AFLD 2010 FFHG vs Respondent M17

11 Mar 2010

Facts
The French Ice Hockey Federation (Fédération Française de Hockey sur Glace, FFHG) charges respondent M17 for a violaton of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on February 10, 2009 a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a prednisolone and prednisone. These substances are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and are regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent had used medication to treat an acute asthma attack with a bronchial infection on advice of his physician. He is still under treatment. He did mention his medication on the doping control form.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one month in which the respondent can't take place in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFHG.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served by the decision dated July 15, 2009, from the appeal committee of the FFHG.
3. The decision will start on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2010 FFHB vs Respondent M44

2 Sep 2010

Facts
The French Handball Federation (Fédération Française de Handball, FFHB) charges respondent M44 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on December 5, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis above the threshold value. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Cannabis is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The initial decision, dated March 23, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFHB is a period of ineligibility of three months. Respondent admits using the prohibited substance occasionally but there was no intention to enhance sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized or authorized by the FFHB.
2. The decision, dated March 23, 2010, of the disciplinary committee of the FFHB should be modified.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2010 FFFA vs Respondent M77

2 Dec 2010

Facts
The French Football Federation (Fédération Française de Football Américain, FFFA) charges respondent M77 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on November 22, 2009, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent didn't provide any information about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

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 FFFA.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2010 FFE vs Respondent M33

15 Sep 2011

Facts
The French Equestrian Federation (Fédération Française d'Équitation, FFE) charges respondent M33 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules.
During an event on November 7, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisolone and prednisone. Prednisolone and prednisone are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and regarded as a specified substances.

History
The respondent didn't provide any explanation about how the prohibited substances had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFE.
2. The decision (a warning) dated February 8, 2010, of the disciplinary committee should be modified.
4. The present decision will start on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2010 FFC vs Respondent M85

16 Dec 2010

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M85 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on May 11, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of erythropoietin. Erythropoietin is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent was injected intramuscular with the prohibited substance by his doctor, for 15 days, because of a severe accident he had in November 2009. He had used the prohibited substance to regain his level in sport.

Decision
1. The sanction is a three years period of ineligibility in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFC, as decided by the disciplinary committee of the FFC, on July 13, 2010, however the extension to other relevant French sport federations is rejected.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2010 FFC vs Respondent M80

16 Dec 2010

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M80 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on March 28, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of nandrolone. Nandrolone is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent didn't provide any explanation about how the prohibited substance had entered his body. The concentration of the prohibited substance measured was very high.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three years in which the respondent can't take part of competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFC, as pronounced by the decision dated July 13, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFC, but extended to all relevant French sport federations.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2010 FFC vs Respondent M68

18 Nov 2010

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M68 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on March 27, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of ephedrine, prednisolone and prednisone, clenbutorol and a metabolite of nandrolone. For the metabolite of nandrolone a high amount was measured, a complementary isotope-ratio mass spectrometry report showed that the metabolite of nandrolone had an exogenous origin. All these substances are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The Respondent had obtained product from the internet which contained the prohibited substances. He used it to treat mononucleosis infectiosa [also called: glandular fever, Pfeiffer's disease, Filatov's disease or kissing decease] and secondly to keep pace with the cycling events of the first category.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of four years in which the respondent can't take part of competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFC, as pronounced by the decision dated July 13, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFC, but extended to all relevant French sport federations.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2010 FFC vs Respondent M56

14 Oct 2010

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M56 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on August 27, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence heptaminol. Heptaminol is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The Respondent didn't provide any information about how the prohibited substances had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one year in which the respondent can't take part of competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFC, as pronounced by the decision dated March 3, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFC, but extended to all relevant French sport federations.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2010 FFC vs Respondent M29

6 May 2010

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M29 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on August 27, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisone, prednisolone, ephedrine, clenbuterol and metabolite of androlone. All these substances which are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The Respondent didn't provide any information about how the prohibited substances had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of four years in which the respondent can't take part of competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFC. This was pronounced by the decision dated December 15, 2009, by the disciplinary committee of the FFC, but is extended to all French sport federations.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2010 FFC vs Respondent M12

18 Feb 2010

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M12 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on August 27, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of budesonide which is a prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. This substances is regarded as a specified substances.

History
Respondent inhales a pharmaceutical which contains the prohibited substance to treat asthma. He also has reports to prove his condition.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin