World Anti-Doping Code Commentary Project

The first fully comprehensive resource for anti-doping practitioners, providing guidance along all steps of the doping control process. With topics ranging from signatory compliance to application of the sanctioning regime, the commentary will assist the anti-doping movement to achieve a more effective implementation and harmonized interpretation of the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code.

No Significant Fault or Negligence

/No Significant Fault or Negligence
­

The Johaug CAS award: Too harsh?

CAS 2017/A/5110, International Ski Federation (FIS) v. Therese Johaug & The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports, August 21, 2017; CAS 2017/A/5110, Therese Johaug v. The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (NIF). This case involves a highly successful Norwegian skier, the multiple-time World Champion and Olympic medallist Ms. [...]

The Ademi CAS award: One substance? No source? No problem.

CAS 2016/A/4676, Arijan Ademi v. UEFA, 24 March 2017. In the Ademi award, the main issue in front of the CAS panel was whether the violation was 'not intentional', a question the panel had to resolve in absence of conclusive evidence as to how the substance entered the Athlete’s body. The award in essence asks: [...]

The Significance of Maria Sharapova’s Fault

CAS Award: CAS 2016/A/4643, Maria Sharapova v. ITF, 30 September 2016. This Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) award puts (at least for the moment)[1] an end to Maria Sharapova (or the “Player”)’s doping ordeal stemming from her admitted Use of Meldonium, a substance added to WADA’s Prohibited List less than a month before she [...]

By |November 23rd, 2016|No Significant Fault or Negligence|0 Comments

Cocaine blues: What the Paolini case suggests about “recreational” drug use under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code

The Paolini decision, which was decided by the Union Cycliste Internationale’s (“UCI”) anti-doping tribunal (the “UCI Tribunal”) provides insight into the question of how Prohibited Substances used “recreationally” could be treated under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code (the “WADC”). “Recreational” drug use was the subject of much debate among stakeholders during the WADC’s 2015 review [...]

Meldonium and Moral Fault: Five Lessons Learned from the Sharapova ITF Tribunal Decision

In Fall 2015, WADA announced its decision to add the anti-ischemic drug “Meldonium” to its Prohibited List with effect on 1 January 2016, after the Monitoring Program and observation period 2015 revealed “evidence of its use by athletes with the intention of enhancing performance” (Explanatory Notice to the 2016 List). Few observers could have predicted [...]

Talk is Cheap: The Daiders CAS Award on the Evidence Needed for a Contaminated Supplement Defense

CAS Award: CAS 2014/A/3615, WADA v. Lauris Daiders, Jànis Daiders, and FIM, January 30, 2015 While the fact pattern in this case – the unexplained presence of a Prohibited Substance allegedly attributable to supplement contamination – is not out of the ordinary, the thoroughness of the legal discussion undertaken by the CAS panel does stand [...]

The Stewart CAS Award: “Paperwork” Violations and Principles Surrounding “Retrospective” Therapeutic Use Exemptions

CAS Award: CAS 2014/A/3876, Stewart v. FIM, April 27, 2015. FACTS James Stewart, a professional motocross and supercross rider, had been regularly taking the medication “Adderall” since 2012,[1] when he underwent an In-Competition Doping Control test on 12 April at the 2014 AMA Supercross FIM World Championship.[2] In May 2014, an analysis of the rider’s [...]