In February 2016 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder for his evasion, refusal or failure to submit to sample collection. 

The Doping Control Officers reported that in November 2015 at the event the Athlete had signed the Doping Control Form after notification. Thereupon the Athlete failed to attend the Doping Control Station for sample collection.

The AFLD determines that:

• The Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• He was duly notified, had signed the Doping Control Form and was informed about his obligations;
• There was no compelling justification for his evasion, refusal or failure to submit to sample collection.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 9 March 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In January 2016 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder after her sample tested positive for multiple prohibited substances:

• Methylhexaneamine;
• Boldenone;
• Canrenone;
• Clenbuterol;
• Drostanolone;
• Metenolone
• Nandrolone;
• Oxandrolone.

Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence.

The Athlete admitted she had used these substances intentionally. Because she was not affiliated with a sports federation she assumed that she would not be subjected to doping control.

The AFLD determindes that:

• The Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• She admitted the intentional use of these substances.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 9 March 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In January 2016 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Canrenone, Clenbuterol and Stanozolol. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete admitted the use of the substances and denied that he acted intentionally. He used these products to lose weight and asserted that he was unaware that these substances were prohibited wheras this was his first doping control. 

The AFLD determines that:

• The Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• He acted with significant negligence because he failed to check these products.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 9 March 2016 to impose a 4 year period on the Athlete.

In February 2016 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder for his evasion, refusal or failure to submit to sample collection. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Doping Control Officers reported that in November 2015 at the event the Athlete after notification had signed the Doping Control Form. Thereupon the Athlete failed to attend the Doping Control Station for sample collection.

The Athlete acknowledged that he had been notified and denied that he deliberately had evaded doping control. He stated that after the notification he had to be on stage several times at the event.

Hereafter he attempted to find the doping control center, yet no one knew at were it was located. Eventually he left the event because he had to travel back home for hours.

The AFLD determines that:

• The Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• He was duly notified, had signed the Doping Control Form and was informed about his obligations;
• He had no compelling justification for his evasion, refusal or failure to submit to sample collection.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 9 March 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In Feburay 2016 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder for his evasion, refusal or failure to submit to sample collection. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Doping Control Officers reported that in November 2015 at the event the Athlete after notification had signed the Doping Control Form. Thereupon the Athlete left the Doping Control Station without providing a sample.

The Athlete denied that he deliberately had evaded doping control and asserted he had acted with ignorance of the anti-doping rules and the consequences. He explained that he left the Doping Control Station because of his fatigue and a long travel distance to his home.

The AFLD determines that:

• The Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• He was duly notified, had signed the Doping Control Form and was informed about his obligations;
• He had no compelling justification for his evasion, refusal or failure to submit to sample collection.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 9 March 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

On 18 August 2015 the French Federation for Kick Boxing, Muay Thai and Associated Disciplines (FFKMDA) Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Muaythai Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Probenecid.

Thereupon the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reopened the case against the Athlete. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard.

The Athlete admitted the intentional use of the substance to mask the use of glucocorticoids he used for his injury. He requested for a reduced sanction and asserted that he acted as an amateur sportsman without medical support from his club.

The AFLD determines that:

• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• The Athlete had admitted the intentional use of the substance;
• There are grounds for a more severe sanction.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 2 March 2016 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e on 11 July 2015.

On 18 December 2015 the French Cycling Federation (FFC) Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the cyclist after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Morphine.

Thereupon the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reopened the case against the Athlete. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained with evidence that he had used prescribed Dafalgan Codéine for his injuries after a training accident in August 2015.

The AFLD determines that:

• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• He underwent legitimate medical treatment for his injuries;
• There was a medical justification for the prescribed substance;
• Codeine is not prohibited and can metabolize into Morphine;
• His use of the prescribed medication was consistent with the concentration found in his sample.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 2 March 2016 to annul the FFC Decision and for the acquittal of the Athlete.

On 3 November 2015 the French Athletics Federation (FFA) Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 10 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete for tampering during the sample collection in August 2015.

The Laboratory established that the Athlete's sample contained water instead of urine. Apparently the Athlete had not been under full supervision of an Doping Control Officer and she had used the water from the toilet for the sample.

Thereupon the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reopened the case against the Athlete. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied that she had attempted to conceal the use of doping. She asserted that she was inexperienced with the Doping Control and afterwards she had been tested in October 2015 without issues.

The Athlete (43, mother of 4 children) explained that she was under stress to provide a sample under supervision and that she wanted to conclude the Doping Control as soon as possible. Impulsively she had used the water from the toilet for the sample in order to return home quickly to her children.

The AFLD determindes that:

• The Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation by tampering with any part of the Doping Control;
• There are exceptional circumstances present in this case for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 2 March 2016 to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In October 2015 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Prednisolone and Prednisone. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substances. She explained that he suffered from an injury and had used Prednisolone tablets prescribed by her doctor.

The AFLD determines that:

• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• She acted negligently with her self-medication;
• She failed to produce corroborating medical evidence.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 2 March 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

On 1 December 2015 the French Federation for Kick Boxing, Muay Thai and Associated Disciplines (FFKMDA) disciplinary panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the kickboxer after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

Thereupon the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reopened the case against the Athlete. Following notification the Athlete failed to file a statement in his defence.

The AFLD deems that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 2 March 2016:

• to uphold the FFKMDA decision for the imposition a sanction of 2 years on the Athlete;
• to report the decision and extend the sanction to the National Sports Federations.