DOCSLIB.ORG

Arbitral Award Court of Arbitration for Sport

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arbitral Award Court of Arbitration for Sport CAS 2017/A/5422 Aleksandr Zubkov v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT sitting in the following composition: President: Prof. Dr. Christoph Vedder, Law Professor in Munich, Germany Arbitrators: Dr. Hamid G. Gharavi, Attorney-at-Law in Paris, France Dr. Dirk-Reiner Martens, Attorney-at-Law in Munich, Germany Ad hoc Clerk: Mr. Edward Craven, Barrister in London, United Kingdom in the arbitration between Aleksandr Zubkov, Russia Represented by Mr. Philippe Bärtsch and Mr. Christopher Boog, Attorneys-at-Law with Schellenberg Wittmer LLP in Geneva, Switzerland Appellant and International Olympic Committee, Switzerland Represented by Mr. Jean-Pierre Morand, Mr. David Casserly, and Mr. Nicolas Français, Attorneys-at-Law with Kellerhals Carrard in Lausanne, Switzerland, and Ms. Tamara Soupiron, Legal Counsel, International Olympic Committee Respondent CAS 2017/A/5422 Aleksandr Zubkov v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) – Page 2 Table of Contents I. Parties ............................................................................................................................. 7 II. Factual Background ...................................................................................................... 7 A. Background Facts ......................................................................................................... 7 1. Facts Common to the Sochi Appeals .......................................................................... 7 a. The Sochi Games and the emergence of allegations of systematic doping and evasion of doping controls by Russian athletes…………………………………......7 b. The WADA Independent Commission……………………………………………8 c. The WADA Independent Person Reports (the McLaren Reports)……………..9 d. The IOC Disciplinary Commission's Report to the IOC Executive Board (the Schmid Report)…..………………………...………………………………………...11 e. The IOC Disciplinary Commission……...……………………………………….13 2. Facts related to the Athlete ........................................................................................ 13 B. Proceedings against the Athlete before the IOC Disciplinary Commission .......... 13 III. Proceedings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport ........................................... 19 IV. Submissions of the Parties .......................................................................................... 23 A. The Athlete’s submissions .......................................................................................... 23 1. Issues common to the Sochi Appeals………………………………………………..23 a. The IOC DC's reasoning and general approach to the evidence………………23 b. The Sochi Appellants’ due process rights ......................................................... ..24 c. The burden and standard of proof ....................................................................... 25 d. The alleged ADRVs under the WADC ................................................................ 26 e. The evidence against the Sochi Appellants, Dr. Rodchenkov’s testimony ....... 27 f. Direct evidence regarding the commission of ADRVs by the Sochi Appellants ……………………….………………………………………………..………………29 g. Indirect evidence regarding ADRVs by the Sochi Appellants .......................... 30 (i) Scratch Marks……………………….……………..…………………….30 (ii) Salt Content……………...……………………………………..………..32 (iii) DNA Analysis………………………………………………...………….33 (iv) Duchess List.…………...………………………………………...……....34 (v) Prof. McLaren's Reports…………………………………….………….34 h. Appropriate Sanctions ......................................................................................... 35 2. Issues in the Athlete's appeal………………………………………………………..36 B. The Respondent’s submissions .................................................................................. 38 1. Issues common to the Sochi Appeals……………………………………………….38 a. Background to the alleged doping and cover-up scheme………………………..38 b. Forensic Evidence…………………………………………………………………42 CAS 2017/A/5422 Aleksandr Zubkov v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) – Page 3 (i) Scratch Marks…………………………………………………………….42 (ii) Salt Content………………………………………………………………43 (iii) DNA Analysis……………………………………………………………44 c. Dr. Rodchenkov’s Testimony ............................................................................... 45 d. Burden and Standard of Proof…………………………………………………..46 e. Tampering, Article 2.5 and 2.2 of the WADC .................................................... 49 f. Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance, Article 2.2 of the WADC ... 50 g. Cover-Up / Complicity, Article 2.8 of the WADC .............................................. 50 h. Due Process Rights ................................................................................................ 51 i. Sanctions ................................................................................................................ 52 2. Submissions as to the Athlete's appeal……………………………....…………...…53 V. Hearing ......................................................................................................................... 55 A. The Joint Hearing on the Sochi Appeals .................................................................. 58 1. Opening Statements.................................................................................................... 58 a. The Athlete…………………..…………………………………………………….58 b. The Respondent………………..…………………………………………………60 2. Evidentiary Proceedings……….………………………………………………........61 a. Factual Evidence……………..…………………………………………………...61 (i) Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov………………………………………….….....61 (ii) Prof. Richard McLaren………………………………………………….68 (iii) Evgeny Kudryavtsev…………………………..………………………...72 (iv) Yuri Chizhov……………………………...…………………………...…73 (v) Grigory Krotov……………………………..……………………………75 (vi) Maxim Verevkin……………………………...………………………….77 (vii) Andrey Knyazev……………………...…………………………………78 (viii) Thierry Boghossian………………………………………………….....79 b. Expert forensic evidence on bottle opening………………..……………………80 (i) Prof. Christophe Champod…………………………………….………..80 (ii) Report of the Swedish National Forensic Centre………………………89 (iii) Geoffrey Arnold…………………………………………...…………….90 (iv) Alexey Bushin and Evgeniya Burova……………………………….….93 c. Expert DNA evidence ............................................................................................ 95 (i) Dr. Vincent Castella………………………………………………………95 (ii) Dr. Susan Pope……………………………………………………………97 d. Expert evidence on salt content ......................................................................... 100 (i) Prof. Michael Burnier…………………………………..………………100 CAS 2017/A/5422 Aleksandr Zubkov v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) – Page 4 (ii) Dr. David M. Charytan………………………………...……………….107 e. Athlete specific testimony of Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov………………………..112 B. The Athlete’s Individual Hearing ........................................................................... 113 1. Testimony of the Athlete…………………………………………………………...113 2. Closing statements related to the Athlete………………………………………….115 a. The Athlete………………………………………..……………………………..115 b. The Respondent………………………………………..………………………..116 C. Final Pleadings .......................................................................................................... 116 1. The Athlete………………………………………………...………………………..116 2. The Respondent…………………………………………….………………………120 3. Closing of the Hearing……………………………………………………………...123 VI. Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................ 123 VII. Admissibility .............................................................................................................. 124 VIII. Applicable Law .......................................................................................................... 124 IX. Merits ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. A. Legal basis for determination of an individual ADRV ........................................ 125 1. Definition of ADRVs………………………………………………………….…….125 2. Burden, standard and means of proof…………………………………………….126 a. Burden of Proof, Art. 3.1 of the WADC………………………………………..126 b. Standard of Proof, Art. 3.1 of the WADC…………………………..………… 126 c. Means of Proof, Art. 3.2 of the WADC………………………….……….……..128 B. Commission of ADRVs by the Athlete………………………..……………………130 1. The Panel's Approach……………..……………………………………………….130 2. Use of a Prohibited Substance or Method, Art. 2.2 of the WADC………………131 a. Use of a Prohibited Method………………………………………………...…...132 (i) Prohibited Method: urine substitution………………………………...132 (ii) Commission of acts facilitating urine substitution………….…………133 (aa) Provision of clean urine……………………………………….135 (bb) Duchess List…………………………………………………...135 (cc) Deliberate limited closure of the sample bottles……………..137 (dd) Transmission of the Doping Control Form……………….….138 (iii) Sample-swapping………………………………………………………139 (aa) Multiple T marks indicative of bottle opening…..………….139 (bb) Elevated salt content ……………………………..…………..141 (cc) Mixed DNA indicative of bottle opening…………………..…144 (dd) Testimony of Dr. Rodchenkov specific to the Athlete………145 CAS 2017/A/5422 Aleksandr Zubkov v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) – Page 5 (iv) Conclusion on the use of a prohibited method……………………….145 b. Use of a Prohibited Substance…………………………………………..146 (i) Provision of clean urine…………………………………………………147 (ii) Duchess List………………………………………………………….….147 (iii) Deliberate limited closure of the sample bottles and transmission of the DCF……………………………………………………………………...147
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Probative Value of the Mclaren Report Confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) by Robert Neron, SDRCC Arbitrator
    The Probative Value of the McLaren Report Confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) by Robert Neron, SDRCC Arbitrator February 2018 The decisions rendered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne over the past 18 months were largely influenced by revelations of Russia's state-run doping scheme and suspension of Russian athletes. An in-depth investigation into the involvement of Russian athletes in doping activities was launched in December 2014 after German radio-television broadcaster ARD revealed a government-sponsored doping program in Russia reminiscent of former practices in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. Following ARD’s broadcast and witness testimony from a former director of the Russian laboratory regarding systematic doping and cover-up attempts involving athletes competing in the 2014 Olympic Winter Games in Sochi,1 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appointed Richard McLaren, Professor of Law at Western University and member of the SDRCC’s inaugural roster, to chair an independent commission. The first part of McLaren’s findings, submitted in July 2016, provided substantive evidence of the systematic, state-sponsored manipulation of the doping control process2 that occurred before the 2014 Olympic Winter Games and continuing afterward in the run-up to the 2016 Olympic Summer Games in Rio. These findings prompted the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) to indefinitely suspend Russia from world athletics events. In addition, WADA announced that the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) should be considered in violation of WADA rules. WADA further recommended banning Russia entirely from the 2016 Olympic Games.
    [Show full text]
  • 5427 Ilvir Khuzin V
    Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2017/A/5427 Ilvir Khuzin v. International Olympic Committee (IOC), award of 23 July 2018 (operative part of 1 February 2018) Panel: Prof. Christoph Vedder (Germany), President; Mr Hamid Gharavi (France); Mr Dirk-Reiner Martens (Germany) Bobsleigh Doping (use of a prohibited substance or method; tampering with doping control; cover-up of and complicity in the commission of an ADRV) Standard of proof in general Standard of proof with regard to the alleged doping scheme Means of proof Liability of the athlete in case of substitution of the content of his/her sample Elevated urinary sodium concentrations Use of a prohibited method Use of a prohibited substance Tampering with any part of doping control Administration of a prohibited method or substance to an athlete Cover-up of or complicity in the commission of an ADRV Consequences to the team of the disqualification of a team member’s individual results Appropriate length of the Olympic ineligibility 1. The comfortable satisfaction standard is well-known in CAS practice, as it has been the normal CAS standard in many anti-doping cases even prior to the World Anti- Doping Code (WADC). The test of comfortable satisfaction must take into account the circumstances of the case. Those circumstances include the paramount importance of fighting corruption of any kind in sport and also considering the nature and restricted powers of the investigation authorities of the governing bodies of sport as compared to national formal interrogation authorities. The gravity of the particular alleged wrongdoing is relevant to the application of the comfortable satisfaction standard in any given case.
    [Show full text]
  • The Negative Implications of Russia's Doping Scandal on The
    http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/1427-9657.08.07 EASTERN REVIEW 2019, T. 8 Anna Kobierecka https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2492-6452 University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland Faculty of International Relations and Political Science e-mail: [email protected] Michał Marcin Kobierecki https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8180-5710 University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland Faculty of International Relations and Political Science e-mail: [email protected] The negative implications of Russia’s doping scandal on the country’s international image* Abstract. In December 2014, Russia was accused of developing a state-organized doping system in the second decade of the twenty-first century. The scandal resulted in many Russian athletes being banned from competing in the Olympics in Rio in 2016 and the IOC’s suspension of the Russian National Olympic Committee prior to the 2018 Winter Olympics in PyeongChang. The research presented in this article aims to answer the research question of whether the doping scandal actually affected the international image of Russia. The research was conducted with the use of frame analysis of public discourse. The hypothesis to be tested states that the Russian doping scandal contributed to the intensification of a negative external image of this state. Keywords: Russia, doping, sports diplomacy, nation branding, image of a country. * This work was supported by National Science Centre, Poland grant number 2015/19/D/ HS5/00513, grant holder: Michał Marcin Kobierecki). © by the author, licensee Łódź University – Łódź University Press, Łódź, Poland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 162 Anna Kobierecka, Michał Marcin Kobierecki Introduction Sports are believed to play various political roles, both in states’ internal policies and in international relations.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on World Anti-Doping Agency Governance As Required by House Report 116-456 May 17, 2021
    EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY Washington, DC 20503 Report on World Anti-Doping Agency Governance as required by House Report 116-456 May 17, 2021 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is pleased to have this opportunity to update Members of Congress on the fight against doping and the ongoing efforts at governance reform within the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). As the sole international regulatory body against doping in sport, WADA has a unique responsibility to ensure that international competitions, especially the Olympic and Paralympic Games, are fairly conducted with the highest possible standards of integrity. Significant additional reforms to the way WADA is structured and operates are required to ensure that the organization is able operate with “independence and transparency of its operations, enhancing the role of athletes in WADA decision-making, and restoring confidence in clean competition.”1 ONDCP recognizes that this degree of change is challenging to accomplish and will require dialogue and cooperation among all key stakeholders. This Report provides an overview of the threat of doping and related corruption to sport (Section 1); then describes the progress of reform at WADA to date (Section 2); and follows with a discussion of the top ten reform challenges faced by WADA and its stakeholders, accompanied by a roadmap on how to begin addressing them (Section 3). It is WADA’s job to monitor anti-doping programs including drug testing, not just during the Olympics, but year-round. Elite athletes who participate in doping often do so with the assistance of highly skilled scientists who carefully develop protocols to reduce or eliminate the chances they will be caught.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hundred Russian Whistleblowers the Subject Referring to Protection Of
    Report of the International Human Rights Group Agora The hundred Russian whistleblowers The subject referring to protection of individuals who reveal information about violations to the public gets more and more topical not only in Russia, where the whistleblowers are regularly subjected to retaliation, including murders, violence, prosecution and imposing of disciplinary measures, but also in the rest of the world. The questions relevant to protection of whistleblowers have become subject to discussions in the UN, OSCE, Council of Europe, OECD, the bodies of the European Union and the G20. Up to date the national legislations of more than 60 countries envisage various measures aimed at guaranteeing of security and protection from retaliation of individuals who objectively act in favor of society by revealing of inaccessible information. The review of the subject relevant to protection of whistleblowers shall include the existing materials in the field. Mainly the Project on basic principles of laws on reporting of facts about corruption and illegal activities1 realized by Transparency International and the report of experts of this organization published in 2012 on ‘Corruption Reporting and Whistleblower Protection’2 describing in details the existing international and foreign approaches that may be used at elaboration of mechanisms for protection of individuals who report violations of greater size. The assurance of access to information is one of the problems closely related to the protection of whistleblowers. According to a report of Team 29 ‘The right to know’ the practice in Russia when it comes to assurance of access to information is not always in conformity to the international requirements and often contradicts to these requirements3.
    [Show full text]
  • Doping in Olympic Sports and Rio 2016 Games
    Proceeding Supplementary Issue: Rio 2016 Olympic Games First Anniversary Special Edition. Olympic Studies Forum, 4-5 August 2017. Santa Úrsula University. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Laboratory performance: Doping in Olympic sports and Rio 2016 Games RANDEANTONY C. NASCIMENTO1,2,3,4 , AILTON FERNANDO S. DE OLIVEIRA1,2,3, JUAN JOSÉ FERNÁNDEZ ROMERO4,5, SARAH CRISTINA MONTES CANUTO1,2,3 1SCENARIOS / UFS Group, Brazil 2Research Center for Sports and Leisure Policies of Sergipe – CDPPEL, Brazil 3Federal University of Sergipe, Brazil 4University of La Coruña, Spain 5National Institute of Physical Education - INEF GALÍCIA, Spain ABSTRACT Doping is defined by the World Anti-Doping Agency Code as the use of substances or methods capable of artificially increasing sports performance, whether they are potentially harmful to athletes health or to his opponents, or to the game spirit. The Olympic Sport deals daily with this competitor “off the beaten track” of the highest competence. This article was based on the reports on the anti-doping control situation in the Olympic Games in Brazil issued by the specialist of the US Congressional Research Service, the IAAF sanctioned positive athletics report, of the International Olympic Committee that dealt with the fight against doping and health promotion of athletes, the Independent Observer Reports of the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. A special highlight was the doping cases orchestrated by the Russia Athletic Federation, as well as the efforts of institutions responsible for the fight against doping in the protection of clean athletes. The fight against doping in the Olympic Games in Brazil was classified as the worst anti-doping in the history of games, based on the volunteers organization and the effectiveness of the tests performed.
    [Show full text]
  • DECISION IOC Disciplinary Commission
    DECISION of the IOC Disciplinary Commission sitting in the following composition: Denis Oswald, Chairman Juan Antonio Samaranch Tony Estanguet in the proceedings against Olga ZAYTSEVA born on 16 May 1978, Russian Federation, Athlete, Biathlon (SML-036) SML-036 TABLE OF CONTENT I. FACTS .. ........................................................................................................................................... 4 II. APPLICABLE RULES ...................................................................................................................... 9 Ill. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 13 A. MISSION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION ............................................................... 13 B. CONDUCT OF INDIVIDUAL PROCEEDINGS ...................................................................... 13 C. PROOF ................................................................................................................................... 14 D. THE EVIDENCE AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION ................... 15 a. Evidence obtained from Prof. Mclaren .......................................................................... 15 1. The Mclaren Report and the Affidavit from Prof. Mclaren .................................... 15 2. EDPs and Dossier of Evidence ............................................................................... 17 (i) Sochi Duchess List (EDP0055) ............................
    [Show full text]
  • Support for Federal Anti-Doping Bill Seems to Be Waning by Gavin Parrish and Miguel Salcedo (November 6, 2019, 4:59 PM EST)
    Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th Floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] Support For Federal Anti-Doping Bill Seems To Be Waning By Gavin Parrish and Miguel Salcedo (November 6, 2019, 4:59 PM EST) In 2016, whistleblower Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov exposed the massive Russian state- sponsored doping that took place during the 2014 Sochi Olympics. The international outcry, and the weak response from the International Olympic Committee was chronicled in 2017’s Academy award-winning documentary, “Icarus.”[1] In January, the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act[2] was introduced in both houses of Congress with bipartisan sponsorship, responding to the widely perceived lackadaisical enforcement by the World Anti-Doping Agency and the IOC. RADA would target individuals (e.g., doctors, trainers) participating in international Gavin Parrish doping fraud conspiracies anywhere in the world where Americans compete with foreign athletes, with penalties including fines up to $1 million or 10 years imprisonment, depending on the offense and the number of people involved. It would also provide restitution to victims of such conspiracies, extend statute of limitations for penalties and protect individuals who report violations (such as eponymous whistleblower Dr. Rodchenkov, who remains in hiding under U.S. protection). Although RADA does not seem to be a high priority in today’s polarized political climate, it represents the latest in an ongoing effort by U.S. law enforcement to Miguel Salcedo pursue anyone using U.S. dollars, the U.S. banking system or its territory to plan or conduct an illegal act, in sports and otherwise.
    [Show full text]
  • WSA June 2018
    CASE LAW image: David Madison / Stockbyte / GettyImages Claude Ramoni Partner [email protected] Libra Law, Lausanne Analysis of the awards Zubkov and Legkov v. the IOC On 1 February 2018, five days before the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympic Games in PyeongChang, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (‘CAS’) was facing heavy scrutiny from its critics. On that day, it was announced that the CAS Panel had decided to cancel the sanctions imposed by the International Olympic Committee (‘IOC’) Disciplinary Commission on 28 Russian athletes (out of 39 appeals decided by the CAS) resulting from the Sochi doping scandal. As a result, 28 Russian athletes were cleared to compete and were not facing any disciplinary consequences further to the alleged doping practices revealed by the McLaren Report. IOC President Thomas Bach was bitterly against the decision issued by the CAS and called for an urgent need to “reform” the CAS; IOC and ICAS member Dick Pound described the CAS decision not to sanction the 28 Russian athletes as “perverse.” At that time, such comments were made without knowing the grounds for the award, which were finally issued on 23 April 2018. In this article Claude Ramoni, Partner at Libra Law, explores some explanations on why the CAS came to the opposite conclusion to the IOC in the matter of those 28 Russian athletes. Background - the IOC Disciplinary the McLaren Report and afdavit by Dr gravity of the urinary sample; and (v) Commission decisions Rodchenkov - was indeed in place and witness testimony of Dr Rodchenkov, Further to the Sochi doping scandal implemented on the occasion of the notably based on his notes and diaries revealed by the McLaren Report, the Sochi Olympic Games.
    [Show full text]
  • Arbitral Award Court of Arbitration for Sport
    CAS 2016/A/4708 Belarus Canoe Association & Belarusian Senior Men’s Canoe and Kayak team members v. International Canoe Federation (ICF) ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT sitting in the following composition: President: Prof. Dr. Michael Geistlinger, Professor in Salzburg, Austria Arbitrators: Mr. Romano F. Subiotto Q.C., attorney-at-law in Brussels, Belgium, and London, United Kingdom Prof. Dr. Martin Schimke, attorney-at-law in Düsseldorf, Germany in the arbitration between Belarus Canoe Association, Minsk, Belarus Represented by Mr, Vasili Volozhinets, Danilevich Volozhinets Law Office, Minsk, Belarus & Belarusian Senior Men’s Canoe and Kayak team members, Minsk, Belarus Represented by Mr Jean-Marc Reymond, Reymond & Associés, Lausanne, Switzerland. Appellants and International Canoe Federation (ICF), Lausanne, Switzerland Represented by Mr Jorge Ibarrola and Mr Claude Ramoni, Libra Law Ibarrola & Ramoni, Lausanne, Switzerland Respondent CAS 2016/A/4708 – Page 2 I. PARTIES 1. The Belarus Canoe Association (“BCA”) is the national governing body for the sport of Canoe and Kayak in the Republic of Belarus with its headquarters in Minsk. It is affiliated to the International Canoe Federation. The BCA includes the members of the Belarusian senior men’s kayak team (Mr. Raman Piatrushenka, Mr. Vitaliy Bialko, Mr. Aleh Yurenia, Mr. Pavel Miadzvedzeu, Mr. Vadzim Makhneu, Mr. Taras Valko, Mr. Aliaksandr Liapeshka, Mr. Andrei Tsarykovich, Mr. Ihar Baicheuski, Mr. Ivan Tsuranau, Mr. Dzmitry Khilchanka, Mr. Spartak Bazhkou, Mr. Mikita Borykau, Mr. Stanislau Daineka, Mr. Dzimtry Tratsiakou), the Belarusian senior men’s canoe team (Mr. Aliaksandr Bahdanovich, Mr. Andrei Bahdanovich, Mr. Dzianis Harazha, Mr. Dzmitry Rabchanka, Mr. Dzmitry Vaitsishkin, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Annotated Version of the ONDCP Report
    OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT WITOLD BANKA 26 June 2020 The Honorable James W. Carroll Director Office of National Drug Control Policy Washington, D.C. Re.: ONDCP Report to the United States Congress Dear Mr. Carroll, Dear James, The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has long valued the U.S. as an important stakeholder that contributes significantly to WADA, to the fight against doping in sport in general and to the protection of American athletes. It is therefore with great disappointment that I read the ONDCP Report of 17 June to the U.S. Congress, regarding WADA Reform Efforts. Given that, during our 12 June telephone meeting, we discussed a renewed spirit of cooperation, I would have expected your office to have consulted us on the Report; or, at the very least, to have verified the factual veracity of the allegations being made against WADA. Instead, in the days before publication, you informed us of the impending Report and asked us to verify three paragraphs by a certain deadline; and, when we did so in good faith, you chose not to incorporate our clarifications. As the saying goes, ‘why let the truth get in the way of a good story’? Attached you will find an Executive Summary summarizing WADA’s views on the ONDCP Report; and, the Report itself with our annotations in red, which outline the misleading information and inaccuracies that the Report contains; and, what the Report omits in terms of factual information. I would kindly ask that you transmit this version to Congress without delay and that you let me know when this has been done.
    [Show full text]
  • Icarus Discussion Guide
    www.influencefilmclub.com Icarus Discussion Guide Director: Bryan Fogel Year: 2017 Time: 121 min You might know this director from: This is the debut feature-length documentary from this director. FILM SUMMARY Filmmaker Bryan Fogel has long been a semi-serious cyclist, participating in amateur races the world over, even going so far as to compete in the Haute Route, an annual tour through the French Alps that he’s described as “the single hardest amateur bike race in the world.” Without the aid of performance enhancing drugs, Fogel finished 14th in a field of more than four hundred. But, he wondered, how well would he do if he had been doped up? Not only that, but if he went on a professional doping regimen, could he document his experience and use it to expose the dangers of doping and the systemic flaws in the anti-doping test practices, as Morgan Spurlock had done so successfully with the fast food industry in SUPER SIZE ME? This is where ICARUS began, but no one could have guessed where this inquiry would lead. In a stroke of luck, Fogel successfully enlisted the top Russian anti-doping expert, Grigory Rodchenkov, to assist him with plotting out and following through with his very first doping regimen. He communicated with the jovial scientist via Skype, until they meet in person months later to complete some initial tests of Bryan’s progress. But why would an anti-doping expert agree to collaborate on this illegal project? Fogel had the same question. As it turned out, Rodchenkov and his lab were under investigation by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for possible crimes related to doping during the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, Russia.
    [Show full text]