Facts
The French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M14 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a weightlifting event on April 17, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of furosemide, a metabolite of nandrolone, 3α-hydroxy-5α-androstan-17-one, a metabolite of mesterolone, testosterone on epitestosterone in an abnormal high level (spectro analysis shows exogenous metabolites of testosterone) and metabolites of stanozolol . These substances are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent declared that the positive test derived from supplements he used, ordered by internet, he had used these, during training, from the end of November 2009 till the date of the doping test.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of four years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFHMFAC which was pronounced by the decision of the disciplinary committee of the FFHMFAC on August 3, 2010, and now extended to the other French sport federations.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M13 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a weightlifting event on April 17, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of carenone, tamoxifen, trenbolone, clenbuterol, metabolites of stanozolol and testosterone on epitestosterone in an abnormal high level (spectro analysis shows exogenous metabolites of testosterone). These substances are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent declares he had used supplements to level with his competitors.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of four years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFHMFAC which was pronounced by the decision of the disciplinary committee of the FFHMFAC on August 3, 2010, and now extended to the other French sport federations.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Federation of Workers and Amateurs in sports (Fédération Sportive et Gymnique du Travail (FSGT) charges Respondent M12 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a swimming contest a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis showed the presence of terbutaline. Terbutaline is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent used medication to treat asthma which he has since childhood, this was mentioned on the filling form of the doping control.

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

Related case:
SAIDS 2011_03 WADA vs Johnny Young & SAIDS - Appeal
April 19, 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 19-norandrosterone (metabolite of nandrolone).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete’s medical doctor confirmed that nandrolone was prescribed to treat a medical condition and that he was unaware that his patient would take part in a sports event. The Athlete acknowledged that he did not apply for a TUE.

The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period on the Athlete starting on 18 November 2010 until 18 November 2012. The Committee decides that a possible reduction in sanction of 6 months would be revisited should SAIDS receive documented evidence of educational programmes undertaken by the Athlete beforehand.

On 29 November 2011 SAIDS concludes that the Athlete has satisfied the requirements for the reduction of his period of ineligibility by 6 months. Therefore the Athlete’s period of ineligibility expire on 15 November 2011.

Hereafter WADA appealed this revision decision.

The International Basketball Federation (FIBA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
The FIBA notified the Player and ordered a provisional suspension.
Additionally the Lithuanian basketball club terminated Player’s contract after the results of the doping control were revealed.

The Player filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the FIBA Disciplinary Panel. The Player stated he had used a supplement DMAA (dimethylpentylamine) with other supplements in the period prior to the doping control. Player consulted his team doctor about this supplement DMAA and checked the 2009 WADA List of Prohibited Substances. Therefore the Player assumed the supplement contained no prohibited substance and he had no intention to enhance his performance.

The Panel finds that the Player was negligent in taking so many dietary supplements without ensuring they do not contain a prohibited substance, together without labels in the same bottle.
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 a 6 month period of ineligibility starting on the day of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 January 2011.

Related cases:
ST 2010_19 DFSNZ vs Adam Stewart
September 8, 2010
ST 2010_19 DFSNZ vs Adam Stewart - Decision on Jurisdiction
December 6, 2010

On 8 September 2010 the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent for attempted use, and possession, of prohibited substances (EPO and hCG).
Hereafter Bike New Zealand is bringing the matter whether Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider application to disqualify athlete’s competition results under rule 14.8 of Sports Anti-Doping Rules.

The Tribunal decided that it does have jurisdiction to consider the consequences under rule 14.8.
Therefore Respondent is given until 17 December 2010 to make written submissions on the application of rule 14.8 to Respondent’s results before the period of Ineligibility began. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.

The Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides under rule 14.8 of the rules that the results of Respondent are disqualified from 31 March 2009 to the date of the period of ineligibility.

Rechtbank Amsterdam
Civiel recht
February 15, 2011
478700 / KG ZA 10-2346 HJ/JWR
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2011:BP9468

Related case:
ISR 2011 NRB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2011014 T
August 4, 2011

Facts
Player 2011014 engaged a preliminary relief proceeding before the civil court in Amsterdam. He demands that the voluntary suspension, because of a allegation of a anti-doping rule violation, will be lifted.

History
An anti-doping violation had been established because of a positive doping test for methylhexaneamine, for this the Dutch Rugby Union (Nederlandse Rugby Bond, NRB) had put the player on provisional suspension.
The player appealed against this decision before a civil court for financial reasons.
In his belief he had not the opportunity to prove that the violation had happened unknowingly.
By proceeding before the civil court he refers to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) because his presumption of innocence is violated. The sentence is disproportional in regards to the violation.
The judge agrees to the voluntary suspension will lead to irreversible consequences for the player. If the final decision will stand he will undergo the full sanction. The importance for the player weighs more than the continuation of the voluntary suspension.

Decision
- The voluntary suspension is lifted till the final decision.
- The legal costs of the player will be borne by the NRB.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) Mohamad Amin Jamaluddin (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the Rugby Sevens Tournament at the Commonwealth Games (CG) held in New Delhi, India on 11th and 12th October 2010. On 12th October he was tested for prohibited substances, his sample tested positive on a metabolite of cannabis at a concentration of 32ng/ml. This is a higher level than that prescribed by World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) which is 15ng/ml. Carboxy-THC is a Prohibited Substance listed under s.8 Cannabinoids of the WADA Prohibited List 2010. It is classified as a specified substance.

History
The player stated that on 6th October 2010, while at a party he was urged to “try something” after he joined a group of males and females. He agreed, because he wished to impress a female friend and this resulted in him smoking a cigarette not knowing it was a banned substance - cannabis. However, he knew “the thing” did not only contain cigarette tobacco. He stated his behaviour was affected by alcohol which he said had reduced him to a state whereby “he did not know what he was doing” – hence his failure to check the cigarette did not contain a banned substance. He stated he had previously never consumed or smelt cannabis. The player stated he stopped smoking the cannabis cigarette when his friend, Diego Kaslam intervened by pulling him away from the group of persons. Mr Kaslam informed him that he was smoking cannabis and reminded him that he had been selected to participate at the CG within a few days.

Decision
The sanction for the anti-doping rule violation committed by the player on 12th October 2010 by reason of the presence of the player’s sample of 11-nor-9-carboxy-tetrahydrocannabinol (Carboxy-THC) at a concentration of 32ng/ml with uncertainty of 5.0 at R=2 is a period of ineligibility of six (6) months.

Cost
Written submissions should be submitted on time

In January 2010 the National Anti-Doping Agency of India (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Kavita Chaudhary after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance nandrolone.
The 14 year old Athlete admitted that 3 decadurabolin (Nandrolone) injections were administered, prescribed by her doctor as part of her treatment for her shoulder.
Considering the exceptional circumstances and with no fault or negligence the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided on 31 August 2010 not to impose a sanction on the Athlete.

WADA appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI).
WADA argued that the Athlete failed to establish that she exercised utmost caution and bore no fault or negligence and the fact she is a minor could not exonerate her entirely of any fault or negligence.

Considering the circumstances and evidence in this case the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel rules that the WADA appeal is partly allowed and decides on 10 February 2011 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting in the date of the decision.

In September 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 hydrocholorthiazide.
The Player filed a statement with evidence in his defence and was heard for the ANAD Hearing Commission.
The Player stated he used medication for hypertension. He submitted medical documentation from doctors in Romania and the USA in support of his statement and submitted a request for a retroactive TUE for hydrochlorothiazide.
On 27 October 2010 the ANAD Hearing Commission decided, based on the “retroactive TUE granted” and the Player’s medical condition, to eliminate the provisional suspension and to sanction the Player with a reprimand.

After notification in February 2011 by FIBA the Player filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the FIBA Disciplinary Panel. Hereafter the Panel considers the facts in this case:
- the Player’s medical condition and respective treatment with the substance Hydrochlorothiazide is established through a series of medical reports by doctors in the USA and in Romania and also through the ANAD TUE decision;
- at the time of the doping control the Player was in the process of gathering his medical file from USA upon recommendation of the team doctor in order to request a TUE;
- the Player had not participated in any competitions before the doping control, which was conducted as part of the process to obtain a license in Romania, and he was simply preparing with the team for the upcoming season;
- the Player noted on the doping control form that he was taking “blood pressure medicine ”;
- the Player had no intention to enhance his performance.
Therefore the FIBA Disciplinary Committee decides a 1 month period of ineligibility.