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 »

ISU 2018 ISU vs Sin Da-Woon

In March 2018 the International Skating Union (ISU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Korean skater Sin Da-Woon for three whereabouts filing failures within a twelve-month period. During the Athlete’s 2 year military service in the Korean Armed Forces the Athlete failed to appear for testing at the indicated military facilities and at the indicated Icerink in Seoul. The Korean Skating Union (KSU) explained that the Athlete’s unavailability was caused by his military team training schedule and that he was not allowed to have a cell phone during his military service. At the Icerink in Seoul the Athlete underwent an off-ice training and his cell phone number was not listed in ADAMS. The panel is willing to accept the explanation given by the Athlete / KSU for the third Whereabouts Failure and finds that the Fault of the Athlete as to this failure consists in having chosen a time-slot which realistically could not be met on his side. He should have moved the time-slot on this day to a time adequate to his availability as a person in military service under military rule. This goes also for the two other Whereabouts Failures where the Alleged Athlete could have avoided them if he more reasonably and reflectively considered his unavailability due to his military service. The Panel also takes into consideration that the Alleged Athlete was included into the ISU RTP for his first time, that he was unexperienced in handling the ADAMS system and the failures had been committed at an early stage of use of the system. The Panel does not see a pattern of last-minute whereabouts changes or other suspicious conduct. Therefore the ISU Disciplinary Commission decides on 28 April 2018 to reduce the sanction and to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

UKAD 2017 UKAD vs Ryan Bailey

The United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Ryan Bailey for his refusal or failure to submit to a drug test. This occurred during his stay in Canada with his club the Toronto Wolfpack Rugby League Football Club, which plays in both Canada and England. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP). On 30 May 2017 in Toronto the Athlete was notified by a Doping Control Officer (DCO) of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) that he was selected for testing. The Athlete was familiar with testing and to hydrate the Athlete used the water bottles provided by the DCO. However the Athlete refused to provide a sample as he claimed that the water bottles provided by the DCOs were not sealed and the water potentially could have been contaminated. The Athlete also refused to provide a blood sample at the Doping Control Station, he signed the document and left despite warnings of the DCOs about the consequences of his refusal. A few days later the Athlete provided a sample without issues which tested negative. The Athlete contended that during the Doping Control there were fundamental departures of the ISTI and that he had a compelling justification for his refusal. With medical evidence the Athlete explained his irrational behaviour during the Doping Control. UKAD argued that the Athlete had been duly notified of the testing by de Canadian DCO and that there was an intentional refusal. Also the Athlete was repeatedly warned about the serious consequences of his refusal. The Panel concludes that the Athlete was plainly notified and plainly did intend to refuse to provide a sample without a compelling justification. Considering the Athlete’s conduct and the alleged departures from the ISTI and Guidelines the Panel finds that the facts of any breaches had no causative effect on the Athlete’s refusal to provide a sample The Panel holds that this is a truly exceptional case and has no doubt that the Athlete genuinely believed that the water might have been contaminated. Based on the filed psychiatric evidence the Panel accepts that the Athlete’s mind was quite unable to take in or process information that his refusal might be an anti-doping rule violation and that the consequences might be serious. Further the Panel accepts that the Athlete was not a cheater trying to cover up his drug use. Therefore the NADP decides on 8 December 2017 that the Anti-Doping Rule Violation is established but in the truly exeptional circumstances of this case the Athlete bears No Fault or Negligence so that the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility is eliminated.

show » details »
Type:
PDF

IAAF 2017 IAAF vs Suleiman Kipses Simotwo

IAAF 2017 IAAF vs Suleiman Kipses Simotwo February 27, 2018 In July 2017 the IAAF Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Suleiman Kipses Simotwo after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal Panel. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and stated that he was tested before without issues. He suggested that something may have happened when he was in a district hospital in December 2016. He testified that he became unconscious and suffered an injury due to a fall in the bath. In the hospital he underwent treatment and left it with some medication. The AIU contended that the Athlete statement did not explain his positive test about 4 months later. The Panel finds that the Athlete failed to establish how the substance entered his system nor did he demonstrate with evidence that his hospital treatment in December 2016 caused the positive test result. The Panel concludes that het evidence establishes that the Athlete has committed the anti-doping rule violation without grounds for a reduced sanction. Therefore the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal Panel decides on 27 February 2018 to impose a 4 year period on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 July 2017.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

ADAK 2017 ADAK vs John Anzarah Imbaiza

ADAK 2017 ADAK vs John Anzarah Imbaiza - Appeal No 3 of 2017. ADAK 2017 John Anzarah Imbaiza vs ADAK - Appeal No 6 of 2017. Mr John Anzarah Imbaiza (John Anzrah) is a Kenyan Sprint Coach (61) participating at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games. In August 2016 the Kenyan Athlete Ferguson Rotich was selected at random to be tested in the Olympic Village. Tracking the Athlete’s Accreditation Card the Doping Control Officers (DCOs) found the Kenyan Coach Anzrah in possession of the Athlete’s Accreditation Card and they chaperoned him to the Doping Control Center. There the Coach provided a sample and signed the documents. Meanwhile the Athlete Rotich was called and when he arrived unchaperoned at the Doping Control Center he provided a sample. As a result the Coach Anzrah was sent home and in August 2016 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported an anti-doping rule violation against him for tampering. ADAK charged the Coach for his intentional interference or attempted interference with the Doping Control and for providing fraudulent information. In April 2017 the Coach Anzrah filed an appeal with the Judiciary Office of the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal requesting to lift the imposed suspension. AKAK hereafter filed a counter appeal charging the Coach with the anti-doping rule violation. The Tribunal consolidated these appeals in one proceeding. The Coach Anzrah explained that during the Olympic Games in Rio he was forced to stay in a rented house with several other members of the Kenyan delegation under deplorable conditions as the Kenyan team had already exceeded their quota of accreditations for officials inside the Olympic Village. The Athlete Rotich gave his Accreditation Card to the Coach in order to have breakfast in the Olympic Village. The Coach contended that due to the language barrier he could not explain to the DCOs that he was not the selected Athlete Rotich. He denied the intentional interference with the Doping Control and he acknowledged that he represented himself as the Athlete in order to buy time to have the Athlete informed to report to the Doping Control Station. Regarding the Coach Anzrah’s suspension the Tribunal holds that time has lapsed and that the suspension already had been served. The served suspension will be taken into account when a sanction is imposed. The Tribunal concludes that there was a provision of fraudulent information at the Doping Control Station, however it finds this was without intention to interfere with the Doping Control Process. The Tribunal also considers that the Athlete Rotich was already called by the Coach Anzrah to go to the Doping Control Station and he arrived there 15 to 30 minutes after the Coach. The Athlete’s sample was tested and it revealed no prohibited substances. Therefore the Judiciary Office of the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 12 October 2017 to dismiss the appeal filed by the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya.

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