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 »

IAAF Taskforce Report to the IAAF Council about the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF) - 4 December 2018

IAAF Taskforce report to Council, 4 December 2018 / Rune Andersen. - International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). - Monaco : IAAF, 2018 _________________________________________________ The IAAF Council accepted the Russia Taskforce’s recommendation not to reinstate RusAF until the following two conditions have been met in full: - The AIU must confirm that it has been given all of the data and access to the samples that it needs to determine which of the Russian athletes in the LIMS database have a case to answer for breach of the IAAF anti-doping rules. The IAAF Council was clear that Russian athletes cannot return to international competition unconditionally until that issue is resolved one way or the other. - RusAF must pay all of the costs incurred in the work of the Taskforce and in bringing or defending Russian cases at CAS. The IAAF Council was clear that this debt must be settled for reinstatement to occur; it is not fair to ask the IAAF and its other members to continue to carry these costs. The Taskforce hopes that RusAF and the Russian authorities will now take all steps necessary to meet these conditions as soon as possible. The Taskforce stands ready to meet as soon as these conditions have been met in order to make a recommendation to Council for the reinstatement of RusAF.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IAAF 2018 IAAF vs Yye-Song Kim

In July 2018 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the North Korean Athlete Yye-Song Kim after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylprednisolone without a TUE. After notification the Athlete signed the Athletics Integrity Unit Form in which she admitted the violation, waived her right to be heard and accepted the sanction proposed by the IAAF. She explained with medical evidence that she had used the substance out-of-competion for medical reasons. The IAAF accepts the Athlete’s evidence and finds that the violation was not intentional and that she established No Significant Fault or Negligence in this case. Therefore the IAAF decides on 23 October 2018 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 18 October 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IAAF 2018 IAAF vs Lebakeng Sesele

In December 2018 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the South African Athlete Lebakeng Sesele after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone and Trenbolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Disciplinary Tribunal. The Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted the test results and requested the Panel for a reduced sanction based on his timely admission and No Significant Fault or Negligence. He explained that he had used these substances intentionally for several weeks out-of-competition as treatment for his hamstring injury because he had no financial means to receive professional medical assistance. The IAAF contended that the violation was intentional and requested the Panel to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Panel holds that the Athlete cooperated with the investigation and answered the written questions posed by the IAAF. Whilst the factual questions were answered, the Panel sees no mitigating circumstances. It is only when the Athlete was confronted with a positive test result and questioned further by the IAAF that he provided some information on the anti-doping violation. Here the Panel deems the information and evidence provided by the Athlete during the proceedings to be unsatisfactory and such that it does not demonstrate absence of intent to commit an anti-doping rule violation. As a result the Panel is comfortably satisfied the Athlete acted intentionally and that he intentionally committed the anti-doping rule violation without grounds for a reduced sanction. Therefore the Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 15 October 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 12 november 2017.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IAAF 2018 IAAF vs Samuel Kalalei

In June 2018 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Samuel Kalalei after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Recombinant Erythropoietin (rhEPO). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Despite several attempts to contact the Athlete he failed to respond to the communications of the IAAF and Athletics Kenya. Consequently the IAAF deems that the Athlete has admitted the anti-doping rule violation, waived his right for a hearing and accepted the sanction imposed by the IAAF. Therefore the IAAF decides on 9 October 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 June 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IAAF 2018 IAAF vs Kabange Mupopo

In August 2017 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Zambian Athlete Kabange Mupopo after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed several statements in her defence and she failed to be heard for the Disciplinary Tribunal. In her submissions the Athlete denied the use of synthetic testosterone. She explained that because she has hyperandrogenism, she has abnormally high levels of Endogenous Testosterone, equivalent to those of a young male. The Athlete argued that testosterone is not available in Zambia and that she cannot explain how the testosterone entered her system. Alternatively, she argued that there are variety of ways in which the Exogenous Testosterone might have been transferred in her body including food, spiked drinks and coming into contact with someone who uses testosterone gels. The Athlete disputed the reliability of the laboratory analysis and questioned why, when she was tested four times at the London event, only one of the four samples collected was uploaded as a positive in ADAMS. She claimed that the IAAF has not acted honestly throughout the matter and contends that she has been systematically harassed, penalized and ostracized by Doping Control Officers because of her condition and physical appearance. The IAAF contended that Exogenous Testostone was detected in the Athlete’s samples and that the test results were valid and in accordance with the relevant Rules and Standards. The IAAF rejected the unsubstantiated explanations of the Athlete regarding her hyperandrogenism and the possibility on contamination by supplements or dermal contact with an person using testosterone gels. Based on the evidence the Panel establish that all laboratory procedures, analyses and their reported findings are valid without deviation from any International Standard. The Panel finds that the presence of Exogenous Testosterone in her samples was not caused by her hyperandrogenism. Here the Panel deems that the Athlete offered mere speculation and provided no credible or reliable evidence that can explain the presence of Exogenous Testosterone in her samples. The Panel concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and that she failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. Therefore the Disciplinary Panel decides on 31 July 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 August 2017.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IAAF 2018 IAAF vs Violah Jepchumba

In December 2017 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Violah Jepchumba after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Recombinant Erythropoietin (rhEPO). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and she was heard for the Disciplinary Tribunal. The Athlete denied that the violation was intentional and she could not explain how the substance entered her system. She indicated that it could be due to a change in diet and/or supplements and/or the altitude at which she trained. The Sole Arbitrator holds that the Athlete repeatedly failed to comply with deadlines or engage with the case. The Arbitrator concludes that the test results establish the presence of a prohibited substance in her samples and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Arbitrator finds that the Athlete failed to provide any explanation for the presence of the prohibited substance in her system and neither did she demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Therefore the Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 10 July 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 30 September 2017.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IAAF 2017 IAAF vs Mousaab Hadout

In December 2017 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Moroccan Athlete Mousaab Hadout after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Recombinant Erythropoietin (rhEPO). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete signed the Athletics Integrity Unit Form in which he admitted the violation, waived his right to be heard and accepted the sanction proposed by the IAAF. He explained that he had used Actoveging prior to the competition in order to treat muscle soreness. Accordingly the IAAF decides on 18 July 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 29 June 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IAAF 2017 IAAF vs Adrian Griffith

In July 2017 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Bahamian Athlete Adrian Griffith after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence. The Disciplinary Tribunal settled this case based on the written submissions of the parties. The Athlete admitted that he unknowingly, unwillingly and unintentionally had ingested the prohibited substance Stanozol. As possible explanation for the positive test result he suggested that he drunk from his own unattended protein bottle which was contaminated with Stanozolol. The Tribunal finds that the test results showed the presence of the prohibited substance in the Athlete’s sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Tribunal did not accept the Athlete’s explanation and finds that he failed to establish the source of the substance. Therefore the Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 21 June 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 July 2017.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IAAF 2017 IAAF vs Eliud Magut

In July 2017 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Eliud Magut after his samples 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 he was heard for the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal. The Athlete admitted the violation, stated that it was not intentional and accepted the test result. He explained that he had received injections in a sports club for his libido condition. The IAAF contended that the Athlete failed to establish the source of the prohibited substance and that his explanation was unsubstantiated and lacked credibility. Also the IAAF asserted that the Athlete knew there was a significant risk in receiveing the injections and his conduct in allowing a person who was unknown to him at the time to administer such injections showed a complete manifest disregard for that risk. The Tribunal finds that the result showed the presence of the prohibited substance in the Athlete’s sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Tribunal concludes that it is not satisfied that the Athlete’s explanation is more likely than not to be true. The Tribunal deems that he failed to establish that this violation was not intentional and his conduct leads to a clear case of an indirect intentional violation under the Rules. Therefore the Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 15 June 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 July 2017.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IAAF 2018 IAAF vs Meseret Taye

In February 2018 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Ethiopian Athlete Meseret Taye after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in her defence. The Athlete admitted the violation and provided various possible explanations for a reduced sanction. The IAAF produced evidence that showed that the Athlete’s fiancée was the supplier of Testosterone to the Drug Store in question, he injected the substance to the Athlete, and he falsified receipts from the Store in order to conceal his involvement. The IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 23 May 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 November 2017.

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