In October 2016 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Dexamphetamine (D-amphetamine, dextroamphetamine) and Levoamphetamine (L-amphetamine).

After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right to be heard, accepted the provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the CCES.

The CCES established that the Athlete was at significant fault or negligence for the violation and the substance was used not intentionally and out-of-competition for academic purposes without a prescription.

Therefore the CCES decides on 21 December 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 November 2016.

In August 2015 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Salbutamol in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right to be heard and accepted the sanction proposed by the CCES.

The CCES established that the Athlete was not at significant fault or negligence for the violation. When tested the Athlete was not a National or International athlete as defined under the Rules and at all times he used the medication Salbutamol as prescribed by his physician.

Therefore the CCES decides on 10 December 2015 to impose a reprimand on the minor Athlete without a period of ineligibility.

In June 2015 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Curtis Moss after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylphenidate.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right to be heard and accepted the sanction proposed by the CCES. The Athlete explained that he had used the substance as medication prescribed by his physician and applied for a TUE which was approved by the CCES.

The CCES established that the Athlete was not at significant fault or negligence for the violation and decides on 14 December 2015 to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 4 January 2016.

In February 2017 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Dexamphetamine (d-amphetamine, dextroamphetamine) and Levoamphetamine (l-amphetamine).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and het was heard for the Doping Tribunal of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC).

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he had used a ‘study pill’ provided by a friend and only after the notification he heard from his friend that the ‘study pill’ was a capsule of Adderall containing the prohibited substances. The Athlete requested for a reduced sanction as the violation was non intentional.

The CCES argued that the Athlete failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, how the substances entered his system. The CCES explained that the Athlete initially reported that it was through consuming C4 pre-workout powder that the substance entered his body but he then changed his story explaining that he took his friend’s Adderall pill. According to the CCES, the Athlete has not provided sufficient evidence to prove any of these two explanations.

The Athlete filed a sequence of declarations, first by not indicating anything on his doping control form at collection time, then by stating that he consumed C4, and then by submitting that he had instead consumed a ‘study pill’. The Athlete’s first declaration was a fabricated lie, which misdirected the doping authorities’ resources in their legal and clinical analysis and research. It leaves the Sole Arbitrator with no reason to trust the Athlete’s last version.

Therefore the SDRCC Anti-Doping Tribunal concludes that he bears Significant Fault or Negligence and decides on 27 April 2017 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In June 2016 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (DHCMT).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Doping Tribunal of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC).

The Athlete gave a prompt admission of the violation and argued that it was a non intentional violation and the result of the use of a contaminated supplement AminoX with grounds for a reduced sanction. Analysis reports of the WADA Accredited Laboratory in Montreal of the content of the Athlete’s bottle AminoX confirmed very high levels of DHCMT.

The CCES contested that there are no valid grounds for the Athlete to claim that his AminoX supplement was contaminated with DHCMT during the manufacturing process or before he purchased it.

For the CCES Professor Ayotte stated that the Athlete’s explanation is not supported by scientific evidence due to the DHCMT substance detected in the AminoX bottle is not the same as the DHCMT substance detected in the Athlete’s samples.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the DHCMT in the Athlete’s samples was neither inadvertent nor an innocent mistake due to the DHCMT, and did not come from a contaminated AminoX supplement. The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the only explanation is that the Athlete deliberately and intentionally used the DHCMT.

Therefore the SDRCC Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 23 November 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 24 April 2016.

In November 2016 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the 68 year old cyclist after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone with a T/E ratio in a high concentration above the WADA threshold.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Doping Tribunal of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC).

The Athlete claimed that he did not commit an anti-doping rule violation and stated that he is very careful with his diet as well as his vitamins and supplement intake. He didn't understand how the prohibited substance entered his body since he never took doping substances. He believed his age may have impacted his T/E ratio.

Professor Ayotte dismissed as expert witness the Athlete’s age as potentially influcencing the T/E ratio and reiterated that IRMS clearly demonstrated the isotopic signature of exogenous testosterone.

The Sole Arbitrator could not determine the Athlete’s intent nor could the Athlete establish how the exogenous testosterone entered his system and concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the SDRCC Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 22 March 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 October 2016.

In March 2016 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Taylor Findlay after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance clenbuterol.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Doping Tribunal of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC).

The Athlete did not contest the test results and asserted that she did not commit an anti-doping rule violation as she did not use clenbuterol intentionally, but that the finding was due to the ingestion of contaminated meat. In support she filed the results of a polygraph examination she voluntarily underwent and a number of press articles dealing with the presence of veterianary drugs in horse meat in Canada.

The CCES requested the Sole Arbitrator to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete due the she failed to prove, by a balance of probabilities, how the clenbuterol has entered her system.

Professor Ayotte stated as expert witness that it is unlikely that the presence of clenbuterol results from the consumption of clenbuterol contaminated meat in Canada. Also the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) stated that al tests carried out between 2014 and 2016 to detect clenbuterol in Canadian meat were all negative, including all tests carried out in 2015-2016 on meat imported in Canada.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete has not provided any concrete evidence of the specific circumstances in which the unintentional ingestion of contaminated meat would have occurred and concludes that her doping violation must be deemed to be intentional.

Therefore the SDRCC Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 13 March 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 March 2016.

In April 2016 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances: Amphetamine, Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone, Drostanolone and Mesterolone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with arguments in his defence and he was heard for the Commercial Arbitration Tribunal of the American Arbitration Association.

The Athlete argued that USADA does not have the authority to bring a case against him under the USADA Protocol and IWF Anti-Doping Policy regarding the results of the testing conducted on his sample collected at the Weightlifting event on 5 March 2016. Therefore the Panel should dismiss the case. The Athlete contended that in fact his sample was collected by USA Powerlifting (USAPL) and not by USADA, the applicable rule in this matter should be the USAPL Technical Rules, not those of the IWF.

USADA contended that in this case the IWF Anti-Doping Policy and the USADA Protocol apply to the Athlete. USADA explained that USA Weightlifitng (USAW) contracted with USAPL (which then subcontracted with the company Sportcheque) to collect the samples for testing at the event under USAW’s authority.
USADA argued that it is uncontested that the Athlete was a USA Weightlifting member on 5 March 2016 when his sample was collected at the weightlifting event under the IWF Rules. Also the Athlete expressly agreed to the IWF Anti-Doping Policy applying because his license agreement states that he agreed not to commit a doping violation as defined by the IWF.

Considering the circumstances in this case the Panel finds that the Athlete was not adequately informed by USAW about the USOC Policy or the USADA Protocol in the USAW Membership Form and is not subject to the results management authority of USADA in this case by virtue of signing that document.
The Panel establish that USAW was the organization that initiated the drug testing process, delegated sample collection to USAPL, and, when it received the results of the testing on the Athlete's sample, asked USADA to manage the results of such testing.

Although the Panel finds that USADA has results management authority in this instance, the Panel notes that USADA has barely met its burden of proof of doing so to the Panel's comfortable satisfaction in this regard. The Panel is of the view that United States athletes would be better served by having clear documentation implemented at each event sanctioned by an National Governing Body (NGB) and in the NGB membership application process that informs all athletes of the legal obligations they have and their rights to resolve any disputes arising thereunder; whether this responsibility lies with WADA, the IWF, the USOC, USAW, or USADA is something that is outside of this Panel's purview.

On 10 May 2017 the AAA Tribunal decides that:

1.) USADA has the authority to manage the results of the testing conducted on Respondent's sample that was collected at the 2016 Arnold Weightlifting Championships. Accordingly, arbitral jurisdiction is proper here.
2.) The Athlete shall not be responsible for any costs related to the testing or analysis conducted on his sample and that USADA shall bear any administrative costs related to the testing or management of Respondent's sample.
3.) The parties ordered to proceed to share their dates of availability over the next 30 days for the Panel to conduct a proper preliminary hearing to set a hearing date and the procedural order for the case.

Hereafter on 31 May 2017 USADA announced that the Athlete Robert Dosterschill has accepted a 4 year period of ineligibility after testing positive for multiple prohibited substances.

In 2016 the Parathlete SG-4684 was arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced to prison for 5 years by the Singapore’s District Court for consumption and possession for the purpose of trafficking methamphetamine.

As a consequence of his conviction Anti-Doping Singapore (ADS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete in February 2017 for trafficking the prohibited substance methamphetamine.
After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission of the violation and was unable to attend the hearing due to his imprisonment.

The Athlete admitted the violation and pleaded for leniency regarding the sanction to be imposed. Considering the facts and circumstances in this case the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee (NADC) decides on 18 April 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete SG-4684 starting on the date he was convicted in court in 2016.

In January 2017 Anti-Doping Singapore (ADS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Sri Lankan Athlete SG-4683 after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance metandienone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered, the Athlete submitted a response in his defence and failed to attend the hearing of the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee NADC).

In his submission the Athlete denied the use of of the prohibited substance and failed to provide an explanation as how the prohibited substance entered his system.
Considering the evidence the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides on 17 April 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ingeligibility on the Athlete SG-4683 starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 January 2017.