Facts
The French Shooting Federation (Fédération Française de Tir, FFTir) charges respondent M14 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a shooting contest , on May 9, 2009, a sample for doping test purposes was taken. The sample tested positive on a metabolite of cannabis which is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Cannabis is regarded as a specified substances.

History
The respondent used the prohibited substance a month before the doping test in a recreational setting. There was no intention to enhance sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two months.
2. The result of the constest of May 9, 2009, 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 Medals, points and prizes are withdrawn.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 Federation for Savate, French Boxing and Associated Disciplines (Fédération Française de Savate Boxe Française et Disciplines Associées, FFSBFDA) charges respondent M13 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an event on May 16, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list, it is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent used cannabis a week before the doping test in a recreational setting.

Decision
1. The decision, dated October 20, 2009, of the disciplinary committee of the FFSBFDA should be modified.
2. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFSBFDA.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M12 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on August 27, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of budesonide which is a prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. This substances is regarded as a specified substances.

History
Respondent inhales a pharmaceutical which contains the prohibited substance to treat asthma. He also has reports to prove his condition.

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

CAS OG 10/04 Claudia Pechstein vs DOSB & IOC

• On 1 july 2009 the International Skating Union decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the German skater Claudia Pechstein for her anti-doping rule violation she committed.
• On 25 November 2009 the Court of Arbitration (CAS) decided to dismiss the Athlete's appeal (CAS 2009/A/1912) and to uphold the ISU Decision of 1 July 2009.
• On 10 February 2010 the Swiss Federal Tribunal also dismissed the Athlete's appeal.

Consequently the Athlete was ineligible to participate in the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games whereas the DSOB did not nominate the Athlete to participate in the 2010 Olympic Games.

Hereafter on 15 February 2010 the Athlete requested the DOSB to nominate her for the participation in the competitions of the female speed skaters during the Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver 2010. She also requested the IOC to allow her participation in those competitions.

Because the DOSB did not reply immediately on 15 February 2010 the Athlete addressed her application with the Court of Arbitration ad hoc Division.

The DOSB, the IOC and also the ISU requested the Panel to dismiss the Athlete's application and contended that the CAS ad hoc Panel has no jurisdiction the hear the Athlete's case.

Additionally the DOSB contended that the ad hoc Panel was bound by the Award CAS 2009/A/1912 of 25 November 2009 which was not set aside by the Swiss Federal Tribunal.

The Panel determines that the Athlete had not identified any specific decision by the IOC, an NOC, and International Federation or an Organising Committee for the Olympic Games which has arisen during the Vancouver Olympic Games or during a period of ten days preceding the Opening Ceremony of the Games on 12 February 2010 which could be the subject of an appeal to the ad hoc Division.

The Panel has, on its own, searched the record and found no such decision. As a result the Panel finds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the present matter and it so rules.

Therefore the ad hoc Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 18 February 2010:

1.) The ad hoc Division lacks jurisdiction to hear the present Application.

2.) The Application of Ms Claudia Pechstein is dismissed.

3.) Each party shall pay its own costs (see Article 22 of the CAS ad hoc Rules).

On 7 December 2008 a Romanian Appeal Commission confirmed the decision of 3 October 2008 of a Romanian Disciplinary Commission to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Romanian Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation. The Athlete appealed with het Swiss Federal Court in November 2009 after the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) dismissed the Athlete’s appeal on 9 October 2009.

The Swiss Federal Court also dismissed the Athlete’s appeal on 17 February 2010 due it was filed late and insufficiently argued in any event.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Adam Van Staveren (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Adam Van Staveren was tested as part of the IRB’s Anti-Doping program for the Americas Rugby Championship Tournament. The sample was taken from him on the final day of the tournament, namely the 17 October 2009. His sample tested positive on a metabolite of Cannabis, which is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) list. Cannabinoids are classified as “Specified Substances”.

History
The player’s uses cannabis socially. After a game he met up with friends “a week or two” before 17 October 2009. he shared with a number of them “two or three” cigarettes which contained what he described as “marijuana”. He knew the cigarettes contained cannabis and knew also that it was a Prohibited Substance. He insisted that he was not taken it to enhance sport performance.

Decision
The sanction for the anti-doping rule violation committed by the Player is a period of ineligibility of six months.

Costs
Written submissions should be submitted on time.

Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A Volume 27, Issue 7, 2010
J. Vaysse, S. Balayssaca, V. Gilarda, D. Desoubdzannea, M. Malet-Martinoa & R. Martinoa

Twenty herbal medicines or dietary supplements marketed as natural slimming products were analysed by diffusion ordered spectroscopy (DOSY) 1H-nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and DOSY-COSY 1H-NMR. The method allows analysis of the whole sample with the detection of both active and inactive ingredients in these complex matrices. Among the 20 formulations analysed, two were strictly herbal and four had a composition corresponding to declared ingredients on the packaging or the leaflet. The others were all adulterated. Eight formulations contain sibutramine alone at doses ranging from 4.4 to 30.5 mg/capsule. Five formulations contain sibutramine (from 5.0 to 19.6 mg/capsule or tablet) in combination with phenolphthalein (from 4.4 to 66.1 mg/capsule), and the last formulation was adulterated with synephrine (19.5 mg/capsule). Quantification of the actives was carried out with 1H-NMR. Several other compounds were also characterized including methylsynephrine, vitaberin, sugars, vitamins, etc. DOSY NMR is thus proposed as a useful tool for detection of unexpected adulteration.

In June 2009 the National Superior Basketball League of Puerto Rico (BSN) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
Therefore in October 2009 the BSN decided a 2 years period of ineligibility. Hereafter the BSN Appeal Committee and Puerto Rican Basketball Federation adopted the BSN Decision when the Player filed his appeal.
On 19 November 2009 the FIBA suspended the Player immediately, who was in the meantime playing in Mexico.
In December 2009 the Player appealed the Decision to the FIBA Disciplinary Board. The Player filed several statements with evidence in his defence and was heard for the Panel.

The Player’s submitted in essence the following:
- the adjudicating procedure before the BSN violated his right to be heard and the fundamental principle of due process;
- he was deprived of his right to have a full review of the file, prepare adequately for the hearing and examine witnesses;
- he was not provided with copies of the laboratory documentation, despite his request to the BSN;
- he was never informed of the day and time the “B” sample analysis would take place and thus did not attend the opening and analysis of the “B” sample, as he was entitled under Article 7.1.4 of the FIBA ADR;
- he suffers from a chronic medical condition on his right shoulder and has, since 2002, been receiving medical treatment on an almost permanent basis due to frequent shoulder dislocations;
- while playing in Mexico in February 2009 the team physician prescribed and administered to him three injections –and later also tablets– of Winstrol as part of his medical treatment;
- he fully trusted the team physician and was completely unaware of the fact that the injections or the tablets might contain a prohibited substance;
- he had the impression that he was simply receiving cortisone through the injections and did not inquire the origin or the nature of the medication;
- his physical appearance all but suggests that he has been using anabolic steroids;
- his last game of professional basketball was sometime in mid-November 2009, after he received FIBA’s decision to suspend him provisionally;
- this is the first time in his almost twenty-year long career as professional basketball player that he is accused of an anti-doping rule violation.

The FIBA Disciplinary Panel finds that the Player committed an anti-doping rule violation regardless of the Player’s arguments with respect to the opening of the B sample. The Panel concludes Player acted negligently in his responsibility that no prohibited substance enters his body.
The FIBA Disciplinary Panel decides a two year period of ineligibility starting from the date of the provisional suspension imposed by FIBA in November 2009.

Ms Svetlana Terenteva is a Russian Athlete competing in Ice Hockey at the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games.

On 8 February 2010 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance tuaminoheptane.
After notification the Athlete was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

The Athlete stated that she suffered from a bad head cold in January, and that the medication she had taken until then was not effective. She then went to a hospital in her home town of Pervouralsk, Russia, where a physician had given her a prescription for Rhinofluimucil. The Athlete provided a copy of the prescription to the Disciplinary Commission. The Athlete further explained that while the other medications she had taken had failed, Rhinofluimucil was helping her condition. The Athlete added that, at the hospital, she had mentioned to the physician, who was not a sports physician that she might be competing in the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games.

The Disciplinary Commission unanimously concluded that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation, in that there was the presence of the prohibited substance, tuaminoheptane, in her body, regardless of the date she had taken Rhinofluimucil, since the substance was in her body on 6 February 2010, the day upon which the sample was taken, during the Period of the Olympic Games.

Considering the circumstances and that the out-of-competition use of the substance was not prohibited, the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides:
1.) The athlete, Svetlana Terenteva, Russian Federation, Ice Hockey, is issued a reprimand;
2.) The NOC of the Russian Federation is reminded to ensure, by all means, that the athletes and officials of its delegation comply with all anti-doping rules;
3.) To forward this Decision to the International Ice Hockey Federation for any further action within its own competence, as it may deem appropriate; and
4.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Chelse Zarboni-Berthiaume for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. On November 6, 2009, two doping control officers (DCO) went to Chelse’s training venue at the Centre Sportif Gadbois.
Here the Athlete was not able to provide a sample and eventually she left the Doping Control Station after the arrival and intervention of her mother.

History
The DCO's made the athlete aware of the consequences for not providing a sample for doping tests. The Athlete admitted the violaton but there were also some inconsistencies in her statements she filed. The Arbitrator did not accept the statements made by the Athlete and her mother and deems that the Athlete showed a lack of cooperation with the Doping Control.

Decision
The Arbitrator establish that the Athlete in fact evaded the Doping Control influenced by het mother and decides on 11 February 2010 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension i.e. on 18 December 2009.