Related cases:

• CAS 2010/A/2268 Igor Walilko vs FIA
  September 15, 2011
• FIA 2011 FIA vs Igor Walilko – CAS decision
  October 11, 2011
• Swiss Federal Court 4A_636/2011 Igor Walilko vs FIA
  June 18, 2012
  
  

In August 2010 the International Automobile Federation (FIA)  reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor driver  Igor Walilko after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Nikethamide. Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the FIA Anti-Doping Committee.

The Committee finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Committee deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the substance had entered his system.

Consequently on 11 October 2010 the FIA Anti-Doping Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Driver, starting on 18 July 2010.

The Ufficio di Procura Antidoping (UPA), the CONI Anti-Doping Prosecution Office has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Allessandro Colò after his A and B samples, provided in Mexico on 25 April 2010, tested positive for the prohibited substance clenbuterol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard by the UPA.

The Athlete stated that the positive test was the result of the contamination of meat he had consumed in the hotel in Mexico due to the illegal use of clenbuterol on Mexican farms. The Athlete argued that he took every precaution to avoid problems related to food during the competition in Mexico. Therefore he choose to stay in a higher level hotel in Mexico to avoid problems with hygiene en contamination, including food.

Considering the circumstances the CONI National Anti-Doping Tribunal concludes that the Athlete has no significant fault or negligence in this case and decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 25 May 2010.

Facts
The French Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M53 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on January 23, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent uses the prohibited substance occasionally in a recreational setting, there was no intention to enhance sport performance especially because he practice the sport on a modest level and plays it for his pleasure.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of four months, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFBB.
2. The decision (two months period of ineligibility), dated April 7, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFBB should 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 Rugby Federation (Fédération Française de Rugby, FFR) charges respondent M52 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on February 21, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample tested positive on 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 FFR.
2. The period of ineligibility should be reduced by the period already served in voluntary suspension and by the decision (three months period of ineligibility) of April 29, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFR.
3. The decision, dated April 29, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFR should be modified.
4. The decision will start on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Swimming Federation (Fédération Française de Natation, FFN) charges respondent M51 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a water polo match on February 20, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. 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 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 manifestation organized or authorized by the FFN.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served by the decision, dated October 1, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFN.
3. The decision (3 months period of ineligibility), dated May 21, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFN should be modified.
4. The decision start 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 M49 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on May 9, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample tested positive on prednisolone and prednisone which are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. They are regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent had used a pharmaceutical to cure angina, which was the cause of the positive test. There was no consultation of a phycisian.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months in which respondent can't take part in competition or sport manifestations organized by the FFA.
2. All the results obtained at the event of May 9, 2010, will be 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 Motorcycling Federation (Fédération Française de motocyclisme, FFM) charges respondent M48 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a motorcycling event on February 7, 2010, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisone and prednisolone. Prednisone and prednisolone are prohibited substances on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and are regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent used medication to treat sinusitis with otitis, there was a prescription from the physician.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted
2. The earlier decision (three months period of ineligibility), dated April 16, 2010, of the disciplinary committee of the FFM should be modified.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Related cases:

• CAS 2005/A/936 UCI vs Erwin Bakker & KNWI
  April 20, 2006
• CAS 2005/A/969 Erwin Bakker vs KNWU & UCI
  Mai 5, 2006
• ECHR 7198/07 Erwin Bakker vs Switzerland
  September 26, 2019

In April 2005 the Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie (KNWU), the Royal Dutch Cycling Federation, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Erwin Bakker after his A and B samples – provided during the Mountain Bike Cycling Race Vuelta Internacional a Valladolid in Spain in March 2005 –  tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.

On 1 July 2005, the KNWU Anti-Doping Committee issued a decision that acquitted the Athlete from any charges related to a doping offence. Hereafter in August 2005 the UCI appealed the KNWU decision of 1 July 2005 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

On 20 April 2006, the CAS Panel upheld the UCI appeal, annulled the decision issued by the KNWU, disqualified the Athlete from the Vuelta Internacional a Valladolid 2005 and any other race in which he competed between 26 March 2005 and 2 February 2006 and declared the Athlete ineligible for competition for two years commencing on 2 February 2006 (CAS 2005/A/936).

Already involved in the ADRV proceedings – reported in april 2005 – the Athlete participated in Canada in the Mount-Sainte-Anne contest in June 2005.
In July 2005 the KNWU reported a second anti-doping violation against the Athlete after his sample – provided in Canada in June 2005 – tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoetin (rhEPO).

On 5 September 2005, the KNWU Anti-Doping Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete and a CHF 2000 fine for the ADRV committed in Canada.

The Athlete appealed the KNWU decision of 5 September 2005 with CAS in October 2005 (CAS 2005/A/969). At the same time the Athlete was already involved in the case CAS 2005/A/936 after the UCI had appealed the KNWU decision for acquittal of 1 July 2005.

Considering the previous CAS decision of 20 April 2006 (CAS 2005/A/936) as a first ADRV the CAS Panel decided on 5 May 2006 (CAS 2005/A/969):

1.) The appeal filed by the Athlete Mr Erwin Bakker is rejected.

2.) The decision of the Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie’s Anti-Doping Commission dated 5 September 2005 is annulled.

3.) Mr Erwin Bakker shall be declared ineligible for competition for lifetime.

4.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 already paid by Mr Bakker, which is retained by the CAS.

5.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

Hereafter in April 2010 the Athlete appealed the CAS decision of 5 May 2006 (CAS 2005/A/969) with the Swiss Federal Court.

The Athlete argued that in the case CAS 2005/A/936 upon receipt of the results of the A-sample analysis he demanded the analysis of a B-sample. Once the latter was done and assessed he would have received only the counter analysis of the B-sample two pages in length, yet not the laboratory’s report which contained more than 80 pages. Neither would he have been advised of the possibility to request the complete analysis report of the B-sample.

The Athlete further argued that his counsel did submit during the February 2006 hearing in front of the CAS that he should be allowed to review the full laboratory’s report; however neither the CAS nor the UCI responded to the request which “very likely was not even mentioned in the record”. Only through an e-mail of 29 January 2010 would he have received the full report concerning the B-sample. At that point in time he would have learned that the A and B analysis had been conducted at least in parts by the same lab technicians.

According to the applicable rules of the International Standard for Laboratories this is not allowed. Thus a breach of the rules took place, which according to the Athlete should have led to an acquittal. An acquittal in CAS 2005/A/936 would lead in turn “inevitably to a milder sanction in the CAS case 2005/A/969 to be reopened”, namely only to a two years ban and not to a ban for life.

Considering the Athlete’s arguments the Swiss Federal Court decides:

1.) The request for revision is rejected to the extent that the matter is capable of revision.

2.) The judicial costs set at CHF 2’000.- shall be paid by the Athlete.

3.) The Athlete shall pay to the Respondent CHF 2’500.- for the federal proceedings.

4.) This judgment shall be notified in writing to the parties and to the court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

CAS 2010/A/2046 Samir Ibrahim Ali Hassan v. National Anti-Doping Committee of the United Arab Emirates (UAE)

Football
Doping (19-Norandrosterone)
CAS jurisdiction
Principles applicable to doping
Invalidation of the proof of the violation
Procedural rights violation justifying the invalidation of a positive test

1. A letter from one of the party might amount to an offer to submit a dispute to CAS arbitration which the other party can accept by filing its appeal. The parties can thereby conclude a specific agreement to arbitrate within the meaning of Article R47 of the CAS Code.

2. In principle, the finding of a prohibited substance in sample A which is confirmed in sample B is sufficient proof of an anti-doping offence. The allegations of an athlete (speculation) would not represent sufficient grounds for elimination or reduction of the standard sanction; not only the applicable regulations establish strict liability of the athletes for everything that enters their system, but athletes cannot rely on representations made about the composition of the food supplements by the manufacturers of such products. Moreover an athlete has the duty to inform all physicians treating him/her of the Prohibited List and the athlete commits negligence if s/he does not do so.

3. As far as the proof of the violation of an anti-doping rule and the legal conclusions are concerned, the results of the re-analysis of the player’s sample by an accredited laboratory following the withdrawal of the WADA accreditation to the laboratory in charge of the previous analysis might change the whole situation if the only evidence proving the violation has been invalidated.

4. Besides the right to have the opportunity to be present at the opening of the B sample, the athlete’s right to be heard, to be represented by counsel and to be informed in a fair and timely manner of the asserted Doping Rule violation are fundamental rights. The deprivation of such fundamental rights of the athlete are sufficient to make the whole urine test invalid.

On 3 January 2010 the Disciplinary Committee of the United Arab Emirates National Anti-Doping Committee (UAE-NADO) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the football player Samir Ibrahim Ali Hassan after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-Norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Hereafter in January 2010 the Athlete appealed the UAE-NADO decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and requested the Panel to set aside the decision of 30 January 2010.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the Prohibited Substance and provided several explanations on how the substance had probably entered his system. The Athlete argued that several violations of his rights occurred in the procedure conducted by UAE-NADO.
The UAE-NADO denied the Athlete’s objections and argued that any procedural defects can be corrected by the CAS Panel.

The Panel holds that without evidence the Athlete failed to explain as to how the substance enterend his system. The Panel deems the only evidence proving the violation has been invalidated due to the results of the re-analysis of the Athlete’s sample by the Cologne laboratory (following the withdrawal of the WADA accreditation of the Panang laboratory) have changed the whole situation, both as far as the proof of the violation of an anti-doping rule and the legal conclusions are concerned.

The Panel considers that it has been confirmed by both parties that the Athlete had not been informed about the date of the opening of the B sample and its analysis and therefore has been deprived of his right to be present or to be represented by another person. Also the Panel finds that the members of the UAE-NADO Disciplinary Committee were not independent and impartial. Further the Panel establish that certain other elementary rights of the Athlete were also no respected as well: the right to be heard, the right to be represented by counsel and the right to be informed in a fair and timely manner about the anti-doping violation.

The Panel concludes that for these reasons the Athlete’s appeal shall be upheld considering that on the basis of the results of the new analysis of the Athlete’s sample by the Cologne laboratory, there is no evidence that the Athlete had committed any anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

1.) The appeal filed by Samir Ibrahim Ali Hassan on 24 January 2010 is upheld.
2.) The decision of the National Anti-Doping Committee of the United Arab Emirates taken on 3 January 2010 is set aside.
(...)
5.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

Androgen deficiency in the aging man / Ranjan Arianayagam, Mohan Arianayagam, Shaun McGrath, Prem Rashid. - (Australian Family Physician 39 (2010) 10 (October); p. 752-755)

• PMID: 20890477

Abstract

Background: Androgen deficiency in the aging man is an area of considerable debate because a gradual decline in testosterone may simply be part of the normal aging process. However, there is an alternative view that androgen deficiency in the aging man may constitute a valid and underdiagnosed disorder.

Objective: To discuss the aetiology, clinical features, diagnosis and management of androgen deficiency in the aging man.

Discussion: Late onset hypogonadism has clinical features that overlap with both normal aging and some pathological conditions. It can only be diagnosed on the basis of both suggestive clinical features and clear biochemical evidence of testosterone deficiency. In this group of patients medication may play a role.