that it could have – or indeed did – take place en route (any more than before the journey), the links in such chain of custody are considered as robust. 3. In general, it is admitted that temperature of the storage and transport environments have no impact on the stability of the sample. _________________________________________________ In August 2005 the British Weight Lifting Association (BWLA) has reported anti-doping rule violations against two Athletes after their A and B samples tested positive for prohibited substances: - de weightlifter Nat Cooper for testing positive for the substance Testosterone; - de weightlifter Karl Grant for testing positive for the substance Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). As a result the British Disciplinary Panel imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athletes. Hereafter in January 2008 Mr Nat Cooper and in May 2008 Mr Karl Grant appealed the BWLA decisions with the Court of Arbitraton for Sport (CAS). In their defence the Athletes indicated that they wished to reinstate various matters which they had elected not to pursue before the Disciplinary Committee in first instance and also to raise new allegations. The Athletes argued that there were departures of the WADA ISL and IST based on the following contentions: (A) The sample taking was imperfect so that it is uncertain that the sample tested was that of the athlete charged or that if it was, it was uncontaminated. (B) The links in the chain of custody were unsound with the same consequence. (C) The samples were not properly preserved until testing so that they degraded. (D) The testing was imperfect so that the results, even of the athlete’s uncontaminated sample, were unreliable. Considering the allegations and evidence the Sole Arbitrator Panel is entirely confident that the samples provided by the Athletes were the samples properly taken and duly bottled. The Panel establish that the Athlete' samples arrived at the London Lab with the seals unbroken and without signs of tampering. The Athletes showed no evidence to suggest that it could have - or indeed did - take place en route. Neither was there evidence that demonstrates that there was any break in the chain of custody or any indication of any impact upon the integrity of the Athletes’ samples. The Panel further establish that there was no break in the chain of custody recorded by the London Lab as alleged by the Athletes. The Panel does not accept the allegation that the samples were exposed to excessive temperatures leading to degradation while this has no impact on the stability of the samples. The Panel deems that the Athletes have not succeeded in sustaining any of the allegations in relation to the London Lab’s procedure for analysis. In any event the Athletes produced no evidence whatsoever that even if any of their alleagations had any foundation, the relevant error caused the positive test results. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 October 2008: 1.) The appeals of Nat Cooper and Karl Grant are dismissed. (…).

show » details »
Type:
pdf
Category
  • Legal
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin