Source: http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=62704&view=unread
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:24:09+00:00

Document:
Denys Yurchenko has been disqualified for doping.
Olympiad in Beijing in 2008 (the “2008 Olympic Games”).
2. From 20 August 2008 to 22 August 2008, the Athlete competed in the Men’s pole vault event (Qualification and Final) in which he ranked 3rd and for which he was awarded a bronze medal.
3. On 22 August 2008, on the occasion of the Final, the Athlete was requested to provide a urine sample for a doping control. Such sample was identified with the number 1846077.
4. The A-Sample 1846077 was analysed during the 2008 Olympic Games by the WADA- accredited Laboratory in Beijing. Such analysis did not result in an adverse analytical finding at that time.
5. After the conclusion of the 2008 Olympic Games, all the samples collected upon the occasion of the 2008 Olympic Games were transferred to the WADA-accredited “Laboratoire suisse d’analyse du dopage” in Lausanne, Switzerland (“the Laboratory”) for long-term storage.
6. The IOC decided to perform further analyses on samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were notably performed with improved analytical methods using more sensitive equipment and/or searching for new metabolites in order to possibly detect Prohibited Substances which were not identified by the analysis performed at the time of the 2008 Olympic Games.
8. The decision to proceed based on split B-samples was made in principle for all the re- analysis.
9. This choice was made in view of the fact that during the transfer of the samples from the Beijing laboratory to the Laboratory, the A-Samples were not individually resealed nor transported in sealed containers.
10. At that time, resealing of A-Samples (or transport in sealed containers) was not a requirement pursuant to the applicable ISL (2008).
11. However, it was felt that the option to rely on the B-Sample constituted an additional precaution securing the strength and reliability of the analytical process.
12. A similar precautious approach was adopted with regard to the implementation of the analytical process and notably of its first phase (opening and splitting of the B-Sample into a B1- and B2-Sample, sealing of the B2-Sample and analysis of the B1-Sample).
13. Pursuant to the ISL, the presence of the Athlete is not a requirement for such first phase of the B-Sample analysis.
14. The IOC nevertheless decided, once again as a matter of principle, that, whenever this was practically possible, the Athlete would be offered the opportunity to attend the above described first phase of the B-sample procedure.
15. The remains of the A-Sample of the Athlete were subject to initial analysis. Such analysis resulted in a Presumptive Adverse Analytical Finding (“PAAF”) as it indicated the potential presence of a Prohibited Substance: dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol).
16. On 11 July 2016, the Athlete through his NOC was informed of the PAAF and of the possibility to attend the opening and splitting of the B-Sample into a B1- and B2-Sample, the sealing of the B2-Sample and the analysis of the B1-Sample. The process was initially scheduled to take place between 18 and 26 July 2016.
17. The Athlete did not reply.
18. On 15 July 2016, the Athlete through his NOC was invited once again to indicate whether he would attend the opening and splitting of the B-Sample, the sealing of the B2-Sample and the analysis of the B1-Sample. The Athlete was advised that in the absence of an answer, the process would take place in any event and that in this case the opening, splitting of the B-Sample and the sealing of the B2-Sample would be attended by an independent witness. The Athlete was finally advised that in accordance with Art. 7.3.3 of the Rules, notice to an athlete was deemed to be accomplished by delivery of the notice to the NOC.
19. The Athlete did not reply.
20. On the same day, the NOC was requested by the IOC to confirm whether the Athlete had been informed of the present proceedings. The IOC reminded the NOC the content of Art. 7.3.3 of the Rules.
21. The NOC did not reply.
22. On 20 July 2016, the IOC asked to the NOC to confirm whether an NOC representative would be sent to attend the opening, splitting of the B-Sample and the sealing of the B2- Sample. The NOC was once again requested to indicate whether the Athlete had been informed of the present proceedings.
23. The NOC informed the IOC that an NOC representative would attend the process.
24. On 21 July 2016, the IOC informed the Athlete through his NOC that the opening, splitting of the B-Sample, the sealing of the B2-Sample and the analysis of the B-Sample would take place on 25 July 2016 at the Laboratory. The Athlete was reminded the content of Art. 7.3.3 of the Rules.
25. On the same day, the IOC requested the NOC to confirm whether the Athlete was informed of the proceedings.
26. The opening and splitting of the B-Sample, the sealing of the B2-Sample occurred on 25 July 2016 at the Laboratory.
27. The Athlete did not attend the opening and splitting of the B-Sample and was not represented on this occasion.
28. As provided in the ISL, the opening and splitting was attended by an independent witness.
29. The results of the B1-Sample analysis were reported on 28 July 2016. These results establish the presence of the metabolites of a Prohibited Substance, namely dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol).
30. Such results constitute an Adverse Analytical Finding. They were reported to the IOC in accordance with article 7.2.1 of the Rules.
31. Further to the verifications set forth in Art. 7.2.2 of the Rules and in application of Art. 7.2.3 of the Rules, the IOC President, Mr Thomas Bach, was informed of the existence of the AAF and the essential details available concerning the case.
33. On 29 July 2016, the IOC notified the Athlete through his NOC of the above-mentioned AAF and of the institution of disciplinary proceedings to be conducted by the Disciplinary Commission. The IOC also informed the Athlete of his right to request and attend the opening of the B2-Sample and its analysis, either in person and/or through a representative, which was initially scheduled to take place on 8 or 9 August 2016. The Athlete was finally informed of his right to request a copy of the laboratory documentation package.
34. In the same communication, the Athlete was advised that failing to request the opening and analysis of the B2-Sample, he would be considered as having waived his right to have the B2-Sample analysed.
35. The Athlete did not reply.
opening and analysis of the B2-Sample and whether he requested a copy of the laboratory documentation package.
37. In the same communication, the IOC advised the Athlete that in accordance with Art. 7.3.3 of the Rules, the previous correspondences were deemed notified to him. The Athlete was further advised that in the event he did not respond, the IOC might elect not to proceed with the analysis of the B2-Sample and to proceed directly to the disciplinary proceedings on the B1-Sample analysis results only.
38. On the same day, the NOC and the IF were requested by the IOC to take further actions with the National Federation (“NF”) concerned in order to contact the Athlete. The IOC reminded the NOC of the content of Art. 7.3.3 of the Rules.
39. The NOC and the IF did not reply.
40. On 12 August 2016, the IOC sent a reminder to the Athlete through his NOC. The content of Art. 7.3.3 of the Rules was reminded to the Athlete. The IOC also advised the Athlete that due to the lack of response, it had been decided not to proceed with the analysis of the B2-Sample. The IOC invited the Athlete to indicate by 17 August 2016 whether he would attend the hearing of the Disciplinary Commission and/or he would submit a defence in writing.
41. On the same day, the NOC and the IF were invited to provide the IOC with the full contact information of the Athlete.
42. Neither the NOC nor the IF replied.
43. On 26 September 2016, the IOC granted the Athlete an additional deadline until 5 October 2016 to complete and return the Disciplinary Commission Form. The Athlete was advised that in the event no reply was given to this correspondence, the Disciplinary Commission would issue a decision on the basis of the file.
44. The Athlete did not reply.
45. On 11 October 2016, the IOC advised the Athlete, through his NOC, that the Disciplinary Commission would issue a decision on the basis of the file. The Athlete was invited to submit a written defence by 21 October 2016.
46. On the same day, the NOC and the IF were invited to file written observations by 21 October 2016.
47. The Athlete did not reply.
48. On 24 October 2016, the IOC granted the Athlete, through his NOC, an additional deadline until 26 October 2016 to submit a defence in writing.
49. The Athlete did not reply.
50. The NOC and the IF did not file any written observations.
51. These proceedings are conducted in application of the Rules.
“The presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s bodily Specimen.
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 bodily Specimens. 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.
2.1.2 Excepting those substances for which a quantitative reporting threshold is specifically identified in the Prohibited List, the detected presence of any quantity of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation.
“The IOC is responsible for Doping Control during the Period of the Olympic Games. The IOC is entitled to delegate all or part of its responsibility for Doping Control to one or several other organisations.
The Period of the Olympic Games, or In-Competition Period, is defined as “the period commencing on the date of the opening of the Olympic village for the Olympic Games, namely, 27 July 2008 up until and including the day of the closing ceremony of the Olympic Games, namely, 24 August 2008.
All Athletes participating at the Olympic Games shall be subject, during the Period of the Olympic Games, to Doping Control initiated by the IOC at any time or place, with No Advance Notice. Such Doping Control may include Testing for all Prohibited Substances and all Prohibited Methods referred to in the Prohibited List.
f) the composition of the Disciplinary Commission.
61. The results of the analysis of the sample provided by the Athlete establish the presence in his sample of the metabolites of a Prohibited Substance, i.e. dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol).
62. The substance detected in the Athlete’s sample is an anabolic steroid. It is listed in the WADA 2008 Prohibited List and in all subsequent lists.
63. The Disciplinary Commission is satisfied that the sample which has been re-analysed by the Laboratory is unequivocally linked to the Athlete and that no relevant departure from the WADA International Standards occurred.
64. Regarding the notifications to the Athlete, the Disciplinary Commission observes that it is not established whether the Athlete did or not actually receive the notifications which were addressed to him.
65. However, in accordance with Art. 7.3.3 of the Rules, notifications to an athlete may be accomplished through notifications to his/her NOC.
66. Therefore in this case the Athlete is deemed to have been duly notified of all the communications, which were addressed to him through his NOC.
67. This applies in particular to the notification of the AAF and of the question regarding the exercise of the Athlete’s right to request the analysis of the B2-Sample.
68. Since the Athlete did not request the analysis of the B2-Sample, such may therefore be deemed waived in accordance with Art. 7.2.5 let. b of the Rules.
69. In the absence of an Athlete’s request and since the IOC decided not to conduct the B2- Sample analysis, the analytical results are in this case based on the results of the B1- sample.
70. Such results establish the presence of a Prohibited Substance, i.e. dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol) in the sample, which the Athlete provided upon the occasion of the 2008 Olympic Games.
71. Based on the above result, the Disciplinary Commission finds that the Athlete has in any event committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Art. 2.1 of the Rules consisting in the presence of a Prohibited Substance in his bodily sample.
72. In addition, the Disciplinary Commission observes that the circumstances also support a finding of an anti-doping rule violation based on art. 2.2 of the Rules.
73. The nature of the substance which was found in the Athlete’s sample is consistent with intentional use of Prohibited Substances specifically ingested to deliberately improve performance. The fact that metabolites of a doping substance, which is a “classical” doping substance was found, supports this consideration.
74. In conclusion, the Disciplinary Commission finds that an anti-doping violation is established pursuant to both Art. 2.1 and Art. 2.2 of the Rules.
75. The consequences of an anti-doping rule violation under the Rules are limited to consequences in connection with the 2008 Olympic Games. They are set forth in Art. 8 and 9 of the Rules and are the following.
76. In application of Art. 8.1 and/or Art. 9 of the Rules, the results achieved by the Athlete at the Men’s pole vault event in which he ranked 3rd during the 2008 Olympic Games, shall be annulled, with all resulting consequences (notably withdrawal of medal, diploma, pin etc.).
77. In application of Art. 9.3 of the Rules, the further management of the consequences of the anti-doping rule violations and in particular the imposition of sanctions over and above those related to the Olympic Games 2008 shall be conducted by the International Association of Athletics Federations (“IAAF”).
CONSIDERING the above, pursuant to the Olympic Charter and, in particular, Rule 59.2.1 thereof, and pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in Beijing in 2008 and, in particular, 2, 5.1, 7.3.3, 8 and 9 thereof.
has the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma obtained in the Men’s pole vault event withdrawn and is ordered to return the same.
The National Olympic Committee of Ukraine shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma awarded in connection with the Men’s pole vault event to the Athlete.
It is so sad that Derek Miles was not able to enjoy the thrill of medaling at the 2008 Olympic Games, the moment the competition was over. Or even a day or two later, had the post-competition drug test been more sophisticated.
Learning 8 years later that he medaled just seems so unfair.
Better late than never, but in hindsight I'm almost thinking that any suspected athletes should be tested *before* they're allowed to compete. Even if it comes down to forcing *every* athlete to take a drug test (and get results *before* the competition starts). That's the only 100% guaranteed way (that I can think of) to ensure that the true medal winners get the joy of victory spontaneously - in the minutes right after the competition is over. Not 8 years later.
I know this is not a practical suggestion due to cost, but it's just the way I feel right now.
You know Kirk I agree with you on almost everything said except, that in today's sporting events where so much money is being given to the organization that are involved you would think that some of the money used to line the pockets of the top dogs could be mandated to be set aside, to do exactly what you said. pretest every athlete, no honest competitor should object. At least that would protect the the competitors and the integrity of the sports. These athletes work hard for years,not only at great cost to the athlete, but also to the people that help sponsor, and sometimes at the cost of personal relationships. Many may only get one chance to rip the rewards of their labor. I am not sure what the actual cost are to the athletes. But $50,000, $100,000, or more to me is a big deal. Anyway I am happy to hear that Derek has received that witch he earned through his hard work. He is and should be an inspiration to all who complete at any age.
Dan, it sounds to me like we're in 100% agreement about all of this - no "except". The only hesitation I had was that I doubted that the funds would be available to spend on testing every athlete pre-competition.
I will add that I expect that through increasing the volume and the efficiency of testing each athlete, the costs will go down over time.
Every athletes _should_ be tested many times before the Olympics. But it's hard to make that a strict requirement.
Even in the US, our out of competition testing isn't as good as you might think. The top athletes get tested regularly, but if someone has a big season and is improving rapidly, they are off the radar, and some NCAA athletes are not eligible to be tested.
Let's say you have some high school phenom who ends up making the Olympic Team. Their first drug test will probably be the Olympic Trials. Actually the Olympic Trials is the first test of the year for many of the lower level athletes who end up making the team. And we're doing more testing than most.
The best drug testing is year-round, unannounced, out of competition testing. You know, in a system that is not corrupt and letting athletes cheat like Russia. But it's not feasible to make that a requirement for every athlete to compete at the Olympics, since you often only know on relatively short notice who is on the team.
In this case, they developed technology that is better able to detect steroids than 8 years ago, so this more sensitive test could detect that Yurchenko had used them.
So taking the example of athletes that surprise us (and maybe themselves) by making the US Olympic Team, it seems to me that there's still sufficient time between the Trials and the Olympic Games for these newcomers to be tested prior to the Olympic opening ceremonies, and there should be adequate time to see the results and allow the athlete to dispute the results. Am I right or not? If the athlete delays their hearing such that time runs out, then the athlete should *not* be allowed to compete. So the incentive for the athlete should be to have a speedy hearing.
Ditto for all other countries.
Taking the Shawn Barber case as an example, Canadian authorities tested him on the day of the of the Canadian Olympic Trials competition, and caught the failed test results a few days later. They were then able to complete their hearing a few days prior to opening ceremonies. Results of the hearing were not published until more than a month *after* the Olympics were over, but it would be expected that if his defense of the drugs in his body failed at his hearing, the result (the reason for him being banned from the Olympics) would have been published then. He would certainly have not been allowed to compete, and if the reason why wasn't published or announced, then the media would insist on finding out why.
Why can't this process work routinely for all athletes in all countries? Other than the fact that the country might cheat to prevent this from happening routinely.
I don't want to open up a can of worms re the Shawn Barber case here - I'm just using him as a recent example of how long it takes to conduct test with ample time for a followup hearing.
I covered the issue of the Olympic Games in my last post, but I didn't cover the joy of making the team in the Olympic Trials. This applies especially to countries where the Trials are the *only* competition where the team is chosen. It does not apply to countries like Canada, where athletes are chosen on a longer term performance basis, despite specific bad results in the Canadian Olympic Trials (when the athlete may have been temporarily ill or injured or simply NH'd due to weather factors).
The same joy that Derek Miles missed out on by "officially" winning the Bronze medal at the 2008 Olympics, but not finding out until 8 years later also applies to an athlete thinking that he lost his spot on the US Olympic Team at the Trials, but then finds out just days before the opening ceremonies that he placed 3rd after all, because one of the athletes being granted a spot on the team were disqualified due to a drug infraction.
This would be unfortunate and unfair for 2 reasons: (1) he or she lost the spontaneous joy of making the team on the day of the Trials competition; and (2) after thinking that the spot was lost, he or she may have stopped training seriously for the next few weeks, thus not being in prime physical or mental shape for the Olympics.
Maybe anyone with recent Olympic-quality performances prior to the Trials should also be test a month or two before the Trials? But the volume of athletes needing to be testing before the Trials would be higher, so maybe the affordability of the tests might be more of a concern?
Cost is ultimately a limiting factor. Also, it has been rare for American pole vaulters to test positive, so USADA doesn't test generally them out of competition much. The IAAF also orders tests for top athletes, Brad Walker and Jenn Suhr have been tested extensively over the years.
USADA does test samples quickly, if someone failed a test at the Trials, they would know with plenty of time to make a replacement on the US Olympic Team.
What you are describing is basically the way things _should_ work. However, many countries just haven't put much money in to a proper drug testing program, and WADA hasn't had the ability/interest to do much serious cracking down until recently. It's a big mess.
Different can of worms... NCAA testing is not under the WADA code. An athlete can, and it has happened, fail a drug test at NCAAs and go on to compete at the Olympics. Most NCAA drug tests are covered up anyway. Not that they test much.
Derek got his medal today!

References: Art. 7
 Art. 7
 Art. 7
 Art. 7
 Art. 7
 Art. 7
 Art. 7
 Art. 7
 Art. 7
 Art. 7
 Art. 2
 art. 2
 Art. 2
 Art. 2
 Art. 8
 Art. 8
 Art. 9
 Art. 9