A Legal Analysis of the WADA-Code Beyond the Contador Case

A legal analysis of the WADA-code beyond the Contador case

Faculty: Tilburg Law School Department: Social Law and Social Politics Master: International and European Labour Law

Author: Lonneke Zandberg Student number: 537776 Graduation date: March 14, 2012 Exam Committee: Prof. dr. M. Colucci Prof. dr. F.H.R. Hendrickx Table of contents:

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... 4 INTRODUCTION ...... 5 1. HISTORY OF ANTI-DOPING ...... 7 2. WADA ...... 8 2.1 The arise of WADA ...... 8 2.2 World Anti Doping Code 2009 (WADA-code) ...... 8 2.3 The binding nature of the WADA-code ...... 10 2.4 Compliance and monitoring of the WADA-code ...... 11 2.5 Sanctions for athletes after violating the WADA-code ...... 12 3. HOW TO DEAL WITH A POSITIVE DOPING RESULT AFTER AN ATHLETE HAS EATEN CONTAMINATED MEAT? WADA’S POSITION...... 13 3.1 General rules ...... 13 3.2 Exceptions ...... 15 4. AN EVALUATION OF THE STRICT LIABILITY PRINCIPLE ...... 17 4.1 Consequences for the athlete ...... 17 4.2 Is the strict liability rule proportional in case of eating contaminated meat? ...... 20 5. CASE LAW ...... 20 5.1 Adam Dariusz Seroczyoski...... 21 5.2 Alessandro Colo ...... 22 5.3 Philip Nielsen ...... 24 5.4 Dimitri Ovtcharov ...... 25 5.5 James Stanton ...... 27 5.6 Rudi van Houts ...... 28 5.7 Alberto Contador ...... 29 5.8 Mexican soccer players ...... 35 5.9 Under 17 World Cup ...... 36 5.10 Burden of proof ...... 37 5.11 Conclusion on case law ...... 39 6. INTERVIEW WITH BIOCHEMIST DR. D. DE BOER ...... 40 7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 45 7.1 Conclusion ...... 45 7.2 Recommendations ...... 49

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 53 ANNEX I Interview Dr. D. de Boer ...... 56 ANNEX II Scheme of levels of clenbuterol found, different athletes ...... 67

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CAS Court of Arbitration for Sport DTTB Deutscher Tischtennis Bund (German table tennis federation) IOC International Olympic Committee IPC International Paralympics Committee ISL International Standard for Laboratories ITTF International Table Tennis Federation FIFA Fédération Internationale de Football Associations KNWU Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie (Royal Dutch Cycling Union) MFADC Mexican Football Association’s Disciplinary Committee MRPL Minimum Required Performance Level UCI Union Cycliste Internationale UCI ADR Union Cycliste Internationale Anti-Doping Regulations WADA World Anti-Doping Agency WADA-code World Anti-Doping Agency Code

INTRODUCTION

For many years the sport has faced problems with athletes using doping. This resulted in unfair competitions and health risks for the athletes, therefore the use of doping is now prohibited in sports. The World Anti-Doping Agency (hereinafter: WADA) has constructed the World Anti-Doping Code (hereinafter: WADA-code) containing anti-doping rules. WADA also developed a list of prohibited substances. If someone who is bound by this WADA-code violates one of the articles of article 2.1 through article 2.8 of the WADA-code an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. These rules are amongst other things about the presence or possession of a prohibited substance and the availability for doping tests.

If an athlete violates the WADA-code, consequences will follow. Athletes face the strict liability principle. This means that: “An athlete is responsible and that an anti-doping rule violation occurs, whenever a prohibited substance is found in an athlete’s sample. The violation occurs whether or not the athlete intentionally or unintentionally used a prohibited substance or was negligent or otherwise at fault”1

But is that fair in case of an athlete who has ingested a prohibited substance, for instance clenbuterol, without knowing this? Nowadays animals are given all kinds of medicine in order to keep them ‘healthy’ and make them grow faster so they can be slaughtered sooner and farmers can make more money. But these medicines which are given to animals to achieve these goals, will sometimes also end up in the bodies of those who eat the meat of these animals. When we eat meat we don’t know what kind of substances this meat contains.

Athletes are frequently tested on doping. If an athlete has recently eaten meat which is contaminated with clenbuterol, the substance will probably be found in the samples provided by the athlete. This way an athlete might present a sample which contains a substance which is prohibited based on the prohibited substance list of WADA, without the athlete has knowingly ingested this prohibited substance and without the athlete could have prevented the intake of this

1 WADA Code, 2009, p.19, comment to art. 2.1.1

5 substance. The athlete still has to face the consequences of this ingestion on the basis of the fact that he or she is responsible for all prohibited substance found to be present in the samples he or she provided.

The main goal of this thesis is to find out how there is currently dealt with clenbuterol cases and to give recommendations if it turns out that improvement are possible. In order to reach this goal the WADA-code and the case law surrounding clenbuterol cases will be analyzed, furthermore, there will be looked at the history of doping, the definition of doping and a interview biochemist dr. D. de Boer.

In the first chapter a small overview of the history of anti-doping will be discussed. The second chapter provides information about WADA, when an athlete is bound by the WADA-code, how a government can commit to the WADA-code and what sanctions will follow after violating the WADA-code. Information on, according to WADA, how to deal with a positive doping result after an athlete has eaten contaminated meat can be found in chapter three. In the fourth chapter there will be discussed if the strict liability principle is proportional in cases of eating contaminated meat. Case law surrounding clenbuterol will be presented in chapter five. Chapter six contains an interview with biochemist dr. D. de Boer. The paper ends with chapter seven, in that chapter a conclusion will be given and recommendations on how to better deal with clenbuterol cases will be presented.

1. HISTORY OF ANTI-DOPING

The use of products or substances to enhance performances is as old as sports itself. “Ancient Greek athletes are known to have used special diets and stimulating potions to fortify themselves. Strychnine, caffeine, cocaine, and alcohol were often used by cyclists and other endurance athletes in the 19th century. Thomas Hicks ran to victory in the marathon at the 1904 Olympic Games, in Saint Louis, with the help of raw egg, injections of strychnine and doses of brandy administered to him during the race...”2

It might be said that in history the use of a form of doping was part of the sport. Since the 20th century we have used the word doping for products or substances to enhance performances.3 WADA has given the most current definition of doping: “Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.8 of the Code.”4

In the 1920’s it became clear that restrictions had to be made on the use of doping in sports.5 In 1963 France was the first country with anti-doping legislation. Other countries followed but for a long time international cooperation in anti-doping affairs was restricted to the Council of Europe. In the 1980’s the cooperation between international sports authorities and governments increased, but the debates were taking place in several forums and not in one forum. This resulted in different definitions, different policies and different sanctions.6 “Anti-doping sanctions were often disputed and sometimes overruled by civil courts.”7

In 1998 there was a big doping scandal in Le Tour de France, during a raid the police found a lot of prohibited medical substances. This led to consideration about the role of public authorities in anti-doping affairs.8 It became clear that an independent international agency for doping was needed. This was necessary in order to: “set unified standards for anti-doping work and coordinate the efforts of sports organizations and public authorities.”9

2 The website of WADA, about WADA, history, a brief history of anti-doping, retrieved November 9, 2011 3 The website of WADA, about WADA, history, a brief history of anti-doping, retrieved November 9, 2011 4 Article 1 WADA-Code. 5 The website of WADA, about WADA, history, a brief history of anti-doping, retrieved November 9, 2011 6 Idem. 7 Idem. 8 Idem. 9 Idem.

2. WADA

2.1 The arise of WADA

After the big scandal in Le Tour de France in 1998 it became clear that an independent international agency for doping was needed. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) held the first world Convention on doping in sport, in 1999, in Lausanne. A proposal was made to establish WADA. As a result of this proposal WADA was established in 1999.10 WADA sees doping as “a fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport”.11 WADA’s mission is: “to promote, coordinate and monitor the fight against doping in sport in all its forms.”12 WADA is a Swiss private law foundation. It is located in Lausanne, Switzerland.13

2.2 World Anti Doping Code 2009 (WADA-code)

The purpose of the WADA-code is: “to protect the athletes’ fundamental right to participate in a doping free sport and thus promote health, fairness and equality for Athletes worldwide” 14 and “to ensure harmonization, coordination and affective anti-doping programs at the international and national level with regard to detection, deterrence and prevention of doping.”15

It is clear that when there will be no harmonization that it would be possible for parties, to modify the meaning of different terms and anti-doping rules. In order to fight doping and give every athlete the same chances, it is necessary that everybody interprets the same terms in the same way and that everybody uses the same rules in the same way.

10 The website of WADA, about WADA, history, WADA history, retrieved November 9, 2011 11 WADA-code, p. 14. 12 The website of WADA, about WADA, retrieved November 9, 2011 13 The website of WADA, about WADA, Statues, retrieved November 9, 2011 14 WADA-code, p. 10. 15 Idem.

The WADA-code consists of four parts. Part one covers doping control, part two covers education and research, part three covers the roles and responsibilities of different parties and part four covers the acceptance, compliance, modification and interpretation of the WADA-code.16

Part one of the WADA-code sets anti-doping rules which have to be followed by anti-doping organizations. (anti-doping organizations are: the IOC, the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), the international federations, national anti-doping organizations, major event organizations). They have to adopt, implement and enforce the WADA-code within their own rules. Some of the rules have to be implemented without changes to be made. These rules of the WADA-code have to be interpreted everywhere the same. So when a hearing takes place before a national court, the CAS or an International Federation, they all have to follow the same rules and interpret these rules in the same way. 17 Other rules are still obliged but give some flexibility to Anti-Doping Organizations. The rules about management and the hearing process for instance, are more flexible. WADA states that it is not necessary for the harmonization to all follow the exact same hearing procedure.

Part two of the WADA-code is about education and research. WADA gives education in order to prevent the use of doping in sports, the intentional and unintentional use. If athletes don’t know what is on the prohibited list, they are more likely to use, unintentionally maybe, a prohibited substance. They will also get information about the consequences of the use of doping, as well the health consequences as the sanctions.18 I see it as a very good initiative to give education to athletes. They are likely to put all their time into training and getting better in their sport, instead of reading and trying to understand the WADA-code. They might not realize that by not knowing and understanding the WADA-code they can do something, maybe unintentionally, what can influence their careers for the rest of their lives. So it is positive that WADA educates athletes. WADA also does research, they perform juridical, sociological and medical research in order to establish a doping free sport.19

16 WADA-code, p. 16, 98, 104, 116. 17 WADA-code, p. 15-17. 18 WADA-code, p. 98-100. 19 WADA-code, p. 101-102.

As mentioned before part three covers the roles and responsibilities of different parties, such as the IOC, IPC, the international federations, committees, national anti-doping organizations, major event organizations, WADA, the athletes and athlete support personnel. Part three also deals with the obligations of governments to bring all their anti-doping involvement in line with the anti-doping rules of WADA.20

Part four contains the rules about acceptance, compliance and modification21. In paragraph 2.3 and paragraph 2.4 this will be further discussed.

2.3 The binding nature of the WADA-code

The Anti-Doping Organizations, who are mentioned in paragraph 2.2, accept the WADA-code by “signing a declaration of acceptance upon approval by each of their respective governing bodies.”22 “The signatories shall implement the applicable WADA-code provisions through policies, statutes, rules or regulations according to their authority and within their relevant spheres of responsibility.”23

If they have accepted and implemented the WADA-code, the organization has to act in compliance with the WADA-code, until they withdraw the acceptance.24 Athletes are bound by the WADA-code since their organization is bound by it. Every Anti-Doping Organization that has signed the WADA-code, has to take the necessary steps to ensure that all the athletes and athletes’ personnel within its authority are bound by the relevant anti-doping rules. 25

Governments can sign the Copenhagen Declaration of March 3, 2003. If they sign this Declaration they show their intent to recognize and implement the WADA-code.26

20 WADA-code, p. 113-114. 21 WADA-code, p. 116 and following. 22 WADA-code, art. 23.1.1 23 WADA-code, art. 23.2.1 24 WADA-code, art. 23.3.1 25 WADA-code, comment on p. 17. 26 The website of WADA, world anti-doping program, governments, Copenhagen Declaration, retrieved December 20, 2011

The Copenhagen Declaration resulted in the UNESCO anti-doping Convention, adopted in 2005 and went into force on February 1, 2007.27 “The UNESCO International Convention against doping in sport is the first global treaty against doping in sport.”28

2.4 Compliance and monitoring of the WADA-code

A Signatory, that is an organization that has signed the WADA-code, must act and react according to the WADA-code. The compliance will have to be monitored to ensure everybody conduct to the WADA-code. If there would be no monitoring there would probably be some organizations and athletes who would not follow the rules determined in the WADA-code. Monitoring is necessary to maintain the compliance with the WADA-code. This monitoring will be done by WADA or in a way that is agreed upon by WADA.29

In theory to make monitoring easier, each Signatory has to report to WADA on its compliance with the WADA-code. If a Signatory doesn’t fully comply to the WADA-code, they have to give reasons for this non-compliance. Each Signatory has to make a report every second year, on its compliance with the WADA-code. The signatory has to give reasons for noncompliance.30 I think this is a very practical solution in theory, since this way WADA doesn’t have to go to every Signatory to investigate if everything happened in accordance with the WADA-code and if some things didn’t happen in accordance to the WADA-code why this had happened. But we should not forget that not everything in the report has to be true. Some signatories may polish their report to not make situations look better than they are in reality. I believe it’s a trust issue, you will have to trust your signatories. If it turns out that they weren’t frank, punishment will have to follow.

If a Signatory doesn’t provide the information requested by WADA, this can be seen as a non-compliance with the WADA-code, since these rules of reports are part of the WADA-code. The Signatory will be given the opportunity to give a written argument to the Foundation Board of

27 The website of WADA, world anti-doping program, governments, UNESCO Conference, retrieved December 20, 2011 28 The website of WADA, world anti-doping program, governments, UNESCO Conference, retrieved December 20, 2011 29 WADA-code, art. 23.4.1 30 WADA-code, art. 23.4.2

WADA before the Foundation Board concludes that a Signatory is incompliance.31 The Signatory can go into appeal to this conclusion of non-compliance.32 The non-compliance of a Signatory may result into ineligibility to bid for an event, ineligibility or non-admission of any candidature to hold any international event, cancellation of an international event, symbolic consequences or other consequences based on the Olympic Charter.33

2.5 Sanctions for athletes after violating the WADA-code

When an athlete violates the WADA-code, sanctions will follow. I will focus on the sanctions given in the situation of (unintentional) ‘use’ of a prohibited substance. A first violation will result in a period of ineligibility of two years, according to article 10.2 WADA-code. For a second violation there is a scheme which has to be followed. The scheme is in article 10.7.1 WADA-code. The sanction depends on the type of violation the first and second time. If an athlete is able to invoke article 10.4 WADA-code, which makes an exception on the main rules, in both cases, then the sanction will be between two and four years of ineligibility. If the athlete is able to invoke article 10.5.2 WADA-code two times, this is another exception-rule, then the sanction will be 4-8 years ineligibility.

If the athlete invokes article 10.4 WADA-code in the first time and the second time article 10.5.2 WADA-code, then the athlete will face two up till four years ineligibility. And last, if the athlete successfully invokes article 10.5.2 WADA-code the first time and article 10.4 WADA-code in case of a second violation, then he or she faces one up till four years of ineligibility. It is remarkable that the ineligibility period is different when article 10.4 is first or secondly invoked in combination with article 10.5.2.

If an athlete is able to prove that he or she has not fault or negligence, article 10.5.1 WADA-code, then the anti-doping rule violation shall not be considered a violation for the limited purpose of determining the period of ineligibility for multiple violations under article 10.7 WADA-code.

31 WADA-code, art. 23.4.4 32 WADA-code, art. 23.4.4 33 WADA-code, art. 23.5

Articles 10.4 and 10.5 WADA-code will be further discussed in paragraph 3.2 of this paper. These articles are exceptions to the main sanction rules. Articles 10.4 and 10.5 WADA-code are interesting exceptions in case of eating contaminated meat. In this paragraph only the general sanctions are presented.

Article 10.7.3 WADA-code states that a third anti-doping rule violation will result in a ban for life, except when article 10.4 WADA-code or article 2.4 WADA-code can successfully be invoked. Article 2.4 WADA-code is about violating the whereabouts requirements.

Next to the ineligibility other sanctions are made, article 10.8 WADA-code states that when an in competition test was made and the results came back positive, that an automatic disqualification of the results in the competition follows. Next to this, an athlete who faces ineligibility cannot participate on anything organized by a Signatory, this is stated in article 10.10.1 WADA-code. Because of this article an athlete who violated the WADA-code cannot even train with his or her team, since this is something that is organized by a Signatory of the WADA-code. More consequences of a positive doping result are presented in chapter four.

3. HOW TO DEAL WITH A POSITIVE DOPING RESULT AFTER AN ATHLETE HAS EATEN CONTAMINATED MEAT? WADA’S POSITION.

3.1 General rules

Article 2.1.1 WADA-code is applicable in case of the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s sample. Article 2.1.1 WADA-code states: “2.1.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping violation under Article 2.1.”

Article 2.2.1 WADA-code is applicable in the case of use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or prohibited method.

Article 2.2.1 WADA-code states: “2.2.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.”

WADA made a large comment on article 2.1.1 WADA-code which is important because it explains how there will be looked at a positive sample in combination with guilt or knowledge of an athlete. (Some words are printed bold, these are adjustments, the words in original text of the WADA-code aren’t printed in bold.) “For purposes of anti-doping rule violations involving the presence of a Prohibited Substance (or its Metabolites or Markers), the Code adopts the rule of strict liability which was found in the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code (“OMADC”) and the vast majority of pre-Code anti-doping rules. Under the strict liability principle, an Athlete is responsible, and an anti-doping rule violation occurs, whenever a Prohibited Substance is found in an Athlete’s Sample. The violation occurs whether or not the Athlete intentionally or unintentionally Used a Prohibited Substance or was negligent or otherwise at fault. If the positive Sample came from an In-Competition test, then the results of that Competition are automatically invalidated (Article 9 (Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results)). However, the Athlete then has the possibility to avoid or reduce sanctions if the Athlete can demonstrate that he or she was not at fault or significant fault (Article 10.5 (Elimination or Reduction of Period of Ineligibility Based on Exceptional Circumstances)) or in certain circumstances did not intend to enhance his or her sport performance (Article 10.4 (Elimination or Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances)). The strict liability rule for the finding of a Prohibited Substance in an Athlete's Sample, with a possibility that sanctions may be modified based on specified criteria, provides a reasonable balance between effective anti-doping enforcement for the benefit of all "clean" Athletes and fairness in the exceptional circumstance where a Prohibited Substance entered an Athlete’s system through No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or Negligence on the Athlete’s part. It is important to emphasize that 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. The strict liability principle set forth in the Code has been consistently upheld in the decisions of CAS.” 34

According to article 2.1.1 and article 2.2.1 WADA-code it is an athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substances enters his or her body. These articles also determine that in order to establish an anti-doping violation there doesn’t has to be an intent, fault, negligence or knowingly use on the athlete’s part to be demonstrated in order to speak of a violation of anti-doping rules. Therefore we can conclude that even if an athlete has eaten meat without knowing that the meat is contaminated with clenbuterol this can result in a positive doping result when the athlete is tested on doping. As a consequence of the positive doping result the athlete will have to face sanctions mentioned in the WADA-code.

In case of eating contaminated meat which results in a positive doping result it is more likely that article 2.1.1 WADA-code is applicable instead of article 2.2.1 WADA-code. This because the ingestion of a prohibited substance will be found in an athlete’s sample and will not be found out by the use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance, which is required in article 2.2.1 WADA-code. Accidently ingestion is not an active use, so we cannot speak of a use of a prohibited substance. But article 2.2.1 WADA-code can still be applicable since the ingestion of a prohibited substance, by any means can be seen as the use of a prohibited substance.

In addition to article 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 WADA-code there are two articles which offer exceptions in order to eliminate or reduce sanctions, these are articles 10.4 and 10.5 WADA-code.

3.2 Exceptions

Article 10.4 WADA-code can eliminate or reduce a period of ineligibility in case of specified substances under specific circumstances. Article 10.4 WADA-code is applicable in cases where the athlete or another person can prove how a specified substance entered the body of the athlete and that this substance was not intended to enhance the athlete’s sports performance. Article 10.4 WADA-code will not be easy to invoke in case of eating contaminated meat because it will be

34 WADA Code, 2009, p.19, comment to art. 2.1.1

15 difficult to find out how and when the substance entered the body, let alone prove how this happened. If an athlete doesn’t know that it has ingested contaminated meat, it will be very difficult to trace back where he or she has ingested it and when. It will be even more difficult to prove that the food which has been eaten at a certain time resulted in a positive doping result. I believe it cannot be asked of an athlete to take a sample of every peace of meat he or she eats, in order to be able to trace back meat when he or she is tested positive for clenbuterol.

Next to proving how the substance entered the body, in order to justify any elimination or reduction of the sanction there also has to be proven that the substance was not intended to enhance the sport performance. This might be easier to prove then to prove how the substance entered the body, since the amount of substance found in the body after eating contaminated meat will probably be so small that no significant sport enhancing performance can be adopted. But next to the prove of these two requirements step three is to convince a hearing panel. This follows from the comment made by WADA about article 10.4 WADA-code. The comment includes the following: “the article applies only in those cases where the hearing panel is comfortably satisfied by the objective circumstances of the case that the Athlete in taking or possessing a prohibited substance did not intend to enhance his or her sport.”35

Article 10.5 WADA-code can eliminate or reduce a period of ineligibility based on exceptional circumstances. Article 10.5 WADA-code is applicable in cases where the athlete can prove that he or she was not at fault (article 10.5.1) or has no significant fault (article 10.5.2). There also have to be proven how the prohibited substance entered the body.

If the athlete proves there was no fault or negligence (article 10.5.1) and he or she also proved how the prohibited substance entered the body, then the applicable period of ineligibility shall be eliminated and the violation will not be considered a violation for the limited purpose of determining the period of ineligibility for article 10.7 WADA-code. If the athlete can prove that there was no significant fault or negligence (article 10.5.2) and he or she can prove how the prohibited substance entered the body then the period of ineligibility can be reduced.

35 WADA-code, 2009, p. 58, comment to Article 10.4

As mentioned in the paragraph above, it will be very difficult to prove how a substance entered the body, especially if you are not aware of the fact that you ingested something which is the case of eating contaminated meat.

The evidence that is required in articles 10.4 and 10.5 WADA-code will expectably result in a very small chance of successfully invoking one of these articles in case of when an athlete has eaten contaminated meat which resulted in a positive doping result. Therefore I will state that there is no reasonable balance in regard of the strict liability principle which WADA stated in the comment to article 2.1.1 WADA-code. In this comment WADA states that strict liability in combination with the possibilities to modify sanctions based on specific criteria will provide a reasonable balance.

4. AN EVALUATION OF THE STRICT LIABILITY PRINCIPLE

In order to determine whether the strict liability principle can be justified in case of a doping offense, I will examine if the strict liability principle is proportional and therefore reasonable. I will look at the effort an athlete has to make in order to ensure him- or herself that no prohibited substance enters his or her body in comparison to the effects of the strict liability principle on the lives of athletes if a prohibited substance is found after (probably) eating contaminated meat. The unknowingly ingestion plays a big role in the determination.

4.1 Consequences for the athlete

How big is the effort for athletes to make sure that they don’t eat anything which contains a prohibited substance? In these days no one knows for a hundred percent sure what medicines and substances are in the meat he or she eats. Animals are given all kinds of medicines and drugs in order for them to stay ‘healthy’ and grow fast. So, also an athlete can never be a hundred percent sure about what he or she ingests. The only way they can be sure, without turning into vegetarians, is if athletes keep animals themselves, but this is unrealistic. Therefore we can conclude that the effort an athlete has to make to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body is a very big effort.

Below the consequences of a positive doping result after eating contaminated meat are described. We have to take these consequences into consideration when we look at the proportionality of the strict liability rule, article 2.1.1 and article 2.2.1 WADA-code. While giving these consequences, I will assume that it will not be possible to invoke one of the exception rules mentioned in paragraph 3.2.

The consequences of the above mentioned strict liability principle: a) A punishment according to the WADA-code will follow. During this period of ineligibility. athletes are not allowed to do the thing that they love to do: practice their sport at the highest level possible. They are not allowed to compete in competitions or train with their team. They are excluded from everything organized by organizations who have signed the declaration of acceptance of the WADA-code.

Next to the punishment given according to the WADA-code we should also keep in mind some other effects of the suspension as a consequence to the anti-doping rule violation.

b) In a lot of cases the athletes who are found positive after a doping test are immediately dismissed36. This means they will lose their labour contract. Some athletes earn a lot of money and have adapted their lives to this income. As a result some athletes own expensive houses and other things that need to be paid every month. When the income stops, they and their family will have to live of their savings or just a little bit of money. This can lead to financial problems.

c) Even if an athlete is not dismissed, he or she is not allowed to participate in competitions during this period of suspension. In the case of a positive doping result because of eating contaminated meat, the positive doping result is something that happened to them and they did not intentionally do. But the athlete still has to face the consequences of this

36 www.cyclingnews.com search for: ‘Houts’. Title of article: ‘Van Houts rejoins Multivan Merida team’. Retrieved February 1, 2012

suspension. Because he or she is not allowed to participate in competitions he or she will not be able to earn a living for him- or herself during this period by doing sports. This suspension can lead to a financial disaster for the athlete and those who he or she financially supports.

d) There will also be reputation damages. An athlete known for a positive doping result will be seen, by the public and probably by all actors in sport, as someone who didn’t wanted to win the matches in a fair way. The athlete will be looked upon as a cheater, as someone who preferred to use doping instead of fair play in order to try to beat the competition. Even though the amount of substance will not have been able to change the sports performance and the substance wasn’t ingested knowingly, still the reputation of the athlete will be affected. Most athletes have sponsorship deals, they will probably lose those too when they face a period of ineligibility.

e) Athletes who got a suspension of six months or more were banned from the next Olympic Games after they finished their suspension. In 2008 the IOC introduced this rule. This rule 45 is now sometimes mentioned as the ‘Osaka-rule’ in the media. The CAS dismissed this rule of the IOC on October 6, 2011 because this rule is not mentioned in the WADA-code. This means that at this point athletes can participate in the Olympic Games after they have finished their suspension. But when the WADA-code is revised it is possible that such a rule will be included in the WADA-code.37

I believe it is a good thing that such a rule is not valid at this moment. And if it would be reinstalled, I believe we can speak of a legal error. Reinstalling this rule would be contrary to the principle of ne bis in idem. It should not be possible to punish an athlete after he has already finished his punishment. The ban from the Olympic Games comes, in some cases, years after the athlete has finished his or hers suspension. I don’t believe punishing someone twice for the same offence should be something we should make possible. Not in ‘normal’ doping cases and certainly not in case of unknowing ingestion of a prohibited substance, such as clenbuterol.

37 http://www.mariaclarke.co.nz/news-items/50-controversial-cas-decision-osaka-rule.html retrieved February 1, 2012

f) Last, but not less important, the athlete will lose his or her chances on the labour market. Maybe a club wanted to offer him or her a contract before he or she got punished because of violating the WADA-code. Clubs won’t probably buy an athlete in the suspension period and also after this period they will probably not as quickly buy an athlete who was recently suspended for the use of doping. If they still want to buy this athlete, they might not pay as much as they would have had paid before. So yet again a financial setback.

4.2 Is the strict liability rule proportional in case of eating contaminated meat?

The consequences of an athlete who tested positive on doping after eating contaminated meat are more extensive then only the punishment given according to the WADA-code. We can conclude that the effort to prevent a substance entering the body by eating contaminated food is a very big effort. Nonetheless the punishment is very severe, there will be a period of ineligibility, sometimes dismissal after a positive doping result, no income for the suspension period, reputation damages, loss of sponsorship deals and the loss of chances on the labour market. In case of eating contaminated meat the athlete doesn’t know he or she is ingesting a prohibited substance. In normal criminal justice if a person didn’t know and couldn’t have known that what he or she was doing was wrong and could have done nothing to prevent it from happening then he or she is not to blame and therefore he or she will face no or less punishment. So why should a violation of the WADA-code be any different? I conclude that the strict liability principle which is presented in article 2.1.1 and article 2.2.1 WADA-code, in combination with expectably not the ability to invoke article 10.4 or article 10.5 WADA-code, is not proportional in these types of cases where there is no guilt or negligence.

5. CASE LAW

In this chapter, case law about athletes who tested positive for clenbuterol will be discussed. Not all the clenbuterol cases will be discussed. This chapter tries to give an overview about the developments in the way there has been looked at these types of cases and how these athletes were punished. The Contador case will be taken as a center point which also reveals the current

20 opinion of the CAS about (possible) clenbuterol contamination. So the cases will be discussed as ‘before’ and ‘after’ Contador was found positive for clenbuterol. The Contador case will be the focus point of this chapter since the CAS has given its most recent look upon positive doping results for miniscule traces of clenbuterol, possibly caused by meat contamination.

Before Contador

5.1 Adam Dariusz Seroczyński38

Adam Dariusz Seroczyoski is a Polish canoeist. He was found positive for clenbuterol on August 25, 2008.39 The news about his positive doping result reached the news for the first time on September 3, 2008. He said not to be guilty of the use of clenbuterol. He also said to have had no knowledge about clenbuterol.40

Remarkable about this case is that he was found positive the Olympic Games of 2008 in China. Now we can say this is remarkable because nowadays China is a high-risk area for clenbuterol contaminations. In 2008 this was not yet the case. But one can wonder if China was a safe country for clenbuterol at that time.

After his B sample also came back positive Seroczyoski said: “I stopped believing in anything, because as you can see, everything is possible.”41 He ensured that he has never taken a banned substance.” 42

0.35 Nanograms of clenbuterol have been found in the sample of Seroczyoski. His lawyer explained that it is legal in China to use clenbuterol in limited quantities to fatten up cattle.43

38 For this paragraph I would like to thank my Polish friend Justyna Jakubów for helping me find information in Polish and helping me translate some things from Polish. 39 http://www.sport.pl/inne/2029020,101400,10480297.html retrieved January 24, 2012 40 http://sport.interia.pl/news/olimpijczyk-sie-nie-przyznaje,1172419?source=rss retrieved January 24, 2012 41 Free translation from http://www.rmf24.pl/sport/news-seroczynski-na-dopingu-sa-wyniki-probki- b,nId,192676 retrieved January 24, 2012 42 Idem. 43 http://sport.interia.pl/plywanie/news/mkol-rozpatrzy-sprawe-seroczynskiego,1198143,1001 retrieved January 24, 2012

Seroczyoski got suspended for two years in December 2008 by the IOC. He also went to the CAS. The CAS confirmed the sanction of the IOC.44 This meant the suspension of two years became final.

This case is not known as a clenbuterol food contamination case but I suspect that this is one of the first, if not, the first case of a clenbuterol food contamination. 0.35 Nanograms of clenbuterol were found in his sample, this is higher than some other cases, but it is still not impossible that his positive doping result was caused by the ingestion of with clenbuterol contaminated meat. That this isn’t impossible follows also from the interview with dr. D. de Boer. He told that amounts of 2000 picograms, so 2 nanograms were found in humans caused by the intake of contaminated meat.45 We can also see amounts up till 4200 picograms by Antonio Naelson, one of the five Mexican soccer players.46

Seroczyoski was suspended for two years, this suspension lasted until February 3, 2011. That his suspension was lifted didn’t make a difference to Seroczyoski, since he decided to end his career when his B sample came out positive for clenbuterol as well in 2008.47 Lately he was following the Contador case. If Contador wasn’t convicted, he wanted to have his name cleared.48

5.2 Alessandro Colo

Alessandro Colo is an Italian cyclist. He was found positive for clenbuterol on April 25, 2010 at the Tour of Mexico. At that time Mexico was not yet a high risk area. Colo was convinced this positive doping result was caused by food contamination.49

44 http://sport.wp.pl/kat,1715,title,Dyskwalifikacja-Seroczynskiego-do- 2011,wid,11770853,wiadomosc.html?ticaid=1dcc0 , retrieved January 24, 2012 45 Chapter 6, Interview Dr. D. de Boer, Tolerance limit and Annex I, Interview with dr. D. de Boer, Is er een limiet te bepalen waarop er nog geen prestatieverbetering plaats vindt, maar waar degene die wel bewust gebruiken die norm niet kunnen gebruiken als extra marge? 46 Annex II 47 http://www.sport.pl/inne/2029020,101400,10480297.html retrieved February 2, 2012 48 http://sport.wm.pl/73719,Niespodziewany-zwrot-w-sprawie-Adama-Seroczynskiego.html retrieved February 2, 2012 49 www.cyclingnews.com search for: ‘Colò risk’. Title of article: ‘Colò believes Contador would not risk taking Clenbuterol’. Retrieved February 2, 2012

Colo had difficulties finding the source of the contamination, which is expectable in case of a clenbuterol contamination caused by the ingestion of with clenbuterol contaminated meat. He stated: "I hired a lawyer and a biologist to investigate my case. They couldn't go back and find the meat I'd eaten months earlier but they discovered official data that showed 18% of all the meat in Mexico is treated with Clenbuterol."50

Investigators have accepted his claim that he ingested the substance unknowingly. But nevertheless he was suspended for one year.51

Colo stated: "The judges believed me but I've still been given a one-year ban because the rules only allow a 50% cut in suspensions. I don't think that is fair. If they believed me that I didn’t take Clenbuterol they should have cleared me completely."52

It is possible that the judges looked at article 10.5.2 WADA-code. In the case of article 10.5.2 WADA-code there is no significant fault or negligence. But when this article is applied, only a reduced penalty can be given. So this could have lead to a period of ineligibility of one year instead of two years. It seems that the Italian national anti-doping tribunal had accepted for the first time that a positive doping result could have been caused by the ingestion of with clenbuterol contaminated meat.53

50 www.cyclingnews.com search for: ‘Colò risk’. Title of article: ‘Colò believes Contador would not risk taking Clenbuterol’. Retrieved February 2, 2012 51 Idem. 52 Idem. 53 www.cyclingnews.com search for: ‘Colò risk’. Title of article: ‘Colò believes Contador would not risk taking Clenbuterol’. Retrieved February 2, 2012

5.3 Philip Nielsen

Philip Nielsen is a Danish cyclist. He tested positive for clenbuterol in April 2010 after the Vuelta in Mexico. Philip Nielsen states in a comment to a Danish cycling website: “I can safely say that I have not taken the substance knowingly. I have been fully aware of the team’s values and philosophy. I will not come up with strange opinions and theories on how I should have ingested the substance, because I do not know.”54

The Danish Olympic committee has ruled that Nielsen will not be sanctioned for his positive doping control last year for Clenbuterol. The Doping Board found that the substance came from contaminated food and that Nielsen was not negligent or at fault.55 “Philip Nielsen did not know then, in April 2010, that there was a risk from eating meat at the cyclists' hotel in Mexico. He did it in good faith and therefore it makes no sense now to suspend him for doping," said Torben Jessen, chairman of the Danmarks Idræts-Forbund Doping Board.56

“WADA has subsequently received compelling evidence … that indicates a serious health problem in Mexico with regards to meat contaminated with clenbuterol. This is a public health issue that is now being addressed urgently by the Mexican government,” WADA said in a statement.57

It is remarkable that Alessandro Colo and Philip Nielsen were found positive during the same Tour in Mexico, but Colo has received a period of ineligibility of one year and Nielsen was not punished at all. I believe Colo have been punished too hard because of the strict liability principle, since investigators have accepted his claim that he ingested the substance unknowingly.58

54 http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/news/another-cyclist-tests-positive-for-clenbuterol-claims- contamination_155818 retrieved February 2, 2012 55 www.cyclingnews.com search for: ’Nielsen’. Title of article: ‘Nielsen not sanctioned for Clenbuterol positive’. Retrieved February 2, 2012 56 Idem. 57 www.velonews.com search for: ‘WADA drops’. Title of article: ‘WADA drops another clenbuterol appeal’. Retrieved February 2, 2012 58 www.cyclingnews.com search for: ‘Colò risk’. Title of article: ‘Colò believes Contador would not risk taking Clenbuterol’. Retrieved February 2, 2012

5.4 Dimitri Ovtcharov

Dimitri Ovtcharov is a German table tennis player. He was found positive for clenbuterol on August 23, 2010. He was in China from August 16, 2010 until August 22, 2010. According to experts the low amount of clenbuterol in his sample, 75 picogram, most have been ingested at the latest five to six days before the urine control. So that must have been in China.59 When he was found positive for doping there were not yet high-risk areas. It was not yet known by WADA that meat could be a source of clenbuterol contaminations.60 The laboratory that helped Ovtcharov found that 22 of 28 travelers returning from China tested positive for low levels of clenbuterol, probably from food contamination.61 WADA asked China for a reaction in February 2011. "There seems to be some evidence that some beef in China may have been stimulated in their growth by the use of steroids,"62 Said WADA director general David Howman.

The defense of Ovtcharov also introduced the hairsample. There was no sign of the use of clenbuterol in a high amount for a longer period of time, which otherwise would have been found in the hair. Next to this, four other members of the German table tennis federation (DTTB) who participated in the Open China-tournament in China were tested, on August 24, 2010. Traces of clenbuterol were also found in their blood, but in such low levels that legally we cannot speak of a anti-doping rule violation. (For more information about when a positive doping test can be seen as legal prove, see chapter 6, Interview with doping expert dr. D. de Boer, ‘Three levels of measurements’). These levels were too low to prosecute them, but they helped in the defense of Ovtcharov to show that it is not an individual problem, but a problem that consisted at this tournament in China. This helped in his defense, his positive doping result was not the result of intentionally use, but that it was the result food contamination.

59 www.ettu.org search for: ‘OVTCHAROV’s’. Titel of article: ‘Ovtcharov’s doping case is closed: DTTB arguments’. Retrieved January 19, 2012 60 Interview Dr. D. de Boer, How to prove that there is a clenbuterol contamination 61 www.cbc.ca search for: ‘WADA beef’. Titel of article: ‘WADA investigating tainted beef in China’. Retrieved January 19, 2012 62 Idem.

So in this case there was tried to prove that food contamination is a possibility. 22 Out of 28 passengers who came back from China were found positive for clenbuterol. Samples of other participants of that same tournament also contained traces of clenbuterol. A hair sample showed no signs of the use of clenbuterol.

The DTTB has researched this case and they decided that Ovtcharov has not culpably violated the Anti-Doping rules.63 “I have always fought doping and any kind of deceit in sports,” added Hans Wilhelm GAB, Honorary President of the DTTB. “To fight doping we have to investigate as deeply as possible but we must consider the individual case, too. It would be unethical if we had condemned Dimitrij Ovtcharov even though anti-doping experts and much evidence supports the theory of contaminated food”.64

The international Table Tennis Federation (ITTF) endorsed the decision of the DTTB and they decided not to appeal.65

In December 2010 the CAS said that WADA has gone into appeal against the decisions of DTTB and ITTF.66 In February 2011 WADA withdrew its appeal, WADA Director General David Howman said that: “After careful examination of the case and a full review of the decision rendered by the German Table Tennis Federation, we have reached the conclusion that, based on the individual facts and evidence, there was not sufficient ground to warrant a WADA appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport,”67

63 www.ettu.org search for: ‘OVTCHAROV’s’. Titel of article: ‘Ovtcharov’s doping case is closed: DTTB arguments’. Retrieved January 19, 2012 64 Idem. 65 www.ittf.com click on ‘home page’. Search for: ‘Good News for Ovtcharov’. Retrieved January 19, 2012 66 www.tabletennisphilippines.blogspot.com. Search for: ‘Ovtcharov’. Title of article: WADA files appeal in Ovtcharov clenbuterol case’. Retrieved January 19, 2012 67 www.velonation.com go to ‘news’ go to ‘search’. Search for: ‘WADA confirms’. Title of article: ’WADA chief confirms that Agency won’t appeal Dimitrij Ovtcharov’s Clenbuterol case dismissal’. Retrieved 19 January 2012

So the final verdict is that traces of clenbuterol were found, but that Ovtcharov has not culpably violated the anti-doping rules. He was cleared of wrongdoing and no punishment followed. His suspension was lifted in October 2010. There can be discussed if this suspension between the end of August 2010 until half October 2010 is a punishment of an innocent man. In this period he was unable to participate in anything organized by the signatories of the WADA-code.

Striking about this case is that the defense team of Ovtcharov introduced the hair sample. The defense team proved that people can become positive of clenbuterol by eating meat in China. After this prove hi-risk areas were introduced; China and later also Mexico. The defense also used other participants to prove that it was not an individual case, but more participants had ingested clenbuterol in China, probably by eating contaminate meat.

5.5 James Stanton

James Stanton is a waterpolo goalkeeper Australia. He was found positive for clenbuterol on September 15, 2010 in Perth, Australia. The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) agreed with the Australian Water Pole Inc (AWPI) to suspend Stanton for two years, for the presence and use of clenbuterol.68 He went in appeal to the CAS, but he later withdrew this appeal after legal advice.

He stated:

"On the advice of my legal team and with great disappointment, I announce that I have accepted a sanction after a routine out-of-competition drug test conducted by ASADA in September last year resulted in a positive finding for the substance clenbuterol,"69

"I wish to make it clear that I have never knowingly taken any performance-enhancing substance and to do so would go against everything I believe in as a person and a competitor, and everything I have stood for in my career.70

68 www.asada.gov.au search for: ’Stanton’. Titel of article: ‘Australian water polo player James Stanton receives two-year sports ban’. Retrieved January 19, 2012 69 http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/water-polo-olympian-cops-doping-ban-20110622- 1gefd.html retrieved January 19, 2012 70 Idem.

"During my international career I have been tested numerous times and, prior to this sample, I had never returned a positive result.71

"I have only become aware of the substance clenbuterol after testing positive for it and I am not aware of how it entered my system.72

"However, I accept that the substance has entered my system and acknowledge that as an athlete I have to take full responsibility for what I ingest."73

Stanton participated in the Olympic games of 2004 and 2008. Because of his suspension, which will be lifted October 23, 2012, he has missed the World Championship in 2011 and he will not be able to participate in the Olympic games of 2012.

Striking about this case is that this athlete, an employee is probably punished without any significant fault or negligence and therefore faces the consequences mentioned in paragraph 4.1. I believe this is unacceptable and should be prevented from happening in the future.

5.6 Rudi van Houts

Van Houts is a Dutch mountain biker, he was tested positive for clenbuterol in October 2010. 30 Picogram was found in his sample. He was tested shortly after he came back from Mexico. He stated: “We ate a lot of meat in Mexico, there is a big chance that it was contaminated with clenbuterol. Otherwise I would not know how clenbuterol could have been found in my sample. I will do everything I can, to prove my innocence”.74

Van Houts has used biochemist dr. D. de Boer in his defence. The Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie (KNWU), Royal Dutch Cycling Union, said Van Houts is at fault because clenbuterol was found in his system, but they decided not to sanction him because they believed his

71 http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/water-polo-olympian-cops-doping-ban-20110622- 1gefd.html retrieved January 19, 2012 72 Idem. 73 Idem. 74 Free translation from http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1018/Wielrennen/article/detail/1913038/2010/12/16/Van- Houts-betrapt-op-gebruik-clenbuterol.dhtml retrieved January 25, 2012

28 explanation that he has accidently ingested clenbuterol while he was in Mexico.75 The UCI and WADA decided not to appeal to the decision of the KNWU.76 So the final verdict was guilty, but Van Houts was not to blame for the positive doping result, so no punishment was given.

Van Houts was dismissed by his team when his doping results came back positive. After he was cleared of the use of clenbuterol his team asked him to come back.77

5.7 Alberto Contador

Contador is a well known Spanish cyclist. He was tested positive for clenbuterol on July 21, 2010. He said that he probably ingested the clenbuterol while eating contaminated meat. The Spanish cycling federation (RFEC) had lifted the suspension of Contador in February 2011.78 The UCI and WADA went into appeal at the CAS. The CAS decided on this case on February 6, 2012. From the arbitral award we can see that during the process three theories were argued. The first theory is eating contaminated meat. The second theory is blood doping. The last theory is ingestion of clenbuterol by contaminated food supplements. In this case the WADA-code is implemented into the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations (UCI ADR). Therefore in the CAS award there is referred to the UCI ADR.

The award is based on the balance of probability. Based on article 22 UCI ADR and 3.1 WADA-code this is allowed. This means that: “…for the Panel to be satisfied that a means of ingestion is demonstrated on a balance of probability simply means, in percentage terms, that it is satisfied that there is a 51% chance of it having occurred. The Player thus needs to show that one specific way of ingestion is marginally more likely than not to have occurred.”79

75 www.road.cc search for: ’Houts’. Title of article: Contaminated steak defence works for Dutch cyclist who tested positive for clenbuterol. Retrieved January 26, 2012 76 www.worldonbike.org search for: ’Van Houts’. Title of article: Van Houts rejoins Multivan Merida team. Retrieved February 2, 2012 77 Idem. 78 www.lfpress.com search for: ’Contador’. Title of article: Tour de France champ Contador suspended. Retrieved February 8, 2012 79 Paragraph 209 of CAS 2011/A/2386 WADA v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC

First theory, contaminated meat Contador declares that he ate meat that must have been contaminated, during the Tour de France. The panel of the CAS finds it very likely that the meat he ate is from Spain and from the place the defense team of Contador stated. However the CAS panel states in paragraph 330 and 332 of the award that: “ More specifically, the Panel finds that there are no established facts that would elevate the possibility of meat contamination to an event that could have occurred on a balance of probabilities. Unlike certain other countries, notably outside Europe, Spain is not known to have a contamination problem with clenbuterol in meat. Furthermore, no other cases of athletes having tested positive to clenbuterol allegedly in connection with the consumption of Spanish meat are known. On the contrary, the evidence before this Panel demonstrates that the scenario alleged by Respondents is no more than a remote possibility.”80 and “The panel therefore consideres that although the meat contamination scenario is a possible explanation for the presence of clenbuterol in Mr Contador’s Sample, in light of all the evidence adduced – and as explained above, it is very unlikely to have occurred.”81

Second theory, blood doping The second theory was that Contador used blood doping and that he or his donor used clenbuterol before the blood was collected. I won’t go very deep into this theory since this theory is not interesting for my thesis. WADA and the UCI didn’t initiate a disciplinary proceeding on the suspicion of blood doping. The CAS was asked to look at this theory as a possible explanation for the clenbuterol in the system of Contador. 82 The Panel of the CAS has decided: “To sum up, for the above reasons, the Panel finds that although the blood transfusion theory is a possible explanation for the adverse analytical finding, in light of all the evidence adduced and as explained above, it is very unlikely to have occurred”83

“The Panel has thus concluded that both the meat contamination scenario and the blood transfusion scenario are - in principle – possible explanations for the adverse analytical

80 Paragraph 330 of CAS 2011/A/2386 WADA v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC 81 Paragraph 332 of CAS 2011/A/2386 WADA v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC 82 Paragraph 448 of CAS 2011/A/2386 WADA v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC 83 Paragraph 454 of CAS 2011/A/2386 WADA v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC

findings, but are however equally unlikely. In the Panel’s opinion there is no need to further investigate the relationship between the two foregoing scenarios since, as will be detailed below, the third scenario (the contaminated supplements scenario) is not only possible, but the more likely of the three."84

This means that the CAS panel believes that the blood doping theory is just as unlikely as the meat contamination theory.

Third theory, contaminated food supplement The third and last theory is the theory of a contaminated food supplement. There are more cases known of which an athlete has ingested clenbuterol unknowingly by ingesting a contaminated food supplement. Contador has provided a list of supplements the Astana team (his cycling team) made available85. Even though these food supplements were tested and even when one assumes that these are the only supplements Contador took, this does not mean that contamination caused by food supplements could not be possible. Even when the supplents underwent quality checks, this cannot exclude a contamination.86 Next to this the CAS panel states that it was possible that Contador took other supplements: “In respect to whether or not the First Respondent may have used supplements not mentioned on the list, the Panel is of the opinion that the assertions of the Athlete himself and the statements of his teammates are insufficient in terms of evidence to rule out that possibility”87

The CAS panel states in paragraph 484 that contaminated food supplements are a possible source of the contamination and that has to be examined whether this theory or the first, the meat contamination, is more likely. “Having found that it is possible that the adverse analytical finding was caused by the ingestion of contaminated food supplements, it remains to be examined whether the meat contamination theory or the food supplement theory is more likely to have occurred.”88

84 Paragraph 455 of CAS 2011/A/2386 WADA v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC 85 Paragraph 469 of CAS 2011/A/2386 WADA v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC 86 Paragraph 481 of CAS 2011/A/2386 WADA v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC 87 Paragraph 483 of CAS 2011/A/2386 WADA v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC 88 Paragraph 484 of CAS 2011/A/2386 WADA v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC

Determining what theory is more likely The CAS panel answers the question about what theory is more likely. The meat contamination or the food supplement contamination: “Considering that the Athlete took supplements in considerable amounts, that it is incontestable that supplements may be contaminated, that athletes have frequently tested positive in the past because of contaminated food supplements, that in the past an athlete has also tested positive for a food supplement contaminated with clenbuterol, and that the Panel considers it very unlikely that the piece of meat ingested by him was contaminated with clenbuterol, it finds that, in light of all the evidence on record, the Athlet’s positive test for clenbuterol is more likely to have been caused by the ingestion of a contaminated food supplement than by a blood transfusion or the ingestion of contaminated meat. This does not mean that the Panel is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that this scenario of ingestion of a contaminated food supplement actually happened. This is not required by the UCI ADR or by the WADC, which refer the Panel only to the balance of probabilities and coming to a decision on such basis, the Panel has to take into consideration and weigh all of the evidence admitted on record, irrespective of which party advanced which scenario(s) and what party adduced which parts of the evidence”89

As a consequence Contador was found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation, based on the fact that the CAS panel believed the contaminated food supplement was more likely than the contaminated meat theory. It is the first time Contador has violated an anti-doping rule. Therefore he has received a period of ineligibility of two years. Contador was already suspended between August 26, 2010 and February 14, 2011. The period of ineligibility will be retroactive, starting from January 25, 2011 until August 6, 2012. The UCI will take away the titles Contador won during the period of January 25, 2011 and February 6, 2012.

He might also face a fine of at least € 2.485.000. This fine has been requested by UCI. The CAS will later decide on the fine.

89 Paragraph 487 of CAS 2011/A/2386 WADA v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC

Striking about the case The CAS panel presents an interesting view in paragraph 333 of the award: “At this stage, it is noteworthy reminding (as already explained above in § 261) that If the Respondants were able to show that the contaminated meat theory is the only possible one (or the most likely scenario to have occurred), this additional fact could elevate the scenario from a possible one to a likely one meaning that the percentage of the chance that it indeed occurred would be over the threshold of 50% (which is the required standard under the regime of the balance of probability). Being the single possible scenario (or the most likely one among different scenarios) carries evidential weight in the assessment of the balance of probabilities. Therefore, in this case, the assessment must be done also in reference and in comparison to the other scenarios put forward by the Appellants. If the Panel were to conclude that the other two theories are impossible or less likely, then the Panel would be prepared to consider the meat contamination scenario as sufficient proof. However, as already expressed above (§ 263) the burden of proof that the meat contamination scenario is more likely than other (possible) scenarios remains always on the shoulders of the Athlete and the Standard under which all the theories will be assessed is the balance of probabilities.”

I believe the balance of probability can be negative for athletes. The things the CAS said in paragraph 333 on the Contador case can mean that WADA or another anti-doping organization or sport federation will always argue, in clenbuterol cases from low risk areas, that a contaminated food supplement is one of the possibilities. The anti-doping agencies will always argue that the contaminated food supplements is a possibility because the CAS finds that theory more likely then the theory of ingesting contaminated meat in a low risk area. If the CAS will continue to decide based on the balance of probability, then no athlete who might has eaten contaminated meat in a low risk area will be able to put aside, or reduce, a period of ineligibility.

Opinion on the Contador case and balance of probability It is out of the question that clenbuterol has been found in the sample provided by Contador. The burden of proof was placed upon him by rules of the UCI and WADA. He was unable to prove, based on the balance of probability that the only, or most likely possibility was the ingestion of with clenbuterol contaminated meat, this in combination with the strict liability rule resulted in a

33 period of ineligibility of two years. It is understandable with the current rules, but if this is fair, remains to be seen. Contador was condemned, even though the theory of eating with clenbuterol contaminated meat was not ruled out. The CAS panel condemned him based on the balance of probability, the theory of contaminated food supplements was more likely than the other two theories. “This does not mean that the Panel is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that this scenario of ingestion of a contaminated food supplement actually happened.”90

It looks like that the balance of probability has been placed in the WADA-code with the aim to help the athlete with the burden of proof.91 But as it turns out, in clenbuterol cases the athlete cannot take advantage of it, but the anti-doping organizations and sport federations can, especially in low risk areas. As pointed out in paragraph 5.10, I believe that for clenbuterol cases, the whole burden of proof should be revised.

I believe judges and arbitration commissions should look at the evidence of the athlete and the anti-doping agencies and sport federations differently. Proof, provided by the athlete can be rated based on the balance of probability, so that it can help the athlete. But proof provided by anti- doping agencies and sports federations should never be rated based on the balance of probability, they should always prove their statements ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

The consequences for the athlete are too severe to justify a condemnation based on a probability. When applying the balance of probability there is looked at what theory is more likely, there is not looked at what has actually happened. The option of contaminated meat was not ruled out. I believe that if judges or arbitrators aren’t completely certain that the person who they are about to sanction is guilty of the actual use of a substance, that they should not condemn this athlete. There has to be noted that Contador got condemned based on the theory of ingestion of contaminated food supplements, this is also a form of accidental intake of clenbuterol.

In normal criminal justice if a person didn’t know and couldn’t have known that what he or she was doing was wrong and he or she could have done nothing to prevent it from happening then this person cannot be blamed and therefore they will face no or less punishment. So why should

90 Paragraph 487 of CAS 2011/A/2386 WADA v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC 91 Article 3.1 WADA-code.

34 the judgment of a violation of the WADA-code or the UCI ADR be any different? Next to this, the amount of clenbuterol that was found in the sample of Contador is by far not enough to enhance the sports performance, if clenbuterol even has a sport enhancing effect, because it has never been researched if it has such an effect. Doping rules were introduced to make the sport fair and safe for athletes. The 50 picograms of clenbuterol that was found in the sample of Contador is not enough to enhance his sports performances neither enough to cause health problems. So why should we speak of an anti-doping violation when we are talking about such a small amount which has nothing to do with the reasons why anti-doping rules were introduced.

After Contador

5.8 Mexican soccer players

Five Mexican soccer players were found positive for clenbuterol on Mai 21, 2011. It involved the next five players: Guillermo Ochoa, Edgar Duenas, Francisco Rodriguez, Christian Bermudez and Antonio Naelson. They were in competition for the Gold Cup, the championship of North and Central America.92

Decio De Maria, general secretary of the Mexican federation said: "The cause is believed to be eating beef or chicken between Mai 17 and 20, 2011 so an investigation will be made with the food suppliers. For the time being we don't see any negligence by anyone, not even theirs. We know there is a health alert throughout the country because of food contaminated with Clenbuterol and that will be taken into account for the investigation."93

The Mexican Football Association’s Disciplinary Committee (MFADC) cleared the players of wrongdoing. FIFA supported this decision, a FIFA study showed that the players had ingested, with clenbuterol contaminated meat, during a training camp ahead of the tournament.94 WADA first

92 www.bbc.com search for: ‘Mexico clenbuterol’. Title of article: ‘Five Mexico players test positive for banned substance’. Retrieved January 26, 2012 93 www.bbc.com search for: ‘Mexico clenbuterol’. Title of article: ‘Five Mexico players test positive for banned substance’. Retrieved January 26, 2012 94 www.fifa.com search for: ‘FIFA satisfied WADA’. Title of article: ‘FIFA satisfied with WADA decision to withdraw CAS appeal in case of Mexican footballers’. Retrieved January 26, 2012

35 wanted to appeal against this decision. It later withdrew this decision. This had to do with the research FIFA had done for the FIFA under 17 World Cup. This research indicates a serious health problem in Mexico in regard to meat contaminated with clenbuterol.95 FIFA announced to be pleased with the decision of WADA to withdraw its appeal at the CAS in the case of the Mexican soccer players.96

I feel that it is a right decision from FIFA to directly do research on how the clenbuterol ended up in the system of these players. Since they were found positive during a tournament, it might make the search easier since they probably all ate the same and distributors of the food will be possible to trace back. Thankfully WADA took a good look at the findings of FIFA and withdrew its appeal.

5.9 Under 17 World Cup

The latest case known, is the case of the FIFA under 17 World Cup Football 2011. 109 out of 208 samples came back positive. This resulted in 19 clenbuterol positive teams of the 24 teams in total. Surprisingly FIFA medical officer Jiri Dvorak said that the Mexican team was not found positive because they didn’t ate meat before and during the tournament.97 This can indirectly be seen as something that later became clear for everybody: that Mexico has a serious health problem with meat that is contaminated with clenbuterol and that the Mexican team knew this.98

“ Mexican health official Mikel Arriola said authorities had begun a program of arresting farmers and shutting down slaughterhouses. "We are going to continue these inspections in order to avoid poisoning the general population and doping (athletes)," Arriola said. 99

95 www.usatoday.com search for: ‘Doping case dropped against Mexico soccer players’. Retrieved January 26, 2012 96 www.fifa.com search for: ‘FIFA satisfied WADA’. Title of article: ‘FIFA satisfied with WADA decision to withdraw CAS appeal in case of Mexican footballers’. Retrieved January 26, 2012 97 www.espn.com search for: ‘U-17 players’s drug tests tained’. Title of article: FIFA: U-17 players' drug tests tainted. Retrieved January 26, 2012 98 www.usatoday.com search for: ‘Doping case dropped against Mexico soccer players’. Retrieved January 26, 2012 99 www.espn.com search for: ‘U-17 players’s drug tests tained’. Title of article: FIFA: U-17 players' drug tests tainted. Retrieved January 26, 2012

FIFA’s medical chief Jirí Dvorák said: "It is not a problem of doping, but a problem of public healt." 100 FIFA and WADA decided not to punish the players who tested positive, because these positive results weren’t considered as a doping problem.101

Jirí Dvorák has asked anti-doping authorities: ”not to take too hard a line against clenbuterol and to be more understanding about how and why the substance gets into the body.” 102 "I have asked WADA to look retrospectively at all clenbuterol cases in 2010-11" Dvorák said in an interview. "We have to make sure we have had no false positives. We are talking about all sports -- not just football."103

WADA states that: “clenbuterol remains a prohibited substance and WADA will approach and study any positive case on an individual basis.”104 Dvorák doesn’t agree. He said: "I have very strong opinions about this.” 105

5.10 Burden of proof

Governments are responsible for providing safe meat for their residents. The use of clenbuterol is prohibited. This means that according to the rules, clenbuterol should never end up in the meat for consumers. But it has been proved that clenbuterol can end up in the systems of athletes by the consumption of contaminated meat.

Furthermore, almost all athletes are employees. This means they should be protected. They are sometimes dismissed because of eating contaminated meat, which they are not responsible for, this is unfair and maybe even illegal.

100 www.espn.com search for: ‘U-17 players’s drug tests tained’. Title of article: FIFA: U-17 players' drug tests tainted. Retrieved January 26, 2012 101 www.sports.yahoo.com search for: ‘100 clenbuterol’. Title of article: Over 100 clenbuterol cases at under- 17 World Cup. Retrieved January 26, 2012 102 www.insideworldfootball.com search for: ‘FIFA's medical chief’. Title of article: Exclusive: FIFA's medical chief calls for relax on anti-doping rules in clenbuterol cases. Retrieved January 26, 2012 103 www.insideworldfootball.com search for: ‘FIFA's medical chief’. Title of article: Exclusive: FIFA's medical chief calls for relax on anti-doping rules in clenbuterol cases. Retrieved January 26, 2012 104 www.insideworldfootball.com search for: ‘FIFA's medical chief’. Title of article: Exclusive: FIFA's medical chief calls for relax on anti-doping rules in clenbuterol cases. Retrieved January 26, 2012 105 Idem.

The anti doping organizations let athletes take anti-doping tests. When an athlete has tested positive for clenbuterol, according to the current rules, he or she is guilty. In order to avoid punishment, the athlete will have to prove that he or she ingested the clenbuterol by eating contaminated meat and that he or she was not at fault or negligent. At this moment the burden of proof is placed upon the athlete. It will be almost impossible to prove that the clenbuterol was ingested by clenbuterol contaminated meat. It will not be known when and how the clenbuterol entered the body, let alone prove that the athlete ate that specific piece of meat, from that specific animal and that that animal was contaminated with clenbuterol.

The governments are responsible, but they cannot guarantee that the meat doesn’t contain one or more substances mentioned in the prohibited list of WADA. This means the responsibility moves back again to the athlete, but above there is explained that that would be unfair for the athlete for two reasons: her or she is not responsible for the meat and he or she is probably an employee.

Summarizing, the athlete currently bears the risk for a clenbuterol contamination for which he or she is not responsible. Secondly the burden of proof rests also on the athlete. This means that currently the rules are completely unfair towards the athlete.

I propose that the burden of proof should be placed upon the anti-doping agencies and sport federations. Furthermore, they should bear an increased burden of proof in cases where an athlete has tested positive for clenbuterol. The amount of clenbuterol found in the system of the athlete should be demonstrated and next to this, there should be proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the clenbuterol found in the body could not have been caused by the ingestion of contaminated meat. This means that only in cases where the anti-doping agencies or sport federations achieve to prove that the clenbuterol could not have been ingested by eating with clenbuterol contaminated meat, the burden of proof will shift towards the athlete. This means that as long as judges or arbitration commissions are not convinced that the theory of eating with clenbuterol contaminated meat is ruled out, the athlete cannot be condemned. When the burden of proof is shifted towards the athlete, the athlete should prove, based on the balance of probability, that the positive doping result was caused by eating contaminated meat. In theory, proving something based on ‘the balance of probability’ should be easier then proving something ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, this can help the athlete in his or her burden of proof.

So, placing the burden of proof upon the anti-doping agencies and sport federation and giving them an increased burden of proof, by the fact that they should prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, should protect the athlete. The athlete will be innocent until there will be proven that the intake could not have been accidental.106 Furthermore if the burden of proof is shifted from the anti- doping agencies and sport federations towards the athlete, the burden of proof for the athlete should be based on the ‘balance of probability’. All together this should protect the athlete in a much better way than he or she is currently protected.

5.11 Conclusion on case law

There is a development noticeable. In the beginning every athlete received a period of ineligibility, or a reduced sanction. This was even though these athletes were found positive during or after a visit of, what we now call, a high risk area. These areas have been established after the case of the German table tennis player Ovtcharov. It started with China, later also Mexico was added to this list. We can see that after these high risk areas have been established that the athletes who have been found positive after a visit there, that none of them have received a sanction. During the process of the five Mexican soccer players it became clear that Mexico has a serious clenbuterol problem. WADA sees this problem no longer as a doping problem, but as a health problem. There are two cases of a positive doping result of athletes who have not been visiting these high risk areas and they both received the maximum punishment of two years. One can argue that as long as the possibility of the intake of contaminated meat is not ruled out, which can mean that the athlete is innocent, that the athlete should not be punished. It became clear from the CAS ruling on Contador, that the CAS will look at all options and then decides what theory is most likely out of the argued theories. The CAS does not look for the actual way the contamination happened. At this moment the burden of proof is placed on the athlete. Based on the fact that the athlete should be protected I propose that the burden of proof should be placed upon anti-doping agencies and sport federations and that this burden of proof should be an increased burden of proof.

106 My proposals can possibly also be applied to other forms of accidental, unknown ingestion of clenbuterol. I have not discussed these options in this paragraph since my thesis is focused on the intake of clenbuterol by eating with clenbuterol contaminated meat.

6. INTERVIEW WITH BIOCHEMIST DR. D. DE BOER107

Dr. Douwe de Boer is a Dutch biochemist. He is known for assisting the defense teams of different athletes who were found positive for clenbuterol. All athletes which he assisted were found positive on miniscule amounts of clenbuterol. He has assisted Van Houts, Fuyu Li and Contador. The interview took place on 29 December 2011 in Maastricht at the University Hospital Maastricht where dr. D. de Boer currently works. The written version of the complete interview can be found in Annex I, this is in Dutch because the interview was held in Dutch.

Below you will find information which followed from the interview as well as the opinion of dr. D. de Boer on certain points discussed during the interview.108

Original use and effects of Clenbuterol The original human use of clenbuterol is in cases of asthma. Clenbuterol went out of use as an anti-asthma drug because there were better alternatives and there were several side effects to the use of clenbuterol. The side effects are coughing and clenbuterol has an effect on the heart rhythm, which some people experience as very unpleasant.

The idea from muscle growth comes from the cattle breeding sector. The farmers found out that when clenbuterol is administered to cattle that it will grow faster. This is suggesting that clenbuterol triggers the creation of muscles. There are mixed messages about the actual effect of clenbuterol, the growth can also be a result of more water instead of muscles. There has never been research done about the effects. Nowadays athletes who actually use clenbuterol seem to use it in order to burn fat. But as far as dr. D. de Boer knows, there is no evidence that it has effect on that either.

Does clenbuterol accumulates in the body? No, clenbuterol doesn't accumulate in the body. It takes 24 till 36 hours in order for the amount of clenbuterol in the blood to halve. This means that you can use it during training, then stop, and it will be out of the blood of the athlete by the time that he or she has a match. An athlete can

107 I would like to thank Dr. D. de Boer for making time free out of his schedule to meet me and share his opinion and knowledge about clenbuterol and clenbuterol cases with me. 108 See Annex II for the complete interview

40 benefit from using clenbuterol this way without being caught during matches. You have to keep in mind the fact that doping tests are also performed out of competition, but for some athletes who use it this can be a well calculated risk and some are willing to take that risk.

How to prove that there is a clenbuterol contamination? If an athlete is tested positive for clenbuterol then it is very difficult to prove that this is the result of eating meat which is contaminated with clenbuterol. It is impossible to see from a sample if someone actually used clenbuterol or that it has been ingested because of eating contaminated meat. Before the Ovtcharov case (German table tennis player) it wasn’t clear that someone could be tested positive for clenbuterol as a result of eating meat that was contaminated with clenbuterol. Doping authorities said that this was impossible. The laboratory which assisted Ovtcharov tested passengers who came back from China on clenbuterol. The majority of the tested people were positive for clenbuterol. This proved that people can end up positive for clenbuterol after eating meat that is contaminated with it. Since then high risk areas were set: Mexico and China.

The team of Ovtcharov also introduced the hair sample. It is impossible to exclude anything but it’s possible to give a chance if someone used it occasionally or for a longer period of time. If someone uses clenbuterol frequently then this will show in the hair sample. Next to this you have to try to show that this positive result is not an individual case, but that it is a group problem. In the case of Ovtcharov other team members were also tested. There was found some clenbuterol in their blood, but such a low level that according to the imposed rules, we cannot speak of a positive doping result.

Three levels of measurements There are three levels a laboratory can measure. There is the Minimum Required Performance Level (MRPL). This is what a laboratory at least should be able to find according to WADA. Then there is a limit of identification, this is the lowest what a laboratory can identify according to the rules. As last, there is the limit of detection. This is what a laboratory can find below the limit of identification, but because of not meeting the requirements of the rules, is unable to prove. This

41 has to do with the reliability of the test. So in case of Ovtcharov, in the samples of his teammates some clenbuterol was detected, but this was below the limit of identification. This is why they were able to help the case of Ovtcharov but why they weren’t punished themselves.

If you can show it’s not an individual problem, food contamination is more likely. You can also look at other athletes who have been tested positive if they maybe stayed in the same hotel or ate in the same places. If more athletes tested positive, then food contamination is more likely. This is what happened with the 109 athletes who participated in the World Championship soccer -17. They didn’t receive any sanction because FIFA and WADA adopted that this was a case of eating with clenbuterol contaminated meat.

Furthermore Van Houts, a Dutch mountain biker, saved all the bills from the restaurants where he ate in order to show he choose his food carefully and that he wanted prevent any contamination by food intake. One can wonder if saving all bills of restaurants is not too much to be expected from an athlete, since they already have to deal with the Whereabouts and other rules.

Concluding how to prove the positive doping test is a result of food contamination. You have to show that it is not an individual case. In order to show that, you can look at teammates or other athletes who stayed in same hotels or ate at the same places. If the positive tested athlete has spent time in a high risk area, he or she should prove this. The positive tested athlete can prove retrospective by a hair sample that he didn’t use clenbuterol. A comment has to be made, WADA doesn’t accept other samples then blood or urine, so hair samples are not accepted. And last, an athlete can save up the bills of all the places he or she ate. This might help the defense.

In addition to the things dr. D. de Boer said about the hair sample, I109 would like to add that the fact that hair samples are completely not mentioned in the WADA-code doesn’t directly mean that it can’t be used to convince the hearing panel.

If you are one of the first athletes tested positive on doping, you are in trouble. Right now, clenbuterol contaminations are more common, that makes a positive doping result as a result of eating contaminated meat more plausible.

109 Lonneke Zandberg

More flexible policy If you look at all the athletes tested positive on clenbuterol, after the Contador case, no one has received punishment. Dr. De Boer claimes that before the Contador case athletes were punished because doping authorities were blind for the problem. “I110 think WADA is very focused on Contador and therefore it will not allow a tolerance limit. And if it will allow it, it will only allow it when the Contador case is completely finished.“

“I111 think WADA just wants to punish Contador. I‘m convinced that WADA has a strong suspicion that Contador used blood doping. WADA thinks he used clenbuterol when he collected the blood and that that is the origin of the Clenbuterol. This is an example of the fact that WADA suspects that Contador is guilty and WADA will search for a way to make sure that he will be punished.”

Guilty ones might benefit from more flexible policy Dr. D. de Boer agrees that people who actually use clenbuterol might benefit from a more flexible policy. He stressed that also when people didn’t went to high risk aria’s that a contamination is still possible and that we should avoid punishing not-guilty ones on order to punish all the guilty ones. People who intentionally use clenbuterol will also say that their positive doping result is the result of eating contaminated meat and as a result might not get punished. But according to Dr. De Boer this is the price that we have to pay in order to not punish the not-guilty ones. The best solution according to Dr. De Boer is to introduce a tolerance limit.

Tolerance limit De Boer proposes a tolerance limit of 200 picogram. But he says that in Mexican cases up till the amount of 2000 picogram have been found in humans. WADA is already very resistant towards a tolerance limit, they will probably never allow a tolerance limit of 2000. This means that even if you introduce a tolerance limit, you will still punish not-guilty ones. There are other substances with a tolerance limit, such as cannabis and morphine. So introducing a tolerance limit is not something unique. There is a rule to calculate a tolerance limit, that’s how dr. de Boer came up

110 Dr. D. de Boer 111 Dr. D. de Boer

43 with the 200 picogram as a tolerance limit. For clenbuterol the Minimum Required Performance Level (MRPL) is 2 nanogram per milliliter of blood. There is a rule which states that 10% of this MRPL can be used for a lot of substances as a tolerance limit.

WADA very strict Dr. De Boer thinks that WADA stays so strict on not allowing a tolerance limit because they are busier finding guilty athletes then avoiding punishment for not-guilty athletes. Dr. D. de Boer also states that this has to do with the fact that WADA is controlled by politicians from many countries. They often have a different view on drug policy, then the Dutch. According to dr. D. de Boer we might even speak of a hypocritical view of other countries. “Internationally it is difficult to discuss introducing a tolerance limit because if you say that you are Dutch then it is impossible to discuss a tolerance limit as a result of prejudices. The Dutch probably also have prejudices about others and if both parties have prejudices about each other, then discussion is impossible.” Dr. D. de Boer states that many countries have a hypocritical policy and they are all represented in WADA, so WADA is a reflection of these policies. The Netherlands wants to remove cannabis from the list, because it has little or no performance enhancing effect. But one out of six positive doping results is positive on cannabis. Other countries are very strict on keeping cannabis on the list. It is not a sport specific problem, but a social phenomenon. It has nothing to do with sports, it just reflects what is taking place in society. So why put it in sports law, it should be placed in criminal law of the countries.

Vegetarian Dr. D. de Boer has recently had a discussion with the Dutch doping authority if athletes should become vegetarians. The doping authority doesn’t give this advice because athletes already have to follow so many rules, if the Dutch doping authority would also advise them to live as vegetarians then that would change their lives even more.

Extra Dr. D. de Boer also added something about the clenbuterol cases and how they are dealt: “In my opinion, the clenbuterol decisions are subjective decisions. Whether an athlete gets a penalty or not depends on the consultant they have and on the judge. Decisions on clenbuterol are not at all transparent.”

He also stresses that the International Cycling Union (UCI) takes too much time in order to make a decision. This means that when an athlete is suspended, it takes too much time before an athlete can go to the CAS to defend its case. This is extra painful in cases of eating contaminated meat. All the time the UCI takes to make a decision the athlete is not allowed to work for the team nor train with the team. Afterwards an athlete can ask for compensation, but this compensation will probably be just a small amount of the real damages caused by not being able to work because of the suspension.

7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Conclusion

Doping has a long history, it has been used in sport for decades. It has not always been seen as a bad thing, at some point in history it was a part of sport. After some accidents and the call for a safe and fair sport more and more anti-doping rules were established. Nowadays we have a lot of anti-doping rules and WADA has been founded. All these rules don’t make it easy and some rules are in some specific cases too severe, as I have pointed out in this thesis.

According to article 2.1.1 and article 2.2.1 WADA-code it is an athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substances enters his or her body. These articles also determine that in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation there doesn’t have to be an intent, fault, negligence or knowingly use on the athlete’s part to be demonstrated in order to speak of a violation of anti- doping rules. This has to do with the strict liability principle; an athlete is responsible and an anti- doping rule violation occurs, whenever a prohibited substance is found in an athlete’s sample. The violation occurs whether or not the athlete intentionally or unintentionally used a prohibited substance or was negligent or otherwise at fault. This means that when an athlete eats meat that is contaminated with clenbuterol, without the intention to ingest clenbuterol and without the sport performance is enhanced, the athlete will still receive punishment because of the strict liability principle.

Thankfully there are exception rules which should make it possible to avoid sanction in such cases. There is article 10.4 WADA-code, according to this article there has to be proved how the specified substance entered the body and that the substance was not intended to enhance the sport

45 performance. Next to this a hearing panel has to be satisfied by the given explanation. If all of this is established, then the athlete will receive no sanction if it was the first anti-doping rule violation. Article 10.5.1 WADA-code can also help in some cases. For this article there has to be proved that the athlete was not at fault. Next to this there has also be proved how the prohibited substance entered the body. If this has been established no sanction will follow.

The last possibility is article 10.5.2 WADA-code. This article demands that there has to be proved that the athlete bears no significant fault or negligence and how the prohibited substance entered the body. If this has been established then a reduced sanction can be given to the athlete.

Unfortunately there is one thing that makes it very difficult to invoke these articles and that is the fact that in cases of eating contaminated meat, the athlete doesn’t know when and how the substance has entered the body. This will expectably result in a very small chance of successfully invoking one of these articles in these types of cases. WADA states that there is a reasonable balance between article 2.1.1 WADA-code which entails the strict liability principle and the exception rules. I state that the reasonable balance in regard to the strict liability principle in cases of eating with clenbuterol contaminated meat is non existing, the exception rules can almost never be invoked, so a balance is out of the question.

Furthermore I examined if the strict liability is proportional in cases of eating with clenbuterol contaminated meat. I looked at the effort to avoid a clenbuterol contamination in comparison with the effects of a condemnation of an anti-doping rule violation. I conclude that the prevention of a substance entering the body by eating contaminated food is a very big effort, if not impossible. Nonetheless the punishment is very severe. There will be a period of ineligibility, sometimes dismissal, no income for the suspension period, reputation damages, loss of sponsorship deals and the loss of chances on the labour market. I conclude that the strict liability principle is not proportional because the effort to avoid a clenbuterol contamination is very high, but the effects of the anti-doping rule violation, caused by this principle are enormous. Anti-doping rules were introduced in order to create fair and safe sports for athletes. Sanctioning athletes even though he or she might have been not at fault or negligent and the clenbuterol might not even have improved their sport performances, is not in accordance to the reasons why anti-doping rules have been introduced.

In the case law chapter I discussed the following cases: Adam Dariusz Seroczyoski, Alessandro Colo, Philip Nielsen, Dimitri Ovtcharov, James Stanton, Rudi van Houts, Alberto Contador, the five Mexican soccer players and the case of the 109 players who were tested positive during the FIFA Under 17 World Cup Football. There is a development to be seen. In the beginning all athletes received a sanction. After the high risk areas were established this changed. When athletes had been contaminated in one of these high risk areas, they didn’t receive a suspension. But the athletes who were found positive in low risk areas were still condemned. The latest case of the CAS was the Contador case. He was found positive in France, a low risk area, he received a period of ineligibility of two years, just like the other cases of athletes who have probably ingested the clenbuterol by eating contaminated meat, in low risk areas.

The balance of probability played a big role in the case of Contador. When applying the balance of probability there is looked at what theory is more likely, there is not looked at what has actually happened. The option of contaminated meat was not ruled out. I believe that if judges or arbitrators cannot rule out the option of accidental intake of clenbuterol by eating with clenbuterol contaminated meat, that they should not condemn this athlete. Judges and arbitration commissions should be extra careful with clenbuterol cases because it cannot be guaranteed that there will be no clenbuterol in meat that athletes eat. Therefore I believe that judges or arbitration commissions should never be able to condemn an athlete based on the balance of probability when the option of contaminated meat is not ruled out.

At this moment the burden of proof is placed upon the athlete. I believe this should be changed. The athlete is not responsible for the substances in the meat and most athletes are employees, therefore athletes should be protected. To protect athletes, the burden of proof should be placed upon anti-doping agencies and sport federations, instead of upon the athlete and this burden of proof should be an increased burden of proof. They should prove beyond reasonable doubt that the positive doping result for clenbuterol cannot be caused by the ingestion of meat that is contaminated with clenbuterol. If the anti-doping agency achieves this, only then the burden of proof is shifted towards the athlete, the athlete should prove the opposite, but the proof of the athlete can be rated based on the balance of probability instead of beyond reasonable doubt.

I had an interview with dr. Douwe de Boer. He was able to provide a lot of general information about clenbuterol, he also explained the minimum required performance level, the limit of detection and the limit of identification. He gave me an inside in what you can use to prove how the substance entered the body and that the defense team of the athlete should try to prove that it was not an individual problem, but a more common problem. The defense team can do this by looking at other athletes who stayed in the same hotel, or ate in the same places or by looking at team members. He was also of great value in explaining how he came up with the tolerance limit that he proposed. After his explanation I join his proposal of the amount of 200 picograms of clenbuterol. He stressed that the duration of the procedures take too long. Even when athletes are not condemned, they sometimes already face a suspension during the process and especially the UCI acts very slow in his opinion. This results in a lot of unnecessary damage for athletes. He was also very critical towards WADA. He believes that it does everything to convict an athlete, instead of looking if someone might be innocent.

I don’t agree with the current rules. I especially don’t agree with the strict liability principle in these cases. This means an athlete will be guilty even though the ingestion wasn’t intentionally and the athlete was without negligence or otherwise at fault. I believe this is not proportional, especially in these cases where the exception rules cannot easily be invoked because no one knows how and when the substances entered the body. If you don’t know these things, then how should you be able to prove that that certain piece of meat, came from this restaurant or that place and that contained clenbuterol and that this was the cause of the positive doping result. We cannot ask of athletes to take a sample of everything they eat.

In case of eating contaminated meat the athlete doesn’t know he or she is ingesting a prohibited substance. In normal criminal justice if a person didn’t know and couldn’t have known that what he or she was doing was wrong and could have done nothing to prevent it from happening then they will not to be blamed and therefore they will face no or less punishment. So why should a violation of the WADA-code be any different?

We should never forget that many athletes are employees. They should be protected against such unfairness as they have to face right now. At this point, the rules to be followed, are not proportional, nor reasonable and above all unfair, so adjustments have to be made.

7.2 Recommendations

I would like to make five recommendations in order to avoid innocent athletes being punished for a positive doping result, caused by eating with clenbuterol contaminated meat.

Has clenbuterol a sport performance enhancing effect? First of all I propose that WADA should do research to find out if clenbuterol is a sport performance enhancing drug or not. It has never been proved to enhance the sport performances of those who actually use clenbuterol. If it turns out that it has no sport enhancing effect, not even with actually use, clenbuterol can be removed from the list of prohibited substances of WADA. This means the all the cases of athletes who tested positive after eating with clenbuterol contaminated meat can all be dropped. Therefore no athlete who has ingested clenbuterol by contaminated meat will be punished for something they couldn’t have prevented from happening.

Tolerance limit For as long as this research will take or if it turns out clenbuterol will enhance the sport performances and therefore needs to stay on the prohibited list of WADA, I would like to propose a tolerance limit for clenbuterol. Right now it’s known that in different countries there is a problem with clenbuterol in the meat, the so called high risk areas. But not only in these high risk areas there is a chance of ingesting with clenbuterol contaminated meat. Nowadays all kinds of food and also meat, is flown all over the world. So you cannot be one hundred percent sure that no meat from these high risk areas is flown into low risk areas. Next to this, the areas other than the ‘high risk areas’ are not called ‘no risk areas’ but ‘low risk areas’. This has a reason, even though the use of clenbuterol is prohibited, this doesn’t mean that farmers don’t use clenbuterol to let their cattle grow faster so they can make more profit. Everywhere in the world there will be a risk of clenbuterol contamination. I believe it is unfair to let athletes pay the price for this risk.

The punishment athletes suffer goes much further then the punishment given according to the WADA-code. They will face a period of ineligibility, sometimes dismissal after a positive doping result, no income for the suspension period, reputation damages, loss of sponsorship deals and the loss of chances on the labour market. We should definitely not forget that these athletes are employees. They do sport to earn their living, so they are seen as athletes by the big public, but they are employees and therefore should also be protected.

I would like to recommend a tolerance limit of 200 picograms. Dr. D. de Boer came up with this amount of clenbuterol as a tolerance limit. He has explained that for some other substances for which a tolerance limit exists they use 10% of the Minimum Required Performance Level (MRPL). For clenbuterol the MRPL is 2 nanograms per milliliter of blood, 10% of 2 nanograms is 200 picograms. This tolerance limit will not be enough to make sure none of the athletes who ingested clenbuterol unknowingly by the intake of meat will be safe. There are cases where 4000 picograms were found caused by the intake of contaminated meat. So we should not make an assumption that when more clenbuterol has been found in the sample of an athlete this automatically means that he or she used clenbuterol and that it cannot be a case of clenbuterol contamination. So caution is appropriate.

Caution is also appropriate for athletes who use clenbuterol and who want to take advantage of the tolerance limit and a more flexible policy. There is a fine line between guilty and not guilty, this cannot be determined by the sample. I believe that the ones who impose sanctions on athletes should be convinced for 100% that the athlete they are about to punish has knowingly used clenbuterol. If there is any doubt about food contamination then the athlete should not be punished. We should avoid at all times that innocent athletes are punished, so if that means guilty athletes are not punished, I believe this is worth it.

No strict liability principle Thirdly I would like to advise to drop the strict liability principle in cases where it is suspected to be a case of ingesting, with clenbuterol, contaminated meat. The strict liability cannot be upheld in these cases. It is almost impossible to avoid a clenbuterol contamination, unless the athlete decides to become a vegetarian. The consequences of this strict liability principle are too severe in

50 comparison to the effort that has to be made to avoid a contamination. When a person didn’t know the meat was contaminated and could not have known this and therefore could have done nothing to avoid the contamination then a strict liability principle that says: “an athlete is responsible and that an anti-doping rule violation occurs, whenever a prohibited substance is found in an athlete’s sample. The violation occurs whether or not the athlete intentionally or unintentionally used a prohibited substance or was negligent or otherwise at fault”112 is unacceptable.

Therefore I recommend to not apply the strict liability principle in cases of meat that is contaminated with clenbuterol. The case of Alessandro Colo is a good example, the investigators accepted that he had ingested the substance unknowingly and also the judges believed him. Still he was suspended as a result of the strict liability rule. Unacceptable if you look at the fact that he was not at fault, but he still had to face all the effects of an anti doping rule violation.

Less strict on exception rules As a fourth recommendation I would like to recommend that articles 10.4 and 10.5 WADA-code should be applied less strict in cases where it’s probably a case of eating meat that is contaminated with clenbuterol. It is possible to prove that something has happened, it is very difficult to prove that something did not happen. So I believe that if it’s made plausible how clenbuterol entered the body and that the athlete bears no fault or negligence then that should be enough. It is so difficult to prove exactly how the substance entered the body. Especially because the contamination has happened without the knowledge of anyone.

Examine if former cases were caused by meat contamination As last recommendation I would like to advice WADA to take a look at the former clenbuterol cases. This will especially be needed when it turns out that clenbuterol doesn’t enhance the sport performance. Also when it turns out clenbuterol has a sport performance enhancing effect, WADA should take a look at former clenbuterol case because now we know that in some countries clenbuterol is often used and nowadays a clenbuterol contamination is more plausible then before. But would it have been impossible before? I believe the policy is more flexible right now. But I think some athletes have been punished without they bore any fault or negligence. It would be a

112 WADA Code, 2009, p.19, comment to art. 2.1.1

51 good gesture of WADA to examine if possibly other athletes would have been convicted of something they could not have prevented and could not have known. WADA can clear the names of these athletes. For many it will be too late and the damages will have been done, but I believe every athlete that has been convicted because of clenbuterol and they know they didn’t use it will be relieved if his or her name is cleared from the use of doping.

Concluding, I think the rules of the WADA-code are sometimes too severe in cases of eating with clenbuterol contaminated meat. The strict liability rule should be dropped in these types of cases, for the articles 10.4 and 10.5 WADA-code it should be enough to make it plausible how the clenbuterol entered the body and that this was done unintentionally, not with the goal to enhance the sport performance. Most importantly, a tolerance limit should be introduced to avoid unnecessary legal procedures taking place. With a remark that a tolerance limit will not avoid all clenbuterol contamination cases. As a last thing, WADA should examine if before the more flexible policy athletes have been unnecessarily been punished and WADA should clear the names these athletes.

If there is a chance an athlete is innocent, no punishment should follow. Athletes already have to follow so many rules, that even their fundamental rights are no longer guaranteed. It is time to change some rules in order to provide better protection for athletes and set some boundaries of what can be expected of athletes.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CASE LAW CAS 2011/A/2384 UCI v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC CAS 2011/A/2386 WADA v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC

WADA-code, 2009 Direct internet link: http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP- The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf

INTERNET SOURCES www.wada-ama.org www.tas-cas.org www.cyclingnews.com search for: ‘Houts’. Title of article: ‘Van Houts rejoins Multivan Merida team’. Retrieved February 1, 2012, from: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/van-houts-rejoins- multivan-merida-team http://www.mariaclarke.co.nz/news-items/50-controversial-cas-decision-osaka-rule.html retrieved February 1, 2012 http://www.sport.pl/inne/2029020,101400,10480297.html Retrieved January 24, 2012 http://sport.interia.pl/news/olimpijczyk-sie-nie-przyznaje,1172419?source=rss Retrieved January 24, 2012 http://www.rmf24.pl/sport/news-seroczynski-na-dopingu-sa-wyniki-probki-b,nId,192676 Retrieved January 24, 2012 http://sport.interia.pl/plywanie/news/mkol-rozpatrzy-sprawe-seroczynskiego,1198143,1001 Retrieved January 24, 2012 http://sport.wp.pl/kat,1715,title,Dyskwalifikacja-Seroczynskiego-do- 2011,wid,11770853,wiadomosc.html?ticaid=1dcc0 Retrieved January 24, 2012 http://www.sport.pl/inne/2029020,101400,10480297.html Retrieved February 2, 2012

53 http://sport.wm.pl/73719,Niespodziewany-zwrot-w-sprawie-Adama-Seroczynskiego.html Retrieved February 2, 2012 www.cyclingnews.com search for: ‘Colò risk’. Title of article: ‘Colò believes Contador would not risk taking Clenbuterol’. Retrieved February 2, 2012, from: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/colo-believes-contador-would-not-risk-taking-clenbuterol http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/news/another-cyclist-tests-positive-for-clenbuterol- claims-contamination_155818 Retrieved February 2, 2012 www.cyclingnews.com search for:’Nielsen’. Title of article: ‘Nielsen not sanctioned for Clenbuterol positive’. Retrieved February 2, 2012, from: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/nielsen-not- sanctioned-for-clenbuterol-positive www.velonews.com search for: ‘WADA drops’. Title of article: ‘WADA drops another clenbuterol appeal’. Retrieved February 2, 2012, from: http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/10/news/wada- drops-another-clenbuterol-appeal_195314 www.ettu.org search for: ‘OVTCHAROV’s’. Titel of article: ‘Ovtcharov’s doping case is closed: DTTB arguments’. Retrieved January 19, 2012, from: http://www.ettu.org/news_view.php?id=3183 www.cbc.ca search for: ‘WADA beef’. Titel of article: ‘WADA investigating tainted beef in China’. Retrieved January 19, 2012, from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/02/22/sp-wada- china.html www.ittf.com click on ‘home page’. Search for: ‘Good News for Ovtcharov’. Retrieved January 19, 2012, from: http://www.ittf.com/_front_page/ittf_full_story.asp?ID=22286&Category www.tabletennisphilippines.blogspot.com. Search for: ‘Ovtcharov’. Title of article: ‘WADA files appeal in Ovtcharov clenbuterol case’. Retrieved January 19, 2012, from: http://tabletennisphilippines.blogspot.com/2010/12/wada-files-appeal-in-ovtcharov.html www.velonation.com go to ‘news’ go to ‘search’. Search for: ‘WADA confirms’. Title of article: ’WADA chief confirms that Agency won’t appeal Dimitrij Ovtcharov’s Clenbuterol case dismissal’. Retrieved January 19, 2012, from: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/7408/WADA-chief- confirms-that-Agency-wont-appeal-Dimitrij-Ovtcharovs-Clenbuterol-case-dismissal.aspx www.asada.gov.au search for: ’Stanton’. Titel of article: ‘Australian water polo player James Stanton receives two-year sports ban’. Retrieved January 19, 2012, from: http://www.asada.gov.au/publications/media/media_releases/asada_release_110622_James_Sta nton_clenbuterol.pdf

54 http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/water-polo-olympian-cops-doping-ban-20110622- 1gefd.html Retrieved January 19, 2012 http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1018/Wielrennen/article/detail/1913038/2010/12/16/Van-Houts- betrapt-op-gebruik-clenbuterol.dhtml Retrieved January 25, 2012 www.road.cc search for:’Houts’. Title of article: ‘Contaminated steak defence works for Dutch cyclist who tested positive for clenbuterol’. Retrieved January 26, 2012, from: http://road.cc/content/news/33382-contaminated-steak-defence-works-dutch-cyclist-who- tested-positive-clenbuterol www.worldonbike.org search for: ’Van Houts’. Title of article: ‘Van Houts rejoins Multivan Merida team’. Retrieved February 2, 2012, from: http://www.worldonbike.org/2011/06/15/van-houts- rejoins-multivan-merida-team/ www.lfpress.com search for:’Contador’. Title of article: ‘Tour de France champ Contador suspended’. Retrieved February 8, 2012, from: http://www.lfpress.com/sports/othersports/2012/02/06/19344201.html www.bbc.com search for: ‘Mexico clenbuterol’. Title of article: ‘Five Mexico players test positive for banned substance’. Retrieved January 26, 2012, from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/13719472 www.fifa.com search for: ‘FIFA satisfied WADA’. Title of article: ‘FIFA satisfied with WADA decision to withdraw CAS appeal in case of Mexican footballers’. Retrieved January 26, 2012, from: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/news/newsid=1526355/ www.usatoday.com search for: ‘Doping case dropped against Mexico soccer players’. Retrieved January 26, 2012, from: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/world/story/2011-10- 12/mexico-soccer-doping-case-dropped/50747432/1 www.espn.com search for: ‘U-17 players’s drug tests tained’. Title of article: ‘FIFA: U-17 players' drug tests tainted’. Retrieved January 26, 2012, from: http://espn.go.com/sports/soccer/news/_/id/7115036/clenbuterol-found-most-players-17-world- cup www.sports.yahoo.com search for: ‘100 clenbuterol’. Title of article: Over 100 clenbuterol cases at under-17 World Cup. Retrieved January 26, 2012, from: http://sports.yahoo.com/soccer/news?slug=reu-mexicodoping www.insideworldfootball.com search for: ‘FIFA's medical chief’. Title of article: ‘Exclusive: FIFA's medical chief calls for relax on anti-doping rules in clenbuterol cases’. Retrieved January 26, 2012, from: http://www.insideworldfootball.biz/worldfootball/42-news/9977-exclusive-fifas-medical- chief-calls-for-relax-on-anti-doping-rules-in-clenbuterol-cases

ANNEX I Interview Dr. D. de Boer

INTERVIEW Dr. D. DE BOER 29 DECEMBER 2011

Sporters die bewust clenbuterol innemen, met welk doel gebruiken zij dit? In de jaren ‘90 kwam het in de mode om het te gebruiken. En ik geloof dat de Duitse Krabbe daarmee werd geassocieerd. Ik geloof een 800 meter loopster. Ik kan me niet herinneren of ze daarop betrapt is geworden in die tijd, maar ze werd er wel mee geassocieerd. Toen was het idee met name spieropbouw en dat komt vanuit de veeteelt. De originele humane toepassing is als anti-astmamiddel.

Hoe wordt het ingenomen of toegediend? Clenbuterol is niet ontwikkeld om ingespoten te worden, zou misschien kunnen, maar zo is het niet ontwikkeld. Het is beschikbaar in tabletten en drankjes.

Ik begreep dat het tegen hoesten gebruikt wordt in de veeteelt, klopt dit? Ik weet niet of het tegen hoesten is, ik zeg dat met name omdat clenbuterol als neveneffect juist hoesten heeft. Dus het is niet tegen hoesten, het creëert meer hoesten.

Is het ook schadelijk voor de mens? Het heeft afgezien van hoesten ook invloed op je hartritme en dat wordt als zeer onplezierig ervaren. Je hoort bij een overdosis dat gebruikers dat als een probleem zien, verder is het niet acuut schadelijk.

Is het bij langdurig gebruik schadelijk? Het is niet bekend. Het is zo dat het als anti-astmamiddel zoveel neveneffecten bleek te hebben en er zoveel andere middelen die vele malen beter waren dat het al heel snel van de markt is gehaald. Alhoewel het in Zuid-Europa het in het begin van deze eeuw nog in de handel was terwijl het in Nederland al tientallen jaren daarvoor uit de handel is gehaald, als het daarvoor al in de handel is geweest.

Het was oorspronkelijk een anti-astmamiddel waarbij het in de veeteelt is ontdekt dat het leidt tot een hogere opbrengst als je het aan dieren geeft en je het dier vervolgens naar de slachterij brengt. Het suggereert dat het meer vlees opbrengt maar dat is niet zeker omdat het ook meer water kan zijn dan spiermassa. Daar zijn nogal wat wisselende meningen over. Dat is nooit onderzocht, desondanks is het begin jaren 90 naar aanleiding van Krabbe op de markt gekomen als een anabool middel. Je hebt van anabole middelen steroïden en als subklasse clenbuterol. Alleen dat is op een gegeven moment al van de lijst is gehaald, ik denk omdat het ook niet altijd duidelijk een werking heeft gehad. Het zou met name nu toegepast worden om vet te verbranden. Maar daarvoor bestaan voor zover ik weet ook geen wetenschappelijke bewijzen. Dat is meer wat sporters doen omdat er ook geen wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar gedaan is.

Het is dus meer iets wat sporters gewoon proberen, ook zonder wetenschappelijk onderzoek, om te kijken of het ze kan helpen? Ja, je hebt ook websites die ook zonder wetenschappelijke onderbouwing bepaalde dingen beweren en sommige websites zien er heel professioneel uit als ze dat dan beweren, dan gaan mensen daarin geloven en dan wordt het ook gebruikt. Als zodanig zou het in de sportwereld nog steeds gebruikt worden, al is het niet echt een anabool middel omdat er waarschijnlijk wetenschappelijk bewijs ontbreekt en waarschijnlijk zijn er ook veel betere middelen in de handel als je echt een anabool middel wilt gebruiken

Verdwijnt clenbuterol weer snel uit het lichaam of hoopt het zich op? Nee, het hoopt zich in principe niet op. Het heeft een halfwaarde tijd van 24 tot 36 uur. Dat is vrij kort.

Dus je zou het tijdens trainingen kunnen gebruiken en dan een aantal weken stoppen waardoor de waardes weer heel laag zijn of helemaal niet meetbaar en dan zou je er tijdens de wedstrijd toch nog profijt van zou kunnen hebben? Ja, dat zou kunnen. Het is wel een risico, want je hebt ook out of competition dopingcontroles natuurlijk. Je loopt altijd een risico, het is een soort Russische roulette, maar het kunnen ingecalculeerde risico’s zijn.

Ik begreep dat je ook haaranalyses kunt uitvoeren, daar zou das wel uit kunnen blijken of het gebruik is of een per ongelijke inname, klopt dit? Waar we het over hebben, over die halfwaarde tijden, is de snelheid waarmee het uit het bloed verdwijnt. Het gaat dan naar of naar haar of naar urine. Urine loos je regelmatig, dus dan raak je het weer kwijt. Haar raak je niet kwijt, dus daar blijft het in, ook omdat haar heel langzaam groeit. Het groeit een centimeter per maand. En daar kun je het dus langer in terug vinden.

U heeft ook geholpen in de zaak van Contador, hij beweerde dat de positieve uitslag een resultaat was van het eten van, met clenbuterol, vervuild vlees. Moet je veel vlees eten om een waarde in het bloed terug te vinden? Het is ook bewezen dat het kan, dat door gecontamineerd vlees clenbuterol in het lichaam gevonden kan worden. Je hoeft niet veel vlees te eten. Het hangt er helemaal vanaf hoeveel clenbuterol er in het vlees zit. Zit er veel in, dan hoef je maar een klein stukje te eten, zit er weinig in, dan moet je meer vlees eten. Vóór Contador zeiden alle dopingcontroleurs, het is onmogelijk. Maar na Contador kreeg je een affaire in China een affaire in Mexico. En het WK -17. Er zijn ook hele hoge waardes gevonden, veel hoger dan men ooit kon vermoeden.

Ik begreep dat Van Houts een nog lagere waarde had dan Contador. Die 50 picogram van Contador is de hoogste die gevonden is. Ze hebben meerdere waarden omdat hij achter elkaar gecontroleerd is.

Is het dan ook dat de eerste test de hoogste waarde aangaf? Ja. Alleen hij is drie keer of vier keer gecontroleerd, alleen toen was de laatste of een na laatste was weer hoger. Dan komt ook zo, het zijn zulke lage concentraties, die kun je niet meer betrouwbaar meten. Dat zegt ook wel iets over de betrouwbaarheid. Dat grenst aan de mogelijkheden van wat de test kan. De grotere fouten van de test moet je ook in rekening nemen en dan is het niet ongebruikelijk.

Ik begreep dat het een waarde is die vanuit de WADA gezien een laboratorium niet zou moeten kunnen testen. Nee, dat klopt niet. WADA zegt je zou minimaal 2 nanogram moeten kunnen testen, niet maximaal. Dat betekent dat als je nog lager kunt, mag dat. Dat is ook de reden dat er ook opeens veel meer positieve testen zijn. Een aantal laboratoria kunnen ineens veel lager detecteren en die pikken dat ineens op. Een aantal laboratoria, niet allen. Sommigen kunnen in plaats van 2 nanogram, soms wel 2 picogram per milliliter detecteren en dat is 1000 keer zo gevoelig als vereist. Je mag in theorie zo laag als je kunt.

Komt dat door de verbeterde techniek? Ja, de techniek is veel beter

Kun je in een sample een verschil zien of het door vlees is ingenomen of niet? Nee, je kunt geen onderscheid maken. Bij andere verbindingen is dat soms wel zo, zoals bij steroïden. Daar kun je soms wel een onderscheid zien.

De WADA geeft een ontsnappingsclausule, wanneer aangetoond kan worden hoe de stof in het lichaam is gekomen en dat het zonder schuld van de atleet of mensen er omheen is gebeurd. Maar hoe weet je als je het niet bewust hebt ingenomen waar die vervuiling vandaan komt? Dat is een groot dilemma voor de sporters, ondanks dat de WADA die clausule heeft, heeft de WADA daar ontzettend moeilijk over gedaan bij de meeste sporters. Pas recent gaat men daar wat soepeler mee om. Het is ontzettend moeilijk te achterhalen. Er zijn verschillende tactieken. Duitse tafeltennisser Ovtcharov heeft hulp gehad van nota bene een WADA laboratorium, dat is uitzonderlijk. Die laboratoria mogen sporters eigenlijk niet helpen. Wordt door de WADA niet op prijs gesteld. Het heeft zelfs in de reglementen gestaan dat dat niet mocht. Je hebt het International Standard for Laboratories (ISL), met ingang van dit jaar mogen laboratoria sporters wel helpen. De Ovtcharov zaak was niet dit jaar, maar vorig jaar al. Ik denk dat het toen niet mocht. Dat is dus bijzonder dat een WADA laboratorium heeft meegeholpen. Maar die hebben de hairsample geïntroduceerd. Waarbij je niets kunt uitsluiten, maar waarbij je wel een kans kunt aangeven of het vaker is gebruikt. Dus als je incidenteel gebruikt, maar dat hangt er ook weer vanaf hoeveel je gebruikt, dan kun je laten zien, dat wanneer er niets in zit, dat je niets hebt gebruikt of maar incidenteel. En als je chronisch gebruikt zit het in je haren. Zij hebben de

59 haaranalyse opgevoerd en ze hebben ook teamgenoten van die Duitser onderzocht en hebben daar ook sporen gevonden, maar lager dan je juridisch kunt hard maken. Dat geeft Circumstantial evidence. Die dan aannemelijk maken, dat je niet kunt uitsluiten dat er sprake is van vleesconsumptie. Iets dergelijks hebben we ook met Van Houts gedaan. Verder moet je aangeven waar je bent geweest, vlak voordat je een monster afstaat. Want zoals nu bekend zijn er hoog risico gebieden: Mexico en China. Die Duitser was in China geweest en Van Houts in Mexico. Van Houts heeft van alle restaurants de bonnetjes bewaard om ook te laten zien dat hij daar gegeten heeft maar dat het ook geen verdachte restaurants zijn. Dat hij niet op straat vlees heeft gegeten. Dus dan mag je er vanuit gaan dat je een bepaalde kwaliteit zit te eten. Je probeert zoveel mogelijk bewijs te leveren dat je daar geweest bent, dat je je best hebt gedaan om dingen te voorkomen, dat je retrospectief laat zien dat er niets in je haar zit, dat er het liefst nog teamgenoten zijn waar zich ook sporen van clenbuterol in bevinden. Van Houts heeft in hetzelfde hotel gezeten als Alexander Colo. Colo is eerder betrapt geworden en helaas door Italianen. Zij zijn heel zwart wit. Die Italianen zijn wat dopingbeleid veel harder, zij straffen gewoon en je moet verder niet zeuren. In Nederland is men genuanceerder en gaat men daar realistischer mee om. En die hebben nota bene in hetzelfde hotel gezeten. Als je dan meer sporters kunt vinden met hetzelfde probleem. Zeker als je 1 van de 109 bent (WK beneden de 17 jaar), dan wordt het makkelijker om het aan te tonen. Maar dat betekent wel dat je ontzettend veel moet doen en als je de eerste bent, ben je de pineut. Ovtcharov was niet de eerste, je hebt ook de Chinese Judoka, Tong yen, zij was voor hem, maar die is vrijgesproken, vanwege procedurele problemen. Dat is denk ik ook hoogst waarschijnlijk een voorbeeld van het eten van vlees dat met clenbuterol vervuild is. Pas na Contador is men daar serieus voor mijn gevoel naar gaan kijken. Daarvoor is het al een aantal keer geroepen, maar dan wordt er gezegd: onmogelijk, kan niet uit vlees. Het lab dat Ovtcharov heeft geholpen is passagiers gaan controleren die in China waren geweest en daarvan was een aanzienlijk aantal positief of clenbuterol. Die hebben dat geïnitieerd om er verder naar te kijken en toen zijn de hoog risicogebieden in kaart gebracht. Maar je bent mooi de pineut als je de eerste bent, dan wordt je gewoon gestraft. Pas als er een algemeen probleem is dan wordt het aannemelijker. Je moet ontzettend je best doen en je bent helemaal de pineut eigenlijk. Je kunt je afvragen of naast alle Whereabouts alles bijhouden nog wel redelijk is.

In het Nederlandse strafrecht is het zo dat als je geen schuld hebt en je hebt het niet kunnen weten en je hebt het niet kunnen voorkomen, volgt er geen straf. Het wel straffen zonder schuld is maatschappelijk niet gewenst/acceptabel.Zo redeneert het Instituut voor Sportrechtspraak ook. Maar die hanteren die filosofie en op die manier worden sancties opgelegd en die worden aangepakt door WADA. Die zeggen 0 is 0. Het Nederlandse systeem staat ook onder druk om zich te conformeren aan de WADA. En de WADA is gewoon Van Dikhout zaagt planken. Die doen dat gewoon. Ik ken de WADA al langer, dat is typisch WADA.

Denkt u ook dat er sporters zijn die het bewust gebruiken, en die dan een mogelijke soepelheid beleid kunnen gaan gebruiken en zeggen dat ergens geweest zijn. Absoluut, je hoeft niet eens in een hoog risico gebied te zijn geweest voor een vervuiling. Ook als je in een laag risico gebied bent kan je een vervuiling oplopen. Contador is daar ook een voorbeeld van. Ten eerste mag je, vind ik, geen onschuldigen straffen om alle schuldigen te pakken. Je moet dus accepteren dat je schuldigen laat ontsnappen. Ook als je in een laag risicogebied zit kun je niet uitsluiten dat er toch clenbuterol wordt gebruikt.

Of Contador gebruikt heeft of niet, doet er niet toe. In Spanje heb je ook een clenbuterol netwerk dat opgerold is. De argumenten van de tegenpartij van Contador zijn dat als je kijkt naar het aantal positieve dieren, dat dat zo gering is, dat het risico zo laag is dat het niet meer aannemelijk is. Maar je kunt je afvragen hoe laag laag is, als je kijkt naar het aantal dieren dat in de Europese Unie gecontroleerd wordt is misschien 100.000. Klinkt heel veel, maar als je ziet dat er misschien wel miljarden geslacht wordt en er wordt vlees vanuit bv Zuid-Amerika naar Nederland gehaald wordt. Zolang je dat niet kunt uitsluiten vind ik dat je ongeacht of je in een hoog of laag risicogebied bent er een risico bestaat. Ook mensen die bewust gebruikt kunnen dat aanvoeren, maar dat is de prijs die je betaald. Dan zal je een grenswaarde moeten vaststellen.

Is er een limiet te bepalen waarop er nog geen prestatieverbetering plaats vindt, maar waar degene die wel bewust gebruiken die norm niet kunnen gebruiken als extra marge? Die limiet kun je niet op basis daarvan samenstellen omdat je altijd tijdens trainingen kunt gebruiken en er profijt van kunt hebben en pas veel later betrapt kunt worden. Dus zelfs als je negatief bent kun je er profijt van hebben. Dus op basis daarvan kun je de limiet niet stellen. Je kunt hoogstens stellen dat je een limiet instellen waarbij redelijkerwijs alle mensen die dan gecontamineerd vlees eten kunt uitsluiten. Uitsluiten van straf. Ik heb voorgesteld om een limiet in te stellen van 200 picogram. Alleen die Mexico affaires, daar zijn waardes gevonden van 1000 tot 2000 picogram bij mensen. Dan moet je die limiet wel heel hoog stellen. WADA is al huiverig voor een limiet laat staan als die limiet heel hoog wordt. Dat is de prijs die je dan betaald als je geen onschuldigen wilt straffen.

Het is dus wel erg lastig om een dergelijke limiet te stelen als je ook rekening moet houden met die hele hoge waardes, is het dan wel mogelijk om een limiet te bepalen? Het is onmogelijk om onderscheid te maken tussen bewust en onbewuste gebruikers. Dat is het dilemma. Dan ga je ook onschuldigen straffen als je geen limiet instelt.

Als je dergelijke lage waardes ziet, zoals bij Contador en Van Houts, je kun je niet vaststellen dat het niet eerder is gebruikt waardoor het zich nog in het lichaam bevindt. Maar als een dergelijke waarde zo laag is wat denkt u dan? Het is toch belachelijk dat ze daar nog tijd aan besteden. Aan de zaak van Contador zijn miljoenen besteed. Als je kijkt hoeveel waardevolle controles je daarmee zou kunnen doen is de Contador zaak niet efficiënt.

Er zijn veel wielrenners die al zolang in het vooronderzoek zitten. Die effectief al geschorst zijn voordat de sanctie wordt uitgesproken. De UCI laat veel zaken te lang lopen Daar kan ik echt kwaad over worden. Je moet dan gaan vechten voor een financiële compensatie. Die vaak denk ik een tegemoetkoming is van de werkelijk geleden schade. Dat is uiterst kwalijk.

Denkt u dat het raadzaam is voor positieve clenbuterol gevallen, met lage waarde, waarbij vleesconsumptie als oorzaak gezien wordt om een haaranalyse te laten doen? Het probleem met haaranalyses is dat het volgens mij juridisch niet erkend wordt. Door de WADA- code wordt ander materiaal dan bloed en urine niet toegestaan. Belachelijk eigenlijk. Het enige probleem is dat het misschien niet zo efficiënt wordt ingebouwd in het haar. Als je negatief bent wil dus ook nog niet alles zeggen. Als je chronisch heel laag gebruikt is het misschien niet terug te vinden. Er is ook nog een probleem dat het in donker haar waarschijnlijk makkelijker wordt ingebouwd, dan krijg je een onderscheid in rassen en dat ligt erg gevoelig. Het is niet het ideale materiaal. Het is beter dan aan de leeuwen overgeleverd te zijn.

Ik begreep dat Contador vegetarisch is gaan eten sinds zijn positieve dopingtest. Dat kan ook show zijn. Ik heb daar laatst een hele discussie over gehad met de dopingautoriteit of sporters vegetarisch zouden moeten worden. Die geeft dat advies niet onder het mom van ze moeten al aan zoveel regels voldoen. Als ze ook daar nog aan moeten voldoen is dat wel ingrijpend, dus ze geven dat advies niet. De Rabobank fiets ploeg die in China waren, die hebben hun eigen vlees meegenomen.

Wordt dat veel gedaan door teams? Ik weet dat niet zeker. Maar zelfs in Nederland ben je nog niet zeker, dus 100% zekerheid heb je dan ook nog niet.

Hebben die teams dan bijvoorbeeld bepaalde boeren waar ze dat vlees vandaan halen? Zodat je dan 'zeker' weet dat het daar niet inzit? Dat weet ik niet. Maar kijk boeren hebben vaak voor hun eigen consumptie een eigen koe, dus dat is ook opmerkelijk. Je hebt het nooit helemaal in de hand. Je kunt hoogstens een koe slachten, dan testen en als het schoon is, eten.

Weet een laboratorium van wie ze de samples controleert? Als een lab iets vindt, dan weet het lab niet wie het betreft. Het lab moet altijd een kopie van de uitslag zenden aan de WADA en de WADA zit er bovenop. Er is nog een verschil tussen MRPL, wat een lab minimaal moet kunnen vinden en je hebt limited identification, dat is wat een lab minimaal kan identificeren conform de regels. Dus als je een vingerafdruk hebt kun je niet op basis

63 van 1 lijntje positief zijn, je hebt een minimum aantal lijntjes nodig om iemand te kunnen identificeren. Er zijn regels voor. Ook voor de identificatie van clenbuterol zijn regels. Maar je kunt ook aanwijzingen hebben, beneden de limited identification heb je nog een limit of detection. Je hebt dan wel aanwijzingen dat er clenbuterol in zit, maar op basis van de regels kun je het niet bewijzen.

Dat is ook met Ovtcharov, er waren bij zijn teamgenoten wel aanwijzingen, maar het was niet te bewijzen, dus die zijn daarom ook niet gestraft. Maar ze konden wel helpen bij de zaak van Ovtcharov, je kunt dan zeggen dat het niet een uniek probleem is, maar een teamprobleem. En in Mexico is het een nationaal probleem. Hoe denkt u dat het clenbuterol probleem opgelost kan worden? Een tolerantielimiet instellen, maar dat wil WADA niet en dan leggen ze toch weer het probleem bij de sporter. Dat vind ik heel triest

Waarom denkt u dat de WADA zo strikt blijft op dit punt? Ik denk dat de WADA meer gefocust is op het pakken van schuldigen dan het niet pakken van onschuldigen. Dit heeft er ook te maken met het feit dat de WADA, die bestuurd wordt politici uit allerlei landen. In andere landen heeft men een andere visie op het drugsbeleid, vaak hypocriet moet ik zeggen, dan wij als Nederlanders. Internationaal gezien is het lastig om daarover te discussiëren want als je zegt dat je Nederlander bent dan is de discussie gewoon al onmogelijk door vooroordelen. Terwijl wij waarschijnlijk ook wel vooroordelen over anderen hebben hoor. Beide partijen hebben vaak hun eigen vooroordelen en dan is de discussie niet mogelijk. Heel veel landen hebben een hypocriet beleid en dat zit allemaal in de WADA. De WADA is dan weer een afspiegeling van dat hypocriete beleid. Nederland wil bijvoorbeeld cannabis van de lijst hebben omdat het niet of nauwelijks prestatie bevorderend is. Terwijl heel veel landen dat er heel strikt op zetten. Een zesde van alle positieven is cannabis! Dat is belachelijk veel. Zeker als je je realiseert hoeveel geld daarin gaat zitten. Het kost heel veel geld om die controles uit te voeren. Het kost heel veel geld voor iets waarbij je grote vraagtekens kunt zetten of het wel prestatiebevorderend is en of het de sport oneerlijk maakt. Het is geen sportspecifiek probleem, maar een maatschappelijk fenomeen. Het heeft niets met sport te maken, het is een afspiegeling wat zich er in de maatschappij plaatsvindt. Waarom zou je het dan in de sportrechtspraak zetten? Dan zou je dat eerder in het strafrecht zetten.

Is het ook zo dat wanneer je in de buurt bent bij mensen die cannabis roken dat het dan ook bij jou gevonden kan worden? Cannabis is een mooi voorbeeld, daar is een tolerantielimiet. Daar is er wel eentje. Er zijn veel meer tolerantielimieten, ook voor morfine. Voor diversen heb je een tolerantiegebied. Dus het hele infrastructuur qua regelgeving is er al. Je moet het alleen toepassen voor clenbuterol. Je kunt met een hele kleine ingreep het heel elegant oplossen en je kunt die 200 picogram die ik voorstel heel gemakkelijk doen. Je moet voor clenbuterol 2 nanogram per mililiter bloed kunnen aantonen. Dat heet de minimum required performance level (MRPL) . Er is een regel die zegt dat je als je op 10% van je MRPL gaat zitten, dat je dat alles tolerantielimiet voor heel veel stoffen mag gebruiken. Dus vandaar dag ik ook aan die 200 picogram ben gekomen. Want een tiende van 2 nanogram is 0.2 nanogram is 200 picogram. Dan kun je dat heel makkelijk implementeren.

Maar nogmaals zoals ik in het begin ook zei, het ligt er net aan hoeveel clenbuterol er in het vlees zit. Het is inmiddels bewezen dat in Mexico voorbeelden zijn gevonden dat je ook op die 2 nanogram kunt zitten, dat is 2000 picogram. Dan pak je nog steeds onschuldigen met die hele conservatieve tolerantielimiet. Maar je kunt er al wel een aantal sporters mee helpen.

Zal het niet zo zijn dat, stel dat er een tolerantielimiet wordt ingesteld, dat degene die boven deze limiet vallen dan ook zeer streng bestraft worden omdat de WADA dan meent dat het dan niet door vleesconsumptie kan komen? Juridisch zullen ze dat doen, maar nu doen ze dat met 1 molecuul boven de nul. Een molecuul is voldoende om gestraft te worden. Dat is niet aan te tonen, maar het is wel voldoende. Voor cannabis krijgt men geen twee jaar schorsing ook al komt men boven de limiet. Dan krijgen ze meestal 6 maanden schorsing en in sommige landen slechts een waarschuwing, tot afgrijzen van de WADA. Voor de andere voorbeelden wordt je gewoon gestraft en je kunt zeggen daarmee creëer je ook een soort minum allow limit. Net zoals met een snelheidsbeperking rijdt men net iets harder dan de limiet want dan krijg je nog geen boete. Dat zou je met dit ook kunnen krijgen. En dat gebeurt ook, met testosteron bijvoorbeeld. Je kunt dan dus nog wat testosteron gebruiken voordat je betrapt wordt. Dat is een mooi voorbeeld dat het daar wel wordt getolereerd.

Als je kijkt naar alle sporters die beschuldigd zijn van clenbuterol, na de affaire Contador, waarbij dat echt is gaan spelen, zijn ze eigenlijk allemaal vrij gesproken. Behalve Contador. Daarvoor zijn er wel mensen bestraft, maar dat komt doordat dopingautoriteiten blind waren voor het probleem. Ik denk dat men Contador gewoon wil pakken. Ze hebben denk ik het sterke vermoeden dat hij bloedtransfusie heeft toegepast. Ze denken dat hij toentertijd clenbuterol heeft gebruikt en dat er nog een spoortje in zat. En daardoor wil men hem pakken. Dat is een voorbeeld van dat ze vermoeden dat hij schuldig is en dan zoeken ze ten koste van alles een weg om hem te pakken en dan vallen er ondertussen andere slachtoffers. Ik denk dat de WADA heel erg gefocust is op Contador en dat ze daarom niet zo'n tolerantielimiet willen toestaan. En als ze hem zouden willen toestaan, dan zullen ze dat pas doen als de affaire Contador helemaal is afgelopen.

In mijn optiek zijn het vaak hele subjectieve beslissingen, of iemand wel of geen sanctie krijgt, per rechter, per adviseur die je hebt verschilt het. Dat het dus wat clenbuterol betreft alles behalve transparant is.

ANNEX II Scheme of levels of clenbuterol found, different athletes

Case Concentration Estimated time period Claimed origin Relative risk of of Clenbuterol between last claimed ofClenbuterol Clenbuterol as observed and/or assumed ingestion contaminated contamination and/or reported versus beginning of testing meat (athlete and nationality involved)

± SD (ng/L) ± SD (hours)

Unrelated cases of clenbuterol Adverse Analytical Findings in professional cycling

A 28 ± 2¶ 96 ± 8 Mexico High (Rudi van Houts-NL)

¶ B1 49 ± 9 24 ± 2 Spain Low (Alberto Contador-ESP)

 B2 16 48 ± 4 Spain Low (Alberto Contador-ESP)

 B3 7 72 ± 6 Spain Low (Alberto Contador-ESP)

 B4 17 96 ± 8 Spain Low (Alberto Contador-ESP)

C 108 ± 29¶ 96 ± 8 China High (Li Fuyu-CHN)

¶ Based on raw data obtained from Laboratory Document Packages of respective samples;  Document Interpretation of longitudinal study case UCI10-01 supplement, DSHS 27/09/10; Group related cases of clenbuterol Adverse Analytical Findings in professional cycling

D 200,§ 24 ± 2 Mexico High (Alessendro Colò-ITA)

E 300¶ ? Mexico High (Philip Nielsen-DEN)

¶ Based on raw data obtained from Laboratory Document Packages of respective samples;  Document N. 80/2010 CONI Tribunale Nazionale Antidoping, 08/10/10; § http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5957/Italian-rider-Colo-given-a-reduced-ban-for- Clenbuterol-positive.aspx Group related cases of clenbuterol findings and/or Adverse Analytical Findings in professional soccer †,‡

F 600 60 ± 30 Mexico High (Christian Bermúdez- MEX)

G 800 60 ± 30 Mexico High (Edgar Dueñas-MEX)

H 1100 60 ± 30 Mexico High (Guillermo Ochoa-MEX)

I 1300 60 ± 30 Mexico High (Francisco Rodríguez- MEX)

J 4200 60 ± 30 Mexico High (Antonio Naelson-MEX)

† http://laprimeraplana.com.mx/2011/06/17/resultados-oficiales-de-pruebas-antidoping-a-seleccionados/; ‡ http://guadalajarareporter.com/sports-mainmenu-89/29101-five-mexican-soccer-stars-test-positive-for-clenbuterol.html

Group related cases of clenbuterol findings and/or Adverse Analytical Findings in table tennis ₤

N 75 84 ± 45 China High (Dimitrij Ovtcharov-GER)

O 2.5 108 ± 45 China High (team player no. 2-GER)

P 5 108 ± 45 China High (team player no. 3-GER)

Q 7.1 108 ± 45 China High (team player no. 4-GER) R 10 108 ± 45 China High (team player no. 5-GER)