In July 2010 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Denis Adrian Blidariu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance metenolone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.
The Athlete admitted the use of metenolone and did not request for the B sample analysis.
Therefore the ANAD Hearing Commission decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 July 2010.

The Royal Dutch Motorcyclists Association (Koninklijke Nederlandse Motorrijders Vereniging, KNMV) has reported an anti doping rule violation against this person after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance formoterol. Person declined a hearing for the committee but filed a statement in his defence.
Person had medical dispensation for a drug, containing the prohibited ingredient formoterol. When tested person reported the DCO the use of a medical drug and his dispensation. At the time of the anti-doping test person’s 2007 dispensation was expired, but a new dispensation was already applied and approved April 15, 2010.
Considering exceptional circumstances, the Disciplinary Committee decides to reprimand person. Fees and expenses shall be borne by person.

CAS 2009/A/1915 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Polish Wrestling Federation (PWF), Kamil Blonski & Wojciech Zieziulewicz

• Wrestling
• Doping (methyltestosterone)
• Applicability of the WADA Code
• No significant fault or negligence and principle of proportionality
• High standard of athletes’ responsibility for nutritional supplements
• Investigation required before the consumption of a nutritional supplement
• Duty of care required for no significant fault or negligence

1. In accordance with Article R58 of the Code the “applicable regulations” refer to the statutes and regulations of the International Federations (IFs) which must be incorporated by the National Federations (NFs). As a signatory of the WADA Code (WADC), IFs incorporate the WADC into their Constitution and Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). Through this channel only, the WADC may apply. The rules of NFs are applicable to the extent that they do not conflict with the rules of IFs.

2. The proportionality principle which had been applied by CAS panels as a general legal principle in its earlier jurisprudence has been codified in Article 10.5 of the WADC 2003 allowing a sanctioning authority to consider exceptional circumstances of the case in order to lower the sanction instead of imposing a fixed sanction. Through the WADC 2003 the principle of proportionality was codified and thereby adjusted to the needs of the anti-doping law. The codification is in line with the requirements of the general proportionality principle and human rights. CAS has stated at various occasions that the WADC “enables the Panel to satisfy the general principle of proportionality” and there is no room to apply the proportionality principle beyond the application of Article 10.5.2 WADC 2003.

3. As it is generally known, nutritional supplements are often contaminated with or contain prohibited substances which are not declared on the label or package. The high standard of responsibility has been specified by warnings issued by the sport organizations. In practicing sport the athletes are bound by the provisions of their IF including its ADR and the high duty of care requested therein. This is a severe professional duty of care which is not incumbent on normal citizens and goes far beyond the standards of duty applicable to normal people.

4. Against the background of the content of the manufacturer’s website and the leaflet of the product, further investigation is mandatory before the consumption of a nutritional supplement. A check of the announcements in the internet and the product label, its package or leaflet is not sufficient. Even if the website and leaflet do not indicate prohibited substances openly, it is common knowledge that food supplements often contain undeclared substances or are contaminated with prohibited substances. Therefore, it is part of the athletes’ responsibility not to trust publicity on the website or the content of the label or leaflet.

5. By simply trusting the club personnel in what nutritional supplements they are given and the oral information provided by the support personnel that the products are clean, the athletes do not exercise the duty of care which is required in order to bear no significant fault or negligence only. Even if it is accepted that the athletes are misled by the club personnel and the seller and distributor of the supplements which are in close economic relation with the club, they are not relieved from their personal responsibility to make sure that no prohibited substance enters their bodies. Athletes do not escape liability when they simply trust their club’s staff or other supporting personnel.

On 15 May 2009 the Polish Wrestling Federation (PWF) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Polish wrestlers Kamil Blonski and Wojciech Zieziulewics after their A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methyltestosterone. Despite the appeal of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) the decision was uphold by the PWF on 29 June 2009.

Hereafter in July 2009 WADA appealed the PWF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the decision of 29 June 2009 an to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athletes.

WADA rejected the arguments in favour of the Athletes and argued that the Fault or Negligence of the Athletes was significant for using a product that clearly indicated that it enhance performances.

The PWF contended that the Athletes had established how the prohibited substance had entered their system and that they had acted not intentionally and with a normal degree of fault. The Athletes used the product to gain weight and they did not conceal the use of the product.

Considering the evidence in this case the Panel concludes that the Athletes could not demonstrate No Significant Fault or Negligence because they failed to conduct a thorough investigation of the product in question before using it.

Therefore on 12 August 2010 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

1.) Tho appeal of WADA is declared admissible and upheld.

2.) The decision of the Disciplinary Arbitration Commission of the PWF adopted on 29 June 2009 is set aside.

3.) Mr. Kamil Blonski and Mr. Wojciech Zieziulewics are sanctioned with a two year period of ineligibility starting on the date of this Award. The period of provisional suspension served by Mr. Kamil Blonski and Mr. Wojciech Zieziulewics since 17 December 2008, i.e.,one year, seven montht and 26 days, shall be credited against the total period of two years.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Mr. Kamil Blonski and Mr. Wojciech Zieziulewics from 17 December 2008 through the commencement of the applicable period of ineligibility shall be disqualified with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

5.) This Award is pronounces without costs except for the non-reimbursable Court Office Fee of CHF 500,- allready paid and to be retained by the CAS, The parties bear their own legal and other costs. PWF is ordered to contribute CHF 3.000,- to the costs incurred by WADA.

6.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

In November 2009 the National Anti-Doping Agency of India (INADA) has reported an anti-doping violation against the Athlete Dhamodharan Gajapathi after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol. Previously the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation in December 2006.
After notification the Athlete failed to appear for the hearing of Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

Without grounds for elimination or reduction of the period of ineligibility, the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides to impose a 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his second anti-doping rule violation starting on the date of the decision.

Related cases:
- ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2008_05 ANAD vs Corina Dumbrӑvean
February 19, 2008
- ANAD Comisia de Apel 2008_06 Olimpic Sport Club & Corina Dumbrӑvean vs ANAD
December 12, 2008
- CAS 2009/A/1764 Olimpic Sport Club vs ANAD
October 9, 2009
- ANAD Comisia de Audiere 2010_18 ANAD vs Corina Dumbrӑvean
July 8, 2010
- ANAD Comisia de Apel 2010_06 Corina Dumbrӑvean vs ANAD
August 10, 2010
- CAS 2010/A/2220 Corina Dumbrӑvean vs ANAD
July 26, 2011

In May 2010 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Corina Dumbrӑvean after she attempted to tamper her sample and refused to provide a sample for drug testing.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the ANAD Hearing commission.

The Athlete claimed that she was not on the location as mentioned in het whereabouts information and that she did not receive the invitation for testing. Several witnesses stated that the Athlete was not in Villa Olympic when the sample collection was conducted on 18 May 2005. The witnesses failed to identify the person presumed to undergo the doping test and the Doping Control Officers (DCO) stated they recognized the Athlete Corina Dumbrӑvean as the person who signed the invitation to provide a sample.
The Athlete sustained her claim that she was not the person who was tested by the two DCO’s on 18 May 2005. A criminologist expert testified that the person who signed the Invitation to provide a sample was not written by the Athlete Corina Dumbrӑvean.
However the National Crimonology Institute of the Romanian Ministry of Justice investigated several documents with the Athlete's signature and concluded in July 2010 that the Athlete’s signature on the invitation to provide a sample on 18 May 2010 belonged to the Athlete Corina Dumbrӑvean.

The ANAD Hearing Commission considered in this case the statements and evidence and the fact that the Athlete committed a second anti-doping rule violation. In addition the IAAF has reported in March 2010 that the Athlete tested positive for the prohibited substance erythropoetin (EPO).
Therefore the ANAD Hearing Commission decided to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 3 June 2010 (case 18/08.07.2010)

Hereafter both the Athlete Corina Dumbrӑvean and the Olimpic Sport Club in in Craiova appealed the decision of the ANAD Hearing Commission (case 18/08.07.2010) with the ANAD Appeal Commission (appeal cases 6/10.08.2010 and 7/10.08.2010), which decides on 10 August 2010 that these appeals were inadmissible.

Related cases:
- ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2008_05 ANAD vs Corina Dumbrӑvean
February 19, 2008
- ANAD Comisia de Apel 2008_06 Olimpic Sport Club & Corina Dumbrӑvean vs ANAD
December 12, 2008
- CAS 2009/A/1764 Olimpic Sport Club vs ANAD
October 9, 2009
- ANAD Comisia de Audiere 2010_18 ANAD vs Corina Dumbrӑvean
- ANAD Comisia de Apel 2010_07 Olimpic Sport Club vs ANAD
August 10, 2010
- ANAD Comisia de Apel 2010_08 Eleodor Rosca vs ANAD
November 18, 2010
- CAS 2010/A/2220 Corina Dumbrӑvean vs ANAD
July 26, 2011

In May 2010 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Corina Dumbrӑvean after she attempted to tamper her sample and refused to provide a sample for drug testing.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the ANAD Hearing commission.

The Athlete claimed that she was not on the location as mentioned in het whereabouts information and that she did not receive the invitation for testing. Several witnesses stated that the Athlete was not in Villa Olympic when the sample collection was conducted on 18 May 2005. The witnesses failed to identify the person presumed to undergo the doping test and the Doping Control Officers (DCO) stated they recognized the Athlete Corina Dumbrӑvean as the person who signed the invitation to provide a sample.
The Athlete sustained her claim that she was not the person who was tested by the two DCO’s on 18 May 2005. A criminologist expert testified that the person who signed the Invitation to provide a sample was not written by the Athlete Corina Dumbrӑvean.
However the National Crimonology Institute of the Romanian Ministry of Justice investigated several documents with the Athlete's signature and concluded in July 2010 that the Athlete’s signature on the invitation to provide a sample on 18 May 2010 belonged to the Athlete Corina Dumbrӑvean.

The ANAD Hearing Commission considered in this case the statements and evidence and the fact that the Athlete committed a second anti-doping rule violation. In addition the IAAF has reported in March 2010 that the Athlete tested positive for the prohibited substance erythropoetin (EPO).
Therefore the ANAD Hearing Commission decided to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 3 June 2010 (case 18/08.07.2010)

Hereafter both the Athlete Corina Dumbrӑvean and the Olimpic Sport Club in in Craiova appealed the decision of the ANAD Hearing Commission (case 18/08.07.2010) with the ANAD Appeal Commission (appeal cases 6/10.08.2010 and 7/10.08.2010), which decides on 10 August 2010 that these appeals were inadmissible.

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation. He gave evidence that he left the championships the day before the match to be with family upon learning his grandmother had passed away and that he smoked Cannabis that night for comfort purposes. The Tribunal accepted he did not use the Cannabis for sports performance enhancing purposes.
The Tribunal took into account the bereavement and that when he smoked the Cannabis he had intended to go to his grandmother’s tangi and did not intend to return to the tournament.
However, there were aggravating circumstances including that he was a very experienced international player who admitted he was well aware of the anti-doping rules, including those concerning Cannabis, and who made a deliberate decision to return to participate fully in the competition knowing the night before he had smoked Cannabis and hoped he would not get caught. His team didn’t win but would have been disqualified if it had as a result of his violation.

Because the Touch season had finished the Tribunal considers it must have the power to impose a meaningful and effective sanction. Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a period of ineligibility starting from the date of the hearing on 29 June 2010 until 16 March 2011, when the next touch season is due to finish.

Implementation of the WADA Code in the European Union / Robert C.R Siekman, Janwillem Soek. – The Hague : T.M.C. Asser Intitute, 2010. – 48 p. : fig. – Report commissioned by Philippe Muyters, Flemish minister for Finance, Budget, Work, Spatial Planning and Sport, responsible for sport in view of the Belgian Presidency of the European Union in the second half of 2010

Content
A.) Relationship between the national rules and regulations and the WADA Code
A.l In what way has the UNESCO Anti Doping Convention been implemented in your country?
A.2 On which points do the anti-doping rules and regulations in your country differ from the WADA Code?
A.3 On which points does your country’s practice differ from the prevention of doping envisaged in the Code
A.4 Have your rules and regulations been declared WADA compatible with the present WADA Code, 2009 version?
A.5 Does your country make use of the Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (the ADAMS database), which the WADA makes available to all stakeholders?
A.6 Has a TUEC or Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee been established in your country?
A.7 Are all five International Standards of the WADA and the 2009 Code fully applicable in your country?
B.) Specific points of attention
B.1 With which anti-doping organisations (ADOs) – both national and international – are you currently exchanging information?
B.2 Are the doping sanctions imposed by other ADOs recognized and carried out in your country?
B.3 What is your opinion concerning a mechanism for reciprocity (mutual recognition) of doping sanctions between the 27 EU Member States?
B.4 Do you ever carry out doping controls at the request of another Member State or NADO?
B.5 Which rules and regulations apply in your country concerning trade and distribution of doping products?
B.6 What are your NADO’s statutes?
B.7 How has your national registered testing pool for doping tests been defined and what does it consist of, and what is the number of sportsmen included in the registered pool on 1 February 2010?
B.8 What is the relationship between the sport federations, the public authorities and the NADO in your country?
B.9 Does your NADO already apply the WADA’s Athlete Biological Passport programme in the fight against doping?
Conclusions
International and national legislation and regulations

In this report, the T.M.C. Asser Instituut presents the results of its study. Its inventory was undertaken on the basis of the attached questionnaire which was distributed amongst the relevant government departments and/or agencies with primary authority in the area of sport in each Member State and amongst the National Anti-Doping Organisations (NADOs) in the European Union.

In June 2010 the Fédération Internationale de Volleyball (FIVB), the International Volleyball Federation, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Puertorican Athlete Gregory Berrios after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance N-Didesmethyl sibutramine. After notification the FIVB ordered a provisional suspension. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the FIVB Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

The Athlete stated that, due to a knee injury, he gained weight and therefore he used a natural product “Fat Loss”. He showed the Panel that the productlabel didn’t mention it contained prohibited substances.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete had no intention to enhance his sport panel but also acted negligently due to he used a dietary product on his own initiative without prescription or advice of competent expert or the team doctor.
Therefore the FIVB Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 4 August 2010 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 July 2010.

CAS 2010/A/2173 the International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) vs the Romanian Athletics Federation (RAF) & Ms Anca Heltne (Settlement Agreement)

In February 2010 an anti-doping rule violation was reported against the Romanian Athlete Anca Heltne after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.

On 4 August 2010 the parties involved agreed that the case CAS 2010/A/2173 shall be withdrawn on the following terms:

1.) The Athlete accepts the positive tested sample collected at the Romanian National Championships in Bucharest on 27 February 2010.

2.) The Athlete accepts that she committed an anti-doping rule violation.

3.) The Athlete accepts a 2 year period of ineligibility, imposed by the IAAF, starting on 1 April 2010.

4.) The Athlete’s results at the 2010 National Championships are disqualified including forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The Athlete’s results in any competition in which she competed after the 2010 National Championships are also disqualified including forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

6.) The Athlete agrees not to commence or continue proceedings in any forum against the IAAF or the Romanian Athletics Federation (RAF) arising out of the administration of the doping control and the positive tested sample, collected on 27 February 2010, or relating to the imposition of any sanctions in connection therewith.

7.) (…)