Facts
The French Federation of Full Contact Sports (Fédération Française de Full Contact, FFFC) charges respondent M36 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on December 8, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis and a metabolite of stanozolol. Cannabis and stanozolol are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

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

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

Facts
The French Free Flight Federation (Fédération Française de Vol Libre, FFVL) charges respondent M35 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an Free Flight event on November 27, 2007, respondent didn't attend a doping control.

History
Respondent couldn't conduct the competition due to climate conditions. He left the scene to another beach for performing demonstrations. For that reason he was unable to hear he was summoned for a doping test. Although the respondent belonged to the designated test group and holds his responsibility he wasn't informed in person for the doping control ahead.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquited.
2. The desicion starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Swimming Federation (Fédération Française de Natation, FFN) charges respondent M34 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a water polo match on November 3, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cocaine. Cocaine is prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent denies the use of cocaine, probably it derives from his intimate relations with his partner, which is a regular consumer of this narcotic. He even arranged a hair test on his expense which indicates an extreme low concentration of the prohibited substance. However cocaine is not regarded as a specified substance, for this reason there are no mitigating circumstances for the use of it. Also the panel regards a hair test not valid because this indicates the use over a long period of time and not the recent usage, like an urine test.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFN.
2. The decision (one year period of ineligibility), dated February 29, 2008, by the disciplinary committee of the FFN should be modified.
3. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served by the decision of February 29, 2008.
4. The decision start on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

CAS 2007/A/1426 Giuseppe Gibilisco v. Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI)

• Athletics (pole vault)
• Doping (attempt to use prohibited substances)
• Anti-doping rule violation resulting in the attempt to use prohibited substances
• Evidence of attempt to use prohibited substances
• CAS scope of review

1. The World Anti-Doping Code
(i) treats as an anti-doping rule violation not only the use of prohibited substances but also a conduct constituting an attempt to use them, and
(ii) includes an autonomous definition of the concept of “Attempt” that shall be applied in the assessment of any conduct eventually leading to such violation. Proof of intent on the athlete’s part is expressly required to establish an attempt to use.

2. The evidence is not of such a level to be considered as showing an attempt to use prohibited substances when it merely shows that the athlete, although aware that a doctor has been involved in doping matters, continues to use the assistance of this medical person and exchanges with him information on doubtful substances as well as on the modalities of the doping controls.

3. Although, pursuant to art. R57 of the CAS Code, a CAS panel has full power to review the facts and the law and to issue a decision de novo, when acting following an appeal against a decision of a federation, association or sports-related body, the power of review of such panel is also determined by the relevant statutory legal basis and, therefore, is limited with regard to the appeal against and the review of the appealed decision, both from an objective and a subjective point of view. Therefore, if a motion was neither object of the proceedings before the previous authorities, nor in any way dealt with in the appealed decision, the panel does not have the power to decide on it and the motion must be rejected.

The Oil for Drugs case is an Italian doping criminal investigation from the Italian Anti-Narcotic Group (NAS) against doctor Carlo Santuccione and a number of accomplices, started in 2003.

Evidence of the criminal investigations showed communications between the athletes and the doctor about providing instructions, advice, dosage plans, methods, supply and administration of the most varied doping substances.

In December 2007 Doctor Santuccione was given a lifetime ban by CONI due to his involvement in the Oil for Drugs case and after having already serving a lengthy ban for a previous doping offense.

In May 2004 NAS made a search in Giuseppe Gibilisco’s domicile and after interrogation the Athlete admitted his contact and involvement with doctor Carlo Santuccione.
In July 2007 the CONI Anti-Doping Prosecution Office (UPA) opened proceedings against the Athlete and on 18 July 2007 the Italian Athletics Federation (FIDAL) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for the attempted use of prohibited substances.

The Athlete appealed the decision and on 12 September 2007 the FIDAL Appeal Commission decided to set aside this decision and to acquit the Athlete.

Thereupon the UPA-CONI appealed the decision of the FIDAL Appeal Commission with the CONI Giudice di Ultima Instanza in Materia di Doping (the Anti-Doping Supreme Court) and on 26 October 2007 the Court decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CONI decision of 26 October 2007 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to be acquitted of the imposed sanction and argued that he had never use or attempted to use prohibited substances under the WADC Rules.

The Panel concludes that, although some of Gibilisco’s conduct raises doubts about the truthfulness of his statements, there are not sufficient elements to determine that Gibilisco attempted to use prohibited substances within the meaning of the WADC. The facts deemed as proven (individually or combined) cannot, in the Panel’s opinion, be considered as conduct constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore on 9 May 2008 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

1.) The decision of the Giudice di Ultima Instanza in Materia di Doping of CONI dated 26 October 2007 imposing a sanction of two years of ineligibility on Giuseppe Gibilisco is set aside.

2.) The further motions of the parties are not accepted and all other prayers for relief are dismissed.

(…).

CAS 2007/A/1373 FINA v/ CBDA & G.

• Swimming
• Doping
• Applicable anti-doping rules
• Notion of decision
• Lack of CAS jurisdiction due to the non-exhaustion of the internal remedies available to the appellant prior to the appeal

1. In the absence of evidence and submissions to the contrary, one can assume that the swimming national federation Rules and its doping control procedures meet the requirements of the International Federation which provide that its Anti-Doping Rules must be complied to by all member federation and shall apply to each activity of FINA. Therefore, there is no doubt that the FINA Regulations, in particular, the FINA Doping Control Rules, can be deemed directly applicable to the swimmer, either on the basis of an agreement/license/“swimming passport” or by reason of his/her accreditation for the competition.

2. If a letter does not, in the formal sense, and not on the face of its language have the appearance of a true and genuine “decision” within the meaning of DC Rule 13 and Art. R47 of the Code, the deciding factor to qualify a “decision” is whether the communication contains a ruling or, legally stated, an adjudication of a set of facts or circumstances – or, in the case of a denial of justice, the absence of a ruling where there should have been a ruling – in the communication.

3. The CAS, acting as an appeal instance, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute, as neither a hearing nor a “decision” has been issued from which an appeal can be lodged with CAS as required under Art. R47 of the Code.

4. The CAS cannot hear an appeal if all internal legal remedies have not been exhausted without effectively depriving the Athlete of his/her right to a first-instance hearing from which she would have the right to appeal.

In May 2006 het International Swimming Federation (FINA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete G. after her three A and B samples tested positive for Testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.

However the Brazilian Water Sports Confederation (CBDA) considered that the laboratory findings were not sufficient to impose a sanction. After months of deliberations with FINA the CBDA submitted on 21 August 2007 that an anti-doping violation had not been established because the analysis results could not be relied upon due to bacterial degradation.

Hereafter in September 2007 FINA appealed the CBDA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel determines that in filing its appeal directly with the CAS, FINA has effectively denied the Athlete her right to have the alleged violation adjudicated on the CBDA level pursuant to DC Rule 8.2.1 in a timely first-instance hearing.

Especially in doping proceedings which impose a substantial sanction on the athlete such as a suspension for two years, it is procedurally unacceptable to make a decision on the merits, if the athlete is not give the opportunity for legal review and
reconsideration in an appeals instance.

Therefore on 9 May 2008 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

1.) The Court of Arbitration for Sports has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal filed by FINA on 10 September 2007 with regards to the letter issued on 21 August 2007.

(…)

Annual Report 2007 / Anti-Doping Switzerland. - Bern : Dopingbekämpfung Schweiz, 2008

The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad, Beijing 2008 / International Olympic Committee (IOC). - Lausanne : IOC, 2008

Contents:

Article 1 Definition Of Doping
Article 2 Anti-Doping Rule Violations
Article 3 Proof Of Doping
Article 4 The Prohibited List
Article 5 Doping Control
Article 6 Analysis Of Samples
Article 7 Disciplinary Procedure With Respect To Alleged Anti-Doping Rule Violations Arising Upon The Occasion Of The Olympic Games
Article 8 Automatic Disqualification Of Individual Results, Ineligibility For Olympic Games
Article 9 Sanctions On Individuals
Article 10 Consequences To Teams
Article 11 Financial And Other Sanctions Assessed Against National Olympic Committees And International Federations
Article 12 Appeals
Article 13 Confidentiality And Reporting
Article 14 Mutual Recognition Of Decisions.
Article 15 Doping Control For Horses – Equine Anti-Doping And Medication Control Rules
Article 16 Applicable Law, Amendment And Interpretation Of Anti-Doping Rules
Article 17 Languages
Appendix 1 – Definitions (Referred To In The Preambles)
Appendix 2 – Criteria Relating To The International Standard For Testing (Referred To In Article 5.3)
Appendix 3 – Technical Procedures Relating To Doping Control (Referred To In Article 5.3)

On May 13, 2007, respondent was tested during the Weightlifting National Championships in Schaumberg. Illinois, his test was positive for THC metabolite. This was a second in-competition positive test, respondent tested positive on December 3 , 2006 at the American Open in Birmingham Alabama. Respondent accepted a three months period of ineligibility from competition with the three months deferred if he completed USADA's Online education program.
The rules when the period of ineligibility of the IWF are in conflict with the World Anti-Doping Code. Respondent accepted a provisional suspension. At a pre-hearing on April 28, 2008, respondent argues that a 2 years suspension is too long.
The hearing decision: the appropriate period of ineligibility is two years, starting from de date of provisional suspension.

CAS 2007/A/1362 CONI v/ Petacchi & FCI
CAS 2007/A/1393 WADA v/ Petacchi & FCI

CAS 2007/A/1362 Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI) v. Alessandro Petacchi & Federazione Ciclistica Italiana (FCI) & CAS 2007/A/1393 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Alessandro Petacchi & FCI

• Cycling
• Doping (salbutamol)
• Abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemption
• Shift of the burden of proof
• No Significant Fault or Negligence
• Reduction of the period of Ineligibility
• Disqualification from a sport event

1. Salbutamol is a Prohibited Substance, both in and out of competition, under Class S3, Beta-2 Agonists. As an exception, when administered by inhalation, Salbutamol requires an abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemption (ATUE).

2. In cases where an athlete is granted with an ATUE and the sample shows a higher concentration of the substance granted, the burden shifts to the athlete to demonstrate that such concentration was the consequence of the therapeutic use of the substance in question.

3. The fault or negligence is considered as non significant, when viewed in all the circumstances and taking into account the criteria for no fault or negligence, i.e. in cases where the overdose was taken with no aim of enhancing the athlete’s performance, like when taking the overdose after the conclusion of the particular sport event.

4. The no significant fault or negligence leads to a reduction of the period of ineligibility, which the athlete would otherwise have to suffer.

5. Following the existing CAS case law, in cases where there is no provisional suspension imposed or voluntarily accepted, a CAS panel may nevertheless take into account the pressure placed on the athlete from sports bodies and others, if the athlete was not able to participate in one or more events while the anti-doping proceedings were pending.

6. According to the applicable regulations, if the event is a stage race, an anti-doping violation committed in connection with any stage entails disqualification from the event except when 3 conditions are fulfilled, among which the athlete must establish that he bears no fault or negligence. The conditions for the exception are cumulative; if the athlete cannot establish that he bears no fault or negligence, he must be disqualified from the whole sporting event.

In June 2007 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian cyclist Alessandro Petacchi after his sample tested positive for the substance Salbutamol in a concentration above the WADA threshold (1352 ng/ml).

In this case the Athlete had an Abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemption (ATUE) that authorized him to use three doses of 200 mcg of Salbutamol by inhaltation per day, and three doses of 0.5 mcg Betamethasone by aerosol per day.

On 24 July 2007 the Disciplinary Commission of the Italian Cycling Federation (FCI) decided that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation. Following the appeal by the Ufficio Procura Antidoping of the Italian National Olympic Committee (UPA-CONI) the FCI Appeals Commission decided that the appeal was inadmissible and that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has jurisdiction.

Hereafter in August 2007 both UPA-CONI and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the FCI decision of 24 July 2007 with CAS.

UPA-CONI and WADA argued that a concentration of 1352 ng/ml in the Athlete’s urine could not have been achieved if he had only used his Ventolin inhaler in accordance with the terms of his ATUE as to the dose, frequency and route of administration of Salbutamol. They relied on the expert opinions and the results of the enantiomer analysis done on the Athlete’s urine sample by the Barcelona Laboratory.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete has failed to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the Salbutamol concentration of 1352 ng/ml found in his sample was "the consequence of the therapeutic use of inhaled Salbutamol". The Panel is not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the result was the consequence of him inhaling Salbutamol in accordance with his ATUE.

The Panel holds that the Athlete and his expert witnesses failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there were any special factors had caused the test results in this case. The Panel accepts that the Athlete is asthmatic and that he took too many puffs of his Ventolin inhaler on that day, including some after the race.

The Panel is satisfied that the Athlete is not a cheat, and that the adverse analytical finding in this case is the result of the Athlete simply, and, possibly, accidentally, taking too much Salbutamol on the day of the test, but that the overdose was not taken with the intention of enhancing his performance. Indeed, it would be an unusual way of attempting to enhance performance to take the prohibited substance after the particular event had concluded.

ln the circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the Athlete bears No Significant Fault or Negligence because his fault or negligence, when viewed in all the circumstances and taking into account the criteria for no fault or negligence, was not significant in relation to this anti-doping rnle violation. It follows, therefore, that the Panel can reduce the period of ineligibility which he would otherwise have to suffer.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 May 2008 that:

1.) The appeals by UPA-CONI and WADA against Decision no. 21 /2007 issued on 24 July 2007 by the Disciplinary Commission of the FCI are admissible.

2.) The appeals by UPA-CONI and WADA against Decision no. 21 /2007 issued on 24 July 2007 by the Disciplinary Commission of the FCI are allowed. That decision is set aside.

3.) Mr. Petacchi has breached Article 15.1 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.

4.) In accordance with Articles 261 and 265 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules Mr. Petacchi is ineligible to compete for a total period of one year, with two months credited against such period in accordance with Articles 255 and 275 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules. Therefore, the period of ineligibility will start on 1 November 2007 and will expire on 31 August 2008.

5.) All competitive results obtained by Mr. Petacchi during the 2007 Giro d'Italia shall be disqualified with all of the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

6.) Mr. Petacchi can retain all competitive results between 23 May 2007 and 31 October 2007, but all competitive results obtained after 31 October 2007 and during the period of ineligibility will be disqualified.

7.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

8.) Each party shall bear its own costs, save for the CAS Court Office fee, which will be retained by the CAS.

Distribution of trenbolone residues in liver and various muscle groups of heifers that received multiple implants at the recommended site of application / James D. MacNeil, Joann Reid, Rick Fedeniuk. - (Journal of AOAC International 91 (2008) 3 (May); p. 670-674).
- PMID: 18567315

Abstract:

Twenty heifers which were each administered 3 or 4 implants containing trenbolone acetate were slaughtered at 30 days post-implantation. Liquid chromatographic analyses were conducted on muscle collected from the rump, loin, shoulder, and neck, and on the liver of each animal. Residues present in liver were primarily 17-trenbolone, and the residues found in the various muscle samples were primarily 17-trenbolone. The mean concentration of 17-trenbolone in liver was 4.3 2.3 ng/g; the mean concentration of 17-trenbolone in muscle tissues was <0.4 ng/g. There was a small but statistically significant effect of the number of implants used on the mean concentration of residues in loin muscles; animals with 3 trenbolone implants had higher mean residue concentrations than animals with 4 trenbolone implants. This suggests that, though the impact of implant numbers on the mean concentration of residues in muscle tissues is negligible relative to currently generally accepted maximum residue levels, mechanisms may exist for selective distribution and retention of residues within different muscle groups.