Facts
The French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M38 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on January 18, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of a metabolite of hydrochlorothiazide. Hydrochlorothiazide is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent used medication containing the prohibited substance to treat high blood pressure. Although a medical justification is needed to use this drug, her medical file showed enough evidence about her condition.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision (a warning) of March 24, 2009, by the disciplinary committee of the FFHMFAC should be modified.
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 Billiards (Fédération Française de Billard, FFB) charges respondent M37 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on March 8, 2009, the respondent refused to attend a doping control.

History
The respondent was pressed for time to be able to get the last train to go home, that was the reason for the refusal. The sampler had indicated that he would be checked later. For this reason the sanction is not valid.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision (2 years period of ineligibility) of may 16, 2009 by the disciplinary committee of the FFB and the descision (21 months period of ineligibility) of July 4, 2009, by the appeal committee of the FFB should be modified.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Ski Federation (Fédération Française de Ski, FFS) charges respondent M36 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a ski event on March 16, 2009, the respondent provided a sample for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of a metabolite of modafinil. Modafinil is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent suffers from a pathology called narcoleptic or catalepsy. He has medical statements and an electroencephalogram to prove this condition. However the use of modafinil needs a medical justification. Respondent had sent copies of his medical files, from which the panel could conclude the medical need for modafinil.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision (a warning and suspension till a therapeutic use exemption is arranged) dated May 26, 2009, of the disciplinary committee of the FFS should be modified.
3. The decision will start 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 M35 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on February 14, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of a metabolite of budesonide. Budesonide is a prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent used medication containing the prohibited substance to treat a chronic rhinitis allergy. The use of this medication was mentioned on the doping control form. However the administration of glucocorticosteroids needs a medical justification.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one year
2. The decision (acquittal) of May 19, 2009, by the disciplinary committee of the FFHMFAC should be modified.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Tennis Federation (Fédération Française de Tennis, FFT) charges respondent M34 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on June 27, 2009, respondent provided a sample for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample revealed 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
Respondent had smoked cannabis in the morning of the match. He uses cannabis occasionally in a recreational setting, there was no intention to enhance sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized or authorized by the FFT.
2. The decision (three months period of ineligibility), dated September 17, 2009, of the disciplinary committee of the FFT should be modified.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
French Federation of Karate and Associated Disciplines (Fédération Française de Karaté et Disciplines Associées, FFK) charges respondent M33 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on January 18, 2009, a sample for a doping test was taken. The sample tested positive for pirbuterol. Pirbuterol is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Pirbuterol is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent used medication to treat asthma. She has proof of her medical condition.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one month in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFK.
2. The decision (a warning) dated May 4, 2009, by the disciplinary committee of the FFK should be modified
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Motorcycling Federation (Fédération Française de motocyclisme, FFM) charges respondent M32 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a motorcycling event on May 17, 2009, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of propranolol. Propanolol is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. It is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent had used a pill containing propranolol 2 hours before the motorcycling event. He wanted to relieve the stress because of the dangers of the circuit. He was unaware of the prohibited substance and had no intention to enhance his sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one year in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFM.
2. The earlier decision (six months period of ineligibility also for training and preparation), dated September 11, 2009, by the disciplinary committee of the FFM should be modified.
3. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the time served in voluntary suspension.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

CAS (Oceania Registry) A1/2009 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) c. Peter Atkins

Surfing
Doping (stanozolol)
Athlete’s knowledge of the prohibition against the taking of performance enhancing drugs in sport
Failure of an athlete to give evidence before the CAS
Clarity of the rules and predictability of sanctions

1. The fight against doping in sport has a long and public history in Australia and throughout the world. An athlete who is an elite national competitor in his sport, a man of 33 years of age and a competitor in the sport for many years, would know of the prohibition against the taking of performance enhancing drugs in sport. An inference can clearly be drawn as to such knowledge from the fact that on the doping control test form signed by him he made no mention of his possession and use of the prohibited substance. It is inexplicable as to why he would omit mention of the use of that substance to those completing that form or to those conducting the test if it was the case that he had no knowledge that use of the substance was contrary to the Rules of the sport.

2. The failure of an athlete to give evidence before the CAS is not of itself evidence. The athlete cannot be compelled to give evidence and his silence cannot amount to an implied admission. He is entitled to take that course and it is not evidence of either guilt or innocence. In the criminal law of Australia and in a number of other jurisdictions where the standard of proof of guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, silence on the part of an accused person cannot fill in gaps in the prosecution case. However when the failure of an accused person to give evidence is a circumstance which may bear upon the probative value of the evidence which has been given, the tribunal may take that failure into account only for the purposes of evaluating the evidence before it. A tribunal cannot, and cannot be required to, shut its eyes to the consequences of exercising the right not to give evidence in a case where assertions are made as to a state of knowledge or lack of knowledge on the part of an athlete.

3. Clarity and predictability are required so that the entire sport community are informed of the normative system in which they live, work and compete, which requires at the very least that they be able to understand the meaning of rules and the circumstances in which those rules apply. Therefore, if, when analysing different sets of rules, the interpretation of “individual sport” and “team sport” does not allow to clarify these definitions with a view of deciding whether or not the other members of a boat crew in which one member tested positive should also be sanctioned, the boat crew results should not be annulled.

In June 2009 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
The Athlete elected to have the matter referred to a hearing by CAS who is given jurisdiction under the Anti-Doping Policy (ADP) of Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA) to determine if a violation of the ADP has occurred.

The Sole Arbitrator CAS Panel has to rule about three issues:
a.) The jurisdictional issue – whether Mr. Atkins is bound by the Anti-Doping Policy (ADP) of SLSA;
b.) Whether, if Mr. Atkins was bound by the ADP, he committed Anti-Doping Rule Violations (the substantive dispute); and
c.) Whether, if Mr. Atkins committed Anti-Doping Rule Violations this had the effect of annulling the result of the Currumbin Barbarians Surf Lifesaving Club Men’s Open Surf Boat Team in the 2009 Australian Championships race (the sanction issue).

On 4 November 2009 the Court of Arbitration for Sports decides:

1.) The Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction to determine the substantive dispute by Arbitration.
2.) Peter Atkins is found to have committed two Anti-Doping Rule Violations in breach of Clause 7 of the Anti-Doping Policy of Surf Lifesaving Australia and Article 2 of the World Anti-Doping Code.
3.) The result obtained by Peter Atkins in the Men’s Open Surf Boat event conducted at the 2009 Australian Surf Lifesaving Championships is disqualified and any medals, points and prizes awarded to him are forfeited.
4.) Peter Atkins is ineligible to compete during the period commencing on 5 May 2009 and expiring at midnight on 4 May 2011.
5.) The result of the Currumbin Barbarians Surf Lifesaving Club Men’s Open Surf Boat Team in the 2009 Australian Championships race remains unchanged and the crew members Lyle Clark, Glen Williams, Randall Martin and Nick Parr are deemed to comprise the winning team.
(…).

Therapeutic Use Exemptions : the World Anti-Doping Code International Standard / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2009. - (International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (ISTUE) version 4.0, effective on 1 January 2010)

The purpose of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions is to ensure that the process of granting therapeutic use exemptions is harmonized across sports and countries.

The Code permits Athletes to apply for therapeutic use exemptions (TUE The International Standard for ) i.e. permission to use, for therapeutic purposes, substances or methods contained in the List of Prohibited Substances or Methods where Use would otherwise be prohibited.

TUE includes criteria for granting a TUE, confidentiality of information, the formation of Therapeutic Use Exemptions Committees and the TUE.

This Standard applies to all Athletes as defined by and subject to the Code i.e. able-bodied Athletes and Athletes with disabilities.

Facts
Patrick Kenny (appellant) appeals against the decision of the Football Association (FA) Regulatory Committee of 7 September 2009. In this decision related to his positive doping test on 11 May 2009 the Appellant should be suspended from all football and football activities for a period of 9 months from 22 July 2009.

Considerations appellant
Appellant appeals against the length of that suspension and not against the finding of a breach of rule E25. The 9 months suspension was excessive and the impact upon the Appellant's personal situation meant that the punishment was disproportionate to the offence admitted.

Considerations panel
The appellant didn't establish that there was no significant fault or negligence. He did establish that there was no intention to enhance sporting performance. Theres is nothing excessive or disproportionate in the 9 months suspension, the action of the appellant fell significant short in what is expected of a professional sportsman in his position. The consequences for his personal life are unavoidable and part of the purpose of suspension of doping offences.

Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The sanctions imposed by the Regulatory Commission, including the 9 months suspension are accordingly upheld.
3. The deposit paid by the appellant under 1.2(4) of the Regulations for Football Association Appeals is forfeited.
(4) The appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the Appeal Board.