Related case:
ISADAP 2010 WADA vs ISADDP Appeal Decision 20081517 - Appeal July 29, 2010

Facts
The Irish Sports Council (ISC) alleges the Athlete IS-1517 (the Athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The Athlete was guilty of an anti-doping rule violation by refusing to provide a urine sample when requested to do so by authorised Doping Control Officers in September 2008.

History
The athlete arrived at her home on the evening in question that she was unable to provide the requested sample as she had an urgent commitment away from her house and that it was private and work related. She also explained that it was not possible for the testers to accompany her but that she would be at her training venue from 8pm later that evening and would be available to meet with the testers to provide the sample then. The athlete explained that she had just taken up a new position in July 2008, some five weeks previously, as a manager, and that she had arranged a meeting with a important client who might be in a position to bring a considerable amount of business.

Decision
The decision of the Panel is, that the A hlete IS-1517 did commit the alleged anti-doping rule violation in breach of Article 2.3 of the Rules and that the appropriate sanction is a period of three months’ ineligibility dating from 19 November 2008. That period will, therefore, expire on 19 February 2009.

CAS 2008/A/1588 FIFA v/ Malta Football Association & Claude Mattocks

CAS 2008/A/1629 WADA v/ Malta Football Association & Claude Mattocks

CAS 2008/A/1588 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Malta Football Association (MFA) & C. and CAS 2008/A/1629 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. MFA & C.

• Football
• Doping (norandrosterone)
• Scope of application of FIFA anti-doping regulations and of national anti-doping regulations
• Application of FIFA anti-doping regulations by reference?
• Mitigating circumstances
• Limitation of reference to CAS jurisprudence by the content of the applicable regulations

1. In line with CAS jurisprudence, the system put in place under the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC) shows that FIFA has exclusive competences at international level whereas national federations have exclusive competences at national level. Therefore, the FDC is not directly applicable when it comes to sanctions imposed against players on national matches and competitions. In order to ensure the harmonization of doping sanctions at national level FIFA cannot claim the direct applicability of the FDC antidoping regulations but must use its disciplinary prerogatives provided under article 152 FDC in order to have national antidoping regulations amended accordingly. Once the national antidoping regulations have been harmonized, it is then FIFA’s and WADA’s duty to ensure that those national regulations are correctly applied by the national judicial bodies, using their right of appeal if necessary.

2. Although the FDC antidoping regulations can apply at national level per reference through national civil law or through the Statutes and antidoping regulations of the relevant national association, as a general rule the FDC antidoping regulations don’t prevail on national antidoping regulations. If the decision appealed against and the ’parties’ submissions deal with the sanction of a player at national level, the national association antidoping regulations should be applied independently and without any reference to the FDC antidoping regulations which are therefore not applicable.

3. According to CAS jurisprudence, by not exercising the required caution when he purchased and ingested the nutritional supplements which he argues to have caused the positive test, a player commits a gross negligence which does not justify that the period of suspension be reduced.

4. The fact that a case is governed by the national association antidoping rules and not by the FIFA Regulations does not prevent a CAS panel from applying similar principles as to the question of the existence or not of mitigating circumstances. However WADA and FIFA should not deduct from this that this would systematically lead in other cases to the application of CAS jurisprudence or even of the provisions of the WADC or the FIFA antidoping regulations on the issue of reduction of the period of suspension. Any reference to CAS jurisprudence is limited in each case by the content of the applicable regulations. CAS jurisprudence is thus not applicable if it conflicts with regulations which are validly applicable.

In January 2008 the Malta Football Association (MFA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Claude Mattocksh after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance. Yet, he acknowledged the use of supplements provided by pharmacies en health shops. Consequently the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board decided on 21 May 2008 to impose a sanction of 4 months on the Athlete.

Hereafter in June 2008 FIFA and in August 2008 WADA appealed the MFA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). They requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 2 years.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel concludes that the Athlete had acted negligently with his supplements.

Further the Panel deems that the MFA was wrong in reducting the period of ineligibility from 1 year to 4 months. There were no particular circumstances which could justify the imposition of a reduced sanction or an extended sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 February 2009:

1.) The FIFA’s and World Anti-Doping Agency’s appeals against the decision dated May 21, 2008 of the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board are partly upheld.

2.) The decision issued by the MFA Appeals Board is set aside.

3.) The Player, C., is declared ineligible from the 19 February 2008 until 19 June 2008 and for an additional period of eight months starting on the date of notification of the present award to the parties.

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

5.) (…).

CAS 2008/A/1576 FIFA v/ Malta Football Association & Ryan Grech

CAS 2008/A/1628 WADA v/ Malta Football Association & Ryan Grech

CAS 2008/A/1576 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Malta Football Association (MFA) & R. and CAS 2008/A/1628 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. MFA & R.

• Football
• Doping (cocaine)
• Scope of application of FIFA anti-doping regulations and of national anti-doping regulations
• Application of FIFA anti-doping regulations by reference?
  Sanction

1. In line with CAS jurisprudence, the system put in place under the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC) shows that FIFA has exclusive competences at international level whereas national federations have exclusive competences at national level. Therefore, the FDC is not directly applicable when it comes to sanctions imposed against players on national matches and competitions. In order to ensure the harmonization of doping sanctions at national level FIFA cannot claim the direct applicability of the FDC antidoping regulations but must use its disciplinary prerogatives provided under article 152 FDC in order to have national antidoping regulations amended accordingly. Once the national antidoping regulations have been harmonized, it is then FIFA’s and WADA’s duty to ensure that those national regulations are correctly applied by the national judicial bodies, using their right of appeal if necessary.

2. Although the FDC antidoping regulations can apply at national level per reference through national civil law or through the Statutes and antidoping regulations of the relevant national association, as a general rule the FDC antidoping regulations don’t prevail on national antidoping regulations. If the decision appealed against and the ’parties’ submissions deal with the sanction of a player at national level, the national association antidoping regulations should be applied independently and without any reference to the FDC antidoping regulations which are therefore not applicable.

3. Pursuant to the applicable national association antidoping rules the presence of metabolite of cocaine and cocaine in a ’player’s bodily sample constitutes an anti-doping rule violation or a doping offence which should be sanctioned by a twelve months suspension in case of a first doping offence. The national regulations being applicable, there is no particular circumstances which could justify the extension of the period of suspension.

In January 2008 the Malta Football Association (MFA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Ryan Grech after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaïne. The Athlete explained that one of his friends had spiked his drink at a new year's party he had attended.

Consequently the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board decided on 25 March 2008 to impose a sanction of 1 year. Thereupon the MFA Appeals Board decided on 17 April 2008 decided to impose a reduced 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in June 2008 FIFA and in August 2008 WADA appealed the MFA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). They requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 2 years.

The Panel established that the MFA had not imposed a standard sanction of 1 year on the Athlete for his anti-doping rule violation. In view of the MFA Doping Charter the Panel deems that there were no particular circumstances which could justify the imposition of a reduced sanction or an extended sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 February 2009:

1.) The FIFA’s and World Anti-Doping Agency’s appeals against the decision dated April 17, 2008 of the MFA Appeals Board are partly upheld.

2.) The decision issued by the MFA Appeals Board is set aside.

3.) The Player, R., is declared ineligible from the 19 February 2008 until the 19 November 2008 and for an additional period of three months starting on the date of notification of the present award to the Parties.

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

5.) (…)

CAS 2008/A/1575 FIFA v/ Malta Football Association & Gilbert Martin

CAS 2008/A/1627 WADA v/ Malta Football Association & Gilbert Martin

CAS 2008/A/1575 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Malta Football Association (MFA) & M. and CAS 2008/A/1627 World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) v. MFA & M.

• Football
• Doping (cocaine)
• Scope of application of FIFA anti-doping regulations and of national anti-doping regulations
• Application of FIFA anti-doping regulations by reference?
  Sanction

1. In line with CAS jurisprudence, the system put in place under the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC) shows that FIFA has exclusive competences at international level whereas national federations have exclusive competences at national level. Therefore, the FDC is not directly applicable when it comes to sanctions imposed against players on national matches and competitions. In order to ensure the harmonization of doping sanctions at national level FIFA cannot claim the direct applicability of the FDC antidoping regulations but must use its disciplinary prerogatives provided under article 152 FDC in order to have national antidoping regulations amended accordingly. Once the national antidoping regulations have been harmonized, it is then FIFA’s and WADA’s duty to ensure that those national regulations are correctly applied by the national judicial bodies, using their right of appeal if necessary.

2. Although the FDC antidoping regulations can apply at national level per reference through national civil law or through the Statutes and antidoping regulations of the relevant national association, as a general rule the FDC antidoping regulations don’t prevail on national antidoping regulations. If the decision appealed against and the parties’ submissions deal with the sanction of a player at national level, the national association antidoping regulations should be applied independently and without any reference to the FDC antidoping regulations which are therefore not applicable.

3. Pursuant to the applicable national association antidoping rules the presence of metabolite of cocaine and cocaine in a player’s bodily sample constitutes an anti-doping rule violation or a doping offence which should be sanctioned by a twelve months suspension in case of a first doping offence. The national regulations being applicable, there is no particular circumstance which could justify the extension of the period of suspension.

In January 2008 the Malta Football Association (MFA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Gilbert Martin after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaïne. Consequently the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board decided on 25 March 2008 to impose a sanction of 1 year on the Athlete.

Hereafter in June 2008 FIFA and in August 2008 WADA appealed the MFA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). They requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 2 years.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He acknowledged that he recreationally had use Cocaine at a new year's eve party.

The Panel established that the MFA had imposed a sanction of 1 year on the Athlete for his anti-doping rule violation. In view of the MFA Doping Charter the Panel deems that there are no particular circumstances which could justify the imposition of an extended sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 February 2009:

1.) The FIFA’s and World Anti-Doping Agency’s appeals are fully dismissed and the decision dated March 25, 2008 of the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board is upheld.

2.) The Player, M., is declared ineligible from 19 February 2008 until 18 February 2009.

3.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
4.) (…).

TAS 2008/A/1587 Luca Ascani c. UPA-CONI & FCI
CAS 2008/A/1587 Luca Ascani vs CONI & FCI

In August 2007 the Italian Cycling Federation (FCI) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Luca Ascani after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Recombinant Erythropoietin (rhEPO).

Consequently on 9 May 2008 the CONI Giudice di Ultima Instanza in Materia di Doping (the Anti-Doping Supreme Court) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in June 2008 the Athlete appealed the CONI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decison and to eliminate or reduce the imposed sanction.

The Athlete claimed that the delays in the proceedings and his right to be heard were violated. He also asserted that several irregularities that had occurred during the Doping Control and during the analysis in the Rome Laboratory would invalidate the test results.

The Panel assessed and adresses the issues raised by the Athlete and determines that:

• The delays in the proceedings were not unreasonable whereas some of the delays were attributed to the Athlete.
• The Athlete had confirmed at the end of the hearing that he had received the opportunity to present his defence.
• No violations have been established during the sample collection procedure.
• No departures of the ISL have been established in the Rome Laboratory that could invalidate the test results.

Accordingly the Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substance rhEPO has been established in the Athlete's samples and that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 February 2009 to partially dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision for the imposititon of a sanction of 2 years.

The Panel only has reformed the commencement of the ineligibility period and set on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 4 August 2007.

CAS 2008/A/1471 FINA vs Tagliaferri and Federazione Italiana Nuoto

CAS 2008/A/1486 WADA v/ CONI and Tagliaferri

CAS 2008/A/1471 Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) v. Marco Tagliaferri & Federazione Italiana Nuoto (FIN) and CAS 2008/A/1486 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI) & Marco Tagliaferri

• Aquatics (water polo)
• Doping (stanozolol)
• Legitimate interest to have a decision reviewed by the CAS
• Mitigation of the penalty due to the fact that the athlete was minor
• Principle of lex mitior in a doping case

1. The applicable regulations provide that every “interested party” has the right to appeal against decisions by the highest national decision-making body in doping disputes irrespective of whether said “interested party” was a party to the proceedings, in which the decision appealed against was pronounced. Nor does the provision stipulate any limitation to the right to appeal in terms of the “kind” of decision. Whether or not the decision issued deals with procedural issues only is, therefore, irrelevant for the right of appeal. However, not only the wording, but also the intent and purpose of the relevant provision, are a reason for interpreting the right of appeal broadly. The broad right of appeal is supposed to allow all doping-related decisions to be reviewed in order to help harmonize the decisions and to contribute to an equal treatment of all athletes. Even if the decision-making body decided not to punish an athlete for procedural reasons, this does not alter the “nature of the dispute”. It is and remains a doping matter with the consequence that the International Federation and the World Anti-Doping Agency have a legitimate interest to also have this decision reviewed by the CAS.

2. In order to apply mitigating grounds, the athlete has to establish how and because of which surrounding circumstances the prohibited substance was present to the athlete’s body. Whether and how often the athlete ingested the prohibited substance is irrelevant for the extent of the penalty. The fact that the athlete was a minor at the time of the positive doping sample is, in itself, no reason to mitigate the penalty.

3. Because of the principle of lex mitior, the rule that is more favourable to the athlete can be resorted to, even if it was not in force at the time the offence was committed.

On 21 July 2006 the Disciplinary Commission of the Italian Swimming Federation (FIN) decided to revoke to provisional suspension of the minor swimmer Marco Tagliaferri after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

The Athlete had accepted the test result and testified that his father had administered stanozol without his knowledge. Consequently a lifetime ban was imposed on the father.

Following the appeal filed by the International Swimming Federation (FINA) the FIN Appeals Commission decided on 6 November 2007 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

However on 10 January 2008 the CONI Anti-Doping Supreme Court (CONI GUI) deemed that FINA's appeal was inadmissible and annuled the decison of the FIN Appeals Commission.

Hereafter in January and in February 2008 both FINA and WADA appealed the CONI GUI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). FINA and WADA requested the Panel to annul the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Panel concludes that the CONI GUI decision of 10 January 2008 was erroneous and must be set aside because the FINA appeal with the Italian FIN Appeals Commission was filed within the set the time limit and therefore admissible.

The Panel rules that as a result of all the inconsistencies in the presentation of the facts, it has not been established to the Panel’s comfortable satisfaction how, and because of what circumstances, the substance Stanozolol entered the Athlete’s system.

The fact that the Athlete was a minor at the time is no reason for a reduced sanction. The Panel finds that a 2 year period of ineligibility muse be imposed backdated and taking into account the time already served by the Athlete.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 February 2009:

1.) The appeal of the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Giudice di Ultima Istanza in Materia di Doping (GUI) dated 10 January 2008 is admissible.

2.) The appeal of the Federation Internationale de Natation against the decision of the Giudice di Ultima Istanza in Materia di Doping (GUI) dated 10 January 2008 is admissible inasmuch as it is directed against Mr Marco Tagliaferri. Insofar as the appeal is directed against the Federazione Italiana Nuoto (FIN) it is dismissed.

3.) The decision issued by the Giudice di Ultima Istanza in Materia di Doping (GUI) is set aside.

4.) The Player, Mr Marco Tagliaferri, is declared ineligible from 1 May 2008 until 30 November 2009.

5.) All competitive results obtained by Marco Tagliaferri from 16 March 2006 through 19 December 2008 shall be disqualified with all of the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

7.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for each of the court office fees of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss francs) paid by WADA and by FINA, which are retained by CAS.

Respondent failed to submit to sample collection as required, during cyclocross World Cup event in Koksijde, Belgium on November 29, 2008.
Respondent's claims compelling justifïcation. Due to flu-like symptoms, a concussion and other injuries forced him to abandon the event, unable to attend the sample gathering.
Decision and award: Respondent had not committed an anti-doping violation under the UCI rules. Respondent was able to demonstrate a compelling justification for his failure to submit sample collection at the event.

Public health impact and implications of the use of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) and associated drugs amongst the male general population / James McVeigh. - Liverpool : Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU), 2009

• Doctoral thesis, Liverpool John Moores University
• DOI: 10.24377/LJMU.T.00010247

Abstract:

Anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) and associated drug use is now recognised as a significant concern and an emerging public health issue. Once restricted to the elite sporting arena, recent decades have seen AAS diffuse through bodybuilding and gym culture to an increasingly image conscious general population. This portfolio of research contributes to our understanding of this phenomenon in relation to our understanding of the extent and characteristics of AAS use, emerging harms and the policy response to the issue, as summarised below.

While specific prevalence is unknown, data from needle and syringe programmes (NSPs) indicate growing numbers of people who inject AAS and associated drugs. Often portrayed in the media as a homogenous group of young male, working class men, a growing body of research indicates a much more diverse population in relation to demographic characteristics and motivations for use. Further research indicates that this is by no means confined to the United Kingdom (UK) but is a global public health issue although barely recognised in some countries such as the Republic of Ireland.

Changes in the specific drugs of use and the regimes employed have been identified, with a growing pharmacopeia of easily accessible and affordable peptide hormones being used as a direct result of the rise of the Internet, coupled with developments in manufacturing and transportation. Opinion, anecdote and targeted marketing on the Internet fill the void of a lack of empirical evidence in the field of AAS, image and performance enhancing drugs (IPEDs) influencing a trend towards higher dosages, multiple drugs and prolonged use. Drug use is not confined to IPEDs, with psychoactive drug use identified in populations in UK and Internationally.

Our understanding of the chronic health harms associated with AAS has increased over the last 25 years, in particular cardiovascular damage, psychological harms and the potential for dependence. However, this research has made a significant contribution to the recognition and understanding of the harms associated with the administration of these drugs through injection and the impact of adulterated products as a result of the illicit market. The extent of localised infection and soft tissue injury is a cause for concern, an issue previously neglected. Of further concern is the prevalence of blood borne virus (BBV) infection within the population of AAS users. In the first studies of their kind, HIV amongst AAS injectors has been shown to be at a similar level as that in psychoactive drug injectors in the UK. Hepatitis B and hepatitis C levels were identified as being higher than in the general population, and of key concern is the low levels of awareness of hepatitis C positive status amongst AAS injectors.

The UK has operated a comprehensive NSP system since the 1980s, which has seen increasing numbers of AAS injectors however, there remains barriers to engagement with this population of people who inject drugs. Data from interviews and surveys submitted here identify a level of mistrust and lack of confidence among AAS users when it comes to engaging with health professionals.

Performance-enhancing drugs snare nonathletes, too / Marifel Mitzi F. Fernandez, Robert G. Hose. - (The Journal of family practice 58 (2009) 1 (February); p. 16-23)

• PMID: 19141266

High school athletes aren’t the only ones seeking an edge. Here are the red flags and unexpected drugs to watch for.

More Anti-Doping Decisions 2008 and 2009
Introduction: The Importance of Getting it Right
Here is another set of summaries of anti-doping decisions from 2008 and early 2009, most involving WADA and all but one from CAS. The full texts of the decisions involving WADA are available on the WADA website at www.wada-ama.org/legal. The full text of the Rasmussen and Hoch decisions are posted on the CAS website (Rasmussen in French, Hoch in English) at www.tas-cas.org. A summary of the Pavlov decision is posted on the UEFA website at www.uefa.com.