Facts
The French Squash Federation (Fédération Française de Squash, FFSquash) charges respondent M30 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a squash event on June 24, 2011, respondent didn't provide a sample for doping control.

History
The respondent couldn't urinate and left for urgent family matters.

Decision
1 The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized by the FFSquash.
2. The decision of November 23, 2010, of the disciplinary committee of the FFSquash is cancelled.
5. The decision will start on the date of notification.
6. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Handball Federation (Fédération Française de Handball, FFHB) charges respondent M29 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on May 29, 2010, 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 but in a low concentration. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Cannabis is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent used cannabis 2 weeks before the doping test, during a festivity between friends. There was no intention to enhance sport performances.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized by the FFHB.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served by the decision (2 months period of ineligibility) dated November 5, 2010, of the disciplinary committee of the FFHB.
3. The decision dated November 5, 2010, of the disciplinary committee of the FFHB will be modified.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

The Hellenic Basketball Federation has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
On 5 January 2011 the Judicial Panel of the Hellenic Basketball Federation imposed on the Player a 3 month period of ineligibility starting from 2 December 2010. Additionally the Player lost his contract with the Greek basketball club because of the sanction.

The Player filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the FIBA Disciplinary Panel.
The Player stated he had used the supplements GNC Mega Men Dally Multi-Vitamins and Jack 3D Energy prior to the doping control. In addition he took Vicks NyQull because he caught a cold. The Player did not know these supplements contained a prohibited substance and had no intention to enhance his performance.
The Panel finds the Player acted negligently without ensuring that these supplements contain no prohibited substance.
The Panel considers Player’s statement and the substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) which became a specified substance in the new 2010 WADA prohibited list. Therefore the FIBA Disciplinary Panel decides les mitior to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Player starting on the date of the Greek decision, i.e. on 5 January 2011.

The Royal Dutch Cycling Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Wielren Unie, KNWU) has reported an anti doping rule violation against this person after he tested positive for the prohibited substance clenbuterol in the A and B samples.
Person was tested before without problems and the concentration clenbuterol in the samples was very low.

Person was heard for the committee and stated the positive test results were caused by clenbuterol contaminations in meat during his stay in Mexico prior to the anti-doping control. His statement was supported by literature about the illegal use of clenbuterol in the Mexican food industry. Person’s travel report showed he had been cautious with food during his stay in Mexico to avoid contaminations.

The Disciplinary Committee considered person’s statement acceptable and decided to acquit person of violation the Anti-Doping Rules without sanction. KNKF should bear half de cost, made for person’s defence.

Surface plasmon resonance in doping analysis / R. Gutiérrez-Gallego, E. Llop, J. Bosch, J. Segura. - (Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 401 (2011) 2 (August); p. 389-403)

• PMID: 21448606
• DOI: 10.1007/s00216-011-4830-9

Abstract

Doping analysis relies on the determination of prohibited substances that should not be present in the body of an athlete or that should be below a threshold value. In the case of xenobiotics their mere presence is sufficient to establish a doping offence. However, in the case of human biotics the analytical method faces the difficulty of distinguishing between endogenous and exogenous origin. For this purpose ingenious strategies have been implemented, often aided by state-of-the-art technological advancements such as mass spectrometry in all its possible forms. For larger molecules, i.e. protein hormones, the innate structural complexity, the heterogeneous nature, and the extremely low levels in biological fluids have rendered the analytical procedures heavily dependent of immunological approaches. Although approaches these confer specificity and sensitivity to the applications, most rely on the use of two, or even three, antibody incubations with the consequent increment in assay variability. Moreover, the requirement for different antibodies that separately recognise different epitopes in screening and confirmation assays further contributes to differences encountered in either measurement. The development of analytical techniques to measure interactions directly, such as atomic force microscopy, quartz crystal microbalance or surface plasmon resonance, have greatly contributed to the accurate evaluation of molecular interactions in all fields of biology, and expectations are that this will only increase. Here, an overview is provided of surface plasmon resonance, and its particular value in application to the field of doping analysis.

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 sibutramine. After notification the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete pleaded guilty to taking the substance but stated he had requested clearance from the medical team before taking it and this was given.
The Committee finds that the Athlete provided sufficient corroborating evidence to demonstrate the absence of an intent of enhance his performance or mask the use of a performance enhancing substance.
Considering the evidence the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to give the Athlete a reprimand.

In May 2010 Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance carboxy-THC (cannabis).
After notification no provisional suspension was ordered. Neither the ANAD nor the Romanian Basketball Federation took a decision in this case.

Hereafter the case was submitted to the FIBA in March 2011 and the Player was heard for the FIBA Disciplinary Panel.
The Player stated he had smoked cannabis two day before the doping test. He expressed his regret and had no intention to enhance his performance.
The FIBA Disciplinary Panel decides a 4 month period of ineligibility starting from this decision, i.e. on 25 March 2011.

Fight against doping : statistical data 2008 / National Anti-Doping Council Portugal. - Lisbon : Conselho Nacional Antidopagem (CNAD), 2009

TAS 2010/A/2203 Mickael Larpe c. Fédération Française de Cyclisme (FFC)
TAS 2010/A/2214 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) c. Mickael Larpe & FFC

CAS 2010/A/2203 Mickael Larpe vs Fédération Française de Cyclisme (FFC)
CAS 2010/A/2214 UCI vs Mickael Larpe & Fédération Française de Cyclisme (FFC)

Cycling
Doping (rhEPO - Darbepoietin)
Range of CAS power for investigation
"Substantial" nature of the assistance to investigators
Admission
Suspension period for substantial assistance
Amount of the fine

1. An arbitration panel is not empowered to go beyond the parties' pleadings (sentence ultra petita).
A party may appeal to the Federal Tribunal in the event that the arbitral tribunal has awarded to a party more or different from it had requested (ultra or extra petita) and those who it failed to award on the main point of the claim or counterclaim.

2. Even if the responses provided by the anti-doping authorities to the questions of the arbitral Panel doesn’t allow to rule unreservedly about the "substantial" nature of the assistance provided by the athlete to the investigators, this assistance can not be ignored and must therefore be taken into consideration in assessing the duration of the suspension granted to the athlete. Accordingly, the “substantial” nature of the assistance is at least reinforced by the athlete’s statements to the investigators, and that it at least should lead to the opening of investigations and indictments of third parties for the use of doping products.

3. An arbitration panel can not retain that an athlete has admitted voluntarily having committed an anti-doping rule violation solely on the basis of a statement made by this athlete that he would indeed have "voluntarily" having admitted "committed an anti-doping rule violation" and that this admission "constitutes the only reliable evidence of the violation at the time of the admission", without further evidence confirming the statement in this case.

4. Contrary to what is provided for in the case of No Fault or Negligence, No Significant Fault or Negligence or Admission, the period of ineligibility is not reducible in the case of "suspended sanction" but may only be imposed conditionally. Also, in the system of elimination or reduction of the period of ineligiblility under exceptional circumstances, the "suspended sanction" must be distinguished from the "reduction of period of ineligibility".

5. According to the CAS jurisprudence, the fixed fine in accordance with Article 326 paragraph 1 letter A of the ADR is based on the net annual income to which the rider is normally entitled for the whole year and not on the amount actually received.

In May 2010 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French cyclist Mickael Larpe after his samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Darbepoetin (dEPO).
On 25 June 2010 the National Disciplinary Commission of the French Cycling Federation (FFC) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete with 3 months as suspended sanction including costs and a fine to be determined by the UCI.

Hereafter in July and August 2010 both the Athlete and the UCI appealed the FFC decision of 25 June 2010 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The UCI requested the Panel to uphold the imposed sanction and to order the payment for costs, fees and a € 12.919,20 fine.
The Athlete requested to Panel for a more substantial reduction of the sanction and argued that he had provided substantial assistance to the authorities about the use and trafficking of doping.

Considering the Athlete’s substantial assistance the Panel finds that a more generous suspension must be granted with a revision of the suspended sanction and a reduced fine.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 March 2011 to impose on the Athlete a 2 year period of ineligibility with 6 months as suspended sanction and a € 6.460,- fine.

CAS 2010/A/2226 Carlos Manuel Brito Leal Queiroz v. Autoridade Antidopagem de Portugal (ADoP)

Carlos Manuel Brito Leal Queiroz (the Appellant) appealed against the decision for ineligibility for 6 months, dated August 30, 2010, by Respondent, the Portugese Anti-doping Authority (Autoridade Andidopagem de Portugal, ADoP).
The Appellant, Mr. Carlos Queiroz (“Mr. Queiroz”) is a Portuguese football coach. At the time of the facts, Mr. Queiroz was the coach of the Portuguese National Football Team.

The Portuguese Football Federation (FPF) reported an anti doping rule violation against Appellant after he did not act in a welcoming fashion and used very inappropriate and/or offensive language during an sample collection in front of three Portuguese DCO’s.
All three DCO’s reported that Mr. Queiroz’ conduct did not undermine the anti-doping control procedure, but that they did disturb their work.
The FPF Disciplinary Committee acquitted Mr. Queiroz of an anti-doping rule violation, but nevertheless sanctioning him with a 30-day suspension from all sports-related activities, for conduct that was considered unbecoming of the sport.
On 30 August 2010, the President of the Instituto de Deporte de Portugal (IDP) issued a decision which: revoked the FPF Disciplinary Council decision, found the Appellant guilty of an anti-doping rule violation and suspended the Appellant for a period of six months from all sports activities.
The Appellant was heard for the CAS Panel and filed his statements and objections in his defence.

The Panel concluded that Appellant’s conduct did not disturb the work of the Portuguese DCO’s and the sample collection, therefore decides to set aside the IDP decision for the 6 months ineligibility.
Fees and expenses for this Panel shall be borne ADoP.