Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M70 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on November 26, 2011, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of hydrochlorothiazide which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Hydrochlorathiazide is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent claims that the positive test result came from taking a dietary supplement for aesthetic reasons.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFC.
2. All results obtained at the cycling event on November 26, 2011, are cancelled. Medals, points and prizes are withdrawn.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Sailing Federation (Fédération Française de Voile, FFV) charges respondent M69 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a sailing match on September 25, 2011, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Cannabis is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent had used cannabis after the separation of his girl-friend and child, for which he has documented proof.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 4 months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFV.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served in voluntary suspension.
3. The decision ( a ban for a period between April 102012 and
June 14, 2012) dated April 19, 2012, of the disciplinary committee of the FFV will be modified.
4.The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M68 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on November, 2011, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample tested positive on the prohibited substance heptaminol and a metabolite of nandrolone. Heptaminol and nandrolone are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency prohibited list.

History
The respondent explained that the positive finding of heptaminol came from a medicine used against venous insufficiency calf. The positive finding of nandrolone came from a supplement used to increase mass and pedaling power.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the French sport federations.
2. The present decision shall take effect from the date of notification
to the respondent. It will apply until the end of (the execution of the punishment inflicted on January 26, 2012 by disciplinary committee of the FFC and confirmed on March 21, 2012 by the appeal board of the federation.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Baseball and Softball Federation (Fédération Française de Baseball et Softball, FFBS) charges respondent M67 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on July 17, 2011, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of tuaminoheptane. Tuaminoheptane is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent has used medication containing tuaminoheptane;
he used it to treat a cold. A befriended physician gave a written statement. He used this medicine every night to avoid snoring.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one month in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFBS.
2. The decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Ice Hockey Federation (Fédération Française de Hockey sur Glace, FFHG) charges respondent M66 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on November 26, 2011, 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 athlete didn't use the cannabis to enhance his sport performance, it was used in recreational setting the eve before the match.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent can't take part in competitions and sporting events organized or authorized by the French Ice Hockey Federation.
2. The earlier decision (5 months period of ineligibility) dated February 16, 2012, of the disciplinary committee of the FFHG will be modified.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Football Federation (Fédération Française de Football, FFF) charges respondent M63 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During football match on November 11, 2011, a sample was taken for doping control. The 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. Cannabis is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent was a minor at the moment of doping control, by written submission he admits the doping violation.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 6 months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFF.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the earlier decision (2 months period of ineligibility) dated January 30, 2012, of the disciplinary committee of the FFF.
3. The earlier decision (2 months period of ineligibility) dated January 30, 2012, of the disciplinary committee of the FFF will be modified.
4. The decision will start on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete pleaded guilty to the charge and stated he had used several supplements as advised by his training partner and purchased over the counter. He admitted he took the substances for the sole purpose of enhancing his performance and used the substance on regular basis.

The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the notification, i.e. 14 June 2012.

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Disciplinary Committee Tribunal.

The Tribunal, after deliberation, accepts the evidence and submissions of SAIDS, as well the evidence of the Athlete.
The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 June 2012.

Mr. Pinheiro Carra (Respondent) is a Brazilian athlete in the sport of IPC Powerlifting. Respondent competed at the London 2012 Paralympic Games where he provided a sample for doping control.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Respondent after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide.
The IPC notified Respondent of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension. The notification letter enclosed a letter “Letter of Decision” for the Respondent to complete and return to IPC by no later than 29 August 2012.

Respondent returned the signed Letter of Decision to the IPC in a timely fashion. In the Letter of Decision, Respondent stated that he:
- did not accept that he had committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation;
- had no valid Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) justifying the presence of the prohibited substance founds in the sample;
- requested the analysis of the B sample;
- did not challenge the provisional suspension; and
- wished to challenge the Anti-Doping Rule Violation and/or the consequences.

Respondent and the team doctors stated that none of the team doctors had prescribed any medication to Respondent and he was not taking any medication unknown to the team doctors. Respondent used green tea capsule “Chà Verde” to maintain his weight. These supplements were provided by Respondent’s coach and purchased in a Brazilian supermarket.
Respondent suspected this supplement of containing the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide and requested the supplement be analysed.

Based on the facts the IPC Anti-Doping Committee concluded that Respondent’s provisional suspension should not be eliminated.
The reasons being:
- Respondent was negligent in using a manufactured supplement;
- Respondent competes in a weight category sport, in which diuretics play a role in performance based on the weight class allocations; and
- Respondent used the supplement for the purpose of eliminating water from his body to reduce and/or maintain weight.
The IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommended to the IPC Governing Board to impose a provisional suspension. Following receipt of the results of the analysis of the green tea supplements from the laboratory, a full hearing in the case to determine a sanction will be held.

On 2 September 2012, the IPC received the report from the Laboratory regarding the analysis of the Chà Verde Product.
The laboratory confirmed that the Chà Verde Product contained the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide.The results of the Chà Verde Product Laboratory Report were presented in the second hearing.
Respondent’s coach stated he was aware of the problem of contaminated or mis-labelled supplements, but had never heard about it in connection with green tea capsules.
The Committee concludes that Respondent can establish how the substance entered his body and that he did not intend to enhance his performance. However the Committee considers Respondent and his coach negligence with using the food supplement. The coach bears some responsibility for the Respondent’s adverse analytical finding.
The Committee thinks the NPC Brazil must review the conduct of the coach. He had bought the product for his wife but then gave it to his athlete. He had not reviewed the product label for the ingredients of the product or done any other research into the composition of the product. Therefore he put the Respondent at unacceptable and considerable risk.

The Hearing Body of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends to the IPC Governing Board:
(a) to impose a nine month period of ineligibility, starting on 28 August 2012, the date of the notification;
(b) to impose a financial sanction to € 560,-.

On 5 September 2012 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

Related case:
CAS 2012/A/2960 WADA vs Angela Covert & FEI
January 31, 2014

Fact
The International Equestrian Federation (FEI) alleges Angela Covert (the athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Angela Covert (the "Athlete") participated at the CSI4*-W, Spruce Meadows AB in Calgary, Canada from 30 June to 3 July 2011 (the "Event"), in the discipline of Jumping. On 30 June 2011, the Athlete was selected for in-competition testing. Analysis of urine sample revealed the presence of Methylhexaneamine (Dimethylphentylamine) which is a Prohibited Substance according to the 2011 Prohibited List of the World Anti-Doping Agency ("WADA") and is considered a "Specified Substance".

History
On 25 August 2011, the Athlete requested for the B-Sample
analysis to be performed in a different laboratory than the A-Sample analysis. She argues that because of the use of a nasal spray (Euvanol Spray), due to a fractured nose to stop the bleeding. The prohibited substance was not listed as a ingredient, but it contained geranium oil which has a small percentage of the prohibited substance. An expert stated that this amount is consistent with the results of the sample test. She didn't want to enhance her performance. Because Methylhexaneamine was a Specified Substance, Article 10.4 of the ADRHA had to be applied and since it was the Athlete's first violation, only a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility should be imposed on her.

Decision
1. The Athlete shall be formally reprimanded.
2. The Athlete is fined CHF 500.
3. According to Article 168.4 of the GRs, the present Decision is
effective from the day of written notification to the persons and
bodies concerned.

Appeal
In accordance with Article 12 of the ADRHA, the Athlete and the
FEI may appeal against this decision by lodging an appeal with the
Court of Arbitration for Sport within 30 days of receipt hereof.

Costs
Each Party shall bear its own legal costs of the legal procedure.