Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M72 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on July 8, 2008, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a Erythropoietin (EPO) which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
During the procedure the respondent didn't provide any information about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is period of ineligibility of two years in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by French sport federations.
2. All the results obtained at July 8, 2008, 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 Medals, points and prizes are withdrawn.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 Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Valentyna Zolotarova (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On July 5, 2008, the CCES conducted out-of-competition doping control in St. John, New Brunswick. A sample collection took place which included the athlete. Her sample tested positive on Hydrochlorothiazide.

History
The athlete does not dispute that an anti-doping rule violation occurred in the circumstances of this case. However, Ms. Zolotarova claims there are “exceptional circumstances” that justify a reduction in the two-year period of suspension. The athlete submits that taking into account the totality of the evidence, the appropriate suspension should be reduced, commencing with the date when the anti-doping rule violation was detected. The resulting anti-doping rule violation was probably caused by the athlete taking a diuretic, prescribed by a doctor in connection with excessive swelling in her sprained ankle, which did contain Hydrochlorothiazide. Also she took medication without making any independent inquiry or even questioning her doctor.

Decision
The evidence establish that the athlete's conduct cannot be characterized as insignificant fault or negligence. Accordingly it is no proper basis to reduce the mandated two-year period of ineligibility. The ineligibility shall commence as of the date of this Decision.

Handelsman DJ, Goebel C, Idan A, Jimenez M, Trout G, Kazlauskas R. Effects of recombinant human LH and hCG on serum and urine LH and androgens in men. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2009 Sep;71(3):417-28. Epub 2008 Dec 18.

Metabolism of androsta-1,4,6-triene-3,17-dione and detection by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry in doping control / Maria K. Parr, Gregor Fusshöller, Nils Schlörer, Georg Opfermann, Thomas Piper, Grigory Rodchenkov, Wilhelm Schänzer. - (Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 23 (2009) 2 (30 January); p. 207-218)

• PMID: 19089863
• DOI: 10.1002/rcm.3861

Abstract

The urinary metabolism of the irreversible aromatase inhibitor androsta-1,4,6-triene-3,17-dione was investigated. It is mainly excreted unchanged and as its 17beta-hydroxy analogue. For confirmation, 17beta-hydroxyandrosta-1,4,6-trien-3-one was synthesized and characterized by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) in addition to the parent compound. In addition, several reduced metabolites were detected in the post-administration urines, namely 17beta-hydroxyandrosta-1,4-dien-3-one (boldenone), 17beta-hydroxy-5beta-androst-1-en-3-one (boldenone metabolite), 17beta-hydroxyandrosta-4,6-dien-3-one, and androsta-4,6-diene-3,17-dione. The identification was performed by comparison of the metabolites with reference material utilizing gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) of the underivatized compounds and GC/MS and GC/tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) of their trimethylsilyl (TMS) derivatives. Alterations in the steroid profile were also observed, most obviously in the androsterone/testosterone ratio. Even if not explicitly listed, androsta-1,4,6-triene-3,17-dione is classified as a prohibited substance in sports by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) due to its aromatase-inhibiting properties. In 2006 three samples from human routine sports doping control tested positive for metabolites of androsta-1,4,6-triene-3,17-dione. The samples were initially found suspicious for the boldenone metabolite 17beta-hydroxy-5beta-androst-1-en-3-one. Since metabolites of androst-4-ene-3,6,17-trione were also present in the urine samples, it is presumed that these findings were due to the administration of a product like 'Novedex Xtreme', which could be easily obtained from the sport supplement market.

In November 2008 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Adrian Frȋncu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (nandrolone).

Therefore on 15 December 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of decision.

In October 2008 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Alexandru Ballai after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance drostanolone.

Therefore on 15 December 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of decision.

In October 2008 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Veronica Popescu after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance propranolol.

Considering the circumstances the ANAD Sanction Committee decides on 15 December 2008 to impose a reprimand on the Athlete and a warning to apply for a TUE.

The Federazione Italiana Sport Invernali (FISI), the Italian Winter Sports Federation, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Marko Deflorian after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard by the Ufficio di Procura Antidoping (UPA), the CONI Anti-Doping Prosecution Office.

The Athlete denied the use of cocaine and stated that the positive test was probably caused by herbal tea consumed in the two days before the doping test. Laboratorium analysis confirmed that the herbal thee contained caffeine and coca leaves.
Considering the circumstances and the evidence in this case, the FISI Disciplinary Commission acquitted the Athlete on 18 September 2008 due to no fault or negligence.

Hereafter WADA appealed the FISI Decision of 18 September 2008 with the CONI Tribunale Nazionale Antidoping. WADA requested to set aside the decision of the FISI Disciplinary Commission and argued there were grounds to impose a period of ineligibility between 8 and 24 months on the Athlete.
The Tribunal concludes that the Athlete had no intention to enhance his sport performance, but also acted negligently. Considering the circumstances and delays in this case, the CONI Tribunale Nazionale Antidoping decides to impose a 18 month period on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 19 February 2008.

The Federazione Italiana Rugby (FIR), the Italian Rugby Federation, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Mirko Deflorian after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine. After notification the Athlete was provisional suspended and heard for the FIR National Sport Judge. The Athlete admitted the violation due to a cigarette he had smoked at a festival before the doping test.
The FIR Federal Appeal Court considered the Athlete with no significant negligence and without intention to enhance sport performance and decided on 24 October 2007 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter WADA appealed the decision of the FIR Federal Appeal Court with the CONI Anti-Doping Supreme Court. WADA requested to set aside the decision of the FIR Federal Appeal Court and argued there were no grounds to impose a less severe sanction on the Athlete.

The CONI Anti-Doping Supreme Court concludes that the Athlete acted negligently and decides on 4 December 2007 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

CAS 2008/A/1577 USADA v/ Reed

CAS 2008/A/1577 USADA v. R.

Related cases:

• AAA 2001 No. 30 190 00701 01 USADA vs Barney Reed
  April 22, 2002
• AAA 2007 No. 30 190 000548 07 USADA vs Barney Reed
  May 21, 2008
  
  

• Table Tennis
• Doping (Carboxy THC)
• Status of marijuana under the law and under the WADC
• Legitimacy of the medical diagnosis for the prescription of a prohibited substance
• Applicable rules in case of a second offence occurring after the entry into force of the WADC
• Multiple violations involving a prohibited substance and a specified substance
• Sanctioning discretion for “mixed multiple violations”

1. Cannabinoids, among them hashish and marijuana, are listed under as a Prohibited Substance. Marijuana is, however, not a prohibited substance if taken out-of-competition. The issue of legality of the use of marijuana under another legal system is of no relevance to a dispute before CAS; even if such use had been illegal, there would have been no conflict with the WADA Code as long as the substance was not present in the athlete’s body “in competition”.

2. The issue of legitimacy of the medical diagnosis which formed the basis for a prescription of a prohibited substance is not an issue in a CAS-dispute, since even if the prescribing physician was not properly licensed, erroneously diagnosed the athlete’s pathological condition or incorrectly prescribed the use of a prohibited substance as treatment of that condition, such a finding would have no relevance to the issue of whether the athlete committed an anti-doping violation.

3. According to the CAS jurisprudence, the fact that the applicable pre-WADC anti-doping rules at the time of the first offense may have provided for a more lenient sanction in the event of a second offense is of no relevance in adjudicating a doping offense committed in 2007 (where the new rules apply).

4. In case of multiple, but separate violations involving a Prohibited Substance and a specified substance the sanctioning body has a range of discretion in setting a separate and independent penalty for a repeated offense. The opportunity for eliminating or reducing the ineligibility sanction pursuant to “exceptional circumstances” is granted only “in the case of a second or third violation” which involve exclusively specified substances, and not within the context of a first violation where the ineligibility penalty may be eliminated entirely or within the context of a multiple violation offense involving both a Prohibited Substance offense and a specified substance offense.

5. The WADC does not specify the criteria for the exercise of the sanctioning discretion granted to the Panel with regard to “mixed multiple violations”, i.e., where both a Prohibited Substance violation and a specified substance violation have been committed. However, the deciding issue is that the athlete is granted no “opportunity” to resort to an elimination or reduction of the ineligibility period for “Exceptional Circumstances”. The Panel has thus no discretion to reduce the penalty for such cases below the two year minimum term.

In May 2007 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Table Tennis player Barney Reed after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.

Consequently the American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel (AAA) decided on 21 May 2008 to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his second anti-doping rule violation.

Prior on 22 April 2002 the Athlete was sanctioned for 2 years after he tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Hereafter USADA appealed the AAA Decision of 21 May 2008 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). USADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

USADA contended that there were no grounds for a reduced sanction on the basis of exceptional circumstances. Furthermore USADA challenged the Athlete's medical diagnosis and prescription for the use of Cannabis whereas he failed to apply for a TUE.

Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that:

• After in-competition testing the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• the AAA Panel was erroneous in permitting exceptional circumstances.
• The violation was not intentional.
• This is the Athlete's second violation.
• It is irrelevant to address the validity of the Athlete's medical diagnosis and his prescription for the use of Cannabis.
• The Athlete acted negligently and he failed to apply for a TUE.
• A period of ineligibility of 2 years is both a fair and appropriate sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 December 2008:

1.) The appeal filed by the United States Anti-Doping Agency in the matter United States Anti-Doping Agency v. R. (AAA No. 30 190 000548 07) is upheld.

2.) The decision of the American Arbitration Association / North American Court of Arbitration for Sport dated 21 May 2008 is partially annulled.

3.) R. is declared ineligible for competition for two years commencing as of 10 May 2007, including his ineligibility from participating in U.S. Olympic, Pan American or Paralympic Games, trials or qualifying events, being a member of an U.S. Olympic, Pan American or Paralympic Games team and having access to the training facilities of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC, including, but not limited to grants, awards, or employment pursuant to the USOC Anti-Doping Policies.

4.) All competitive results achieved by R. in the sport of Table Tennis commencing on or after 3 March 2007, in particular, all medals, points and prizes obtained in competitive events between 10 August 2008 and the date of this Award, if any, are hereby declared retroactively cancelled and rendered null and void.

5.) All remaining points of the Decision and Award of the American Arbitration Association / North American Court of Arbitration dated 21 May 2008 are confirmed.

(…)