WADA commissioned Judge J-P Costas, former President of the European Court of Human Rights, to provide an independent legal opinion on a number of aspects of the draft 2015 World Anti-Doping Code:

Judge Costas, fromer judge at the European Court of Human Rights, was asked to opine on eight specific matters:

1. The compatibility of the new provisions pertaining to sanctions, in particular the provisions in draft Article 10.2 of the Code, with the aforementioned principles.

2. The applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights to draft Article 8.1 of the Code on disciplinary anti-doping procedures.

3. The compatibility of the principle of prohibited association in draft Article 2.10 of the Code with the aforementioned principles.

4. The compatibility of draft Article 10.12 of the Code (payment of cost awards as a condition for eligibility) with the aforementioned principles, in the light of the decision of the Swiss Federal Court in the Matuzalem case.

5. The compatibility of the publication of sanctions, in particular of draft Article 14.3.4 of the Code with the aforementioned principles.

6. The compatibility of the statute of limitations under draft Article 17 of the Code with the aforementioned principles.

7. Is it compatible or incompatible with human rights and the aforementioned principles to render an athlete or any other person ineligible for life for a second or third violation?

8. In view of the international standards regarding human rights, may anti-doping controls be performed on athletes anywhere, including at the athlete’s «residence», for example in a hotel room, and at any time including at night between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m.?

Judge Costas took the view that the only truly problematic matter was Article 10.12 concerning repayment of cost awards. See question 4, above, opinion pp. 15 – 18. According to the Code Drafting Team, as a result this Article will be removed from the current draft 2015 Code to be sent to the WADA ExCo for consideration.

The First Instance Decision:
The Fédération Française de pétanque et jeu provençal (FFPJP) decided on 27 August to acquit the Athlete M74 after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. Hereafter the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) appealed the FFPJP First Instance Decision.

The Athlete:
M74 disputed the validity of the proceedings since the FFPJP case against him was ceased because of procedural failures. He denied the use of the substance and could not explain how it entered his system.

The AFDL:
The French Anti-Doping Agency dismissed the Athlete’s objections and contended that a high concentration of Cocaine was found in the Athlete’s sample as evidence of recent use befor the Doping Test.

The Decision:
The AFLD decides on 16 December 2015 to annul the FFPJP decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete M74 starting on the date of the Notification.

Related case:
AFLD 2015 FFC vs Respondent M40
September 10, 2015

The Violation:
In July 2015 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete M73 after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Hydrochlorothiazide, Prednisolone and Prednisone. The AFLD opened proceedings against the Athlete since the Athlete had not a licence issued by the French Triathlon Federation (FFTri).

The Athlete:
After notification the Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of these substances. He explained that he had used Prednison as a treatment for an allergic reaction and used the Hydrochlorothiazide, prescribed for his wife, to lose weight while he was unaware that these products contained prohibited substances.

The AFLD:
The French Anti-Doping Agency contended that the Athlete used these products for self treatment without a prescription and acted negligently because he failed to research these products before using.
The Agency holds that previously also an anti-doping rule violation had been reported against the Athlete and that already a two year period of ineligibility had been imposed on the Athlete on 10 September 2015 for testing positive for the substances Prednisolone and Prednisone.

The Decision:
The AFLD decides on 16 December 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete M73 and considers the time already served by the Athlete as a result of the sanction imposed on 10 September 2015.

The First Instance Decision:
The French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (FFHMFAC) decided on 14 April 2015 and on 26 May 2015 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete M71 after his samples, collected in January 2015 and in March 2015, tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). Hereafter the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) appealed the FFHMFAC First Instance Decision.

The Athlete:
M71 denied the intentional use of the substance, asserted that the supplement Jack 3D Micro he used was the source of the positive tests.

The AFDL:
The French Anti-Doping Agency contended that the Athlete had a duty to reseach his supplements before using, that he failed to produce evidence in support of his assertion while it was noted that the substance was not mentioned on the label of the product.

The Decision:
The AFLD decides on 16 December 2015 to reform the two FFHMFAC decisions and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete M71 starting on the date of the Notification.

The First Instance Decision:
The French Ski Federation (FFS) decided on 25 August 2015 to impose a 5 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete M70 for her 3 whereabouts filing failures in a 12 month period. Hereafter the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) appealed the FFS First Instance Decision.

The Athlete:
M70 admitted the violation, denied that her failures were intentional and explained the circumstances. She acknowledged that she acted negligently, that she was unaware of the consequences of her whereabout failures despite she had received warnings from the FFS.

The AFDL:
The French Anti-Doping Agency contended as a result of her 3 whereabouts filing failures the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Agency deemed that the Athlete acted negligently but also considered the circumstances as explained by the Athlete.

The Decision:
The AFLD decides on 2 December 2015 to reform the FFS decision of 25 August 2015 and to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete M70 starting on the date of the notification.

The Violation:
The French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete M69 after he tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone, 19-noretiocholanolone, (Nandrolone), Boldenone, Drostanolone, Oxymetholone, Stanozolol and Trenbolone.
The AFLD openened proceedings against the Athlete since the Athlete had not a licence issued by the French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (FFHMFAC).

The Athlete:
After notification the Athlete denied the intentional use of these substances, accepted the sanction and explained that was engaged in bodybuilding for 20 years only for his passion and as a hobby.

The AFLD:
The French Anti-Doping Agency contended that the multiple prohibited substances used by the Athlete and found in his sample justifies the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility.

The Decision:
The AFLD decides on 2 December 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete M69.

The Violation:
The French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete M68 for his refusal or failure to submit to sample collection in April 2015.
The AFLD openened proceedings against the Athlete since he had not a licence issued by the French Federation for Kick Boxing, Muay Thai and Associated Disciplines (FFKMDA).

The Athlete:
After notification the Athlete M68 failed to respond or to file a statement in his defence.

The AFLD:
The French Anti-Doping Agency contended that the Athlete provided insufficient urine for the sample collection and thereafter left the Doping Control Station without persmission.

The Decision:
The AFLD decides on 2 December 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete M68.

The First Instance Decision:
The French Federation for Kick Boxing, Muay Thai and Associated Disciplines (FFKMDA) decided on 7 May 2015 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete M67 after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. Hereafter the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) appealed the FFKMDA First Instance Decision.

The Athlete:
M67 denied the intentional use and asserted that the substance was in the content of water bottle he ingested at the competition which was spiked by an opposing team he had a conflct with.

The AFLD:
The French Anti-Doping Agency contended that the Athlete failed to produce any evidence in support of his assertion. Also the Agency deemed that the concentration of Stanozolol found in the Athlete’s samples was not consistent with his ingestion of the content of a water bottle.

The Decision:
The AFLD decides on 2 December 2015 to reform the FFKMDA decision of 7 May 2015 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete M67.

The Violation:
In September 2015 The French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete M66 for his refusal or failure to submit to sample collection in January 2015.
The AFLD openened proceedings against the Athlete since the French Federation for Kick Boxing, Muay Thai and Associated Disciplines (FFKMDA) under the Rules failed to settle the case within the time limit.

The Athlete:
After notification the Athlete M66 failed to respond or to file a statement in his defence.

The AFLD:
The French Anti-Doping Agency contended that the Athlete left the Doping Control Station without persmission while he was requested to return to provide a sample and was warned about the consequences of his refusal.

The Decision:
The AFLD decides on 19 November 2015 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete M66 starting on the date of the notification.

The First Instance Decision:
The French Cycling Federation (FFC) decided on 10 June 2015 to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete M65 after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylphenidate (Ritalin).
Hereafter the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) appealed the FFC First Instance Decision.

The Athlete:
M65 admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He asserted that het used the Ritalin for his personal problems, that he already was sanctioned by the FFC and he requested for a reduced sanction.

The AFLD:
The French Anti-Doping Agency contended that the Athlete failed to produce a medical prescription for the Ritalin, failed to establish a medical justification for the use nor did he explain how he obtained the product.

The Decision:
The AFLD decides on 19 November 2015 to reform the FFC decision of 10 June 2015 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete M65 starting on the date of the notification.