Facts
The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) charges Lwandile Zino (the athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The presence of a prohibited substance was detected in the Athlete’s sample. substance identified was cannabinoids metabolites, in a concentration of 66ng/ml (nanograms/millilitre), which is significantly above the permitted threshold of 15ng/ml.

History
The Athlete accepted the evidence relating to the presence and concentration level of the prohibited substance, but pleaded not guilty as it was argued that the presence of the prohibited substance cannabinoids was due to the inhalation of second hand smoke. The Athlete explained the circumstances relating to his living arrangements with his siblings who are chronic marijuana users that resulted in the inhalation of second hand smoke. The Athlete stated that he is a non-drinker and a non-smoker due to his profession. There was no intention to enhance his sport performance due to the incidental nature of the transgression.

Considerations panel
The concentration of cannabinoids metabolites in the sample is too high for being the result of passive smoking.

Decision
A) Imposition of a period of ineligibility of twelve (12) months of which six (6) months are suspended. The Panel concurred that the period of ineligibility be credited against the period for which he had been provisionally suspended. Accordingly, the Athlete would be prohibited from competing as a boxer until Saturday 25th September 2010;
B) Furthermore, that during the six (6) month suspended period (26th September 2010 until 25th March 2011) the boxer will be subject to a series of voluntary urine test at the behest of SAIDS;
C) Should the Athlete test positive again for any prohibited substance during the period 26th September 2010 until 25th March 2011 the maximum sentence of two years will automatically come into effect and the Athlete would have to be formally enrolled into a drug rehabilitation program.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping (“UKAD”) charges Roderick Attard ("player") for commission of a Doping Offence in breach of Article 2.1 of the Anti-Doping Rules. The player provided a sample of urine on January 19, 2010. Analysis of that sample revealed the presence of 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone, the metabolites of the prohibited substance nandrolone.

History
The player is a Maltese national who was born in, and who has lived almost all his life in Malta. Since about 2007 the player had suffered from a shoulder injury. Following investigations, in November 2008, surgical stabilization of the shoulder was performed. The player frankly said that he knew that what was being recommended was a prescription drug, and that although he did not know the precise substance he knew that it was some form of steroid or steroid based drug. After the sample had been given the player declared in Box 25 on the sample form the following use of a drug – injection in shoulder in Nov 2009 as part of rehab pro as part of shoulder reconstruction.
the player raised the following arguments:
1. He should be granted a retrospective Therapeutic Use Exemption (“TUE”).
2. He had acted without fault or negligence.
3. He had acted without significant fault or negligence.
4. He had admitted the violation in the absence of other evidence.

Conclusion
1. The tribunal finds that the breach charged by the UKAD is made out and dismiss each of the mitigating arguments advanced by the player. The consequence is that the mandatory period of 2 years ineligibility for a first violation prescribed by Article 10.2 of the Anti-Doping Rules must be imposed.
2. The effect of Article 10.9.3 of the Anti-Doping Rules is that period of ineligibility shall commence on the date of the player’s provisional suspension, namely March 2, 2010. The player’s plea that the period should commence on January 19, 2010, cannot be entertained because he did not give written notice of any voluntary provisional suspension from the date: the fact that he may not have played since then is not in itself sufficient.
3. Accordingly, the tribunal declares that the player shall be subject to a period of ineligibility of two years commencing on March 2, 2010. During that period the player shall not be permitted to participate in any capacity in a competition or in any other capacity (other than authorized Anti-Doping education or rehabilitation programs) organized, convened, or authorized by the RFL or by any body that is a member or, or affiliated to, or licensed by the RFL.

Time for Strict Liability for Coaches and Team Doctors?
The strict liability of athletes for any prohibited substance found in their samples is the bedrock of anti-doping rules. “It is each Athlete’s responsibility to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body” Article 2.1.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code commands.

Facts
Claimant Taylor Shadgett and respondent Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) and the interveners Arcadia university and the Canadian Interuniversity Sport took part in a resolution hearing conducted by telephone conference on July 15, 2010.
The claimant was called to give an urine sample through the normal testing process on June 7, 2010. His sample tested positive on Stanozolol which is a prohibited substance.

History
When tested the claimant had admitted the ingestion of the steroid Winstrol in the previous ten days.

Decision
The claimant did commit an anti-doping violation by the presence in his body and use of Winstrol, a prohibited substance, contrary to the Doping Violations and Consequences Rules of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. The Tribunal therefore imposes a two year period of ineligibility to be calculated from June 7, 2010.

For violating the doping regulations of the ISR, the Dutch Royal Strength Sport Fitness Federation (KNKF) reported against this person. In the A portion of the urine sample of person are prohibited substances 17β-methyl-5β-androst-1-ene-3α, 17α-diol and 17α-methyl-5β-androstane-3α, 17β-diol (metabolites of metandienone) and a testosterone / epitestosterone ratio greater than 4 detected. This result is confirmed by the analysis of the B-portion of the urine sample. The doping is held during the Open Powerlifting Championship North Holland Alkmaar. The case was orally treated with the person appearing in person.
Person relied on the inadmissibility of the KNKF related to exceeding the six-week deadline for reporting the ADRV. The Disciplinary Commission notes, however, that there is no excess of this limit. Person has no further use is made of a defence. During the hearing person said to have been taken by surprise by the doping. Person had just joined the KNKF. In his own words, he was not informed about doping and possible controls. Person states that he supplements to purchased on the Internet. He had no idea that these preparations may contain prohibited substances.
For a first offense of doping, there is a penalty of exclusion for a period of two years. Person has not previously been convicted of a doping offense. The Disciplinary Committee finds that no reasons are given for the reduction / extension of the standard sanction period. Person after suspension has not participated in power lift competitions. This period shall be deducted from the total period of exclusion. Also, 50% of the costs recovered from the person concerned. Not the total cost because the information provided by the KNKF on doping control has left much to be desired.

The KNKF Appeal committee decides on 22 July 2010 to dismiss the appeal and to uphold the impose a 2 year period of ineligibilty.

CAS 2009/A/1983 Mariana Ohata v. International Triathlon Union (ITU)

Triathlon
Doping (furosemide)
Legal effect of a decision that was not signed and sent by e-mail
Difference between impartiality and independence of the Hearing Panel
Breach of the ISL
Multiple infraction and period of ineligibility

1. Whether or not a decision has to be signed by the members of a panel is a question as to the form of said decision. There is no provision in the ITU Anti-Doping Rules according to which the decision of the Doping Hearing Panel must bear the signatures of the panel members in order for the decision to enter into force or existence. The only form requirement to be found in the rules and regulations of the ITU is that the decision must be in writing and contain reasons. There are no recognised international law principles as to the form requirements relating to disciplinary decisions of international sports organisations.

2. The ITU Anti-Doping Rules do not define the terms “impartial” or “independent”. It is, therefore, not easy to distinguish clearly between both prerequisites. In principle, “independence” in Article 8.1.1 of the ITU Anti-Doping Rules concerns an objective situation prohibiting certain relationships, particularly of a financial nature, between a panel member and the ITU. “Impartiality” on the contrary is a more subjective notion referring to the absence of bias in the person acting as a member of the panel resulting from a “privileged” relationship with the matter to be decided.

3. According to the 2009 International Standards for Laboratories, the requirement that a different analyst perform the A and B analytical procedures does no longer exist.

4. According to the ITU Anti-Doping Rules, anti-doping rule violations committed prior to the entry into force of today’s ITU Anti-Doping Rules may be taken into account in cases involving multiple infraction as long as the second violation has taken place within the deadline established in the ITU Anti-Doping Rules.

In July 2009 the International Triathlon Union (ITU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian triathlon Athlete Mariana Ohata after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Furesemide. Previously in 2002 the Athlete served a 60 day period of ineligibility for an anti-doping rule violation. As a result on 5 October 2009 the ITU Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 6 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for her second anti-doping rule violation.

Hereafter in October 2009 the Athlete appealed the ITU decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to annul the ITU decision of 5 October 2009 and to impose a reduced sanction. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance, argued that there were procedural errors in the case against her and that there are grounds for No Fault or Negligence.
The ITU requested the Panel to uphold the sanction and to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal.

The Panel notes that in this case there are the following legal issues:

a) Has the Decision any legal effect even though it has not been signed by the members of the ITU Doping Hearing Panel?
b) Was the composition of the ITU Doping Hearing Panel in accordance with the ITU Anti-Doping Rules?
c) Did the laboratory breach mandatory safeguards for the Athlete in the ISL?
d) Has the Respondent established that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation according to the ITU Anti-Doping Rules?
e) In case an anti-doping rule violation is established, what period of ineligibility applies to the case at hand?

Considering the evidence the Panel holds that Athlete’s argument that de Decision is inexistent and void of any effects has to be rejected. The Panel finds that the Athlete failed to provide any facts that show (or might show) a bias of the persons acting as members of the ITU Doping Hearing Panel. Also the CAS Panel can reconsider the case de novo and, thus, cure any possible (procedural) defect in the composition of the origiginal ITU Doping Hearing Panel.

The Panel considers that contrary to the Athlete’s allegation the evidence does not give rise to any suspicion that the laboratory lost control over de integrity or the identity of the samples. As the Athlete failed to demonstrate a departure from the ISL by the laboratory consequently the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete has committed a violation of the ITU Anti-Doping Rules.

The Panel concludes that since the Athlete’s the first anti-doping rule violation qualifies as a No Significant Fault-case and the second anti-rule violation as a Significant Fault-case the applicable range for the period of ineligibility is 6 to 8 years ineligibility. Here the Athlete has not claimed nor submitted any evidence that would entitle her to a reduction or suspension of her sanction, the Panel is bound by the range for the period of ineligibility set out in in the ITU Anti-Doping Rules. According to this range the period of ineligibility cannot be below six years.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 July 2010:

1.) The appeal filed by Mrs Mariana Ohata on 23 October 2009 is dismissed.
2.) The decision rendered by the ITU Doping Hearing Panel on 5 October 2009 in the matter of the International Triathlon Union vs. Mrs Mariana Ohata is confirmed.
3.) (…).
4.) (…).
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Facts
The Royal Netherlands Power Sport and Fitness Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Krachtsport en Fitnessfederatie, KNKF) had reported an anti doping rule violation against the athlete. During an in-competition test samples were taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the A sample showed the presence of norandrosterone. Norandrosterone is a metabolite of nandrolone which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list of 2010. It is regarded as a non-specified substance.

History
The athlete was never before sanctioned for a doping violation, there are no aggravating circumstances. There was no response to letters from the disciplinary committee for that reason the case was handled in writing.

Decision
- The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years.
- The athlete shall bear the costs for the disciplinary committee.

Facts
The Royal Netherlands Power Sport and Fitness Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Krachtsport en Fitnessfederatie, KNKF) charged the athlete for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an in-competition doping test a sample for doping test purposes was provided. The sample tested positive on a metabolite of metandienone. Metandienone is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list of 2010, it is regarded as a non-specified substance.

History
The athlete sent a written defence and waived his right for a hearing, the case was handled in writing. The athlete claims that the prohibited substance must have entered his body because he had used an unknown food supplement from a friend. He had not checked the ingredients.
The panel concludes that the explanation was based on assumptions, he failed to proof how the prohibited substance had entered his body. However it is the personal responsibility for the athlete to take care no prohibited substances can enter his body, for this reason there is no reduction in the standard period of ineligibility, also there were no aggravating circumstances.

Decision
- The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years, starting from the day of the decision, with reduction of the period spent in voluntary suspension.
- The athlete will bear the costs for the proceedings of the disciplinary committee.

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 and Respondent was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation. The Tribunal accepted evidence that the Cannabis was not taken for sports performance enhancing purposes but used with a friend in a time of personal stress for Respondent. The Tribunal took into account that Respondent was under stress during the time of use as this was relevant to fault but the Tribunal took the view that this is not a major consideration. That Respondent knowingly used cannabis two days before an important match while having been educated in, and being well aware, of the anti-doping rules and Basketball New Zealand’s commitment to them, means he must accept a reasonable degree of fault.
Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 June 2010.

The Royal Netherlands Power Sport and Fitness Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Krachtsport en Fitnessfederatie, KNKF) has reported an anti doping rule violation against this person after he tested positive for the prohibited substances norandrosterone and testosterone/epitestosterone.
KNKF notified the person of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension.
Person did not reply nor filled a statement in his defence.
In absence of person the Disciplinary Committee ruled a violation of the anti-doping rules and decides an ineligibility for two years.