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 »

CAS 2017_A_5498 Vitaly Mutko vs IOC

Mr. Vitaly Mutko, was the current Deputy Prime Minister of Russia and was the Russian Minister of Sport, Tourism and Youth Policy from 12 May 2008 until 21 May 2012 and the Russian Minister of Sport from 21 May 2012 until 19 October 2016. Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof. Richard McLaren as Independent Person (IP) on 18 July 2016 and 9 December 2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IP reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample. As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. At the same time the IOC Schmid Commission started their investigations to establish the facts on the basis of documented, independent and impartial evidence. On 2 December 2017, the Schmid Commission published its report, confirming the systemic manipulation of the anti-doping rules and system in Russia, which caused “exceptional damage to the integrity of the IOC, the Olympic Games and the entire Olympic movement”. The Schmid Commission concluded that members of the Ministry of Sport and its subordinated entities were directly involved in the manipulation; however, the Schmid Commission did not find sufficient documented, independent and impartial evidence to decide whether the Mr Mutko was personally involved in or had knowledge of that manipulation. Nevertheless, the Schmid Commission determined that the Mr Mutko, as the then head of the Ministry of Sport, had the “ultimate administrative responsibility for the acts perpetrated at the time within the Russian Ministry or the entities under its responsibility” and, accordingly, recommended that he bear “the major part” of that administrative responsibility. The Schmid Commission urged the IOC Executive Board (EB) to “take the appropriate measures that should be strong enough to effectively sanction the existence of a systemic manipulation of the anti-doping rules and system in Russia, as well as the legal responsibility of the various entities involved”. Consequently the IOC EB formally approved the Schmid Report on 5 December 2017 and decided: "[…] IV. To exclude the then Minister of Sport, Mr Vitaly Mutko, […] from any participation in all future Olympic Games”. The IOC never formally notified Mr Mutko of this Decision. The IOC only published this Decision, without any grounds, in the form of a press release in both English and Russian, on its official website under the category “News”. Hereafter in December 2017 Mr Mutko appealed the IOC EB decision of 5 December 2017 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and requested the Panel to set aside paragraph IV of the IOC EB Decision of 5 December 2017. Mr Mutko argued that the Appealed Decision must be set aside because it imposed a sanction on him without a proper legal basis. The IOC, on the other hand, seeked to uphold the Appealed Decision. The IOC maintained that the Appealed Decision did not impose a sanction; rather, it simply declared “in advance” the IOC’s intent to reject any future application for Mr Mutko’s participation in the Olympic Games. In the IOC’s view, such a declaration is markedly different from a decision imposing a sanction on an individual and has not affected the legal position and rights of Mr Mutko. Further, the IOC claimed that the Appealed Decision was based on a proper legal basis of the Olympic Charter. The Panel holds that the Appealed Decision set forth a sanction against Mr Mutko. Consequently, as for any challenged sanction, the Panel must verify whether the sanction was grounded on a proper legal basis. Here the Panel established that Mr Mutko was not and is not an Olympic competitor, a member of an Olympic delegation, a referee or member of a jury, and does not hold any Olympic accreditation which might be withdrawn. Finally, the Panel notes that the IOC has even admitted that, in the event the Panel characterized the Appealed Decision as a sanction (as it has done so) the Appealed Decision would have no legal basis due to the IOC’s lack of authority to issue any form of disciplinary sanction against Mr Mutko as an individual not subject to the IOC’s jurisdiction and regulations. In light of the foregoing, the Panel must set aside the Appealed Decision for lack of a legal basis. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 3 July 2019 that: 1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Vitaly Mutko on 26 December 2017 is upheld. 2.) The decision concerning Mr. Vitaly Mutko, adopted by the Executive Board of the International Olympic Committee on 5 December 2017, is set aside. 3.) The costs of this arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be equally borne by both parties. 4.) Each party shall bear his or its own legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration. 5.) All further or different motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

JADCO 2017 JADCO vs Dwayne Walker

In October 2017 the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder Dwayne Walker after his sample tested positive for the prohibited susbstance Ibutamoren. After notification the Athlete in his submission accepted the test results and a provisional suspension. Hereafter he failed to respond to the JADCO communications. The Jamaica Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel finds that the test result establishes the presence of a prohibited substance and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel holds that the Athlete already had accepted the test result and he made no request for a hearing. Therefore the Jamaica Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 11 October 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 October 2017.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

JADCO 2017 JADCO vs Delmar Graham

In March 2017 the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder Delmar Graham after his sample tested positive for the prohibited susbstances Testosterone and Trenbolone. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right to be heard, accepted the provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by JADCO. The Jamaica Anti-Doing Disciplinary Panel considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission about the violation and decides on 7 December 2017 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 24 March 2017.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

JADCO 2017 JADCO vs Jason Livermore

In July 2017 the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jason Livermore after his sample tested positive for the prohibited susbstances Clomiphene and Mesterolone. After notification a provisional suspenstion was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the Jamaica Anti-Doing Disciplinary Panel. The Athlete admitted the violation and denied that the violation was intentional. He explained that he had used medication as treatment for his condition prescribed by his doctor as mentioned on the Doping Control Form and he was unaware that he had to apply for a TUE. The Panel concludes that the violation was not intentional but also finds that the Athlete acted negligently since he failed to research his medication for prohibited nor applied for a TUE. Therefore the Jamaica Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 26 October 2017 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 February 2017.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

JADCO 2013 JADCO vs Sherone Simpson

In July 2013 the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Sherone Simpson after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxilofrine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Jamaica Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel. The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that it was not intentional. She asserted that one of the supplements Epiphandy D1 she used was the source of the positive test recommended by her physical trainer. She stated that she researched the ingredients of all the supplements she had used. Analysis in 2 laboraties in the USA and in one laboratory in Jamaica of the batch of Epiphandy D1 used by the Athlete showed the presence of the substance Oxilofrine in supplement. Considering the evidence in this case and the Athlete’s degree of fault the Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and that there are grounds for a reduced sanction. The Panel deems that the Athlete failed to mention her supplement in question on the Doping Control Form and that the substantial assistance she provided was insufficient enough for a further reduction of the sanction. Therefore the Jamaica Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 1 May 2014 to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 21 June 2013.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

JADCO 2009 JADCO vs Yohan Blake, Marvin Anderson, Allodin Fothergill & Lansford Spence - Appeal

JADCO 2009 JADCO vs Yohan Blake, Marvin Anderson, Allodin Fothergill & Lansford Spence August 9, 2009 On 9 August 2009 the JADCO Disciplinary Panel decided to dismiss the charges against the 4 Jamaican athletes after the tested positive for the substance 4-Merhyl-2-hexanamine. Here the Panel deemed that the substance 4-Merhyl-2-hexanamine was not biologically similar to the prohibited substance Tuaminoheptane and that there was no evidence that 4-Merhyl-2-hexanamine was mentioned on the WADA 2009 Prohibited List. Hereafter the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) appealed the decision of 9 August 2009 with the Jamaica Anti-Doping Appeals Tribunal. In this appeal both parties filed an agreed memorandum. In this memorandum the Athletes accepted the test results showing the presence of 4-Merhyl-2-hexanamine in their samples. This substance was not mentioned on the 2009 WADA Prohibited List although WADA regarded that 4-Merhyl-2-hexanamine has a similar chemical structure or similar biological effects to the prohibited substance Tuaminoheptane, which indeed was included on the Prohibited List. JADCO accepted that the Ahtletes established that the violations were not intentional, that they did conduct a proper supplement research before using this product and didn’t act negligently. JADCO acknowledged that the Athletes were misled by the product information on the website of the manufacturer. The Appeal Panel considers the findings in the agreed memorandum, that the substance in question was not mentioned on the WADA 2009 Prohibited List and that the Athletes researched their supplements before using. Therefore the Jamaica Anti-Doping Appeals Tribunal decides on 14 September 2009 to impose a reprimand and to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athletes. Hereafter in 2010 the substance 4-Merhyl-2-hexanamine was included on the WADA Prohibited List as Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

show » details »
Type:
pdf

JADCO 2009 JADCO vs Yohan Blake, Marvin Anderson, Allodin Fothergill & Lansford Spence

JADCO 2009 JADCO vs Yohan Blake, Marvin Anderson, Allodin Fothergill & Lansford Spence - Appeal September 14, 2009 In July 2009 the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athletes Yohan Blake, Marvin Anderson, Allodin Fothergill and Lansford Spence after their samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 4-Methyl-2-hexanamine. After notification the Athletes were heard before the JADCO Disciplinary Panel. The case initiated by JADCO was based on a WADA consideration from 2009 about the substance Methylhexaneamine and the conclusion of the WADA Prohibited List Committee in 2009 that Methylhexanemanine is a stimulant that has a chemical structurure similar to the prohibited substance Tuaminopheptane which is included on the WADA Prohibited List since 2007. Hereafter the substance 4-Methyl-2-hexanamine was included on the 2010 WADA Prohibited List as Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After evidence of two experts the Panel finds that the substance 4-Methyl-2-hexanamine was not biologically similar to the prohibited substance Tuaminoheptane and that there was no evidence that 4-Methyl-2-hexanamine was mentioned on the current WADA 2009 Prohibited List. Therefore the JADCO Disciplinary Panel decides on 9 August 2009 to dismiss the charges and not to impose any period of ineligibility on the athletes.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CCES 2019 CCES vs Amanda Chudoba Obrigewitch

In June 2019 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Amanda Chudoba Obrigewitch after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Hydrochlorothiazide without a valid TUE. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted the provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by CCES. The CCES established that the Athlete had a diagnosed condition and had a valid medical prescription for the use of Hydrochlorothiazide for therapeutic purposes as directed by her physician. Although the Athlete was subsequently granted a TUE for the use of Hydrochlorothiazide, as an Athlete in the National Athlete Pool the Athlete was required to have a TUE in advance – prior to using Hydrochlorothiazide in-competition. The CCES finds that the Athlete was careless in not filing her TUE application on time. The CCES holds that there is No Significant Fault or negligence in this case and considers the Athlete’s degree of fault to be low. Therefore the CCES decides on 3 July 2019 to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 June 2019. Under the Rules at least 50% of the sanction (2 weeks) must be served after 21 June 2019 as it ends on 5 July 2019.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

JSAA 2018-001 J-5975 vs JADA - Appeal

Related case: JADDP 2018-003 JADA vs J-5975 November 19, 2018 In June 2018 the Japan Anti-Doping Agency (JADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist J-5975 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Vilanterol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered in September. The Athlete applied for a TUE, filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Japan Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (JADDP). The Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that he had used the medication Revlar as treatment for his asthma attacks prescribed by his mother a physician. The physician testified that she erroneously believed that for this prescribed medication the TUE would be granted automatically. However instead the physician had to apply for a TUE and explain why this medication was used and not the regular substances Salbutamol, Formoterol or Salmeterol. Further the TUE application afterwards filed in June 2018 for this medication was denied by the JADA TUEC on 23 July 2018. Hereafter the Athlete appealed the TUEC decision of 23 July 2018 with the Japan Sports Arbitration Agency (JSAA). Considering the evidence in this case the JSAA Panel deems that there were reasonable alternative medications available as treatment for the heavy asthma attacks the Athlete suffered when the Revlar medication was used in May 2018. Therefore the JSAA Panel decides on 6 September 2018 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the JADA TUEC decision of 23 July 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

JADA 2018-006 JADA vs J-5978

In April 2019 the Japan Anti-Doping Agency (JADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter J-5978 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Boldenone, Clomiphene and Metenolone. After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing, accepted the test result, a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by JADA. JADA deems that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substances entered his system. Accordingly JADA decides on 7 May 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete J-5978 starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 8 April 2019.

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