Welcome to DOPING.nl, the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

In April 2023 the ice skater Kamryn Lute (19) underwent medical treatment for her diagnosed condition. One of the prescribed supplements she used was HG Healthgevity.

The Athlete was added to the Registered Testing Pool since October 2021 and she was subjected to multiple sample collections between April 2023 and February 2024. On the Doping Control Form she mentioned the use of her supplement as HG Healthgevity BPC+PEA 500, 1 Capsule, once daily.

In March 2024 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) requested additional information regarding the Athlete's use of the HG Healthgevity supplement. The Athlete submitted to USADA her medical records and two bottles of the supplement.

In April 2024 the Salt Lake City Laboratory analysed the supplement and established that it contained the prohibited substances BPC-157 and Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA). BPC-157 was listed on the product label whereas DHEA was not listed as ingredient.

Consequently in April 2024 USADA reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for her use of the two prohibited substances. 

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the New Era Arbitration Tribunal.

The Athlete had admitted the violation for her use of BPC-157 and DHEA. She denied that the violation was intentional and argued that she acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

USADA deemed that:

• The Athlete's violation was not intentional.
• The HG Healthgevity capsules were contaminated with DHEA.
• The Athlete mentioned the use of her supplement on the Doping Control Form.
• She suffered from several health issues.
• She acted negligently with her supplements.

The Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence and the Parties arguments and determines that:

• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation because of her use of the HG Healthgevity supplement containing BPC- 157 and DHEA.
• The violation was not intentional and the DHEA would not effect the length of the sanction.
• Although tested repeatedly the Athlete never tested positive for BPC-157 and DHEA.
• The Athlete never received a Declaration Courtesy Letter from USADA regarding her use of BPC+PEA 500 mentioned on the Doping Control Form.
• The Athlete acted with Significant Fault or Negligence regarding the prescribed supplements.
• There are particular circumstances present in this case for the imposition of a reduced sanction.
• Fairness requires that the Athlete's results shall not be disqualified.

Therefore the Arbitration Tribunal decides on 20 August 2024 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 April 2024.

In April 2024 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) against the Athlete Erriyon Knighton after his A and B sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Trenbolone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was imposed. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the New Era Arbitration Tribunal.

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. He asserted that previously he was tested without issues and that he acted with No Fault or Negligence. 

With evidence and his expert witnesses the Athlete demonstrated that meat contamination had caused the positive test after his consumption of oxtail from a local restaurant. He also produced the results of a negative hairtest and a polygraph examination.

USADA's investigation established that the oxtail came from a meat supplier in Mexico and originated from a meat processing facility in Nicaragua. A piece of oxtail from the restaurant was shipped by USADA to the UCLA Laboratory for analysis.

Hereafter the UCLA Laboratory reported that the presence of Trenbolone contaminants had been detected in the oxtail. Moreover another analysis in a laboratory of the Athlete's protein powder in question tested negative for Trenbolone contaminants.

USADA contended that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and failed to demonstrate the source of the prohibited substance. It deemed that the Athlete failed to establish the critical causal link between the oxtail he consumed in March 2024 and the positive test in March 2024 for several reasons.

The Athlete argued that it is imposible to prove the source of the prohibited substance with scientific certainty, nor to prove the source of meat contamination by a mathematical certainty. Under de Code he only had to prove on a balance of probability how the Trenbolone had entered his system. 

He demonstrated that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. Moreover he had no reason to believe that the oxtail he was consuming from the restaurant contained Trenbolone.

The Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence and the arguments raised by the Parties and determines that:

• The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples.
• He committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• He could not reasonably have known that the oxtail meal was contaminated.
• There is sufficient evidence that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.
• The Athlete ate contaminated meat that caused the positive test.
• Meat contamination caused, on a balance of probabilities, the concentration of Trenbolone in the Athlete's samples.

Therefore the Arbitration Tribunal decides on 18 July 2024 that:

• USADA met its burden of proving the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation under Articles 2.1 and 2.2 the Code for use and presence of a prohibited substance.
• The Athlete has sustained his burden of proof under Article 10.5 of the Code that he bore No Fault or Negligence in connection with the use and presence of a Prohibited Substance. Therefore, the Athlete shall have no period of Ineligibility.
• The Parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this Arbitration. The administrative fees and expenses of the arbitration administrator, and the compensation and expenses of the Sole Arbitrator, shall be borne entirely the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee as provided in the relevant arbitration rules.
• This Award is in full settlement of all claims submitted in this arbitration. All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby denied.

In June 2024 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) against the swimmer Calista Liu after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dorzolamide.

Following notification a provisional suspension was imposed. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. She explained that the source of the positive test was her father's prescribed Dorzolamide eyedrop medication and that she was repeatedly exposed to this medication.

USADA accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete demonstrated the source of the substance. USADA deemed that the Athlete showed with corroborating evidence that she was repeatedly exposed to a home environment contamination with Dorzolamide residue from her father's prescribed eyedrop medication.

Further, USADA determines that she could not reasonably have known or suspected that her actions could have caused a positive test. Moreover the concentration in her sample was extremely low whereas Dorzolamide is not available in any other formulation other than eyedrop form in de United States or anywhere else in the world.

The Parties went into a settlement and requested the New Era Arbitration Tribunal to render an Award. Therefore the Arbitrator determines on 3 July 2024:

• The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample.
• She committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• The violation was not intentional.
• The Athlete established No Fault or Negligence.
• No period of ineligibility shall be imposed.

CAS OG 24/12 David Sánchez López v. Turkish Weightlifting Federation

In May 2024 the Independent Panel of the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) opened proceedings against the Turkish Weightlifitng Federation (TWF) because of 3 anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs) within a 12 month period committed by 3 Turkish weightlifting athletes. 

Consequently the independent Panel deemed it proportionate to impose a fine on the TWF. In this matter it was considered disproportionate and not applicable to cancel the single Olympic quota place earned by the Turkish weightlifters.

On 5 July 2024 the IWF Independent Panel rendered its decision regarding the TWF. On 8 July 2024 the weightlifting entries for the Paris Olympic Games were published, including the Turkish weightlifter in the 73kg weight class.

Hereafter on 2 August 2024 the Spanish weightlifter David Sánchez López filed an application with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division. The Athlete requested the Panel to replace the TWF's entry in the 73kg weight class with his entry.

The Athlete argued that the IWF had established three ADVRs by persons affiliated with the TWF. Consequently under the Rules the IWF was obligated to bar the TWF and all its affiliated athletes from competition in the 2024 Paris Olympic Games.

The TWF requested the Panel to confirm the participation of the TWF athletes into the 2024 Paris Olympic Games. The TWF, IWF and IOC contended that the Athlete lacks standing to pursue his claim and that the TWF lacks standing to be sued.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence and the issues raised by the Parties and determines that:

• The CAS Ad Hoc Division has jurisdiction to entertain this case.
• Under the Rules the Athlete is not one of the enumerated persons entitled to challenge the Appealed Decision.
• He was no participant in that proceedings and lacks standing to appeal.
• The TWF did not render the Appealed Decision.
• The IWF Independent Panel has jurisdiction and the Appealed Decision cannot be said to have been an abuse of its discretion or unreasonable.

Therefore the CAS Ad Hoc Division decides on 7 August 2024 to dismiss the application of Mr. David Sánchez López.

CAS OG 24/05 Livia Avancini v. World Athletics
CAS OG 24/06 Max Batista v. World Athletics
CAS OG 24/07 Hygor Bezerra v. World Athletics

In December 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, released the Rules Road to Paris 2024 regarding the qualification period for individual events for the Paris Olympic Games 2024. However, in February 2024 the AIU established that the Brazilian Athletics Confederation (DBAt) had failed to meet its testing obligations for 2022.

In order to meet the testing requirements the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) started testing a group of 102 athletes based on the criteria pursuant the AIU Additional Testing Requirements including for the athletes Livia Avancini, Max Batista and Hygor Bezerra.

Unexpectedly very late on 27 June 2024 and 5 July 2024 the 3 Athletes were qualified for the Paris Olympic Games 2024 whereas the Olympic Qualification period concluded on 30 June 2024. As a result none of the 3 Athletes fulfilled the Additional Testing Requirements imposed on the CBAt.

Thereupon the CBAt requested twice the AIU for an exception to the testing requirements due to truly exceptional and objectively proven circumstances. However the AIU Board rejected these two applications on 7 July and on 24 July 2024.

Hereafter on 23 July 2024, and amended on 24 July 2024, the 3 Athletes appealed the AIU Decisions with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division. The Athletes requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decisions and to grant an exception of the testing requirements.

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and the issues raised by the Parties and determines that:

• The Additional Testing Requirements were implemented in a 3 month period, instead of a 10 month period.
• Available resources, including additional resources, were allocated to conduct the 6 tests on other athletes in the priority pool.
• The testing of the 3 Athletes was not completed because they were not in the priority group and were not reached in time.
• Two of the Athletes were the subject of a number of tests but not the necessary number in the mandated time.
• There was no suggestion that any of the Athletes was other than a clean athlete.
• Truly exceptional circumstances resulted in the failure to complete the Additional Testing Requirements for the 3 Athletes.

Therefore the CAS Ad Hoc Division decides on 1 August 2024 that:

1.) The amended application filed by Livia Avancini, Max Batista and Hygor Bezerra on 24 July 2024 is upheld.

2.) The decisions rendered by the Athletics Integrity Unit’s Board on 23 July 2024 concerning each individual Applicant are set aside.

3.) The Applicants are entitled to participate in the Paris 2024 Olympic Games.

iNADO Update (2024) 07/08 (30 August)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

Speaking Up for NADOs & RADO Globally

• Athlete Representation Survey
• Athlete Representation Survey

Building a Supportive Community

• 2025 iNADO Workshop 
• iNADO and WAADS Collaborate to Strengthen Anti-Doping Efforts
•  AMADA Webinar for iNADO Members

Improving Practice Everywhere

• Reminder: iNADO's Legal Assistance Partnership with Bird & Bird
• Enhance Collaboration: Share Your Events and Newsletters in Basecamp

Guiding Principles

• New Signatories of The Guiding Principles

Monthly Features

• Welcome Papua New Guinea Sports Anti-Doping Organization (PNGSADO)
• Sport Integrity Commission Te Kahu Raunui and Welcome to CEO Rebecca Rolls

iNADO Sponsors & Partners

CAS OG 24/03 Mahmoud Al Hamid vs IWF

In January 2024 the Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Saudi Arabian weightlifter after his A sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

Following notification a Provisional Suspension was ordered and the Athlete requested opening of his B sample. However the analysis of the his B sample did not confirm the analysis of the A sample and the Provisional Suspension was lifted in March 2024.

During the Provisional Suspension the Athlete could not participate in two qualifying events, which made it impossible for him to meet the qualification criteria for the Olympic Games 2024 in Paris.

Thereupon in May 2024 the Athlete requested the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) for an Exemption to Compete in the Paris 2024 Olympics. Yet, on 24 May 2024 the IWF decided to dismiss his request and also deemed that his application was filed out of time.

Hereafter on 22 July 2024 the Athlete appealed the IWF Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division. The Athlete requested the Sole Arbitrator to set aside the Appealed Decision and to grant him an exceptional entry into the Paris 2024 Olympic Games Weightlifting competition.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the CAS Ad Hoc Division for the Olympic Games has no jurisdiction in this case as the dispute arose prior to a period of ten days preceding the Opening Ceremony of the Paris Olympic Games.

Furthermore, the Sole Arbitrator determines that the appeal will be in any event inadmissible because the Athlete failed to timely file an appeal in accordance with Article R49 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration.

Finally, the Sole Arbitrator fully recognizes and appreciates the regrettable circumstances that the Athlete faced and the impact on him being deprived of the opportunity to qualify for the Paris Olympic Games. Unfortunately, this does not enable the Sole Arbitrator to assume jurisdiction where it does not exist under the CAS Ad Hoc Rules.

Therefore the CAS AD Hoc Division decides on 27 July 2024 that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the application filed by the Athlete on 22 July 2024.

CAS 2024/A/10291 US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) vs. James ‘Michael’ Brinegar

On 26 December 2023 the New Era Arbitration concluded that the swimmer James Michael Brinegar had not committed an anti-doping rule violation based on the abnormal blood values in his ABP reported by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

Hereafter USADA appealed the New Era Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

In this case, three samples collected from the Athlete between July 20, 2022 and September 27, 2022 showed values consistent with blood doping, specifically the use of ESAs, as confirmed by unanimous expert evaluation of the Athlete's blood profile in early 2023.

The Athlete's case was heard to ensure resolution in advance of team selection decisions related to the upcoming Paris Olympic Games. Because a decision was needed before team selection decisions were made, the CAS panel issued an operative award, which is an abbreviated document that only conveys the panel’s ruling.

The reasoned decision will be made publicly available once it is rendered. The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 June 2024 that:

1.) The appeal filed by US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) on 9 January 2024 against the decision issued on 26 December 2023 by New Era Arbitration (Case No 2023082801) is partially upheld, as set out in paragraphs (3)-(6) below.

2.) The said decision issued on 26 December 2023 is set aside.

3. James ‘Michael’ Brinegar is found to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.2. of the World Anti-Doping Code.

4.) James ‘Michael’ Brinegar is sanctioned with a period of Ineligibility (within the meaning of the World Anti-Doping Code) of four (4) years, commencing on the date of this decision.

5.) Credit is to be given for the period during which James ‘Michael’ Brinegar has already been provisionally suspended, from 18 August 2023 until 27 November 2023.

6.) James ‘Michael’ Brinegar’s competition results in the period from 20 July 2022 to 31 December 2022 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, ranking points and prizes (all within the meaning of the World Anti-Doping Code).

7.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by James ‘Michael’ Brinegar.

8.) Each party shall bear its own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.

9.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2022/A/9341 Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Abdullah Alrouwely & Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC)

In June 2022, the Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) reported an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) against the football player Abdullah Alrouwely after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Amfetamine.

Consequently the SAADC decided on 14 December 2022 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Panel deemed that the substance was used recreationally, out-of-competition and unrelated to sport performance.

Hereafter the International Football Federation (FIFA) appealed the SAADC Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). FIFA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 4 years on the Athlete.

The Athlete in his defence asserted that:

• The violation was not intentional.
• the concentration in his sample was very low.
• He was unaware of contamination of the tea he was drinking at a wedding.
• Adding stimulants to beverages at wedding parties is a tradition in his region, in order to help people dance.

The SAADC acknowledged that in first instance the Panel made a mistake and by misunderstanding had considered the prohibited substance a "Substance of Abuse".

FIFA disputed the conclusion that the anti-doping rule violation was the result of out-of-competition recreational use of a Substance of Abuse. Moreover the Athlete failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system, nor grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence and arguments presented by the Parties and determines that:

• The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample.
• He committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• Amfetamine is not a "Substance of Abuse", nor prohibited out-of-competition.
• The substance was detected in-competition, despite it may have been ingested out-of-competition.
• The Athlete failed to demonstrate with evidence that the ingestion occurred out-of-competition in a context unrelated to sport performance.
• He failed to establish that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 April 2024 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) on 14 December 2022 against the decision rendered on 28 July 2022 by the Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered on 28 July 2022 by the Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) is set aside.

3.) Mr Abdullah Alrouwely is declared ineligible for a period of four years from the date of the present Award. Credit is given for the period of suspension served by Mr Abdullah Alrouwely from 21 June 2022 to 20 September 2022.

4.) The costs of this arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Comi Office, shall be borne by the Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) and by Mr Abdullah Alrouwely as to 50% each. The Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) shall be jointly liable for the payment of the Mr Abdullah Alrouwely's share.

5.) Each Party shall bear the expenses it has incurred in connection with this arbitration.

6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

In August 2023 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) reported an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) against the rugby player Bevan Jay after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine).

Following notification, a provisional suspension was imposed. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied that the violation was intentional. He could not explain how the substance had entered his system and believed that a fat burner product he has used was likely the source of the substance.

UKAD contended that he Athlete failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that the violation was not intentional. UKAD ruled out contamination because of the high concentration established in his sample while the relevant supplements were also not mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

The Panel agrees that the Athlete failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. The Panel deems that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Panel decides on 18 July 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 August 2023.