iNADO Quarterly Report 3/2017 / Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2017 (See attached pdf-file for more information) This communication goes to iNADO’s 69 Members. iNADO is happy to answer any questions on your Institute’s activities. Please send your questions to email@example.com _________________________________________________ Contents: - New Members - NADO Finances - Outstanding 2017 Membership Fee Payments - iNADO Attendance at Anti-Doping Conferences/Meeting - NADOs Visited - SportiNADO Webinars - iNADO Board Meetings - iNADO Public Statements - iNADO Updates - iNADO Member Communications - Added documents on iNADO Website - Other iNADO Projects and Activities
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 »
Related case: IOC 2017 IOC vs Aleksandr Zubkov - Operative Part November 24, 2017 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. In the context of this Commission the IOC decided that 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 IOC Disciplinary Commission considered in detail the findings in the IP Reports and concludes that it is more than comfortably satisfied 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 Disciplinary Commission further concludes that it was not possible that the athletes were not fully implicated. They were also the main beneficiaries of the scheme. The Disciplinary Commission holds 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. ________________________________________________ Aleksandr Zubkov is a Russian Athlete competing in the Men's Bobsleigh Event at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. In December 2016 the IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for tampering, conspiracy and use of prohibited substances. The IOC conducted further investigations after opening of the proceedings against the Athlete. In October 2017 the IOC provided the Athlete with the Evidence Disclosure Package (EDP) from the IP in connection with the Athlete and a dossier of evidence specific to the case: - The Sochi Duchess List (redacted by the IP and encoded), on which the name of the Athlete appeared; - The Medal by Day List, on which the name of the Athlete also appeared; - The IP Dossier sent to the IOC, containing a general summary of the investigation and specific elements related to the Athlete; - The forensic reports issued by experts mandated by the IP in connection with scratches and marks examinations. - The forensic reports issued by experts mandated by the IP in connection with the salt content analysis. - Affidavits provided by Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov. The Athlete and the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) filed a statement with arguments and evidence and the Athlete was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission. The Athlete disputed the proceedings, the filed evidence, the admissibility and the affidavits in this case. The Athlete argued that an individual anti-doping rule violations had to be established and that it was not sufficient to allege a conspiracy. The Disciplinairy Commission finds that the first and correct step in view of establishing whether a violation has been committed is to verify the existence of the scheme through the assessment whether individual athletes, and, in these proceedings specifically the Athlete, were implicated. To proceed accordingly is not exercising collective justice but correctly seeking to determine the individual implication of participants in a scheme which needs logically to be first established as such. The Disciplinary Commission admits that the proceedings and the provision of evidence conducted under some time constraints and considers that, under the given circumstance, the principle of due process was not violated and that he could still validly defend his case. The Disciplinary Commission finds - based on the investigations, the evidence and findings - that the participation of the Athlete in the doping scheme is established to its comfortable satisfaction. The Disciplinary Commission concludes that it is more than comfortably satisfied that the Athlete was a participant in, and a beneficiary of, the cover up scheme implemented on the occasion of the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The Disciplinary Commission concludes that Athlete’s arguments do not place into question the assessments of the Disciplinary Commission about the Athlete’s involvement in the scheme and holds that the Athlete has committed the reported anti-doping rule violations as defined in the 2009 WADC. Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 6 December 2017 that the Athlete Alexandr Zubkov: 1.) is found to have committed anti-doping rule violations pursuant to Article 2 of The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, in 2014; 2.) is disqualified from the events in which he participated upon the occasion of the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, in 2014, namely: - i) the Two-Man's Bobsleigh Event, in which he ranked 1st and for which he was awarded a gold medal, a medallist pin and a diploma; - ii) the Four-Man's Bobsleigh Event, in which he ranked 1st and for which he was awarded a gold medal, a medallist pin and a diploma; 3.) has the medals, medallist pins and the diplomas obtained in the above-mentioned Events withdrawn and is ordered to return the same to the International Olympic Committee. 4.) The Russian Team is disqualified from the Two-Man's Bobsleigh Event. The corresponding medals, medallist pins and diplomas are withdrawn and shall be returned to the International Olympic Committee. 5.) The Russian Team is disqualified from the Four-Man's Bobsleigh Event. The corresponding medals, medallist pins and diplomas are withdrawn and shall be returned to the International Olympic Committee. 6.) The International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence. 7.) Alexandr Zubkov is declared ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games. 8.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision. 9.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the International Olympic Committee, as soon as possible, of the medals, medallist pins and diplomas awarded in connection with the Two-Man's and the Four-Man's Bobsleigh Events to the Athlete. 10.) This decision enters into force immediately.
Statement of the Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations re: IOC Decision on Russia at PyeongChang / Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2017 _________________________________________________ The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has decided to ban Russia from participation at the PyeongChang Olympic Winter Games, provided for participation by athletes who meet strict criteria and applied other significant penalties. The Board of Directors of the Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO) applauds these IOC decisions. In August 2017, the iNADO Board urged the IOC to make this decision with a principled approach.i It is apparent that they have applied those principles. By excluding the Russian Olympic Committee from the PyeongChang Winter Olympic Games, the IOC has made a proportionate response to the evidence first revealed by Professor McLaren and confirmed by the Oswald and Schmid Commissions. It has, finally, sent a strong signal that the Olympic Movement puts clean sport first. Individual Russian athletes can only compete in PyeongChang as “Olympic Athletes from Russia” independent of the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC). It is important that the panel established to select those athletes can be seen to be independent and applies strict objective criteria. We all want Russia to participate in international sport. We all want clean Russian athletes to be lining up under their own flag against competitors from other countries. iNADO’s Members are not against Russia; they are against cheating. It is not clear what may happen beyond the PyeongChang Games but the criteria which would open the door to future Russian participation has been set out clearly in the WADA “Road Map” and it remains for Russia to meet those conditions. The full support of the IOC will be important in ensuring that this occurs including incorporating this element into any consideration for reinstatement of the ROC. A strong and independent Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) is an essential part of the solution. Russian athletes deserve no less, their competitors just as much. iNADO has and will continue to support the new RUSADA and its management. There has been an enormous effort by the World Anti-Doping Agency, UK Anti-Doping and others to rebuild RUSADA and they too have borne enormous costs. Progress by the new RUSADA has been good; the signs are promising. But if Russian authorities do not acknowledge the institutionalised doping now so clearly established it is difficult to believe Russia will rehabilitate itself. There is a real potential that the investment in the new RUSADA will be wasted. iNADO notes the pivotal roles that Yuliya and Vitaly Stepanov, Hajo Seppelt and Grigory Rodchenkov have played in reaching this point. iNADO reiterates its support for what is a brave decision taken by the IOC in the face of enormous pressure. ________________________________________________ Principles which the iNADO Board articulated in August 2017. - Denunciation of organised doping and subversion of anti-doping in Russia that is clear, unequivocal and forceful, and that re-establishes the IOC as a leader in protecting clean sport and clean athletes. The magnitude of the failures in Russia must be recognised. - Punishment that is proportionate with the facts and especially mindful of the harm to clean athletes, dozens of whom lost the opportunity to compete or to have their rightful moment on the podium to dirty Russian athletes over many years and many major competitions. The consequences must be commensurate with the damage caused to clean athletes from around the world (including those clean Russian athletes failed by their sport system and its leaders). - Reparation of the damage done to anti-doping, to clean athletes and to the image of Olympic competition. - Consequences targeted to individuals and bodies that bear true responsibility whether through acts of commission or failures of duty. - Application of the principles of the 2016 decisions (and more recent ones) of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and on the decision-making of the International Association of Athletics Federations and the International Paralympic Committee with respect to their Russian member federations. - Continued oversight for individuals and bodies responsible for sport and for anti-doping in Russia to ensure organised doping and subversion of anti-doping is eradicated and cannot reoccur. - Deterrence that will ensure such gross subversion of anti-doping and of clean sport will not happen again in Russia, or in other countries now or in the future. The IOC’s measures must contribute to restoring a level playing field for the present and the future, affect future behavioural change in Russia and elsewhere, and restore public trust in clean competition.
IOC Schmid Commission - Report secondary analyses of urine specimens from the Vancouver and Sotchi Winter Olympic Games
Expert Medical Report : Objective of the report: Secondary analyses of urine specimens collected among athletes having participated to the Vancouver and Sotchi Winter Olympic Games / Michel Burnier. - Lausanne : Lausanne University Hospital, 2017 Report prepared at the request of: Dr. Neil Robinson Project Manager - Anti-doping re-analysis and research Medical and Scientific Department International Olympic Committee (IOC) Report published in Appendix-VIII of the IOC Schmid Commission Report __________________________________________________ Summary of conclusions: Professor Michel Burnier has been asked to: 1.) To determine reference values for various urinary analytes (Na, K, Cl, Ca, creatinine, urine density) coming from samples taken from top level athletes tested at the time of XXI Olympic Winter games in Vancouver. 2.) To determine for each sample collected at the time of the XXII Olympic Winter Games and analyzed for the same analytes, if the values are within the reference values obtained from the control population at the XXI Olympic Winter Games and in agreement with data published. In the presented analyses, it has been assessed the distribution of urinary sodium, potassium, chloride and calcium concentrations in 250 samples for the XXI Olympic Winter games and calculated for each parameter: the mean ± standard deviation and upper and lower 95% confidence intervals, the median with the 5% and % percentiles. Statistical characteristics were done for women and men separately. For urinary creatinine, similar characteristics cannot be given because urinary creatinine depends on many factors including age, sex, body weight and urinary volume which are not available. Gravity was within the normal range of 1000 to 1035 in all samples. Regarding samples of the XXII Olympic Winter Games, similar statistical analyses were performed but with the identification of potential true outliers defined as greater than the mean of Vancouver data + 3 standard deviations. With this approach, 13 samples were indentified (of 5 men and 8 women) which are definitively out of range and even out of renal physiological possibilities suggesting strongly a manipulation of the samples, for ex. an addition of sodium chloride (NaCl).