Related cases:
- ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2008_05 ANAD vs Corina Dumbrӑvean
February 19, 2008
December 12, 2008
- CAS 2009/A/1764 Olimpic Sport Club vs ANAD
October 9, 2009
- ANAD Comisia de Audiere 2010_18 ANAD vs Corina Dumbrӑvean
July 8, 2010
- ANAD Comisia de Apel 2010_06 Corina Dumbrӑvean vs ANAD
August 10, 2010
- ANAD Comisia de Apel 2010_07 Olimpic Sport Club vs ANAD
August 10, 2010
- CAS 2010/A/2220 Corina Dumbrӑvean vs ANAD
July 26, 2011

In February 2008 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Corina Dumbrӑvean after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance NESP - Novel Erythropoiesis Stimulating Protein - (Darbepoetin).

The ANAD Hearing Commission considered the filed statements and evidence that in November 2011 the Athlete suffered from an acute renal deficiency, low output of urine with unconsciousness for which the Athlete was hospitalized urgently. As medical treatment medications were administrated which contained prohibited substances. The Commission ruled that the Athlete established her lack of guilt or significant negligence due to she did not know and did not suspected that she was administered prohibited substances.

Therefore on 19 February 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decided (case 5/19.02.2008) not to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In March 2008 the Federația Română de Atletism (FRA), the Romanian Athletics, appealed against case 5/19.02.2008) with the ANAD Appeal Commission. The FRA argued that in this case 5/19.02.2008 the IAAF anti-doping rules had been disregarded.
On 23 May 2008 the ANAD Appeal Commission (appeal case 2/23.05.2008) ruled that the RAF appeal is admissible and decided to annul the decision (case 5/19.02.2008) of the ANAD Sanction Committee.

The Athlete’s file was submitted to the IAAF Doping Review Board which investigated the case and concluded in August 2008 that there were no exceptional circumstances for the reduction or elimination of the Athlete’s sanction. As a result the ANAD Sanction Committee decided on 10 September 2008 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete (case 22/10.09.2008).

The Athlete and the Olimpic Sport Club in Craiova appealed against the decision in this case 22/10.09.2008, which was hereafter dismissed by the ANAD Appeal Commission on 8 December 2008 (appeal case 6/8.12.2008).

Sporter medicatie? (Dutch title)

This leaflet explains what athletes should do if they take medication, if the medication contains substances which are on the doping list and how a TUE can be requested. The leaflet is made by the Flemish government.

Enhancement Drugs and the Athlete / Francesco Botrè, Antonio Pavan. - (Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America 20 (2009) 1 (February); p. 133-148).

• PMID: 19084767.
• DOI: 10.1016/j.pmr.2008.10.010

Abstract

This article considers the health risks associated with the abuse of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) in sport. After an overview on the evolution of doping substances and methods and on the current international organization of the antidoping tests, the potential risks correlated with abuse of PEDs are presented. Specific problems of drug associations, designer steroids, and nutritional supplements also are discussed. Data from randomized clinical trials may not be sufficient to identify the complete range of adverse effects possible with abuse of PEDs; more specific studies are necessary to assess their actual toxic potential.

Facts
The French Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M71 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on April 18, 2008, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and regarded as specified substance.

History
The respondent didn't contest the doping test result, but throughout the procedure he didn't provide any information about how the prohibited substance had entered his body. The panel concludes that the sport he is practicing and his admittance that there was no intention to enhance 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 FFBB.
2. The decision (a warning) dated July 25, 2008, of the disciplinary committee of the FFBB 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 Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M70 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on May 8, 2008, 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. They are regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent had used medication to treat pain on his knee. He did mention the use of it on the doping control form and has a certificate from his physician. There was no intention to enhance sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months in which respondent can't take part in competition or sport manifestations organized by the French sport federations.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Federation of Billiards (Fédération Française de Billard, FFB) charges respondent M68 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on June 29, 2008, the respondent evaded a doping control.

History
The respondent at first mentioned on the doping control form that he had to leave for being on time for the train. But later he admitted that he feared the detection of cannabis which he uses regularly. There was no intention to enhance his sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFB.
2. The decision (one year period of ineligibility, with six months conditional) of September 20, 2008, by the disciplinary 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.

Related case:

• CAS 2009/A/1752 Vadim Devyatovskiy & Ivan Tsikhan v IOC
  June 10, 2010
• IOC 2012 IOC vs Ivan Tsikhan
  December 1, 2012

Mr Ivan Tsikhan is a Belarussian Athlete competing in the Men’s Hammer Throw Final even at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

On 24 August 2008 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with at a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.

After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.
The Athlete declared that he was aware of the anti-doping rules and had never used any prohibited substance.

He had always provided his whereabouts information, never refused a test and was always available for testing. In the past and in the lead up to the Games, he had been tested several times, including out of competition, and this never led to an adverse analytical finding.

The Athlete further indicated that he took medication or substance only under the supervision of the doctors and only those substances that had been certified as not being prohibited.

The Athlete made a second written submission on 17 October 2008 (co-signed by another Belarus athlete, Vadim Devyatovskiy, subject to a similar parallel disciplinary procedure of the IOC), in particular raising arguments as to the validity of the analysis conducted by the WADA Accredited Laboratory in Beijing and providing some information as to the diet followed by the Athlete in view of his preparation leading up to the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

After hearing the Delegation and the arguments it put forward and after reviewing the submissions made, the Disciplinary Commission unanimously concluded that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.1 of the Rules in that there was the presence of the prohibited substance testosterone in his body, at a T/E ratio above the WADA T/E ratio threshold of 4 and with GC/C/IRMS measurement results consistent with the administration of such substance (exogenous origin).

Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides that the Athlete Mr. Ivan Tsikhan:

1.) is disqualified from the Men’s Hammer Throw event, where he had placed third;

2.) shall have his medal and his diploma in the above-noted event withdrawn;

3.) The IAAF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.

4.) The NOC of Belarus is ordered to return to the IOC, as soon as possible, the diploma and the medal awarded to the Athlete in relation to the above-noted event.

5.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Marshall Young (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. On June 15, 2008, the Athlete competed in the Canadian Club Water Polo Championships in Quebec City, Quebec. On June 15, 2008, the Athlete was selected for no advance notice, in-competition doping control. He attended at doping control and provided a urine sample for testing as required. His sample showed the presence of cannabis, measured at 284 ng/mL (+/- 23 ng/mL) (the “Adverse Analytical Finding”). The presence of cannabinoids, above the threshold of 15 ng/mL, is a prohibited substance according to the 2008 WADA List of Prohibited Substances.

History
The athlete states in an email: I do cannabis for recreation and recreational purposes only. I have been playing in the Canadian National Waterpolo League for 10 years now and it has never been brought to my attention that there will be drug testing for cannabis. It is not a performance enhancing drug nor do I use it as one. I merely use it in my pass time for enjoyment and recreation. This is the second anti-Doping Violation. The Athlete’s first anti-doping rule violation occurred in June, 2005 and was also for his use of cannabis. The sanction imposed for the first violation was a warning and reprimand.

Decision
The period of ineligibility is 2 years commencing December 4, 2008. The Athlete is permanently ineligible to receive any direct financial support provided by the Governtment of Canada.

Costs
No Party made any submission regarding costs. Accordingly, each Party shall bear its own costs of the proceeding

Related cases:

• CAS 2009_A_1752 Vadim Devyatovskiy & Ivan Tsikhan v IOC
  June 10, 2010
• CAS 2015_A_3977 WADA vs Belarus Athletic Federation & Vadim Devyatovskiy
  March 31, 2016
• IOC 2008 IOC vs Ivan Tsikhan
  December 11, 2008
  
  

The Athlete competed in the Men’s Hammer Throw Final at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.

After notification by the IOC the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

The Athlete declared he was innocent and that he won his medal honestly. He stated he had always been vigilant with respect to the substances he took, in order to avoid any mistakes. He always had taken medication in accordance with the recommendations of the team’s doctor.

After the hearing the Athlete filed a second statement in his defence in October 2008 and challenged the validity of the analysis conducted by the WADA Accredited Laboratory in Beijing.

Hereafter the IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that there is no departure from the WADA International Standards and concludes that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation in that there was the presence of the prohibited substance Testosterone in his body, at a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold. Furthermore it was noted that this was the second violation of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules.

Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides that the athlete Vadim Devyatovskiy, Belarus, Athletics:

1.) is disqualified from the Men’s Hammer Throw event, where he had placed second;

2.) shall have his medal and his diploma in the above-noted event withdrawn;

3.) subject to ratification by the IOC Executive Board, is permanently ineligible for all future Olympic Games in any capacity.

5.) The IAAF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.

6.) The NOC of Belarus is ordered to return to the IOC, as soon as possible, the diploma and the medal awarded to the Athlete in relation to the above-noted event.

7.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete during the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol.
After notification by the IOC the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.
The Athlete stated he was innocent, denied any attempt of intentional use of Clenbuterol and suspected food contamination.

The Disciplinary Commission concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides that:
- the Athlete is disqualified from the Kayak double (K2) 1000m Men event of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games;
- the diplomas awarded to the members of the team in the above-noted event shall be withdrawn;
- the NOC of Poland is ordered to inform the members of the team and to return to the IOC, as soon as possible, the diplomas awarded to the above-mentioned athletes in relation to the anti-doping rule violation.
- This decision shall enter into force immediately.