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 2011_A_2605 FIFA vs CBF, STJD & Vinicius Sarturi Hess

CAS 2011/A/2605 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Confederacão Brasileira de Futebol (CBF), Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD) & Mr Vinicius Sarturi Hess Football Doping (fenproporex) Jurisdiction of CAS over decisions passed by a justice body which is an integral part of the organisational structure of the national federation Admissibility of an appeal before the entire case file has been received by the appellant Use of plastic bottles as container for the samples Proof of the use of plastic bottles as a cause for the Adverse Analytical Finding Starting date of the suspension Credit for the period already served even if such period was not served as provisional suspension 1. The STJD is a justice body which is an integral part of the organisational structure of the CBF, with no legal personality of its own: its independence and autonomy in adjudicating the disputes brought before it does not entail that the STJD is a body which could legally stand alone if the CBF did not exist. The decisions rendered by the STJD, although independently adopted by the STJD, must be considered to be decisions of the CBF. Therefore, the CAS has jurisdiction ratione materiae over decisions rendered by the STJD but does not have jurisdiction rationae personae to hear an appeal against the STJD. 2. The fact that a statement of appeal is lodged before the entire case file has been received by the appellant does not imply its inadmissibility. Nothing in the FIFA system prevents the lodging of an appeal immediately upon receipt of the challenged decision and parts of the case file, or sanctions such “early” appeal with the inadmissibility thereof. However, the rights of the respondent(s) must not be impaired by such an “early” filing of the appeal. They are not impaired if the respondent has been given the possibility to state his case after the filing by the appellant of its appeal brief, lodged upon receipt and consideration of the entire disciplinary file. 3. The relevant provisions of the FIFA ADR provide for the use of collection equipment that complies with the requirements stipulated in the WADA International Standard for Testing; the latter, then, does not set, within the minimum criteria that the sample collection equipment must meet, the fact that it is composed by glass containers. 4. The mere submission that the plastic nature of the bottle containing the sample makes a sabotage theoretically possible, since the bottle could be pierced by a needle, without offering any evidence or making any submission of an actual sabotage of the sample, is not enough to establish, even on a balance of probability, that the use of plastic bottles could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding. Indeed, mere speculation regarding a fact is not proof that such fact did actually occur. 5. The period of suspension should start, in principle, as soon as the decision providing for ineligibility is communicated to the athlete concerned. However, substantial delays occurring in the arbitration proceedings, which are not attributable to the athlete, but are caused by the length of the appeals proceedings before the previous instance, the time taken to transmit the complete file of the case to the next instance and the time taken to forward the decision to the International Federation allow a CAS panel to set the starting date of the ineligibility period at an earlier date. A delay of eleven months in the proceedings is to be considered as substantial. 6. As long as an athlete was not eligible to play for six months after the finding of his commission of an anti-doping rule violation, it would be unfair and result de facto in a total suspension of two years and six months not to give him credit for that period. The fact that such prior period was not served as a provisional suspension is no impediment to that conclusion. Article 53 para. 1 of the FIFA ADR, while providing for the obligation to give credit for periods of provisional suspension, does not exclude (but logically requires) credit for periods of suspension imposed and served on the basis of “final” disciplinary decisions subsequently set aside. _________________________________________________ In November 2010 the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Vinicius Sarturi Hess after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Fenproporex. On 7 December 2010 the Disciplinary Commission of the Brazilian High Sports Court for Football (STJD) decided to impose on the Athlete a 1 year period of ineligibility. The Athlete appealed and on 7 April 2011 the STJD decided to reduce the sanction to a 6 month period of ineligibility. Hereafter in October 2011 the International Football Federation (FIFA) appealed the STJD decision of 7 April 2011 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). FIFA requested the Panel to set aside the STJD decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Regarding the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation and the appropriate sanction FIFA contended that the FIFA Status and Rules are applicable to Brazilian Sport and any that any athlete registered with a Brazilian federation is accordingly bound by the international rules accepted by that federation. The CBF indicated that it would not participate in the arbitration and that the STJD was the administrative body in cours. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance, disputed the admissibility of the appeal and argued that it is based on an incomplete case file. The STJD acknowledged that CAS has jurisdiction over this case (ratione materiae) but asserted that CAS has no jurisdiction over the STJD as party (ratione personae) to these arbitration proceedings. Considering the relevant Rules the Panel establish that the FIFA appeal is admissible and that CAS has jurisdiction to hear this appeal against the CBF and the Athlete. On the other hand, CAS establish that it does not have jurisdiction rationae personae on the STJD. In this case the Panel determine that there are two main questions to examine: 1.) the first is whether the Athlete can be found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation; 2.) the second, to be addressed in the event the Athlete is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation, concerns the sanction to be imposed on him, with respect to its duration and starting date. The Panel finds that there was no departure from the IST and no actual sabotage of the Athlete’s sample was proven and thereby the Adverse Analytical Finding is confirmed. As a result thereof, the Athlete is responsible of the anti-doping rule violation contemplated by Article 5 ADR. Consequently the Panel finds that a sanction of 2 years must be imposed on the Athlete. Here the Panel considers that there were substantial delays in the proceedings of 11 months not attributed to the Athlete. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 October 2012 that: 1.) The CAS has jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione personae to entertain the appeal of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) in respect of the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) and Mr Vinicius Sarturi Hess, while it has no jurisdiction ratione personae in respect of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD). 2.) The appeal filed by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) on 22 December 2011 against the decision taken by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol of the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol on 7 April 2011 is upheld. 3.) The decision taken by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol of the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol on 7 April 2011 is set aside. 4.) A suspension of 2 (two) years is imposed on Mr Vinicius Sarturi Hess commencing on 1 October 2011, with credit given for any period of suspension at that time already served. (…) 7.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2011_A_2604 FIFA vs CBF, STJD & Tarcisio France da Silva

CAS 2011/A/2604 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Confederacão Brasileira de Futebol (CBF), Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD) & Tarcisio France da Silva Football Doping (fenproporex) Jurisdiction of CAS over decisions passed by a justice body which is an integral part of the organisational structure of the national federation Direct applicability of the FIFA anti-doping rules on professional Brasilian athletes Use of plastic bottles as container for the samples Proof of the use of plastic bottles as a cause for the Adverse Analytical Finding Starting date of the suspension Credit for the period already served even if such period was not served as provisional suspension 1. The STJD is a justice body which is an integral part of the organisational structure of the CBF, with no legal personality of its own: its independence and autonomy in adjudicating the disputes brought before it does not entail that the STJD is a body which could legally stand alone if the CBF did not exist. The decisions rendered by the STJD, although independently adopted by the STJD, must be considered to be decisions of the CBF. Therefore, the CAS has jurisdiction ratione materiae over decisions rendered by the STJD but does not have jurisdiction rationae personae to hear an appeal against the STJD. 2. A professional athlete registered with the CBF, by his deliberate act of registering, contractually agrees to abide by the statutes and regulations of the CBF. Article 1 para. 2 of the CBF Statutes, then, provides inter alia that all athletes must comply with the rules of FIFA. In addition, Brazilian legislation strengthens the status of international sports rules within the Brazilian sports system. Article 1 para. 1 of Lei Pelé expressly states that official sports practice in Brazil is governed by national and international rules and by sporting practice rules of each type of sport, accepted by the respective national federations. Article 3 para. III of Lei Pelé specifically imposes on athletes practising professional sport the duty to abide by international sports rules, besides Lei Pelé and national sports rules. As a result, international sports rules are directly applicable to Brazilian sport; accordingly, any athlete registered with a Brazilian federation is directly bound by the international rules accepted by that federation, including any provision therein giving jurisdiction to the CAS, as is the case here with doping-related decisions under Article 61 of the Statutes, which entitles FIFA to appeal to the CAS against doping-related decisions adopted by national federations. 3. The relevant provisions of the FIFA ADR provide for the use of collection equipment that complies with the requirements stipulated in the WADA International Standard for Testing; the latter, then, does not set, within the minimum criteria that the sample collection equipment must meet, the fact that it is composed by glass containers. 4. The mere submission that the plastic nature of the bottle containing the sample makes a sabotage theoretically possible, since the bottle could be pierced by a needle, without offering any evidence or making any submission of an actual sabotage of the sample, is not enough to establish, even on a balance of probability, that the use of plastic bottles could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding. Indeed, mere speculation regarding a fact is not proof that such fact did actually occur. 5. The period of suspension should start, in principle, as soon as the decision providing for ineligibility is communicated to the athlete concerned. However, substantial delays occurring in the arbitration proceedings, which are not attributable to the athlete, but are caused by the length of the appeals proceedings before the previous instance, the time taken to transmit the complete file of the case to the next instance and the time taken to forward the decision to the International Federation allow a CAS panel to set the starting date of the ineligibility period at an earlier date. A delay of thirteen months in the proceedings is to be considered as substantial. 6. As long as an athlete was not eligible to play for six months after the finding of his commission of an anti-doping rule violation, it would be unfair and result de facto in a total suspension of two years and six months not to give him credit for that period. The fact that such prior period was not served as a provisional suspension is no impediment to that conclusion. Article 53 para. 1 ADR, while providing for the obligation to give credit for periods of provisional suspension, does not exclude (but logically requires) credit for periods of suspension imposed and served on the basis of “final” disciplinary decisions subsequently set aside. _________________________________________________ In November 2010 the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Tarcisio France da Silva after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Fenproporex. On 7 December 2010 the Disciplinary Commission of the Brazilian High Sports Court for Football (STJD) decided to impose on the Athlete a 1 year period of ineligibility. The Athlete appealed and on 7 April 2011 the STJD decided to reduce the sanction to a 6 month period of ineligibility. Hereafter in October 2011 the International Football Federation (FIFA) appealed the STJD decision of 7 April 2011 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). FIFA requested the Panel to set aside the STJD decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Regarding the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation and the appropriate sanction FIFA contended that the FIFA Status and Rules are applicable to Brazilian Sport and any that any athlete registered with a Brazilian federation is accordingly bound by the international rules accepted by that federation. The CBF indicated that it would not participate in the arbitration and that the STJD was the administrative body in cours. The Athlete did not submit any response to the appeal filed by FIFA. The STJD acknowledged that CAS has jurisdiction over this case (ratione materiae) but asserted that CAS has no jurisdiction over the STJD as party (ratione personae) to these arbitration proceedings. Considering the relevant Rules the Panel establish that the FIFA appeal is admissible and that CAS has jurisdiction to hear this appeal against the CBF and the Athlete. On the other hand, CAS establish that it does not have jurisdiction rationae personae on the STJD. In this case the Panel determine that there are two main questions to examine: 1.) the first is whether the Athlete can be found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation; 2.) the second, to be addressed in the event the Athlete is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation, concerns the sanction to be imposed on him, with respect to its duration and starting date. The Panel finds that there was no departure from the IST and no actual sabotage of the Athlete’s sample was proven and thereby the Adverse Analytical Finding is confirmed. As a result thereof, the Athlete is responsible of the anti-doping rule violation contemplated by Article 5 ADR. Consequently the Panel finds that a sanction of 2 years must be imposed on the Athlete. Here the Panel considers that there were substantial delays in the proceedings of 13 months not attributed to the Athlete. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 December 2012: 1.) The CAS has jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione personae to entertain the appeal of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) in respect of the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) and Mr Tarcisio France da Silva, while it has no jurisdiction ratione personae in respect of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD). 2.) The appeal filed by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) on 22 December 2011 against the decision taken by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol of the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol on 7 April 2011 is upheld. 3.) The decision taken by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol of the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol on 7 April 2011 is set aside. 4.) A suspension of 2 (two) years is imposed on Mr Tarcisio France da Silva commencing on 1 October 2011, with credit given for any period of suspension at that time already served. (…). 7.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2011_A_2594 Ricardo Jorge Cecília Batista vs Portuguese Football Federation

CAS 2011/A/2594 Ricardo Jorge Cecília Batista v. Portuguese Football Federation (PFF) Football Doping (prednisolone) CAS jurisdiction Regularity of the disciplinary procedure (de novo hearing) Burden of proof regarding a reduction of a sanction for doping 1. As a team member of a national football club, a player is registered at the national federation and therefore obliged to abide by the federation’s statutes and consequently the federation’s Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR) and the applicable law according to which appeals against decisions rendered by the sports judicial bodies are referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. A player’s registration at the national federation also subjects him to the FIFA Statutes. In the context of the relationship between clubs, national federations and international federations, the organization lower in the hierarchy joins the higher one as member and thereby accepts the latter’s “offer” to arbitrate”. As a FIFA member and a body subordinated to FIFA, a national football federation has subjected any final and binding decisions issued by its bodies to appeals pursuant to the FIFA Statutes. Therefore, it cannot be appealed to any higher sports body within the country and an appeal may be filed before the CAS. 2. Art. R57 of the CAS Code grants a CAS panel full power to review the facts and the law. Therefore, any prejudice which a player suffered as a result of a delayed decision rendered by a disciplinary body is cured by virtue of the appeal to the CAS, which grants the player the right to file fresh arguments, facts and laws. In any case, any prejudice suffered or right infringed at the first instance body level is cured by virtue of the CAS hearing de novo. 3. According to the applicable regulations regarding specified substances, once it is not in dispute that a banned substance was found in a player’s body, the burden of proof shifts to the player to adduce evidence which would support the reduction of the sanctions imposed by the regulations. In order to benefit from such reduction, the player shall prove (i) how the banned substance entered his body or came to his possession to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel; (ii) that he had no intention of enhancing his performance; and (iii) that he had no intention of masking the use of a performance enhancing substance. Those requirements are cumulative. _________________________________________________ In March 2011 the Anti-Doping Authority Portugal (ADoP) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Ricardo Jorge Cecília Batista after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Prednisolone. As a result the Disciplinary Committee of the Portuguese Football Federation (FPF) decided on 25 July 2011 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Athlete appealed and the FPF Council of Justice decided on 8 September 2011 to uphold the FPF first instance decision. Hereafter in October 2011 the Athlete appealed the FPF Coucil of Justice decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the decision of 8 September 2011 and argued that disciplinary procedures were violated and hence invalid. The FPF contended that CAS has no jurisdiction and rejected the arguments of the Athlete. The Sole Arbitrator establish that CAS has jurisdiction in this case and holds that it is not in dispute that the Athlete committed an anti-doping offence after the ADoP analysis showed the presence of Prednisolone in his body. The Arbitrator considers that the Athlete´s appeal is purely based on the rightful sanction which ought to be imposed and on the alleged invalidity of the Decision due to procedural irregularities committed at the Disciplinary Committee and Council of Justice level. The Sole Arbitrator dismiss the Athlete's arguments regarding the alleged invalidity of the disciplinary procedure and regarding the violation of the adversary system. Regarding the error of fact committed by the Council of Justice the Arbitrator finds that the Athlete failed to produce evidence in support of this matter. Further the Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete failed to establish how the substance entered his system and failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. Consequently the Arbitrator concludes that the imposed sanction of 2 years is proportional. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 11 April 2012: 1.) The Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction to decide the appeal filed by Mr. Ricardo Jorge Cecília Batista against the decision dated 8 September 2011 issued by the Council of Justice of the Portuguese Football Federation. 2.) The appeal filed by Mr. Ricardo Jorge Cecília Batista against the decision dated 8 September 2011 issued by the Council of Justice of the Portuguese Football Federation is dismissed. 3.) The Council of Justice of the Portuguese Football Federation decision dated 8 September 2011 is fully upheld. 4.) Mr. Ricardo Jorge Cecília Batista is suspended for a period of two (2) years with effect from the date of this award, deducting the period of suspension already served since 7 April 2011. (…) 7.) All other and further claims or prayers for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2011_A_2515 FINA vs Fabiola Molina & Confederação Brasileira de Desportos Aquaticos

CAS 2011/A/2515 Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) v. Fabiola Molina & Confederação Brasileira de Desportos Aquaticos (CBDA) Aquatic sports (swimming) Doping (methylhexaneamine) Sanctions applicable under the FINA DC Rules for “specified substances” Power of the CAS panel to review a decision imposing a sanction on an athlete Circumstances to be considered in the assessment of the athlete’s fault Correctness and consistency of sanctions Athlete’s negligence when purchasing online nutritional supplements CAS power of review and commencement of the ineligibility period Credit for periods of provisional suspension under FINA DC Rule 10.9 1. According to FINA DC Rule 10.4, in the event the substance found the competitor’s sample is identified in the Prohibited List as a “Specified Substance”, and additional conditions are met (the athlete can establish how the Specified Substance entered his or her body and that such Specified Substance was not intended to enhance his or her sport performance), the sanction applicable under FINA DC Rule 10.2 is replaced by a sanction ranging from a simple warning with no ineligibility (minimum) to a two years’ ineligibility (maximum). 2. The measure of a sanction imposed by a disciplinary body in the exercise of the discretion allowed by the relevant rules can be reviewed only when the sanction is evidently and grossly disproportionate to the offence. Far from excluding, or limiting, the power of a CAS panel to review the facts and the law involved in the dispute heard (pursuant to Article R57 of the Code), such indication only means that a CAS panel “would not easily ‘tinker’ with a well-reasoned sanction, ie to substitute a sanction of 17 or 19 months’ suspension for one of 18”. 3. According to the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), the circumstances to be considered in the assessment of the athlete’s fault must be specific and relevant to explain the athlete’s departure from the expected standard of behavior. The athlete’s fault has therefore to be measured on the basis of specific circumstances and against the fundamental duty the athlete had to do everything possible to avoid ingesting any prohibited substance. Such duty is particularly significant if the infringement has occurred years after which the risks connected to the use of nutritional supplements became widely known to athletes and the sports community. 4. Although consistency of sanctions is a virtue, correctness remains a higher one: otherwise unduly lenient (or, indeed, unduly severe) sanctions may set a wrong benchmark inimical to the interests of sport. Each case, in addition, must be decided on its own facts. As a result, the decisions taken with respect to other athletes do not set any binding point of reference. 5. An athlete’s negligence is not inconsequential if, far from doing everything possible, the athlete blindly relied on past experience with the online retailer that provided a nutritional supplement without seeking any kind of advice, while the product label disclosed the presence of MHA. 6. Under Article R57 of the CAS Code, the CAS Panel has the power to issue a new decision that replaces the decision challenged. As a result, in the event the CAS award imposes a sanction to an athlete that had not been found responsible of an anti-doping rule violation, the ineligibility would be imposed only by CAS: therefore, for the purposes of Article 10.9 of the 2009 WADC, the date of the CAS award would be the starting moment of the ineligibility. Conversely, the date of the decision of the disciplinary body is the starting date of the ineligibility in the event the CAS decision does not replace, but entirely confirms, the sanction imposed by the disciplinary body: in such event, ineligibility finds its foundation only in, and is therefore imposed only by, the lower level decision. 7. FINA DC Rule 10.9, while providing for the obligation to give credit for periods of provisional suspension, does not exclude (but logically requires) credit for periods of suspension imposed and served on the basis of “final” disciplinary decisions subsequently set aside. _________________________________________________ In June 2011 the Brazilian Water Sports Confederation (CBDA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the swimmer Fabiola Molina after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). As a result the CBDA decided on 21 June 2011 to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Here the Doping Control Panel accepted that the violation was not intentional and the result of her use of a supplement purchased on the the internet. Hereafter in July 2011 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) appealed the CBDA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). FINA requested the Panel to set aside the CBDA decision of 21 June 2011 and to impose a sanction of at least 6 months on the Athlete. FINA was prepared to accept that the violation was not intentional but disagrees with the current imposed sanction considering the degree of negligence of the Athlete. The Athlete argued that the sanction imposed by the CBDA Doping Panel was within the range of reasonable sanctions in this case unde the WADC and FINA Rules. In this case the Panel determine that there are two main questions to examine: 1.) the first concerns the appropriate measure of the sanction for the Athlete, and chiefly whether the Decision was correct in imposing a two-month ineligibility period; 2.) the second, to be addressed in the event the Panel decides that a sanction has to be imposed on the Athlete exceeding the two-month ineligibility period set by the Decision, concerns the starting date of the sanction found to be proper by this Panel. Considering the circumstances and the prior cases involving Specified Substances, as identified by the parties, the Panel concludes that the sanction of 2 months imposed by the CBDA was too lenient. On the basis of the Athlete’s degree of fault and all the relevant specific factors the Panel deems that an appropriate sanctione would be a 6 month period of ineligibility. The Panel holds that ineligibility period imposed on the Athlete starts on the date this CAS Award was rendered, with credit given to the Athlete for period of suspension already served. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 December 2011: 1.) The appeal filed by the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) on 28 July 2011 against the decision taken by the President of the Confederação Brasileira de Desportos Aquaticos (CBDA) on 21 June 2011 is upheld. 2.) The decision taken by the President of the Confederação Brasileira de Desportos Aquaticos (CBDA) on 21 June 2011, in the portion where it was decided “to suspend the athlete Fabiola Pulga Molina, as specified by FINA Rule10.4, for the period of two (2) months …”, is set aside and replaced by the following: 3.) Fabiola Molina is suspended for a period of six months starting on 20 December 2011. Credit is given to Fabiola Molina for the period of suspension already served. 4.) The decision taken by the President of the Confederação Brasileira de Desportos Aquaticos (CBDA) on 21 June 2011 is confirmed for the remaining portions. (…) 7.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2011_A_2469 WADA vs Doping Board of the Danish Sport Confederation & Philipp Nielsen - Partial Award

CAS 2011/A/2469 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Doping Board of the Danish Sport Confederation & Philipp Nielsen, partial award of 4 October 2011 Cycling Doping (clenbuterol) Meaning of the “case file” of the hearing body of the National Federation Transmission of the case file by third parties and time limit to file an appeal to the CAS 1. According to Article 334 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules (UCI-ADR), as long as WADA timely requests the case file, the time limit to file the statement of appeal to the CAS begins upon WADA’s “receipt of the full case file from the hearing body of the National Federation”. The full “case file” within the meaning of the aforementioned provision is a file provided upon request by WADA by the hearing body of the national federation after the decision by the national hearing body has been notified to WADA. In fact, a transmission of documents to WADA in the course of the national proceedings is not even provided for in the UCI-ADR, with the exception of the request for disciplinary proceedings. If the national hearing body provides WADA with any other documents before a decision is taken, this transmission is outside the scope of the UCI-ADR. Such documents can therefore not be regarded as a “case file” within the meaning of Article 334 UCI-ADR. 2. Even if a transmission of the case file by third parties (i.e. by UCI, not the national hearing body) is regarded as sufficient, the time limit of Article 334 UCI-ADR can only be triggered once the competent body declares, at least implicitly, that the documents provided to the requesting body indeed constitute the complete case file. This interpretation is necessary to protect the appellant’s right to take an informed decision about whether to file an appeal or not. _________________________________________________ On 21 March 2001 the Danish Doping Board decided not to sanction the cyclist Philipp Niesen and to lift the provisional suspension after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. Here the Danisch Doping Board established that the Athlete successfully showed that he bore No Fault or Negligence. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) received the complete case file in June 2011 and hereafter it appealed the Danish decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). However the Danish Doping Board and the Athlete contended that the appeal is inadmissible because it was not filed within the time limit. They argued that WADA already had received all relevant documents in February 2011. The Panel deems that the WADA Appeal is admissible, in particular, it was timely filed. Based on the submissions between the parties about the transmission of the case file the Panel establish that the time limit to file an appeal with CAS begun to run on 18 May 2011. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 October 2011: 1.) The appeal filed on 8 June 2011 by the World Anti-Doping Agency is admissible. 2.) The decision on all other prayers for relief including costs connected with the present partial award shall be reserved to the final award.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2011_A_2398 WADA vs WTC & Timothy Marr - Partial Award

CAS 2011/A/2398 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. World Triathlon Corporation (WTC) & Timothy Marr, partial award of 19 August 2011 Related case: CAS 2011_A_2398 WADA vs WTC & Timothy Marr - Final Award February 20, 2012 Triathlon Doping (amphetamine) Characterization of Adderall The component ingredients of Adderall include amphetamine, which is specifically included on the Non-Specified Stimulants list. Therefore, Adderall is a Non-Specified Stimulant. _________________________________________________ On 22 February 2011 the AAA Panel decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete Timothy Marr after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Amphetamine. Hereafter in April 2011 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the AAA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the AAA decision of 22 February 2011 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. In this Partial Award the Panel determine as a preliminary issue whether the used product Adderall should be considered a Specified Substance. Following the parties’ submissions on this issue the Panel finds that the Athlete’s samples contained Amphetamine and deems the the component ingredients of Adderall include Amphetamine, which is specifically included on the Non-Specified Stimulants list. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 19 August 2011: 1.) Adderall is a Non-Specified Stimulant as listed in the WADA Prohibited List. 2.) The matter shall proceed, with the Panel to conduct a hearing to determine Marr’s period of ineligibility.

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