The Royal Netherlands Power Sport and Fitness Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Krachtsport en Fitnessfederatie, KNKF) appeals against an earlier decision of the Disciplinary Committee on August 25, 2009, the decision was that the report was inadmissible due to exceeding the 6 week period to appeal.
The KNKF claims that the report was not inadmissible.
The case will be treated in writing. The KNKF claims that the period filing a report is not a compelling argument because this not in the spirit of sports or common goal.

The KNKF regards that 10 days delay is not putting the defendant unnecessary in suspense because the decision of the disciplinary committee can sometimes last 11 weeks.
The six week period is not meant to be compelling, it is a reminder not to be late but can be exceeded.
To exceed the six week period can be used to settle the sentence. Also it is a wrong signal to the outer world.

The defendant claims that a report has to be filed within 2 weeks otherwise it is inadmissible. 6 weeks is the ultimate period.
The KNKF was earlier careless in regarding the 6 week period which makes it a legal uncertainty. Following the right procedure ensures a fair trial. The remarks about the time in-between report and decision are improper and irrelevant.
The remarks of the KNKF about the severe nature of the committed offence are regarded as irrelevant.

The disciplinary commission regards the time periods of the Anti-doping Code as short. This is reasonable regarding to the athletes involved. The KNKF and the Anti-doping Authority are involved to safeguard the 6 week period in which they failed.
To speak of a slight delay of 10 days is not relevant, stalling leads to legal uncertainty.
The seriousness of the case doesn't influence the judgement of the disciplinary commission.
The acquisition from the KNKF that the disciplinary committee was late submitting his decision also is irrelevant and unjustified. The report was filed before the vacation, the defended had more time for his defence. There are rules that WADA can interfere when the decision is not made in time.

The appeal commission decision is that the appeal is rejected and the decision of the disciplinary commission is confirmed.

In June 2009 the Irish Sports Council (ISC) has reported an Anti-Doping Rule Violation against the Athlete IS-1521 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

The Athlete testified at the hearing. He confirmed that he had used cannabis in a social context on different occasions in advance of, but unconnected with, his sporting activities. He expressed his unequivocal regret and remorse for his violation of the Irish Anti-Doping Rules and submitted that his consumption of the prohibited drug was not intended to enhance his sport performance or to mask the use of a performance enhancing substance.

On 5 October 2009 the Panel decides to impose a reprimand on the Athlete including the time alreadey served under the provisional suspension until the date of the decision.

2008 Anti-Doping Organization Statistics / WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency). - Montreal : WADA, 2009

Back to Basics: Why Do We Use Courier Companies?

Results of the WADA monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the 2008 Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport. These substances are:
- Caffeine
- Pseudoephedrine
- Synephrine
- Bupropion

Facts
The French University Sport Federation (Fédération Française du Sport Universitaire, FFSU) charges respondent M29 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a fencing event on March 19, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of 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 errors in the doping procedure by the sampler. Also she hadn't used cannabis, the positive test must be because of passive smoking. A test in a private laboratory shows no traces of cannabis. There was no intention to enhance sport performance. However the panel considers the measured amount of cannabis to high to derive from passive smoking. The test in the private laboratory was three months after the doping control and this lab doesn't have the credibility of a testing lab in doping cases. The doping control was not irregular.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFSU or the French fencing federation (FFE).
2. The decision (one year period of ineligibility) dated June 26, 2009, by the disciplinary committee of the FFSU should be modified.
3. The decision will start on the date of the 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 M28 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on March 21, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis and terbutaline. These substances are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and they are regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent had used cannabis in a social setting. The terbutaline came from medication of a teammate, she used it to treat her bronchi. She was unaware of the prohibited ingredient. 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 manifestations organized or authorized by the FFBB.
2. The decision (three months period of ineligibility) dated May 27, 2009, by the disciplinary committee of the FFBB should be modified.
3. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served by the decision of May 27, 2009.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Swimming Federation (Fédération Française de Natation, FFN) charges respondent M27 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a water polo match on February 28, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisone and prednisolone. These substances are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and are regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent used medication which contains prednisolone which metabolizes into prednisone. This medication was used to treat tracheitis with spasmodic cough. It was used orally. There are medical certificates to state the use of the medication.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision (a warning), dated May 29, 2009, by the disciplinary committee of the FFN should be modified.
4. The decision start on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French University Sport Federation (Fédération Française du Sport Universitaire, FFSU) charges respondent M26 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a karate event on March 15, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of budesonide. Budesonide is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent uses medication which contains the prohibited substance to treat an asthma condition. He has reports to confirm this.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted, which means that the decision, dated June 26, 2009, of the disciplinary committee of the FFSU doesn't need to be modified.
2. The decision will start on the date of the notification.
3. 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 M25 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 prednisolone and prednisone. These are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent used medication containing prednisolone to cure a ear, nose and throat infection. His mother, a physician, had provided the prescription. There was no intention to enhance sport performance.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision (six months period of ineligibility) 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.