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.

Affidavit David Zabriskie [USADA vs Lance Armstrong October 10, 2012]
October 4, 2012

Mr. David Zabriskie is a professional cyclist from 1999 through 2013 and rode in the professional teams of 7-UP/Colorado Cyclist, U.S. Postal Service Tea, Team CSC and Slipstream-Chipotle.

Zabriskie admitted he used Erythropoietin (EPO), testosterone and growth hormone (hGH).
He testified to USADA about the widespread trafficking, distribution and use of prohibited substances and methods in the U.S. Postal Service Team, his involvement and the involvement of Lance Armstrong, accompliced riders, medical doctors and officials.

Facts
The International Equestrian Federation (FEI) alleges Ali Nilforushan (the athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Mr. Ali Nilforushan (the "Athlete") participated at the CSI2*- W, in Thermal CA, United States from 28 February to 3 March 2012 (the "Event"), in the discipline of Jumping. On 3 March 2012, the Athlete was selected for in-competition testing. His sample showed the presence of Phentermine, Hydrochlorothiazide and Carboxy-THC ("THC"), which are Prohibited Substances according to the 2012 Prohibited List of the World Anti-Doping Agency.

History
On 24 April 2012, the Athlete submitted a statement of the same
day by Dr. E. Michael Tachuk of Viva Wellness Medical Group, by which the latter confirmed having prescribed Phentermine 37,5 mg and Hydrochlorthiazide to the Athlete "as part of a comprehensive weight loss program." He had never received any Anti-Doping education, he had no idea that the three Substances detected were Prohibited Substances. During the Preliminary Hearing on 27 April 2012, the Athlete waived his right to have the B-Sample analysis performed.

Considerations panel
Multiple substances may generally be considered as an aggravating circumstance, however in this case there is no basis to increase sanctions due to the fact that the Athlete admitted the anti-doping rule violation promptly.

Decision
As a consequence of the foregoing, the Tribunal decides to impose the following sanctions on the Athlete:
1) The Athlete shall be suspended for a period of 12 months to be effective immediately and without further notice from the date of the notification. The Period of Ineligibility is deemed to have started on the date of Sample collection on 3 March 2012. Therefore, the Athlete shall be ineligible through 2 March 2013.
2) The Athlete is fined CHF 1000,-.

Costs
The Athlete shall contribute CHF 2000,- towards the legal costs of the judicial procedure.

No Athlete who has been declared Ineligible may, during the period of Ineligibility, participate in any capacity in a Competition or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) that is authorized or organized by the FEI or any National Federation or be present at an Event (other than as a spectator) that is authorized or organized by the FEI or any National Federation, or participate in any capacity in Competitions authorized or organized by any international or national-level Event organization (Article 10.10.1 of the ADRHA). Under Article 10.10.2 of the ADRHA, specific consequences are foreseen for a violation of the period of Ineligibility.
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.

Monfort N, Ventura R, Platen P, Hinrichs T, Brixius K, Schänzer W, Thevis M, Geyer H, Segura J.Transfusion. 2012 Mar;52(3):647-57. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2011.03331.x. Epub 2011 Sep 2.
Bioanalysis Research Group, IMIM Hospital del Mar Research Institute, the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.

BACKGROUND:
Misuse of autologous blood transfusions in sports remains undetectable. The metabolites of the plasticizer di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) were recently proposed as markers of blood transfusion, based on high urinary concentrations of these compounds observed in patients subjected to blood transfusion. This study evaluates DEHP metabolites in urine for detecting autologous blood transfusion.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS:
One blood bag was drawn from moderately trained subjects and the red blood cells (RBCs) were reinfused after different storage periods. Group 1 (12 subjects) was reinfused after 14 days, and Group 2 (13 subjects), after 28 days of storage. Urine samples were collected before and after reinfusion for determination of the concentrations of three DEHP metabolites, mono-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, mono-(2-ethyl-5-hydroxyhexyl)phthalate, and mono-(2-ethyl-5-oxohexyl)phthalate.

RESULTS:
Concentrations of DEHP metabolites on the days before reinfusion were in agreement with those described after common environmental exposure. A few hours after the reinfusion a significant increase was observed for all metabolites in all volunteers. Concentrations 1 day later were still higher (p < 0.05) than before reinfusion. Variations in urine dilution supported normalization by specific gravity. Concentrations of DEHP metabolites tended to be higher after longer storage times of RBCs.

CONCLUSION:
Autologous transfusion with RBCs stored in plastic bags provokes an acute increase in the urinary concentrations of DEHP metabolites, allowing the detection of this doping malpractice. The window of detection is approximately 2 days. The method might be applied to urine samples submitted for antidoping testing.

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

The Athlete pleaded guilty and her father explained that she had ingested a supplement which she obtained from a friend of her father.
The Committee is comfortably satisfied that there was no intention to enhance performance which was corroborated by her father’s evidence that she was sick from the flu and sought merely an immune booster.

The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension and ending on 21 August 2012 the date of the decision.

The Féderation Internationale de Natation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swimmer after she missed three doping tests by not being available for testing within the required 1 hour time slot.
After notified by FINA in July 2012 the Swimmer filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the FINA Doping Panel in August 2012.
The Swimmer stated she had difficulties in her sports career and changes in life which seriously troubled her.
The Panel concludes the Swimmer continuously neglected her duties during a period of 6 months. She was repeatedly warned of the consequences of her conduct through letters from FINA.
The Panel finds the Swimmer’s statement not convincing and her behavior has shown a degree of negligence and lack of interest. Therefore the FINA Doping Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Swimmer starting on 1 September 2012.