Facts
The French Federation of Bullfighting (Federation Française de course camarguaise, FFCC) charges respondent M72 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an bullfight event on July 28, 2012, the athlete was requested for attending a doping test but he did not appear.

History
The respondent explains that he had been injured and needed to go to a hospital urgently. He wants the warning he had recieved from the disciplinary committee of the FFCC to be lifted. He has proof of the nature of his injury.

Decision
1. The athlete is acquitted
2. The decision made by the disciplinary committee of the FFCC is canceled.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

CAS 2014/A/3498 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) vs Turkeys Athletic Federation (TAF) & Asli Çakir-Alptekin

Related case:

CAS 2016_A_4615 Asli Cakir Alptekin vs WADA
November 4, 2016

In January 2013 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Turkish Athlete Asli Çakir-Alptekin after an IAAF expert panel concluded that her hematological profile in the Athlete Biological Passport “highly likely” showed that she had used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping. 

Nevertheless the Disciplinary Board of the Turkish Athletic Federation (TAF) concluded on 19 December 2013 that the Athlete had not violated anti-doping rules and that there was no reason to impose a sanciton on the Athlete.

Hereafter the IAAF appealed the TAF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The IAAF requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a lifetime ban on the Athlete for her second anti-doping rule violation.

However in May 2015 the Parties in this case reached a settlement and they informed the CAS Court Office that the hearing would no longer be needed. They requested the Panel to ratify and incorporate the Settlement Agreement into a Consent Award.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 17 August 2015:

1.) The Panel, with the consent of the IAAF and the Respondents, hereby ratifies the Settlement Agreement provided by the parties on June 17, 2015 and incorporates its terms into this consent arbitral award, with the exception of the clarification contained in item 4 of this Consent Award below relating to clause 6 of the Settlement Agreement.

2.) The arbitral procedure CAS 2014/A/3498 IAAF v TAF & Asli Cakir-Alptekin is terminated and deleted from the CAS roll.

3.) Each party is hereby ordered to perform the obligations and duties as per the Settlement Agreement referred to above.

4.) The costs of the arbitration, which shall be determined and separately communicated to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Respondents in equal parts; namely, 50% of the costs to be paid by the TAF and 50% to be paid by Ms. Asli Cakir-Alptekin. As a consequence, the money the IAAF has paid to the CAS as an advance against those costs shall be reimbursed to it by the Respondents in equal parts (50% by each of the Respondents). The CAS Court Office fee that the IAAF paid when it filed its Statement of Appeal shall not be reimbursed.

5.) As per clause 7 of the Settlement Agreement, each party shall bear its own legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration, save that Ms. Asli Cakir-Alptekin and the TAF are jointly and severally liable to pay the IAAF an agreed sum as a contribution towards its costs.

6.) All other requests of prayers for relief are rejected.

Oberlandgericht München January 15, 2015 Az. U 1110/14 Kart

Facts
Speed-skater athlete appeals against the decision of the District Court Munich of February 26, 2014. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne had followed an ISU judgment on 25 November 2009 and had confirmed the two-year ban for reticulocyte fluctuating blood values without doping test. The athlete had always denied doping and carries an inherited blood anomaly as a reason for their increased values up to the present time. In the Munich compensation process, the Berliner has the ISU therefore sued for wrongs to 4.4 million euros. Also the monopolistic position of the International Skating Union (ISU) for letting only one athlete per country taking part in international competition was an issue, this ruling goes against the antitrust law. The reason for this lies in the perception that an athlete takes part in an economic activity, consisting of offering goods for services on a (sport)market.
Also the ISU had required that the athlete signed an arbitration clause but the athlete refused.
The Higher Regional Court overturned the decision of the Landgericht München I that the award of the CAS must be recognized. The German courts were not bound in the compensation question to the CAS ruling.

Decison
The claim of the athlete partially upheld, the complaint is admissible but not ready for a decision at this moment.

Facts
The French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports (Fédération Française d'Etudes et de Sports Sous Marins, FFESSM) charges respondent M71 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an event on June 28, 2014, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of tuaminoheptane which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 prohibited list. It is regarded as a specified substance.

History
Respondent was sanctioned by the disciplinary committee of the FFESSM with a period of ineligibility of six months, in this period he was excluded to take part in regional, national and international competition. Also his results as individual or in a team were cancelled.
Respondent had used a pharmaceutical product containing the prohibited substance. He had used is to treat the symptoms of nasal obstruction resulting from chronic allergic rhinitis. He had not the intention to enhance his sport performance.
The panel has not seen medical files or medical prescriptions as prove of the medical condition of the respondent. Self medication is seen as a risk full act.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFESSM.
2. The decision first instance by the disciplinary committee of the FFESSM will be modified.
3. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already fulfilled by the sanction of the FFESSM.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M70 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletic event on May 11, 2014, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of methylhexaneamine which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 prohibited list. It is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The disciplinary committee of the FFA had sanctioned the respondent with a period of ineligibility lasting six months. The respondent claimed that the positive test derived from a supplement he used. The reason for using the supplement was not to enhance his sport performance, the reason was to loose weight and to treat his chronic tendinitis. However the athlete stays responsible for the supplements he uses and has to check them for not having prohibited substances.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility lasting 9 months in which he can not take part in competition or other manifestations of the FFA and related French sport federations.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already fulfilled by the decision of the disciplinary committee of the FFA.
3. The decision starts on the date of the notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Golf Federation (Fédération Française de Golf, FFGOLF) charges respondent M69 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on April 30, 2014, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of propranolol which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 prohibited list. It is regarded as a specified substances.

History
The respondent had received a warning from the disciplinary committee of the FFGolf.
The respondent claimed she acted for therapeutic purposes, to treat arrhythmia (heart rhythm disorder) because of personal and professional problems. She has medical certificates and the results of a cardiogram to prove her condition.
However the panel is not satisfied with the findings in her medical files. She has no documentation that she had to use her medication in the period of her doping control.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one month in which respondent can not take part in competition or manifestation organized or authorized by the FFG.
2. The result of the match on April 30, 2014, is cancelled. Medals, point and prizes are withdrawn.
3. The decision of the disciplinary committee of the FFGolf will be cancelled.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French federation of Full Contact and associated sports (Fédération Française de Sports de Contact et Disciplines Associées, FFSCDA) charges respondent M68 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on April 19, 2014, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. It is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent had been sanctioned by the disciplinary committee of the FFSCDA with a period of eligibility of six months. The respondent had admitted the use of cannabis before and on the day of the doping control. He wanted to lift the anxiety for apposing a stronger opponent but he did not want to enhance his sport performance.
The panel considers the use of cannabis in this particular field of sport as dangerous.

Decision
1. The decision of the disciplinary committee of the FFSCDA is cancelled.
2. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of nine months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFSCDA and related federations.
3. The period of ineligibility will be reduced with the period fulfilled in provisionally suspension and the earlier decision of the disciplinary committee of the FFSCDA.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M67 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules.
Respondent failed to provide his whereabouts data three times. As part of the registered testing pool the respondent is obliged to record his locations with the application ADAMS. The respondent had received three written warnings.

History
The respondent explained that he had changed to another club and thought the old club would still handle the administration in ADAMS. He doesn't understand the French language well enough.
The disciplinary committee of the FFA had acquitted the athlete in her decision dated August 27, 2014.
The panel concludes that the athlete has not taken his obligations seriously. Although the clerical errors and his personal problems the sentence of two years can only be reduced to one year.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility one year in which respondent can not take part in competition or other manifestations of the FFA and related French sport federations.
2. The decision of August 27, 2014, from the disciplinary committee of the FFA will be cancelled.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M65 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletic event on June 29, 2014, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 prohibited list. It is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent did not provide any information about how the prohibited substance had entered his sample.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility lasting one year in which he can not take part in competition or other manifestations of the FFA and related French sport federations.
2. All his results of the athletic event of June 29, 2014, are cancelled. Prizes, points and medals are withdrawn.
3. The sanction starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M65 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletic event on June 29, 2014, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of clenbuterol which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 prohibited list.

History
The respondent did not provide any information about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility lasting two years in which he can not take part in competition or other manifestations of the FFA and related French sport federations.
2. All his results of the athletic event of June 29, 2014, are cancelled. Prizes, points and medals are withdrawn.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.