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 OG_AD_2018_03 IOC vs Aleksandr Krushelnitckii

CAS ADD 18/03 International Olympic Committee v. Aleksandr Krushelnitckii Mr Aleksandr Krushelnitckii is a Russian Athlete competing in the Curling events at the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Winter Games. On 18 February 2018 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples - provided on 12 and 13 February 2018 - tested positive for the prohibited susbstance Meldonium. After notification the Athlete admitted the violation and requested to be heard for the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel (CAS ADD). The World Curling Federation requested the Panel to order a provisional suspension beyond the period of the Games. On 22 February 2018 the Athlete re-confirmed his admission of the violation, accepted a provisional suspension beyond the period of the Games, and reserved all rights accordingly to seek the elimination or reduction of any period of ineligibility based on “No Fault or Negligence” following the conclusion of the Games. The CAS ADD accepted the parties' respective positions and cancelled the hearing. The Athlete expressly accepts the adverse analytical findings against him and therefore the Sole Arbitrator confirms the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that he is provisionally suspended until such time a final decision is rendered on his violations, or otherwise informed. Therefore the CAS ADD Panel decides on 22 February 2018 that: a.) The Athlete is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.1 of the IOC ADR. b.) The individual results obtained by the Athlete in the Mixed Doubles Curling event at the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018 are disqualified with all resulting consequences including forfeiture of the medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes. c.) The results obtained by the team of the Olympic Athletes from Russia in the Mixed Doubles Curling event at the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018 are disqualified with all resulting consequences including forfeiture of the medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes. d.) The Athlete is excluded from the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018. e.) To the extent not yet done so, the Athlete shall leave the Village and return his accreditation (number 3043371-01) immediately.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS OG_2018_05 | 7 Russian coaches and physicians vs IOC

CAS OG 18/05 Pavel Abratkiewicz, Victor Sivkov, Anna Vychik, Evgeny Zykov, Anatoly Chelyshev, Danil Chaban, Konstantin Poltavets v. International Olympic Committee __________________________________________________ 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. All the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establish whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated. The findings in the IP Reports were considererd in detail and both Commissions conclude that samples or urine collected from Russian Athletes were tampered with in Sochi in a systematic manner and as part of an organized scheme. The Commissions further conclude that it was not possible that the athletes were not fully implicated. They were also the main beneficiaries of the scheme. The Commissions find that Prof. McLaren’s findings are not only based on the evidence provided by Dr Rodchenkov in his interviews, but on a wealth of other corroborating evidence, including other witnesses, the forensic examination of the sample bottles, the evidence showing abnormal salt results and the additional elements coming from DNA analysis. The corroborating evidence considered by Prof. McLaren included further objective elements, such as e-mails confirming that athletes were protected through different methods. ________________________________________________ On 5 December 2017, based on the Schmid Commission’s recommendations, the IOC decided to suspend the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) with immediate effect. An Invitation Review Panel (IRP) and the Russia Implementation Group (OAR IG) were established with the responsibility of developing a list, based on a set of guidelines and criteria, from which the IOC would ultimately issue inviations. The IOC Decision to suspend the ROC and its athletes, coaches and support staff was challenged by the 7 applicants before the CAS (CAS 2017/A/5492). These procedures were pending before the CAS in Lausanne. The ROC eventually provided a list of 169 athletes, coaches and support staff who were invited to compete as Olympic Athletes from Russia at the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Games as approved by the IOC on 19 January 2018. The 7 Russian applicants were not invited to participate in the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Winter Games on the fact that they are associated with athletes who have been sanctioned by the Oswald Commission. Hereafter on 7 February 2018 the 6 Russian applicants filed an application with the CAS Ad Hoc at PyeongChang against the IOC regarding their non-invitation. The CAS Ad Hoc Division holds that it has only jurisdiction if an application concerns disputes which arise during the Olympic Games or after 30 January 2018 which is 10 days before the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games. The CAS Panel finds that the date when the dispute arose was 19 January 2018 when the 7 applicants became aware of their non-selection. Because this was well before the 10 days before the Opening Ceremony the Panel has no jurisdiction de deal with the application. Therefore the CAS Ad Hoc Division concludes on 9 February 2018 it does not have jurisdiction the hear the Application of the 7 Russian applicants filed on 7 February 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS OG_2018_04 | 6 Russian athletes vs IOC

CAS OG 18/04 Tatyana Borodulina, Pavel Kulizhnikov, Alexander Loginov, Irina Starykh, Dimitry Vassiliev, Denis Yuskov v. International Olympic Committee ________________________________________________ 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. All the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establish whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated. The findings in the IP Reports were considererd in detail and both Commissions conclude that samples or urine collected from Russian Athletes were tampered with in Sochi in a systematic manner and as part of an organized scheme. The Commissions further conclude that it was not possible that the athletes were not fully implicated. They were also the main beneficiaries of the scheme. The Commissions find that Prof. McLaren’s findings are not only based on the evidence provided by Dr Rodchenkov in his interviews, but on a wealth of other corroborating evidence, including other witnesses, the forensic examination of the sample bottles, the evidence showing abnormal salt results and the additional elements coming from DNA analysis. The corroborating evidence considered by Prof. McLaren included further objective elements, such as e-mails confirming that athletes were protected through different methods. ________________________________________________ On 5 December 2017, based on the Schmid Commission’s recommendations, the IOC decided to suspend the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) with immediate effect. An Invitation Review Panel (IRP) and the Russia Implementation Group (OAR IG) were established with the responsibility of developing a list, based on a set of guidelines and criteria, from which the IOC would ultimately issue inviations. The IOC Decision to suspend the ROC and its athletes was challenged by the 6 athletes before the CAS (CAS 2017/A/5487, CAS 2017/A/5488, CAS 2017/A/5484, CAS 2017/A/5485, CAS 2017/A/5486, CAS 2017/A/5490). These procedures were pending before the CAS in Lausanne. The ROC eventually provided a list of 169 athletes, coaches and support staff who were invited to compete as Olympic Athletes from Russia at the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Games as approved by the IOC on 19 January 2018. The 6 Russian Athletes were not invited to participate in the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Winter Games on the fact that previously they had served a period of ingeligibility for committing an anti-doping rule violation. Request for Provisional Measures were dismissed by the IOC. Hereafter on 7 February 2018 the 6 Russian athletes filed an application with the CAS Ad Hoc Division at PyeongChang against the IOC regarding their non-invitation. The CAS Ad Hoc Division holds that it has only jurisdiction if an application concerns disputes which arise during the Olympic Games or after 30 January 2018 which is 10 days before the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games. The CAS Panel finds that the date when the dispute arose was 19 January 2018 when the 6 athletes became aware of their non-selection. Because this was well before the 10 days before the Opening Ceremony the Panel has no jurisdiction to deal with the application of the 6 athletes. Therefore the CAS Ad Hoc Division concludes on 9 February 2018 it does not have jurisdiction the hear the Application of the 6 Russian athletes filed on 7 February 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2013_A_3435 Tomasz Stepien vs Polish Rugby Union

CAS 2013/A/3435 Tomasz Stepien v. Polish Rugby Union Rugby Doping (methylhexaneamine) Procedural deficiencies occurred at the previous instance and de novo review by the CAS Specified substances under Article 10.4 WADC and intent to enhance performance Purpose and rationale of Article 10.4 WADC “Performance-enhancing” intent of doping- relevance Principle of “contra proferentem” and restrictive interpretation of Article 10.4 WADC Intent No distinction between direct and indirect intent in case of a restrictive interpretation of intent Risks linked to the use of nutritional supplements 1. The CAS provides an opportunity for a full new hearing with full power to review the facts and the law. According to consistent CAS jurisprudence, errors during the prior proceedings and the prior hearing can, if at all, only be the basis for a successful appeal when the errors in the process below somehow affect a party’s right to fully present a case before CAS. Therefore, any alleged inadequacies in the prior hearing could be cured by the right to a new hearing before CAS. In light of the given possibility of a full appeal to the CAS, “due process” arguments concerning the proceedings before the previous instance can be deemed as cured. 2. Regarding specified substances, Article 10.4 WADC is the most specific provision and takes precedence over others. Where an athlete or other person can establish how a specified substance entered his or her body or came into his or her possession and that such specified substance was not intended to enhance the athlete’s sport performance or mask the use of a performance-enhancing substance, the period of ineligibility found in Article 10.2 shall be replaced, for a first violation, with at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of ineligibility from future events, and at a maximum, two years of ineligibility. In order to satisfy the condition that the specified substance was not intended to enhance the athlete’s sport performance, the athlete must establish the absence of intent to enhance sport performance at the time of its ingestion. The key question is whether the intent to enhance sport performance relates to the use of the specified substance or to the product in which it was contained. 3. Whether or not to follow a broad or restrictive interpretation of Art. 10.4 WADC must be decided depending on the purpose of the rule. The underlying rationale of this provision is that there is a greater likelihood that specified substances, as opposed to other prohibited substances, could be susceptible to a credible non-doping explanation and that the latter warrants - in principle - a lesser sanction. What Art. 10.4 wants to account for is, in principle, that in relation to specified substances there is a certain general risk in day to day life that these substances are taken inadvertently by an athlete. The question is what happens if the risk at stake is not a “general” but a (very) specific one that the athlete has deliberately chosen to take. 4. The characteristic of “performance-enhancing” as such is neutral. An athlete is entitled to consume any substance that seems useful to enhance his sport performance as long as this substance is not listed on WADA’s Prohibited List, Therefore, the primary focus can obviously not be on the question whether or not the athlete intended to enhance his sport performance by a certain behaviour (i.e. consuming a certain product), but moreover if the intent of the athlete in this respect was of doping-relevance. In this respect, the WADC itself recognizes the difference between legitimate performance enhancement and the use of a prohibited substance. 5. In accordance with CAS jurisprudence, the principle of “contra proferentem” alone justifies a restrictive interpretation of the element of “intent to enhance sport performance” in Article 10.4 WADC. It is clear that the restrictive interpretation (i.e. intent must relate to the prohibited substance in question) favours the athletes. 6. Intent is established if an athlete knowingly ingests a prohibited substance. 7. Drawing a distinction between direct and indirect intent would lead to a broad interpretation of the term “intent” in Article 10.4 WADC, and thus to an interpretation to the detriment of athletes. This approach would contradict the applicable principle of “contra proferentem” and is, therefore, an approach that should not be taken. 8. The numerous warnings of the well-known risks linked to the use of nutritional supplements exist and are widely published for many years. WADA’s website contains inter alia the following warning: “Extreme caution is recommended regarding supplement use. The use of dietary supplements by athletes is a concern because in many countries the manufacturing and labelling of supplements may not follow strict rules, which may lead to a supplement containing an undeclared substance that is prohibited under anti-doping regulations. A significant number of positive tests have been attributed to the misuse of supplements and taking a poorly labelled dietary supplement is not an adequate defense in a doping hearing”. ________________________________________________ In October 2013 the Polish Rugby Union (PZR) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Tomasz Stepien after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) related to his use of the supplement Jack3d. On 21 November 2013 the PZR Games and Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Hereafter in December 2013 the Athlete appealed the PZR decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested to set aside the PZR decision of 21 November 2013 and to impose a reduced sanction. The Athlete gave a prompt admission to the PZR and denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance. He explained that he had used the supplement Jack3d provided by a salesman who assured him that the this modified formula was free of prohibited substances (geranium). He stated that he checked the ingredients of the product - on the Polish label - before using. Further the Athlete asserted that procedural deficiencies occurred during the procceedings effecting his right to fully present his case before the PZR Games and Disciplinary Commission. The Panel holds that any alleged inadequacies in the prior proceedings before the Polish Rugby Union are cured in this new hearing before CAS. Considering the Athlete’s behaviour in this case the CAS Panel finds that the Athlete had no intention to enhance his sport performance through using the prohibited substance. However this does not automatically lead to the impunity of the Athlete’s wrongdoing. Based on the circumstances and relevant CAS case law the Panel concludes that the Athlete is to be sanctioned for 10 months. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 July 2014: 1.) The Appeal filed by Mr. Tomasz Stepien against the decision of the Games and Disciplinary Commission of the Polish Rugby Union dated 21 November 2013 is partially upheld. 2.) The decision of the Games and Disciplinary Commission of the Polish Rugby Union dated 21 November 2013 is set aside and replaced with the following: 3.) Mr. Tomasz Stepien is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of ten (10) months, commencing on 14 September 2013. 4.) (…). 5.) (…). 6.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf
Category
  • (Medical) Science
  • Doping classes
  • Education
  • History
  • Laboratories
  • Legal
  • Statistics
Publication period
Origin
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Document category
  • Document type
  • Health/Medical
  • IF'S
  • Laboratories/Analysis
  • Legal Terms
  • Organisations
  • Substances
  • Various
  • Version