CAS 2017/A/4967 Adel Mechaal v. IAAF & Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte (AEPSAD) In December 2016 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (AEPSAD) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Spanish Athlete Adel Mechaal for his whereabouts filing failures and 3 missed tests within a 12 month period. Consequently the AEPSAD sole arbitrator decided on 16 January 2017 to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Hereafter in January 2017 the Athlete appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and requested the Panel to annul the AEPSAD decision of 16 Janurary 2017. The Athlete disputed the composition, the impartiality and independence of the decision body in first instance and asserted that during Results Management several procedural irregularities occurred regarding the whereabouts and the notification of the missed tests leading to departures of the international standards. Further the Athlete argued that 2 of the 3 whereabouts filing failures were caused by system failures in ADAMS. The Panel holds that in the first instance of the case the decision body should be pluripersonal and agrees that the impartiality and independence of the Spanish sole arbitrator was in question since he was also external legal advisor for AEPSAD and therefore should not have been selected as the sole arbitrator in the case. Considering the evidence and circumstances in this case the Panel establishes that the AEPSAD notification about the Athlete’s first missed test on 8 December 2015 was correctly made due to circumstances on 29 January 2016. Meanwhile there was already a second missed test on 24 January 2016 while the communication of AEPSAD’s second notifiction was made on 11 February 2016. The third missed test was on 15 July 2016 and the IAAF notification was on 2 August 2016. As a result of the sequence of events the Panel concludes that the Athlete was only aware of the first missed test on 29 January 2016, 5 days after he had missed the second test. For this reason and under the Rules the Panel deems that there were only 2 whereabouts missed tests and consequently the Athlete did not commit the reported anti-doping rule violation for 3 missed tests. Further the Panel deems that the Athlete acted not in full compliance with his obligations to send his whereabouts to AEPSAD in January 2016 only by using e-mail in the situation that there were technical problems with ADAMS and a lack of availability of other electronic resources. Therefore and in spite of the not completely compliant acting of the Athlete the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decides on 24 April 2018 that the Athlete’s appeal is assignable and to annul the AEPSAD decision of 16 January 2017.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Recently added documents More »
Urine Caffeine Concentration in Doping Control Samples from 2004 to 2015 / Millán Aguilar-Navarro, Gloria Muñoz, Juan José Salinero, Jesús Muñoz-Guerra, María Fernández-Álvarez, María del Mar Plata, Juan Del Coso. - (Nutrients 11 (2019) 2 ; p. 1-11). - PMID: 30699902. - DOI: 10.3390/nu11020286 _________________________________________________ Abstract: The ergogenic effect of caffeine is well-established, but the extent of its consumption in sport is unknown at the present. The use of caffeine was considered “prohibited” until 2004, but this stimulant was moved from the List of Prohibited Substances to the Monitoring Program of the World Anti-Doping Agency to control its use by monitoring urinary caffeine concentration after competition. However, there is no updated information about the change in the use of caffeine as the result of its inclusion in the Monitoring Program. The aim of this study was to describe the changes in urine caffeine concentration from 2004 to 2015. A total of 7488 urine samples obtained in official competitions held in Spain and corresponding to athletes competing in Olympic sports (2788 in 2004, 2543 in 2008, and 2157 in 2015) were analyzed for urine caffeine concentration. The percentage of samples with detectable caffeine (i.e., >0.1 μg/mL) increased from ~70.1%, in 2004–2008 to 75.7% in 2015. The median urine caffeine concentration in 2015 (0.85 μg/mL) was higher when compared to the median value obtained in 2004 (0.70 μg/mL; p < 0.05) and in 2008 (0.70 μg/mL; p < 0.05). The urine caffeine concentration significantly increased from 2004 to 2015 in aquatics, athletics, boxing, judo, football, weightlifting, and rowing (p < 0.05). However, the sports with the highest urine caffeine concentration in 2015 were cycling, athletics, and rowing. In summary, the concentration of caffeine in the urine samples obtained after competition in Olympic sports in Spain increased from 2004 to 2015, particularly in some disciplines. These data indicate that the use of caffeine has slightly increased since its removal from the list of banned substances, but urine caffeine concentrations suggest that the use of caffeine is moderate in most sport specialties. Athletes of individual sports or athletes of sports with an aerobic-like nature are more prone to using caffeine in competition.
The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on objective and subjective indexes of exercise performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis
The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on objective and subjective indexes of exercise performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis / Darías Holgado, Miguel A. Vadillo, Daniel Sanabria. - (Brain stimulation 12 (2019) 2 (March - April) ; p. 242-250). - PMID: 30559000. - DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2018.12.002 _________________________________________________ Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on objective and subjective indexes of exercise performance. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search of electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar) and reference lists of included articles up to June 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Published articles in journals or in repositories with raw data available, randomized sham-controlled trial comparing anodal stimulation with a sham condition providing data on objective (e.g. time to exhaustion or time-trial performance) or subjective (e.g. rate of perceived exertion) indexes of exercise performance. RESULTS: The initial search provided 420 articles of which 31 were assessed for eligibility. Finally, the analysis of effect sizes comprised 24 studies with 386 participants. The analysis indicated that anodal tDCS had a small but positive effect on performance g = 0.34, 95% CI [0.12, 0.52], z = 3.24, p = .0012. Effects were not significantly moderated by type of outcome, electrode placement, muscles involved, number of sessions, or intensity and duration of the stimulation. Importantly, the funnel plot showed that, overall, effect sizes tended to be larger in studies with lower sample size and high standard error. SUMMARY: The results suggest that tDCS may have a positive impact on exercise performance. However, the effect is probably small and most likely biased by low quality studies and the selective publication of significant results. Therefore, the current evidence does not provide strong support to the conclusion that tDCS is an effective means to improve exercise performance.
Anabolic Steroid Cases in United States District Courts (2013–2017): Defendant Characteristics, Geographical Dispersion, and Substance Origins / Bryan E. Denham. - (Contemporary Drug Problems 45 (2018) 4 (December) ; p. 441-459). - DOI 10.1177/0091450918800823 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0091450918800823 _________________________________________________ Abstract: This study examined contextual factors associated with 63 anabolic–androgenic steroid (AAS) cases involving 184 defendants in 41 United States District Courts. Information came from press releases distributed electronically by the U.S. Department of Justice across a 5-year period, January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017. In addition to the demographic characteristics of defendants and the regions in which cases took place, the study considered the number of defendants per case, the nations from which AAS or raw materials had been imported, the presence of illicit substances beyond AAS, allegations of additional crimes, and whether a case involved public safety personnel. Courts in the South Atlantic division, and especially courts in Florida, heard the most cases involving the most defendants. Additionally, in 27 of 63 cases, defendants had obtained AAS or raw materials used to manufacture AAS from China; and in 12 of 63 cases, former police officers appeared as defendants. The study observes that more AAS sellers appear to be purchasing raw powders and liquids in bulk, using “homebrewing” techniques to increase profits and reduce counterfeiting. The relatively large number of cases in Florida may have reflected crackdowns on “pill mills” and the high-profile Biogenesis case.
Report of the Independent Observers XXI Commonwealth Games Gold Coast 2018 / Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2018
Report of the Independent Observers XVIII Asian Games Jakarta Palembang 2018 / Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2019
In April 2018 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the the Athlete Abigael Jerop after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Salbutamol. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and he was heard for the Kenya Judiciary Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal. The Athlete admitted the violation, accepted the test result, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. She explained with medical evidence that she suffered from asthma, underwent treatment in a hostpital and had used prescribed Salbutamol through an inhaler. The Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and that she established No Significant Fault or Negligence in this case. Therefore the Kenya Judiciary Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 16 January 2019 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 1 April 2018.
In March 2018 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the the Athlete Ronald Kiptai Matakat after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Prednisolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Kenya Judiciary Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal. The Athlete admitted the violation, accepted the test result, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He explained with evidence that he suffered from a cold and had used several prescribed medication from a hospital including prednisolone. The Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and that he acted negligently as he failed to mention his Prednisolone on the Doping Control Form nor did he apply for a TUE. Therefore the Kenya Judiciary Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 29 November 2018 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 17 March 2018.
In September 2017 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the the Athlete Eric Muthomi Riungu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Salbutamol in a concentration above the WADA threshold. After notification a provision suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Kenya Judiciary Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal. The Athlete admitted the violation, accepted the test result, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He explained that in July 2017 he suffered from asthma and pneumonia and underwent treatment in a medical clinic. He was unaware that the prescribed medication contained a prohibited substance. The Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and that he acted negligently as he failed to mention his medication on the Doping Control Form nor did he apply for a TUE. Therefore the Kenya Judiciary Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 29 November 2018 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 3 October 2017.
In January 2016 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Bernard Kipkemoi Bosuben after his sample - provided in China in November 2015 - tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). Initially the China Anti-Doping Agency (CHINADA) and the Chinese Athletics Association (CAA) had result management but thereafter they failed to open proceedings against the Athlete. After deliberations the case was transferred to the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK). Proceedings were opened by ADAK in November 2016 followed by more delays. After notification by ADAK the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Kenya Judiciary Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal. The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use, accepted the test result and requested for a reduced sanction. He explained that during his his stay in China in November 2015 he had used a supplement (Decabolin) purchased in Hong Kong as treatment for his knee injuries. He acknowledged that he failed to mention his supplement on the Doping Control Form and also failed to apply for a TUE because he was unaware of this procedure. The Athlete complained about the failures of the Chinese Authorities for issuing a notification and a provisional suspension causing substantial delays. The Panel considers the Athlete’s admission and his degree of fault in this case. It finds that he failed to exercise due care as he didn't mention during the purchase that he was an athlete and subject to doping control. Neither did he reseach his supplement before using. The Panel agrees that there were substantial delays and errors in this case not attributed to the Athlete. Therefore the Kenya Judiciary Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 29 November 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting backdated into the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 1 November 2015.