In January 2016 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the triathlon Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Morphine. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She explained with evidence that she had used Dafalgan Codéine for her condition.

The AFLD determines that:

• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• There was a medical justification for the use of Codeine;
• Codeine is not prohibited and can metabolize into Morphine;
• Her use of the Codeine was consistent with the concentration found in her sample.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 7 April 2016 for the acquittal of the Athlete.

On 3 November 2015 the French Athletics Federation (FFA) Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Sports Official for her tampering with any part of the doping control.

The Doping Control Officer (DCO) reported that at the athletics event in August 2015 the Sports Official entered the Doping Control Station and interferred and interrupted the sample collection of an Athlete because she had to attend the scheduled ceremony and diner for the athletes.

Because the FFA Appeal Panel failed to render timely a decision and the case was referred to French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD). Following notification the Sports Official filed a statement in her defence.

The Sports Official denied that she intentionally had attempted to oppose the Doping Control. She acknowledged that her behaviour had been inappropriate and that she had put pressure to speed up the sample collection, which was refused by the DCO.

The AFLD determines that:

• The Sports Official had attempted to oppose the Doping Control;
• She had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 7 April 2016 to uphold the FFA Decision for the imposition of a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Sports Offical. Accordingly she is prohibited from participation into the organisation of FFA sports events.

In May 2015 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the kick boxer for his evasion, refusal or failure to submit to sample collection.

Doping Control Officers (DCOs) reported that the Athlete's entourange at the event in April 2015 blocked the entrance to his locker room. As a result the entourage facilitated the Athlete's evasion and prevented the notification by the DCOs.

Thereupon a new notification at the Athlete's hotel by the DCOs was refused by the Athlete because of soliciting fans at the location. Moreover his alleged medical treatment was not corroborated by the clinic and hospital in question.

Thereupon the French Federation for Kick Boxing, Muay Thai and Associated Disciplines (FFKMDA) failed to render timely a decision and the case was referred to French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD). Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete denied that he had been notified about the Doping Control and he disputed the competence of the DCOs. He invoked the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and asserted that the FFKMDA failed to conduct a proper investigation into the allegations.

The AFLD determines that:

• The DCOs had proper authorization to conduct sample collections;
• Because the FFKMDA had not rendered timely a decision under the Rules the case was automatically referred to the AFDL;
• The case was referred to the AFLD to avoid that the duration of the disciplinary procedure would have been exceeded in accordance with the ECHR;
• The Athlete deliberately had refused to receive notification from the DCOs and evaded Doping Control;
• The Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 7 April 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In February 2016 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the kick boxer 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 at the Doping Control Center in December 2015 the Athlete provided a blood sample. Although the Athlete was instructed to come back later for an urine sample he failed to return to the Doping Control Center.

The Atlete admitted his failure and that he had forgotten to return to the Doping Control Station. Further he suffered from fatigue and had a had to travel a long 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;
• There was no compelling justification for his evasion, refusal or failure to submit to sample collection.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 24 March 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

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

The Doping Control Officers reported that at the Doping Control Center in November 2015 the Athlete was unable to produce enough urine for a sample. Although the Athlete was instructed to come back later for an additional sample she failed to return to the Doping Control Center. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence.

The Athlete denied that she acted intentionally, she had forgotten to return and had left the event because of her fatigue. She asserted that she was also not reminded to return to the Doping Control Center by a DCO.

The AFLD determines that:

• The Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• She had no compelling justification for her evasion, refusal or failure to submit to sample collection.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 24 March 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

On 10 December 2015 the French Football Federation (FFF) disciplinary panel decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the football player 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 24 March 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 14 December 2015.

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

The Doping Control Officers reported that at the Doping Control Center in January 2016 the Athlete provided a blood sample. Although the Athlete was instructed to come back later for an urine sample he failed to return to the Doping Control Center.

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 24 March 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspenion, i.e. on 22 July 2015.

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

The Doping Control Officers (DCO) reported that in November 2015 at the event the Athlete had signed the Doping Control Form after notification. Thereupon the Athlete refused to identify herself and she left the Doping Control without providing a sample.

The Athlete admitted the violation and believed that she would not be subjected to doping control because she was not affiliated with a sports federation. She claimed that the DCO had not the status of a doctor and she objected to the duration of the sample collection considering her fatigue.

The AFLD determindes that:

• The Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• She was duly notified, had signed the Doping Control Form and was informed about her obligations;
• There was no compelling justification for her 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 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 refused to identify himself and he left the Doping Control without providing a sample.

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 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 refused to identify himself and he left the Doping Control without providing a sample.

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.