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 appeared 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 purchased the supplements 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.

In June 2009 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Mǎdǎlina Veronica Mureşan after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance sibutramine.
Due to the Athlete had used a supplement in order to lose weight the Romanian Hearing Commission of Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel decided to impose a reprimand and a warning on the Athlete.

Hereafter in August 2009 WADA appealed the decision of the Hearing Commission with the Romanian Appeal Commission. WADA requested the Appeal Commission to set aside the decision of the Hearing Commission and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. WADA argued that the Athlete failed to exercise utmost caution in using the supplement.

The Romanian Appeal Commission finds that the Athlete had not intention to enhance sport performance and that the ingredients on the label of the supplement did not mention any prohibited substances. The Appeal Commission concludes however that the Athlete could have taken more caution before she purchased and used the supplement.
Considering the circumstances the Romanian Appeal Commission rules that the WADA appeal is partly allowed and to set aside the decision of the Romanian Hearing Commission of Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel.
Therefore the Romanian Appeal Commission decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 6 June 2009.

In June 2009 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Carmen Cristina Toma after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance heptaminol.
In August 2009 the Romanian Hearing Commission of Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel concluded that the Athlete had no intention to enhance performance when she used a supplement which contained the prohibited substance.
Therefore the Hearing Commission of Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel decided to impose a reprimand and a warning on the Athlete.

Hereafter WADA appealed the decision of the Hearing Commission with the Romanian Appeal Commission. WADA requested the Appeal Commission to set aside the decision of the Hearing Commission and to impose a period of ineligibility between 1 year and 2 years. WADA argued that the Athlete purchased the supplement without informing the sales person that she is a national level Athlete and she also failed to read the leaflet before using the supplement. The prospectus of the supplement expressly mentions that the pills contain heptaminol.

The Romanian Appeal Commission concludes that the Athlete had not intention to enhance her sport performance but finds that she could have taken more caution with reading the prospectus before using the pills.
Considering the circumstances the Romanian Appeal Commission rules that the WADA appeal is partly allowed and to set aside the decision of the Romanian Hearing Commission of Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel.
Therefore the Romanian Appeal Commission decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 12 June 2009.

Facts
The French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M03 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a body-building contest on May 16, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of metabolites of stanozolol. Stanozolol is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent has no knowledge of taking prohibited substances, he uses dietary supplements obtained from the internet, which could be the cause of the positive test.

Decision
1. The sanction is a two years period of ineligibility in which respondent can't take part in competition or sport manifestations organized or authorized by French sport federations.
2. All the results obtained at the match on May 16, 2009, are 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 of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M02 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a bench press contest on April 25, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent claims she used the cannabis one year ago, which must have left traces.

Decision
1. The sanction is a six months period of ineligibility in which respondent can't take part in competition or sport manifestations organized or authorized by the FFHMFAC.
2. All the results obtained at the match on April 25, 2009, are 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 Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M01 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on December 1, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisolone. Prednisolone is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent was treated with an injection in his right ankle, this injection contained the prohibited substance. He has medical statements for this treatment from his physician. There was no intention to enhance his sport performance. An application form for a therapeutic use exemption was sent to the AFLD.

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

CAS 2009/A/1892 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI), Ronaldo Sylvester Slay & Guillermo Jose Diaz Gonzalez

• Basketball
• Doping (failure or refusal to submit to doping control
• Insufficient evidence establishing a liability
  
  

“Refusal” or “failure” to submit to doping control or an “otherwise evading a doping control” has not been established according to the applicable comfortable satisfaction standard of proof when the evidence submitted is not sufficient to establish that the athletes were told in an unequivocal and understandable manner not to leave the doping control station so as to enable them to understand that they would be in breach of their duties if they did so.

In November 2008 the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the basketball players Ronaldo Slay and Guillermo Diaz Gonzalez for their refusal or failure to submit to sample collection.

Consequently the CONI National Anti-Doping Tribunal decided on 8 May 2009 to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Athletes.

Hereafter WADA appealed the CONI Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athletes.

Following assessment of the evidence in this case the Panel deems that WADA has not succeeded in establishing when and in what form the Athletes were made aware that they were told let alone directed not to leave the anti-doping station in a manner which enabled them to understand that they would be in breach of their duties if they did so.

Furthermore the Panel is not satisfied that even if it were established that the Athletes left the doping control station despite an unequivocal instruction not to do so, the behaviour of the Athletes would constitute a “refusal” or a “failure” or an “otherwise evading” under Article 2.3 of the CONI Anti-Doping Rules.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 January 2010:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 24 June 2009 is dismissed.

2.) The decision issued by the CONI National Anti-Doping Tribunal on 8 May 2009 is upheld.

3.) (…).

4.) All further or other prayers for relief are dismissed.

In October 2009 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis at a concentration of 30 ng/mL.

The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal. The Athlete admitted the use of cannabis during the 2009 football season and the night prior to the doping control.
The Tribunal concludes that the Athlete had no intention to enhance his sport performance and used cannabis to deal with the stresses of his life.
Without provisional suspension the Tribunal decides on 4 January 2010 to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 21 December 2009.

THE 2010 MONITORING PROGRAM*

The following substances are placed on the 2010 Monitoring Program:

1. Stimulants:

In-Competition Only: Bupropion, caffeine, phenylephrine, phenylpropanolamine, pipradrol, pseudoephedrine (< 150 micrograms per milliliter), synephrine.

2. Narcotics:

In-Competition Only: Morphine/codeine ratio.

* The World Anti-Doping Code (Article 4.5) states: “WADA, in consultation with Signatories and governments, shall establish a monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport.”

WADA - Play True Magazine
2010, issue 1
Vancouver 2010: WADA’s Olympic and Paralympic Preview
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content

Editorial
01 Editorial John Fahey
03 Editorial David Howman

Features
05 Vancouver 2010
10 WADA's role at a Glance
13 Olympic Independent Observer Team
15 Olympic Athlete Outreach Team
17 Paralympic Independent Observer Team
18 Paralympic Athlete Outreach Team

VANOC Highlights
19 VANOC’s Anti-Doping Commitment and Programs
20 Joint WADA/VANOC Doping Control Video
21 A State-of-the-Art Anti-Doping Laboratory for the Games