Twenty athletes from four countries, competing in eleven sports, were involved in anti-doping proceedings that came to light this week. Sixteen of the 20 atheltes were Russian, however this doesn’t mean that Russian State doping has resurfaced. 

Nine of the provisional suspensions are historic and date back to 2012/13, before Russian State doping was revealed to the public. They are based on evidence in the two Reports produced by Richard McLaren into Russian State doping, coupled with evidence gleaned from the Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) retrieved from the Moscow Laboratory in January 2019. 

Also, the publication of a large proportion of sanctions from one country doesn’t necessarily mean that country has a problem with doping. It could mean that the country is effectively catching and prosecuting doping cheats. The whole point of Russian State doping was to allow doped athletes to compete as clean, without recording an adverse analytical finding (AAF – or ‘positive test’) or anti-doping rule violation (ADRV).

For example, due to its circumvention of the doping control system Russia topped the medal table at Sochi 2014 without reporting a single AAF, let alone an ADRV. By 2017, investigations by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) had revealed 46 cases of doping.

The week ended with an announcement from Australian National Rugby League (NRL) club South Sydney Rabbitohs that Sam Burgess would be free to resume his duties as Assistant Coach. A 2020 report by The Australian claimed that Burgess had used drugs such as MDMA (Ecstasy) and Cocaine, was violent against his family, and South Sydney Rabbitohs had assisted in covering up the situation. 

The NRL accepted that Burgess had breached NRL rules by taking ‘illicit drugs’ in 2018; by threatening another player in the same year, and by breaching New South Wales (NSW) law by driving with an illicit drugs in his system. But it didn’t find evidence to support allegations of domestic violence.

‘Like [NSW Police’s] Strike Force Irrabella, the NRL did not find the available evidence was sufficient to support allegations that Burgess had engaged in domestic violence’ read an NRL statement. ‘The NRL has also concluded that the available evidence did not support a finding that there was a cover-up by the Club of the use by Burgess of illicit drugs, prescription drugs or that it engaged in a practice of covering up allegations of domestic violence. 

‘In particular, the investigation found that the treatment the Club Doctor provided Burgess in his home following a medical incident, was given in the doctor’s private capacity – not in his role as Club Doctor. Consistent with the doctor’s obligation of patient confidentiality, the Club was not informed of the medical incident or the treatment provided.’

‘I stand strongly against violence towards women’, read a statement from Burgess on Instagram. ‘It has no place in society, no place in sport and no place in my life. I am thankful that the NRL has finally cleared my name against all allegations of domestic violence. I have now been cleared of three very public and defamatory investigations. This has been a long and damaging process, taking a toll on me both physically and mentally. 

‘I understand, but do not agree with all of the breach notices issued by the NRL. The punishment is grossly unfair and my lawyers have advised me of my appeal rights. However, I wish to move on with my life for matters that I believe have already been dealt with by the Courts, judiciary and publicly.’ 

Phoebe Burgess told The Australian she was “appalled” by the NRL’s decision. “This conversation is not over. But this is not just about me. It’s about what women are worth to the NRL. 

“For countless women in Australia, home is not a safe place to be. The message to them today is: don’t speak up, because even if you are believed, and even if the evidence is there, people in power will find excuses.”

Please continue to send any cases we may have missed or suggestions through to our editor by clicking here. Also, if you’re an athlete, national anti-doping organisation (NADO) or other Results Management Authority and you’d like us to cover a case that you’re involved with, please get in touch! Also – a reminder. The SII Anti-Doping Monitor only features confirmed AAFs (‘positive tests’) or confirmed anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs).

Decision links

Aleksandr Ivanov, Dmitry Klokov, Svetlana Tzarukaeva, Natalya Zabolotnaya, Olga Zubova, and Apti Aukhadov (ITA/IWF Statement); 

Stefano Marchetti;

Jamie Kermond;

Konstantin Shikhov;

Elizaveta Ryndych;

Magomed Seytiev;

Kirill Krut;

Natalia Popkova;

Alexander Aliyev;

Nikolai Sedyuk (RUSADA statement, RusAF statement);

Christopher Oakes;

Sam Burgess