Class Doping ALL RH & C PDF

ANTI-DOPING Ruiz-Huerta & Crespo, abogados Doping is not a modern term. According to ancient reports found in the Norwegian Mythology, the use of strengthening substances was already common among the Berserkers. They were reported to take Bufotenin, which is known to enhance the physical performan...

ANTI-DOPING Ruiz-Huerta & Crespo, abogados Doping is not a modern term. According to ancient reports found in the Norwegian Mythology, the use of strengthening substances was already common among the Berserkers. They were reported to take Bufotenin, which is known to enhance the physical performance and strength, Bufotenin originates from skin of toads as well as Amanita mushrooms The Kaffir tribe in Africa named a primitive alcoholic drink which was used in religious ceremonies as a stimulant with the phrase “dop”. Consecutively, the Dutch colonists used the term “dop” to describe any stimulant beverage and hence the term was spread worldwide. Eventually, the term was adopted to a wider range of substances and in sports, using those substances was further on described as “doping”, first appearing in an English dictionary in 1889. In the Greece of the Antique, specialists were described offering athletes nutritional ingredients in order to enhance their physical performance. The use of drugs in Roman history has been recorded, too. Chariot racers fed their horses with various mixtures in order to make them run faster. Gladiators are also described to use strengthening doping agents Doping in modern sports was reliably reported since the second half of the 19th Century. 1865 The first documented case occured in swimming during the Amsterdam canal event. Thereby the intake of an unnamed performance-enhancing drug was described. 1896 The first reported death caused by doping occurred in this year. The English cyclist A. Linton died due to ephedrine intake during the race Paris-Bordeaux. 1904 At the St. Louis marathon, Tom Hicks who had just won the race collapsed and the Doctors proved strychnine and cognac intake before the race. 1920 Amphetamines, not only in sports a quite common drug during the 20th century, were produced for the first time. 1960 A dramatic increase in using doping substances started in the 1960s. The society believed those days that there were drugs capable of achieving everything. During the Olympic Games of Rome 1960, the Danish cyclist K. Jensen died due to an abuse of amphetamines. 1967 In 1967 the 30 year old British cyclist Tom Simpson (amphetamines) and the runner Dick Howard (heroin overdose) died. In 1968, one year later, the German Box fighter Jupp Elze died after an amphetamine-cocktail. 1976 In the Olympic Games of Montreal, the polish athlete Z. Kaczmarek and the bulgarian athlete V. Khristov (both weightlifters) were forced to return their golden medals after being proved for Doping. 1988 Many other medalists had the same fate with Ben Johnson during the Seoul Olympics being the best known example. He was tested positive for a banned anabolic steroid (Stanozolol), was stripped of his gold medal in 100 meter sprinting and was suspended for two years. Later, it was proven that all or almost all of the finalists in that race had taken forbidden substances. The FESTINA affaire permitted the dismantlement of a massive doping conspiracy whose head was Bruno Roussel and the doctor Eric Rikjaert from said cycling team. They had at their disposal several illicit products in order to enhance the performance of their athletes: EPO (untraceable back then), growth hormone and testosterone. The following riders were part of that team: Richard Virenque, Alex Zülle, Laurent Brochard and Pascal Hervé. All the Spanish teams (Once, Deutsche Bank, Banesto, Kelme) abandoned the race immediately supposedly as per how the TVM team was treated by the authorities. In 1998 a large number of prohibited medical substances were found by police in a raid during the Tour de France. The scandal led to a major reappraisal of the role of public authorities in anti-doping affairs. Doping is defined as occurrence of one or more of the following: - Presence of Prohibited Susbtance in an Athlete’s sample - Refusing or failing without compelling justification to submit to Sample Collection after notification - Violation of applicable requirements regarding Athlete availability for Out-of-Competition Testing - Tampering or Attempted Trafficking - Possession - Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking - Administration or Attempted administration to any Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method The First World Conference on Doping in Sport held, in Lausanne, Switzerland, on February 2-4, 1999, produced the Lausanne Declaration on Doping in Sport. This document provided for the creation of an independent international anti-doping agency to be operational for the Games of the XXVII Olympiad in Sydney in 2000. Pursuant to the terms of the Lausanne Declaration, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was established on November 10, 1999, in Lausanne to promote and coordinate the fight against doping in sport internationally. WADA was set up as a foundation under the initiative of the IOC with the support and participation of intergovernmental organizations, governments, public authorities, and other public and private bodies fighting doping in sport. 192 countries and more than 570 sporting organizations have signed up with WADA WADA’s budget of USD 25,5 MIILLION is shared equally by member governments and the IOC - Doping threatens Athlete’s Healt - It also threatens Integrity of Sport - Athletes are role models to many youngsters I. Substances and Methods II. Substances and Prohibited at al times (In- & Methods Prohibited In- Out-of Competition): Competition: - Non-approved substances - Stimulants - Anabolic agents - Narcotics - Growth factors - Cannabinoids - Hormones - Glucocorticosteroids - Diuretics & other Masking Agents + - Manipulation of Blood - Chemical & Physical manipulation - Gene doping III. Substances and Methods Prohibited in particular sports: - Alcohol prohibited (0,10g/L) in: aeronautic, archery, automobile, karate, motorcycling, powerboating. - Beta- Blockers: in-competition only in following sports: shooting, archery, automobile, billiards, darts, golf, skiing, snowboarding. IV. Specified substances: Particularly susceptible to unintentional AD violations as per their availability in medicinal & food products or likely to be abused as doping agents: - Ephedrine - Methylhexanamine - L-methyl Amphetamine ATHLETES BIOLOGICAL PASSPORT Ruiz-Huerta & Crespo, abogados  1. WHAT IS IT? The Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) monitores selected biological variables which indirectly reveal the effects of doping, as opposed to the traditional direct detection of doping. Biological monitoring throughout an athlete’s sporting career should make any prohibited preparation far harder to implement. The ABP will be used to meet the two-fold objective: 1. pursuing possible anti-doping WADA rule violations World Anti-Doping Code (the use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method) 2. supporting more intelligent targeting of athletes for conventional doping control. 2. HISTORY First mention: 2002 During the 2006 Olympic Winter Games: some athletes’ health checks reported high haemoglobin levels and their federations decided not to sanction them before the start of their competitions. WADA rised as a result some questions and expressed its concern regarding the results and the potential risk of doping in those athletes. WADA convened a meeting with representatives of International Sports Federations to exchange information about the monitor of blood profiles among the different sports. They agreed to introduce the analysis of the blood variables as a part of the anti- doping process as it can help to identify abnormal profiles. 2. HISTORY Through more meeting they decided that the longitudinal analysis of the athlete blood should also be registered in a database, so it can be used in target testing and sactioning when abnormal values are observed. WADA’s Athelete Biological Passport Operating Guidelines took effect immediately. They can be adopted the model to implement a biological monitorin program.  3. REGULATION WADA’s Executive Committee aproved the Athlete Biological Passport Operating Guidelines on December 1, 2009. These guidelines are divided in two sections: 1. First section: it contains the explanation of how the ABP works and how to establish it. It is to foster harmonization and consistency in the application of the ABP within the anti-doping community. It is not mandatory.  3. REGULATION 2. Second section: it contains the annexes which compile the mandatory protocols that all the anti-doping organization choosing to use the ABP must apply. They refer to :  consistency in the application  the sharing of the information  the standarization of the procedures So that, the results of monitored variables are harmonized withing the ABP to ensure legal fortitude and scientific certainty. However, every organization is allowed to adapt the process to its own needs and goals. 4. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES On one hand, it is indisputable that doping corrupts the mere notion of sports and fair play and everyone in the sports industry has to do its uttermost to prevent this from occurring as often as it does nowadays. However, on the other hand, the athlete’s privacy and right to privacy should also be respected and this passport can arguably be said that it violates the fundamental human rights of the athletes. 4. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES The nature of the ABP is such that enables a foreign party to access and evaluate personal and very sensitive information of the athlete like his blood substances. Therefore the apprehension expressed over the ABP is more than noteworthy as it walks on a very fine line between personal liberty and right of information. “The ABP can be used for intelligence, for sanctioning, for health protection, and, in turn, for deterrence!. 5. CONTROVERSY Just like with the whereabouts scheme , the athlete passport should be judged in relation to how proportionate it really is to the goal it aims at achieving. However, as it has been observed in cases, some organisations do not want to rely solely on the ABP for condemning and sanctioning an athlete. It seems like the old way of doping controls provided more comfortable certainty to national organisations for finding someone guilty. So, one can acknowledge that the ABP cannot provide 100% evidence that doping has occurred even indirectly, thus improvements still need to be made. Another strong point of criticism about the Biological Passport is that it may enable a retrospective application of the law.  6. CAS CASES “Notably, the Senate of the Disciplinary Committee of the Slovenian Olympic Committee recently rejected a case brought by the UCI against Tadej Valjavec.” In actual fact, the Slovenian Commi3ee found that the evidence provided by the UCI had simply been insufficient to establish that a Prohibited Method had taken place. Hélder Ornelas, 38, a long distance runner from Portugal, has been found guilty of a doping violation and sanctioned with a 4-year period of ineligibility by the Portuguese AthleFc FederaFon (FPA). 7. FUTURE If one thing is for sure, is the adamant need for a review of the Passport as it stands and potential improvements will help it to evolve and help in the fight against doping instead of merely standing in its way. Suggestions have been made by different parties as to which path should the ABP follow in order to ameliorate itself. According to some prominent sports scholars: “WADA should revise its Biological Passport Guidelines, and the UCI its procedure, in order to set out the steps necessary to avoid the procedural and evidentiary problems institutionalized in the current process. These revisions should be published in an Explanatory memorandum to aid Anti-doping decision makers.” 8. CONCLUSION AND PERSONAL OPINION The Biological Passport is by no means a panacea for all ills and tribulations caused by doping in sports and it should definitely not be treated as such. In a way , the Biological Passport is both a blessing and a curse for sportspeople Ruiz-Huerta & Crespo, abogados  “No Significant Fault or Negligence” “If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be reduced, but the reduced period of Ineligibility may not be less than one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable. If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the reduced period under this Article may be no less than eight (8) years. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in an Athlete's Sample in violation of Article 2.1 (Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers), the Athlete must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his or her system in order to have the period of Ineligibility reduced.”  Effect of the Article 10.5.2 “The Narrow Approach” Article 10.5.1 v. Article 10.5.2 (Gasquet case) Reduction of the period of ineligibility/sanction of the Athlete, if truly and exceptional circumstances and involving Article 2.1. From 2 years down to 1 year or from a lifetime to no less than 8 years (max) ONLY, in the event where there could be “no significant fault or negligence” established!!! E.g. Hardy Case – Reasonable steps of care – contact with the Manufacturer of the substance Burden of Proof: (Balance of Probabilities) The Athlete needs to establish how the prohibited substance entered his or her system Article 10.5.1 v. Article 10.5.2 “No Fault or Negligence” v. “No Significant Fault or Negligence” If the athlete is unable to meet the high standards of ‘no fault or negligence’ then Article 10.5.2 (‘no significant fault or negligence’) may be relevant.  Hans Knauss (2005) - Austrian Alpine Skier - “Ultimate Nutrition” - Admits Fault and Negligence - Had no knowledge of prohibited substance in supplements. - Label had no indication. - Supplier prosecuted (criminal proceeding) - Certificate from manufacturer.  Despres (2008) - Canadian Bobsled Skeleton - Nandrolone - Web inquiry - Consultation with team nutritionist.  Jessica Hardy (2009) - US Swimmer - Clembuterol - Endorsement with AdvoCare - Products tested by an “independent company for purity”. Assured that its products were formulated “with quality ingredients”. - Long term use of Supplements - Consulted experts aside from AdvoCare  P. v IIHF (2006) - Ukranian Hockey Player - Positive for Nandrolone in 2005 Article 10.5.2 has a narrow approach and the vast majority do NOT deal will “exceptional circumstances” / “No significant fault or negligence”. Hard to prove!!! However, those few case where Article 10.5.2 is applied, a less period of ineligibility period will apply. Anti‐doping rule violations by support personnel: legal analysis and CAS jurisprudence Ruiz-Huerta & Crespo, abogados Why anti-doping regulations? Mid 19th century Cyclist using cocaine and alcohol to enhance performance Beginning of the 20th century need to control the substances to the competitors. Knud Jensen: Danish cyclist.. Died in Rome 1960 after the race Autopsy: he had consumed amphetamines and synthetic hormones (e.g. testosterone) => IOC introduced doping tests for the Olympic Games in Grenoble in 1966. => Sports Federation introduced drug tests in 1970. These controls did not detect the presence of anabolic steroids The World Anti-Doping Agency International independent organisation created in 1999 to promote, coordinate and monitor the fight against doping in sport in all its forms. Composed and funded equally by the sports movement and governments of the world. Why WADA cares? Health of the athletes Fair competition For the athletes to enjoy the sport and don’t risk their health. Support Personnel Includes: sports medics, nutritionists, team doctors, coaches, generally people who surround the athletes. Why Regulate? Because normally they know if the athletes have used any substances and what are the substances they used. They are also the people who advise the athletes on what they have to do. What anti-doping rule violation by support personnel means? Athlete support person possesses a prohibited substance and/or prohibited method Athlete support person trafficks a prohibited substance and/or prohibited method Athlete support person administers, or attempts to administer, a prohibited substance and/or prohibited method to any athlete; or assists, encourages or covers up an ADRV. Offences under WADA Code Possession of a prohibited substance or method during a competition Possession of a prohibited substance or method during training athlete training out of competition Trafficking or attempting trafficking in any prohibited substance or prohibited method Offences under WADA Code Administration or attempted administration to an athlete of any prohibited substance or method during competition Administration or attempted to an athlete of any prohibited substance or method out of competition during a training session Assisting, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation or any attempted anti-doping rule violation  CAS Code Problem: it does not establish whether there has to be knowledge of the substance or whether it is enough to establish that the member of the support personnel had been reckless or negligent. CAS has been clear mentioning that an athlete is entitled to claim for his coach responsibility in some doping cases such as what we just mentioned that CAS Code specifies. WADA Code sanctions For violations of Articles 2.7, 2.8 the period of ineligibility imposed shall be a minimum of four years up to a maximum of a lifetime ineligibility UNLESS The conditions provided in Article 10.5 are met. Minors Anti-doping rule violation involving a minor shall be considered a particularly serious violation and if committed by Athlete Support Personnel => Shall result in lifetime Ineligibility for Athlete Support Personnel Roles and responsibilities according to WADA Code 21.2.1 To be knowledgeable of and comply with all anti-doping policies and rules adopted pursuant to the Code and which are applicable to them or the Athletes whom they support. 21.2.2 To cooperate with the Athlete Testing program. 21.2.3 To use their influence on Athlete values and behavior to prohibit anti-doping attitudes. International Olympic Committee Anti Doping Rules under Article 9 9.4 Temporary or Permanent Ineligibility the Disciplinary Commission or the IOC Executive Board, as the case may be, may declare all the Persons concerned, temporarily or permanently ineligible from editions of the Olympic Games and the Olympic Winter Games. CAS CASES Turkish Athletics Federation v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) Romanian football trainer and FIFA, WADA, Cyprus Football Association (CFA) Arbitration CAS 2008/A/1452 Kazuki Ganaha v/ Japan Professional Football League, award of 26 May 2008. Turkish Athletics Federation v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) The coach had been negligent in his coaching duties in relation to the doping violation committed by one of his athletes. The CAS decided that the ban handed down by the Federation and also held up on appeal by the Turkish courts should not apply to the coach. The reasoning behind the CAS decision was that it had not seen any evidence that the coach had violated any anti-doping rule or any disciplinary rule connected with his duties as Athlete Support Personnel under the IAAF rules. Also there had been no basis provided as to the reasoning of this decision. An athlete support personnel could be regarded as being negligent in his duties if he has committed one of the above offences, for example the administration of a prohibited substance during a competition which has caused his athlete to fail a doping test. However, following the decision of the CAS it is not lawful to rule that an athlete support personnel has been negligent simply because one of his athletes has failed a doping test. Romanian football trainer and FIFA, WADA, Cyprus Football Association (CFA) Article R47 of the CAS Code: a decision of a sport federation can be appealed to CAS to the extent that the statutes or the regulations of the Federation provide so or when the parties have entered into a specific arbitration agreement. Articles 62 and 63 of the FIFA Statutes: FIFA recognises CAS jurisdiction and moreover WADA is entitled to appeal to CAS against any internally final and binding doping-related decision passed by FIFA, the Confederations, Members or Leagues - the CFA is obliged according to Art. 13.1 (d) of the FIFA Statutes to ensure that its own members comply with the Statutes, Regulations, Directives and Decisions of FIFA bodies; - Article 11.7 of the FIFA Statutes provides that the anti-doping rules of the CFA must comply with FIFA rules among others; - according to Art. 21 of the CFA Statutes the FIFA rules are applicable in case of unclear or lacking internal provisions of the CFA; - Article 22.5 of the CFA Statutes provides for the applicability of the FIFA Statutes to disputes between members of the CFA and foreign law subjects. CAS found that it had jurisdiction on the case because of FIFA Statutes and sanctioned the coach with four years ban and he was liable to pay all the court costs as well as compensation to FIFA and WADA for the federal proceedings. Kazuki Ganaha v/ Japan Professional Football League The advices of the team doctor were to take some substances on the grounds that the Japanese League had not adopted the WADA Code provisions related to sanctions. => The player could not be sanctioned by using any substance. Despite that the player found positive to some prohibited substance when he has being tested for doping. Six official games suspension. CAS accepted jurisdiction: application of the Therapeutic Use Exceptions and cancellation of the sanctions only because the athlete was sick and he had to accept the treatment provided by the doctor.  - WADA-Accredited laboratories - Laboratories and samples - Laboratories purposes Ruiz-Huerta & Crespo, abogados You need to comply with: -ISO/IEC 17025: General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories is the main ISO standard used by testing and calibration laboratories - International Standard for Laboratories - External Quality Assessment Scheme WADA-EQAS PROCESS Steps to require WADA accreditation: 1. Applying for a WADA Laboratory Accreditation 2. Preparing for WADA Laboratory Accreditation 3. Obtaining WADA Accreditation 4. Maintaining WADA Accreditation LABORATORIES AND SAMPLES Art. 6 WADA Code states laboratories issues Samples must be analyzed by WADA- accredited laboratories and those approved by WADA: Shall be determined exclusively by the Anti- Doping Organization LABORATORIES PURPOSES Find out “doping offenders”: within the list of the Prohibited Substances Laboratories will report WADA periodically Atheletes privacy must be respected Establish parametres: harmonize The purpose of the International Standards is harmonization among Anti-Doping Organizations Conclusion We find several bodies fighting doping: federations, anti-doping organizations and laboratories In order to harmonize and find out and sanction the offenders ATHLETES' STATUS DURING INELIGIBILITY An analysis of the practical compliance Ruiz-Huerta & Crespo, abogados 1. Legal analysis of WADC 1.1. Different ineligibility sanctions 1.2. Status of Athletes during ineligibility 2. Analysis ineligibility in practice 2.1. Team sports 2.2. Individual sports 3. Consequences 4. Conclusion 10.2 WADC Presence of Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers (article 2.1.) Use or Attempted Use of Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method (article 2.2.) Possession of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods (article 2.6.) SANCTION: 2 years for first violation if not 10.4/10.5 (elimination or reduction) or 10.6 (increase). 10.3.1 - Violations of articles 2.3. and 2.5., i.e. ‘Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection’ and ‘Tampering with Doping Control’  Same standards of ineligibility as 10.2 10.3.2- Violations of articles 2.7. Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking and 2.8. Administration or Attempted Administration of Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method  4 years - lifetime sanctions  May trigger non-sporting laws 10.3.3- Whereabouts Filing Failures and/or Missed Tests  1 - 2 years of sanction depending on athletes fault/ negligence Against harmonization: - Individual vs Team Sports - Short career sports vs Long career sports  Sanction affects in different ways Pro harmonization: - Unfair to sanction differently because of sport 1.2. Status of athletes during ineligibility 10.10.1. WADC - Prohibition of Participation during ineligibility  No participation in any training /competition (national or international) ≠ organized in anti-doping or rehabilitation programs - 4 years of ineligibility: participation in local competitions with condition that : - no competition in sport in which he/she was sanctioned; - local competition does not qualify to a national or international event 1.2. Status of athletes during ineligibility 10.10.2. - violation 10.10.1: - disqualification from competition and results - ineligibility sanction re-started 10.10.3. - financial support during ineligibility taken away and withheld (unless reductions) 2. Analysis ineligibility in practice 2.1. Team sports - Football (FIFA) - Basketball (FIBA) - Volleyball (FIVB) 2.2. Individual sports - Athletics (IAAF) - Cycling (UCI) - Swimming (FINA) 2.1. Team sports FIFA (art. 54 FIFA Anti Doping Regulations) (i) prohibition on participation during ineligibility: - ‘Athlete or other Person’ replaced for ‘player’ (applicability) - Exemption: Period of ineligibility Number of months prior to expiry of period of ineligibility during which training or other non- competition-related activities may take place Less than six months Zero months Six to nine months One month Ten months to one year Two months One year or more Three months 2.1. Team sports (ii) additional rules in the case of a period of ineligibility longer than four years; (iii) violation of the prohibition of participation during ineligibility; - Deleted: ‘the results of such participation shall be disqualified’ (iv) withholding of financial support during ineligibility. FIBA (10.10 FIBA Internal Regulations Governing Anti-Doping) (i) prohibition on participation during ineligibility; - Replaced ‘Athlete’ for ‘Player’; - Replaced ‘Competition’ for ‘Event’. - Exemption (training during whole period of ineligibility possible): Period of ineligibility Number of months prior to expiry of period of ineligibility during which training or other non- competition-related activities may take place Less than 18 months Three months 18 months or more Six months i. - Deleted: ‘in a sport other the sport in which the Athlete or other Person committed the anti-doping rule violation’ and ‘Athlete’ in the phrase ‘such Athlete or other Person directly or indirectly’ (ii) violation of the prohibition of participation during ineligibility; - Change: ‘results of such participation shall be Disqualified’ in ‘all medals and prizes in connection with such participation shall be forfeited’ (Impact ↓ ) - Power to make decisions: Secretary General ≠ initial Anti- Doping Organization (iii) withholding of financial support during ineligibility. FIVB (10.10 FIVB Medical Regulations 10th Edition) (i) prohibition on participation during ineligibility; - Replaced ‘Competition’ for ‘Event’. - ‘Grammatical’ change: ‘other than the sport in which the Athlete or other Person committed the anti-doping rule violation’ in ‘subject to the jurisdictions of FIVB and its National Federations’ - No exemption (ii) violation of the prohibition of participation during ineligibility; - Power to make decisions: FIVB ≠ initial Anti-Doping Organization (iii) withholding of financial support during ineligibility. IAAF (Rule 40(11) IAAF Competition Rules 2012/13) (i) prohibition on participation during ineligibility; - ‘Grammatical’ change: ‘in which the Athlete or other Person committed the anti-doping rule violation’ in ‘other than Athletics’. - No exemption (ii) violation of the prohibition of participation during ineligibility; - Power to make decisions: the body ≠ Anti-Doping Organization (iii) withholding of financial support during ineligibility.  2.2. Individual sports UCI (320–327 UCI Cycling Regulations Part 14 Anti Doping) (i) prohibition on participation during ineligibility (art. 320-322); - Replace: ‘Athlete or other Person’ for ‘License-Holder’ and ‘Competition’ for ‘Event’ - ‘Grammatical’ change: ‘other than the sport in which the Athlete or other Person committed the anti-doping rule violation’ in ‘other than cycling’. - Replace: ‘An Athlete or other Person’ for ‘A Rider’ ; - Subject to Testing, included in the Registered Testing Pool and obliged to provide whereabouts information - No exemption (ii) violation of the prohibition of participation during ineligibility (partly art. 325&327); - Initial article disappeared ; - Implicitly: no start with training; - Disqualification team competition ≥ ‘the results of such participation shall be disqualified’ (iii) withholding of financial support during ineligibility (art. 323). FINA (DC 10.10 FINA Doping Control Rules) (i) prohibition on participation during ineligibility; - Change: ‘Athlete’ to ‘Competitor’; - No exemption (ii) violation of the prohibition of participation during ineligibility; - Addition: ‘Where a Competitor Support Personnel or other Person substantially assists a Competitor in violating the prohibition against participating during Ineligibility, the FINA Executive may impose appropriate sanctions’ (iii) withholding of financial support during ineligibility. 2. Analysis ineligibility in practice Findings: - FIFA, FIBA and UCI: most significant breach - UCI: added requirements - FIFA and FIBA: exemptions - Others: some amendments but no immediate change required 3. Consequences Compliance with WADC Proportionality Equality Fairness Several controversies: - difference of treatment for different sports; - individual or team sports Opinion - case by case study of each violation - proportional sanctions in different situations (but harmonized in WADC) Ruiz-Huerta & Crespo, abogados Table of contents Introduction Alberto Contador Velasco Appeals dismissed by WADA Phillip Nielsen Mexican football players Dimitrij Ovtcharov Wen Tong Introduction WADC affords athletes a defense to reduce or eliminate sanction. Athlete needs to prove (1) how the substance entered his or her body AND (2) he or she committed no fault or negligence, or no significant fault of negligence. Athletes have recently turned to the food contamination defense to plead their innocence. Food contamination defense has proven unsuccessful except in a few recently dismissed cases of athletes consuming meat in China and Mexico. Facts: During rest day of 2010 Tour de France, Contador undergoes a doping test. His “A” and “B” urine samples reveal the presence of clenbuterol, a WADA prohibited substance. The Comité Nacional de Competición y Disciplina Deportiva (CNCDD) of the Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) held a disciplinary proceeding. Contador refuses CNCDD’s proposed 1-year ban. Less than a month later RFEC decides to exonerate him of any sanction. Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) & WADA appeal to the CAS. Dismissed the possibility that the presence of clenbuterol came from blood transfusion, injections of micro doses, or vitamin supplements; and in dong so, determined that consumption of meat was the most probably cause of his positive doping result. Insisted that the amount of clenbuterol found was not enough to enhance Contador’s performance. UCI & WADA request 2-year ban Contador: acknowledges presence of clenbuterol but claims it entered his body as a result of eating contaminated meat. UCI & WADA: more likely that clenbuterol entered his body by blood transfusion or by ingestion of a contaminated food supplement. Panel had to decide whether Contador proved by a balance of probability that consumption of contaminated meat caused his adverse analytical finding. UCI & WADA must establish doping offense by comfortable satisfaction. BOP shifts to Contador to establish how the substance entered his body AND that he was not negligent. Contador cannot directly prove the relevant meat was contaminated. He must prove his case using “negative facts.” As a result, UCI & WADA will have to cooperate in investigation and clarification of facts. They will have to argue the likelihood of other scenarios. Panel insists that this does not re0shift the burden of proof to UCI & WADA. Meat contamination theory: VERY UNLIKELY, but POSSIBLE Very unlikely: Meat can be traced back to a Spanish farm, and regulatory system in Spain has made the illicit practice of illegally fattening cattle using clenbuterol very rare. Possible: Can’t completely rule out possibility it contained clenbuterol. CAS: Meat Contamination Theory Panel refuses to conclude actual contamination occurred. Mere possibility of occurrence does not rise to meet balance of probability test. If there is only one possible theory, then it would pass the 50% threshold of balance of probability. However, if there are multiple theories, the athlete must prove that the other theories are less likely. Blood transfusion: unlikely Contaminated food supplement: possible Occurs frequently The fact that teammates didn’t test positive for clenbuterol only makes contaminated supplement theory less likely, but does not exclude it. He could have taken a supplement not contained on team Doctor’s list. For balance of probability, Contador needed to show that meat contamination theory is more likely to have occurred than other possible theories. Panel’s findings: Blood transfusion theory equally unlikely Ingestion of contaminated food supplement more likely Why? Contador took considerable amounts of supplements Incontestable that supplements can be contaminated Athletes have frequently tested positive in the past because of contaminated food supplements An athlete has tested positive specifically for clenbuterol originating from a food supplement contamination VERY UNLIKELY that the piece of meat ingested by Contador was contaminated Phillip Nielsen - Danish cyclist who tested positive for Clenbuterol in the 2010 “Vuelta Mexico” - Nielsen, alleged that he didn’t take the substance knowingly and that he possibly ingested contaminated food in the buffet in his Hotel in Mexico. In March 2011, the Danish Olympic committee ruled that Nielsen would not be sanctioned for his positive doping control in 2011 for Clenbuterol -WADA appealed that decision in front of CAS, but later withdrew it (-Mexican players case.) -Ukrainian-born German table tennis player -At the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, Ovtcharov won the silver medal as part of the German men's team. -On September 22, 2010 the German Table Tennis Federation (DTTB) due to a positive A-sample test had suspended Ovtcharov for Clenbuterol -DTTB later unanimously decided to abolish the suspension on October 15, 2010 - WADA did not appeal. -Chinese judoka. In 2008 Summer Olympics she won the gold medal -On May 10th, 2010 she was banned for two years by the International Judo Federation because of Clenbuterol doping and was required to give back her gold medal from the World Championships of 2009 -CAS annulled the International Judo Federation (IJF) because Wen Tong was not given the opportunity to be present herself or by her representative for the opening and testing of her B sample Regulatory Framework and CAS Jurisprudence on Therapeutic Use Exemptions Ruiz-Huerta & Crespo, abogados PART 1 – REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR TUE PART 1 – REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR TUE Definition….. The TUE is included in Article 4.4 of the WADA Code. Article 4.4 states that WADA has adopted an International Standard for TUE’s, and it also places an obligation on International Federations and National Anti-Doping Organisations to set up a procedure whereby athletes can apply for a TUE. If a TUE is granted by International Federation of National Anti-Doping Organisation, this must be reported promptly to WADA through ADAMS. WADA can then, on its own accord, review the IF’s decision to grant or deny the TUE. PART 1 – INTERNATIONAL STANDARD FOR TUE Main elements of the world Anti-Doping Program are: The Code ( Level 1) International Standards (Level 2) Models of Best Practise (Level 3) The International Standard for TUE is a Level 2 mandatory International Standard. It is continuously updated and revised. It harmonises the process of granting TUE’s across sports and countries. PART 1 – INTERNATIONAL STANDARD FOR TUE The International Standard for TUE includes: Criteria for granting TUE Confidentiality of information Formation of TUE Committees TUE application process What are the criteria for granting TUE: Article 4.1 of IS for TUE. Athlete would experience significant health problems without taking the prohibited substance. Therapeutic use of the substance would not produce significant enhancement of performance. There is no reasonable therapeutic alternative. PART 1 – INTERNATIONAL STANDARD FOR TUE Confidentiality of Information Article 5 of IT for TUE All the information contained in Athletes TUE Applications are kept strictly confidential as medical data. All TUEC members have to sign a confidentiality agreement. Athletes names will not be used when circulating the application outside the TUEC. Therapeutic Use Exemption Committees Article 6 of IS for TUE Provides guidelines for the construction and duties of TUEC. TUEC must consist of at least 3 physicians Must be fully independent and no conflict of interest must arise. PART 1 – MEDICAL INFORMATION TO SUPPORT DECISIONS OF TUEC’S Medical information has been developed as a Level 3 non-mandatory Model of Best Practise Based on the World Anti-Doping Code (Code) and on the International Standard for TUE. The objective of these documents is to guide and assist TUECs in the decision making process for TUE applications and are not mandatory documents. Considered as the most widely accepted medical best practice at present. They are “living documents” and are updated as necessary. It is a non-exclusive list and TUEs for any other medical condition may be considered based on the principles of the International Standard for TUE. PART 1 – WADA TUE GUIDELINES Level 3 non-mandatory model of best practise. Developed in order to guide and assist competent Anti-Doping Organisations (ADOs) throughout the entire TUE procedure. Based on the WADA Codes and the International Standard for TUE. These guidelines are not mandatory and have no legal status. PART 2 – CAS JURISPRUDENCE ON TUE Ruiz-Huerta & Crespo, abogados  Therapeutic Use Exemptions CAS Jurisprudence P. v/ IIHF Kazuki Ganaha v/ Japan Professional Football League PARTIES The Appellant: is a Ukrainian professional ice hockey player who participated in the IIHF Senior Ice Hockey Championship 2005 in Vienna and Innsbruck as a member of the National Ice Hockey Team of Ukraine. The Respondent: is the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) FACTS: The players was body checked by a player of the opposite team and, as a result, hit the boards so hard that he had to be taken off the ice and then taken to the hospital where he was treated on account of acute heart failure which was later diagnosed as “Postcardio cardiosclerosis”. In the emergency room he was given intravenous and intramuscular injections. Unbeknownst to him one of these injections was 1 ml of Retabolil 5%, a steroid also known as Nandrolone which is a prohibited substance. After a game with the national team the player was requested to submited a doping control. The analysis of the “A” sample showed the presence of norandrosterone, which is a prohibited substance under the IIHF anti-doping rules. The IIHF Disciplinary Committee (the “IIHFDC”) imposed a two-year suspension on the Player for having committed an anti-doping rule violation. The player failed to provide sufficient evidence that he was without (significant) fault or negligence in connection with this violation. In particular, the Contested Decision argues that the Player did not prove that “the presence of the prohibited substance … has its source in a medical treatment of the alleged heart ailment with retabolil”. “the Panel received the information about his [the Player’s] treatment only through P. and that the Panel neither got information about the person who treated him nor a statement on the medical indication of the treatment with retabolil” Appellant Legal Arguments before CAS The player was not aware of the treatment he was receiving at the moment he arrive to the hospital because he was in a very bad mental and physical condition. He was in severe pain and all he cared about was saving his life. He cannot be accused of having “used” a prohibited substance within the meaning of the IIHF regulations. The term “use” required an action on the part of the Player and cannot be extended to a situation where he was injected with a (prohibited) substance without his will and knowledge. Even if the mere presence of a prohibited substance in his body was to be considered a doping offence, in the Player’s opinion he bears no fault or negligence in connection with his positive doping test because he was physically and mentally unable to control the treatment applied to him. Respondent Legal Arguments before CAS The mere presence of a prohibited substance in an athlete’s bodily specimen constitutes an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IIHF and WADA rules. The Player “did not offer any adequate evidence that would support his allegations that have to be qualified as untrustworthy in their entirety”. Assuming in Player’s favour that he was without fault or negligence in connection with the injection of Retabolil on 21 March 2005, “he would still have had the obligation to care about what substances he received and to disclose his medical treatment prior to entering the World Championship and the training camp” Applicable Law IIHF Disciplinary Regulations WADA Code CAS ANALYSIS A prohibited substance was present in the Player’s urine sample collected on 1 May 2005 and that, therefore, he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Article 10.5 of the Code burdens the athlete with proving the absence of (significant) fault or negligence on his part thus shifting the burden of proof to the athlete The only issue for this Panel to decide in this matter is whether the Player was able to establish that he bears either no fault or negligence or no significant fault or negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation. In the Panel’s opinion the Player succeeded in proving that he bears no fault or negligence. By bringing three witnesses to the hearing on 21 June 2006 who fully confirmed the Player’s explanation is sufficient prove that the player bears no fault or negligence. the Panel finds that sufficient evidence has been provided by the Player that under the unique circumstances of this case he was unable to influence or control the treatment applied to him in an emergency situation. The Panel can find no reason to put into question Ms P.’s testimony that the Player was “in a very bad physical and psychological condition (…). As a result of severe pain (he) was unable even to speak”. In these circumstances he was unable to prevent the treating doctor from administering a prohibited substance. DECISION 1. The Appeal filed by P. on 1 December 2005 is upheld. 2. The decision and the suspension imposed on P. by the Disciplinary Committee of the International Ice Hockey Federation on 14 November 2005 are annulled. The Appellant: is Kazuki Ganaha a professional football player with Kawasaki Frontale Co. Limited (“Kawaskai Frontale”). Kawasaki Frontale is one of the teams in the professional football league conducted by the Respondent in Japan and known as the J League. The Respondent: is the Doping Control Committee of The Japan Football Association (DPC/JFA). FACTS Mr. Ganaha was not feeling well and he visited Dr. Goto, the Kawasaki Frontale team doctor, in the trainer’s room in the evening. Mr. Ganaha told Dr. Goto that his throat was sore and that he was suffering from diarrhoea and feeling sluggish. Dr. Goto prescribed PL which is a common cold medication generally prescribed in Japan, for two days. After few days Mr. Ganaha still had diarrhoea and sore throat and after practice his physical condition worsened and he felt sick. He decided to go and see Dr. Goto again for an examination in the Clinic. Dr. Goto conducted an examination and made the following entries on the Healthmate: “General fatigue”, “Appetite Loss”, “Diarrhoea”, “Nausea”, “Oral intake: difficult”, and “Body temperature 38.5 degrees C.” As a result of the examination Dr. Goto recorded thadiarrhoea” and suggested an intravenous infusion of normal saline and vitamin B1. An intravenous infusion of two packs of 100ml of saline and 100mg of vitamin B1 was performed on Mr. Ganaha by Dr t Mr Ganaha had “common cold and Goto. He stook a TUE form that afternoon.After completing the form, he had Mr. Ganaha sign it and he gave it to Kawasaki Frontale staff and asked that it be faxed to the J League Office. The J League Aadministration Office, through the J League secretariat, requested Dr. Goto to provide more detailed medical reasons. Accordingly, Dr Goto provided a further copy of his medical certificate to which he had added: “On 23 April, symptoms (fever, pharyngeal pain, general fatigue, abdominal pain, loss of appetite) due to the above mentioned disease were found. As it was difficult for the patient to take in liquid and food orally, normal saline 200ml and vitamin B1 100mg were administered as an intravenous infusion”. An article appeared in a newspaper named “Sankei Sports”. The article stated that Mr. Ganaha had “not been doing very well due to an injury to his right ankle and other problems” but that he had enlisted a secret weapon in view of the upcoming match against JEF United Chiba. The article stated that Mr. Ganaha had received a “garlic shot that is effective in relieving fatigue”. The Panel was told that a garlic injection is a colloquial term for an intravenous injection of vitamin B1, used primarily to facilitate recovery from fatigue, that causes the breath to smell like garlic. The article stated that Mr. Ganaha had said “We will be having matches in a row, so, using it, I wouldn’t lose anything. You’d better not come too close to me because its stinks”. Mr. Ganaha denied saying these words to any journalist. Dr Aoki, as chairman of the JL Doping Control Committee faxed a letter to Kawasaki Frontale. The letter stated that an intravenous injection other than for medical treatment was prohibited and asked for a report concerning the newspaper article. Mr. Takeda, the President, CEO and an executive committee member of Kawasaki Frontale, Dr. Goto and Mr. Ganaha attended a meeting with members of the Doping Control Committee. During the meeting Dr Aoki indicated that what they were “really worried about” was whether or not the treatment and the administration of the vitamin B1 and the saline fluid were “really necessary”. He said at the meeting that “I guess Dr. Goto thought the treatment was adequate, but a third party has to examine to some extent whether it was really necessary and vital, or whether it was effective”. Dr. Goto confirmed at the meeting that he “thought the intravenous infusion was necessary, and that it was legitimate medical treatment”. Following the meeting, the J League Doping Control Committee deliberated and concluded that the infusion was not acute and legitimate medical treatment. An Anti-Doping Special Committee meeting was held. Kawasaki Frontale and Mr. Ganaha (who was unaware of the meeting) did not attend. The meeting decided to sanction both Kawasaki Frontale and Mr. Ganaha. Doping Committee determined that this treatment could not “be approved as an acute and legitimate medical treatment of the health condition of Mr. Ganaha”. The Respondent imposed a sanction on Mr Ganaha on the basis of findings made at a meeting of the Respondent’s Doping Control Committee on 1 May 2007 that the infusion infringed the J. League Anti-Doping Regulations which incorporated the WADA Code and Mr Ganaha was suspended for 6 official games. Applicable Law WADA CODE CAS ANALYSIS In 2007 the prohibited method was described as “Intravenous infusions are prohibited, except as a legitimate medical treatment”. The Panel is of the view that under the wording of the 2007 WADA Code, the party alleging the infraction has to prove that there was an intravenous infusion and that it was not legitimate medical treatment. The Anti-Doping Regulations of the J League which were in force at the time of the infusion and which were reproduced as Exhibit 2.2 in the proceedings, provide that the Anti-Doping Special Committee under Article 5.1, “shall be entitled … to impose sanctions upon players …”(underlining added by the Panel). Article 5.2 then gives examples of the types of sanctions which are referred to. The Panel has considered the proper construction of this regulation and notes that under the wording of the clause, the Committee is “entitled” to impose a sanction. There is no obligation or requirement to impose a penalty. In the present case after a careful evaluation of the evidence and the competing submissions of the parties and hearing the witnesses, the Panel has reached the conclusion that there is no need to decide if there has been a violation because the Panel is satisfied that it is not a case where any sanction should be imposed on the appellant. His conduct is not deserving of any sanction. The explanation given by Dr. Aoki at the meeting in January 2008 was not sufficiently clear. The J League had not taken adequate action to specify the detailed conditions, both substantial and procedural, to determine what is legitimate medical treatment. There was, and still is, on the evidence divided medical views on the necessity for an intravenous infusion in the circumstances of this case. The appellant had no capacity to evaluate the professional judgment of the treating medical practitioner. DECISION The Appeal is upheld and the sanction imposed on the Appellant by the Respondent dated 10 May 2007 that the Appellant be suspended from six official games be cancelled. Degree of fault and measurement of sanction under Article 10.4 of the WADA Code Legal analysis and CAS jurisprudence Ruiz-Huerta & Crespo,abogados Legal analysis Article 10: Sanctions on individuals 10.1: disqualification of results in a sports event 10.2: sanction for presence, use, attempted use, or possession of prohibited substances and prohibited methods – ineligibility period of 2 years 10.3: period of ineligibility for other violations 10.4: circumstances under which an elimination or reduction of the period of ineligibility found in article 10.2 might be applicable Legal Analysis Elimination or Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances Where an Athlete or other Person can establish how a Specified Substance entered his or her body or came into his or her Possession and that such Specified Substance was not intended to enhance the Athlete’s sport performance or mask the Use of a performance-enhancing substance, the period of Ineligibility found in Article 10.2 shall be replaced with the following: First violation: At a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility from future Events, and at a maximum, two (2) years of Ineligibility. To justify any elimination or reduction, the Athlete or other Person must produce corroborating evidence in addition to his or her word which establishes to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel the absence of an intent to enhance sport performance or mask the Use of a performance-enhancing substance. The Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of fault shall be the criterion considered in assessing any reduction of the period of Ineligibility. Legal Analysis Not to be confused with article 10.5! Elimination or reduction of the period of ineligibility based on: No fault or negligence No significant fault or negligence Substantial assistance is discovering or establishing violations Admission of an anti-doping rule violation in the absence of evidence Article 10.5 is the only basis for eliminating or reducing a sanction involving anabolic steroids and hormones, as well as the stimulants and the hormone antagonists and modulators so identified on the Prohibited List, or Prohibited Methods – i.e., non-specified substances. Article 10.4 applies only to specified substances “there is a greater likelihood that Specified Substances, as opposed to other Prohibited Substances, could be susceptible to a credible, non- doping explanation” Legal Analysis In order to benefit from this possibility of elimination or reduction of the sanction, the athlete must satisfy two cumulative conditions: a) establish how the specified substance entered his/her body or came into his/her possession; Balance of probability b) show that the use or possession of the specified substance was not intended to enhance his/her sports performance. “Comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel” But does the athlete have to prove that: the specified substance was not intended to enhance his performance, or the supplement/product was not intended to enhance his performance? Legal analysis Athlete’s degree of fault Circumstances considered must be specific and relevant to explain the athlete’s behaviour Comparison between particular aspects of the case and the expected standards of behaviour Irrelevance of the consequences of the sanction in its measurement (e.g. timing of the sporting calendar, short time left in the athlete’s career) Legal analysis Examples of facts showing no performance-enhancing intent: The nature of the specified substance or the timing of its ingestion not being beneficial to the athlete The athlete’s disclosure of his or her use of the specified substance Contemporaneous medical records file substantiating the non sport-related prescription for the specified substance Rule of thumb: the greater the potential performance- enhancing benefit arising from the athlete’s conduct, the higher the burden on the athlete to prove lack of an intent to enhance sport performance. CAS Jurisprudence Part: I CAS jurisprudence directly related to article 10.4 of the WADA Code is very limited due to: the specified nature of article 10.4 the limited instances in which it could apply, and even then there remain significant requirements that the article imposes on the Athlete in order to benefit from the article’s leniency a) establish how the specified substance entered his/her body or came into his/her possession; Balance of probability b) show that the use or possession of the specified substance was not intended to enhance his/her sports performance. “Comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel” CAS Jurisprudence Part: II While the determination of whether the anti-doping rule violation has occurred is based on strict liability, the imposition of a fixed period of ineligibility is not automatic: This leaves quite a bit of room for deference to the panel within the framework of the article. The deference of the panel in determining what the reduced sanction shall be can be influenced by the Athlete’s: experience or sophistication with regard to WADA and doping rules, testimonial credibility, cooperation with the investigation, timely admission, reasonableness in their investigation of said substance prior to consumption, degree of fault OLIVEIRA CASE CAS 2010-A-2107 Oliveira v. USADA Flavia Oliveira, elite international female cyclist tested positive for a specified substance that, unknown to her, was contained in a nutritional supplement that she ingested, but that she did not consume for the purpose of enhancing her sports performance The nutritional supplement is claimed to have been taken for the purpose of countering the effects of an allergy medication that she was simultaneously taking and that caused her to become more easily fatigued She was able to explain to the comfort of the arbitrator how the substance entered her body and that she did not intend for the specified substance to enhance her sport performance CAS ruled in her favor and decided that her two-year suspension should be decreased to eighteen months FOGGO CASE CAS/A2/2011 Kurt Foggo v. National Rugby League Kurt Foggo, rugby player tested positive for a specified substance that unknown to him was contained in a supplement that he did consume for the purpose of enhancing his sports performance The supplement was NOT listed as a prohibited substance The supplement was marketed and sold as an aid intended to decrease an athlete’s recovery time between practices and/or competitions He claims to have researched online both the supplement and its component parts in order to ensure that it itself was not a prohibited substance and that none of its component parts were any of the specified substances that could result in a positive test. CAS ruled in his favor and overturned the two-year suspension and issued a substantially decreased six-month suspension as sanction for his positive test Foggo/Oliveira debate Does the athlete have to prove that: the specified substance was not intended to enhance his performance; or the supplement/product was not intended to enhance his performance? Oliveira approach, does not require the athlete to prove that she did not take the product with the intent to enhance sport performance but only requires the Athlete to prove her ingestion of the specified substance was not intended to enhance sport performance In effect an athlete cannot intend to enhance sporting performance unless he knows the supplement he ingests contains the Specified Substance Foggo approach, requires the athlete to show that the ingestion of the product which contained the specified substance was not intended to enhance his sport performance The effect of this approach is that the intent must relate to the specific substance and not to the product in which it is contained. the Oliveira approach currently has the edge in the CAS case law although it is not yet firmly established jurisprudence CONCLUSIONS Flexibility vs. harmonization Further flexibility? Professionals vs. amateurs Career length in different sports Individual vs. team sports The 400m sprinter LaShawn Merrit, won the Olympic golden medal. In April 2010 he claimed that the big amount of DHEA hormone found in his body were due to some medicines he was taking to enlarge his penis. Javier Sotomayor, high jumper recordman tested possitive in cocaine. Fidel Castro claimed this was orchestrated by the ennemies of the Revolution in a complot by the imperialist ennemy and organized crime”. The tennis player Petr Korda made reference to meat in order to justify the presence of clembuterol in his body. The main issue here was that in order to reach the levels found on his body he should have eaten approximately 40 steaks per day over the previous 20 years. The athlete Mónica Pont tested positive on cafeine. She declared having taken two cups of coffee in Portugua, however the standards of cafeine she had reached amounted up to 35 cups of Spanish coffee. Raimondas Rumsas. The French police border (Chamonix) presented charges against Edita Rumsas on the 18th of July 2002 a couple hours after her husband was on the podium of the Tour de France. In her car, the French policeman founded over 40 different types of medicines, among which were corticoudes, testosterone and EPO. The French police convicted Edita for eleven weeks, however they could not catch Raimondas who travelled to Italy. Once there, the latter declared to the press that her wife was bringing said medicines to her mother-in-law Yakstenia. Rumsas could not be sanction by the sporting justice and he still competed, however only one year later he tested positive in EPO with his team, Lampre. who was “ill”. La policía aduanera de Chamonix detuvo a Edita Rumsas el 28 de julio de 2002, horas Alexandre Vinokurov, was tested positive further to a blood transfusion. He claimed at the Tour de France 2007 that it would have been counterproductive for him to be tranfused form his father as his blood would have tested positive in vodka. He claimed being subject to a new “provocation”. The Greek athletes Kenteris y Thanou scaped from the doping tests prior to the Olympic games, however they suffered an accident. They claimed that they had felt from their motorbike whey they were hurrying to reach the doping control. The IAAF did not believe it, and sanctioned them for two years as per the failure to attend the control. Last but not least, Frank Vandenbroucke. Epo, clembuterol and morphine. In February 2002, Belgian police stopped the doctor Bernard Sainz because he was speeding up to much and were perplexed witnesses how in his car there was a vast set of doping products together with used syringes. The doping guru confessed he just came from providing said products to medicamentos a Frank Vandenbroucke. Police rushed to get to Vandenbroucke’s domicile, where they took all three substances whihc they had already found as well at Sainz’s car: EPO, clembuterol y morfina. Police asked him the reasons why he wanted all these products, and the cyclist allegedly claimed that thesxe products were for his dog, whihc was really sick. Vandenbroucke was suspended for 6 months as cyclist and condemned to 200 hours of community work due to possession of morphine. Ben Johnson, Seul ‘88 and again in 1993 Martina Hingis in 2000: cocaine, Marion Jones Sidney ‘00 Diego Armando Maradona in 1991 and again on 1994 Javier Sotomayor in 1999 and again on 2001 Roberto Heras, in 2005: Vuelta a España. THANK YOU!!! Ruiz-Huerta & Crespo, abogados