Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Spencer Zimmerman-Cryer (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP) for the use or attempted use of a prohibited substance.

History
The athlete's admission occurred before any notice of a sample collection and, of course, before he received any notice of the violation. His admission was the only evidence of the violation when he made it. He testified and signed the admission document, this was three days before the entire University of Waterloo football team was tested.

Decision
it is hereby ordered that the sanction for the anti-doping rule violation of use of a prohibited substance admitted by the Athlete be one (1) year of ineligibility, to be served commencing on March 30, 2010 and ending on March 30, 2011.

On 30 December 2008 the Federatia Romana de Gimnastica informed FIG that Marian Dragulescu (the Athlete), and two other Romanian gymnasts, had ended their career as active athletes. However the Athlete competed again in October and November 2009. The FIG was not informed of his return to competition and availability for out-of-competition testing in 2009. There was no application for a FIG Licence and the Athlete did not submit any whereabouts in this period.

The FIG has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after he committed two Whereabouts Failures in 2010. The Athlete did not submit complete whereabouts for the first quarter within the given deadline, even though he had received two reminders. Also the Athlete did not submit complete information about his daily whereabouts for the quarters one to three of 2010.
After notification by FIG the Athlete was heard for the FIG Disciplinary Commission in July 2010.
The Athlete stated that after his come back to competition he did not know anything about the FIG Licences. The Athlete argued that the Romanian Gymnastics Federation had always done all the administrative tasks for the Athletes. He admitted he did not complete his whereabouts in 2010 and that he acted negligently because of personal problems in that period.

Proposed by the FIG Disciplinary Commission on 18 August 2010, the FIG Presidential Commission decides on 20 August 2010 to record the two Whereabouts Failures against the Athlete and to give her a strong warning for the incomplete whereabouts submissions he has made.

The Féderation Internationale de Natation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swimmer after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.
FINA notified the Swimmer in June 2010 and ordered a provisional suspension. The Swimmer filed a statement in his defence for the FINA Doping Panel. The Swimmer stated he had used dietary pills, obtained by his trainer, and expressed his regrets for his negligence.
The Panel finds the Swimmer demonstrated a regrettable lack of responsibility and care that no prohibited substance enters his body because he did not research the ingredients of the pills before using it.
The FINA Doping Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Swimmer starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

The Féderation Internationale de Natation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swimmer for three whereabouts filing failures. The Swimmer has not or has not timely sent his whereabouts information to FINA for the 4th quarter of 2009, and 1st and 2nd quarters of 2010. The Swimmer was notified by FINA and heard for the FINA Doping Panel in August 2010.
The Swimmer stated in that period he was in poor psychological state because of his serious shoulder injury and surgery and recovery period hereafter. Swimmer had no intention to cheat and resumed sending his whereabouts information regularly again from 1 March 2010.
Considering the circumstances the FINA Doping Panel decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Swimmer starting from 20 August 2010.

The Féderation Internationale de Natation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swimmer after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.

After notification by FINA the Swimmer was hear for the FINA Doping Panel in August 2010.
The Swimmer stated she had used a nutritional supplement, prescribed by a licensed nutritionist and prepared by a licensed pharmacy. The Swimmer argued she took numerous precautions to avoid ingesting a prohibited substance, she discussed the WADA Prohibited List with her nutritionist and took the prescription to an accredited pharmacy.
She had no intention to enhance performance and declared the use of the supplement on her doping control form.

The Panel finds the Swimmer has not undertaken enough enquiries on the supplement, in the light of strict liability of the Swimmer.
Considering the Swimmer’s statement and the circumstances, the FINA Doping Panel decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Swimmer starting on 20 august 2010.

Related case:
CAS 2010/A/2216 Ryan Napoleon vs FINA
December 22, 2010

The Féderation Internationale de Natation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swimmer after his A and B samples tested positive in November 2009 for the prohibited substance formoterol.

After notification the Swimmer filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the FINA Doping Panel in August 2010.
The Swimmer stated he suffers from asthma from a young age and uses prescribed medication, for which he was granted a TUE since 2008. The Person’s father also suffers from asthma and they stored their asthma medication in the same place in their family home. Person argued that they may have, on occasion, inadvertently used each other’s inhaler, due to incorrect labelling by their pharmacist. His father uses another type of asthma medication, which contains the prohibited substance formoterol.

The FINA Doping Panel accepted Swimmer’s statement and finds the Person’s degree of care was less that should be expected from and elite athlete. Without intention to enhance performance and considering the circumstances the FINA Doping Panel decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Swimmer starting on 20 August 2010. In addition, all results which were achieved by the Swimmer from 16 November 2009 until 6 April 2010 would be annulled.

Hereafter the Swimmer appealed the case to CAS.

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

Respondent filed a statement in his defence admitting the violation but hereafter failed to participate in the hearing for the Tribunal and to provide corroborating evidence.
Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on Respondent, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 June 2010.

CAS 2009/A/1871 UCI v/ Rudolf Keller, Swiss Cycling and Swiss Olympic

In September 2008 the International Cycling Union (UCI) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swiss cyclist Rudolf Keller. The UCI alleged that the Athlete failed to appear for sample collection at the doping control station at the UCI Road Masters World Championship in St, Johann Austria, on 31 August 2008.

However on 17 February 2009 the Disciplinary Commission of Swiss Olympic decided to acquit the Athlete. In first instance the Disciplinary Commission deemed that the announcement op the doping control at the race was not properly organized whereas the Athlete could not be seriously criticized for failing to take sufficient meaure to find out he should appear for a doping control.

Hereafter in June 2009 the UCI appealed the Decision of Swiss Olympic with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The UCI requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The UCI refuted the arguments in the Appealed Decision and contended that the Athlete failed to submit to sample collection without compelling justification.

The Panel assessed and adressed the following issues raised by the Parties:

• valid notification;
• presence of a chaperone;
• conflicting statements;
• inadequate organization fo the announcement of the doping control;
• UCI failure to provide evidence;
• ranking; and
• Anti-Doping Switzerland.

The Panel concludes that there are no mitigating or otherwise
exceptional circumstances that could justify a deviation from the UCI sanction provisions in the ADR. Accordingly, the period of ineligibilily for failing to submit sample collection for a first violation shall be 2 years of ineligibility.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 18 August 2010 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the UCI on 10 June 2009 is upheld.

2.) The decision of 17 February 2009 from the disciplinary commission for doping cases of Swiss Olympic is set aside.

3.) Mr. Rudolf Keller is sanctioned with a 2 years period of ineligibility starting on the day, on which this award enters into force.

4.) Mr, Rudolf Keller is disqualified from the 2008 UCI Road Masters World Championship.

5.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500.- (five hundred Swiss francs) already paid by the Appellant and which is retained by the CAS.

6.) Each party shall otherwise bear its own legal costs and all other expenses incurred with this arbitration.

7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Following police investigations started in March 2009 anti-doping rule violations were reported against the Italian cyclist Gianni Da Ros for the use, possession, trafficking and administration of prohibited substances including complicity. Thereupon the National Anti-Doping Tribunal of the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) decided on 23 November 2009 to impose a sanction of 20 years on the Athlete.

Hereafter in December 2009 the Athlete appealed the TNA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a proportional sanction.

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence in this case and the issues raised by the parties and determines that:

• The Athlete was involved in trafficking and attempted use of prohibited substances.
• Because of the seriousness of the violations a more severe sanction is justified and proportional.
• In accordance with the WADA Code there are no grounds for the imposition of a sanction of 20 years.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 17 August 2010:

1.) The Athlete's appeal against the TNA Decision of 23 November 2009 is partially accepted.

2.) The sanction of 4 years is imposed on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 March 2008.

3.) (...)

4.) (...)

5.) (...)

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after he refused to provide a sample for drug testing. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

Respondent admitted the violation. He stated that he only participated in the competition for fun and did not intend to participate in future powerlifting competitions. He also stated he intended to compete in bodybuilding and believed that any period of suspension imposed by the Tribunal would not prevent him from doing so. The Tribunal warned him that any period of suspension it imposed here would also apply to any sporting body that is a signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code.

Because of a period of delay the Tribunal finds this the consequence of consideration of some other issues that could not be attributed to Respondent. Therefore the Tribunal considered that the sanction should be reduced by 3 months to take into account the period of delay. The Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 21 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 22 June 2010 until 22 March 2012.