Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Lee Ryckman. On June 30th, 2007, Ms. Ryckman competed in the National BMX (Cycling) Championships in Bromont, Quebec. The CCES conducted an in-competition doping control session and collected an urine sample from the athlete. The Analysis indicated an adverse analytical finding for the presence of Cannabis.

History
The athlete took part in some "social sharing of cannabis" as late as the night before her event. However, she states that she did not use cannabis to use any advantage over her competitors.

Decision
The imposes penalty on the athlete is a warning and reprimand. There shall be no period of ineligibility and the provisional suspension is terminated. The athlete remains eligible for sport related financial support.

CAS 2007/A/1415 Michael Benjamin v/Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI)

CAS 2007/A/1415 B. v/ Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI)

Related case:

FEI 2007 FEI vs Michael Benjamin
September 25, 2007

• Equestrian
• Validity of the notification to undergo an anti-doping test
• Refusal to submit to doping control
• No compelling justifications and mitigating circumstances
• Determination of the sanction

1. No exact time limit is prescribed in the International Standard for Testing (IST). Even if the notification takes place when the Athlete had finished his ride, dismounted from his horse and proceeded to the bar it cannot be said that the notification is too late. The 15 minutes elapsed from the end of the ride to the notification cannot be considered excessive. Even if the Athlete had left the place of the Competition he could have been subject to an Out-of-Competition Test.

2. The intentional refusal to submit to doping control with the purpose to hide that the Athlete had drunk alcohol, which he was not sure was prohibited in connection with a competition, and also to cover the fact that he had taken another medication, which he was not sure of, constitutes anti-doping rule violation.

3. The possibility for the athlete of establishing No Fault or Negligence does not apply to violations under Art. 2.3 (refusal to submit to doping control). According to Art 10.5.4 and 10.2 the sanction therefore has to be two years ineligibility.

In November 2006 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Michael Benjamin after he refused to provide a sample for drug testing. Consequently on 25 September 2007 the FEI Tribunal decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in October 2007 the Athlete appealed the FEI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel determines that aim of the Athlete was to avoid that the test would establish that he had taken alcohol and a medication that might be forbidden substances. This is exactly what the Rule in Art. 2.3 intends to prevent.

If the Athlete considers the alternatives of refusing the test or of revealing at the occasion of a test that he has taken some contingently forbidden substances, the sanction shall be the same in both cases.

The Panel rules that towards this background the Athlete in this case cannot be deemed to have had any compelling justifications. On the contrary he has acted in a way which the relevant Rule aims to forbid.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 April 2008:

1.) The Appeal filed by the Athlete is only partially admitted.

2.) The decision issued by the FEI Tribunal is upheld except regarding the commencement date of the period of ineligibility which is fixed on 1 June 2007 instead of 27 October 2007. The period of Ineligibility thus will end on the 30 May 2009.

3.) The Athlete is disqualified from the Event CSI-W Cape Town, which took place between 23 and 26 November 2006, and his results obtained at this Event are annulled.

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

5. (…).

Indirect androgen doping by oestrogen blockade in sports / D.J. Handelsman

• British Journal of Pharmacology 154 (2008) 3 (June), p. 598-605
• PMID: 18500381
• PMCID: PMC2439522
• DOI: 10.1038/bjp.2008.150

Abstract

Androgens can increase muscular mass and strength and remain the most frequently abused and widely available drugs used in sports doping. Banning the administration of natural or synthetic androgens has led to a variety of strategies to circumvent the ban of the most effective ergogenic agents for power sports. Among these, a variety of indirect androgen doping strategies aiming to produce a sustained rise in endogenous testosterone have been utilized. These include oestrogen blockade by drugs that act as oestrogen receptor antagonists (antioestrogen) or aromatase inhibitors. The physiological and pharmacological basis for the effects of oestrogen blockade in men, but not women, are reviewed.

In April 2007 the Comisión Antidopaje de Puerto Rico (CAPR), the Anti-Doping Commission of Puerto Rico, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Parathlete Efrain Ortiz after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for CAPR Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete stated that, after investigation, one of his supplements he used contained the prohibited substance. The Athlete’s medication and supplements were provided to him by his wife and purchased in the Dominican Republic. Considering the exceptional circumstances in this case and without intention to enhance sport performance, the CAPR Anti-Doping Panel decided on 7 June 2007 not to sanction the Athlete.

Hereafter WADA appealed the Anti-Doping Panel decision of 7 June 2007 with the CAPR Appeal Commission. WADA requested to set aside the Panel decision and argued there were no grounds to impose a less severe sanction on the Athlete.

The Appeal Commission concludes that the Athlete acted negligently due to he failed to research the ingredients of his medication and supplements before using.
Therefore the CAPR Appeal Commission decides to set aside the Anti-Doping Panel decision of 7 June 2007 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the notification, i.e. on 3 April 2007.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M33 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on July 20, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the blood samples showed a high testosterone on epitestosterone level. A complementary spectrometric analysis of the sample revealed an exogenous origin of testosterone. Exogenous testosterone is a prohibited substance 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 nor did he mention the use of a prohibtited substance on the doping control form.

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. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M32 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on September 28, 2007, 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 had used the cannabis on the day of the match. He is a regular user and he describes it as enhancing his mood.

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 (one month period of ineligibility) January 11, 2007, of the disciplinary committee of the FFBB should be modified.
3. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period served by the decision of January 11, 2007.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Sailing Federation (Fédération Française de Voile, FFV) charges respondent M31 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a sailing event on September 4, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. 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 had used the cannabis in a recreational setting, he isn't a regular user. The reason for using it was to relax his family problems and bad results in sport. The panel takes into consideration that the measured concentration was very low, the absence of desire for using cannabis and it was his first offense.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized or authorized by the FFV.
2. The decision (six months period of ineligibility), dated November 21, 2007, of the disciplinary committee of the FFV should be modified.
3. The period of ineligibility should be reduced by the time already served by the decision of November 21, 2007.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M30 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on October 27, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of heptaminol. Heptaminol is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substances.

History
The respondent uses medication to treat the risk of edema in her legs. This medication contains the prohibited substance. She has statements from his general practitioner to prove this condition. She hadn't checked the ingredients of the medication she had acquired by herself.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one month, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFBB.
2. The decision (acquittal) dated January 11, 2007, 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.

Related case:
AFLD 2015 FFJDA vs Respondent M42
September 10, 2015

Facts
The French Federation for Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo and Associated Disciplines (Fédération Française de Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo et Disciplines Associées FFJDA) charges respondent M29 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a judo tournament on April 21, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisone and prednisolone which are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Prednisone and prednisolone are regarded as specified substance.

History
The respondent suffers from an anatomical abnormality. Five days before the doping control he took injections with the prohibited substances to treat back pain. He had mentioned the use of the pharmaceutical product on the doping control form. He had no intention to enhance his sport performance. He took a risk with the treatment to be sure to participate in the tournament.

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

Facts
The Irish Sports Council (ISC) alleges the Athlete IS-1519 (the Athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The Athlete provided a sample of urine collected from an in-competition doping test in February 2008. His sample tested positive on terbutaline which is a "specified substance" on the World Anti-Doping Code, 2008 Prohibited List.

History
The violation was admitted on behalf of the Athlete. The prohibited substance entered his body in the form of a Bricanyl inhaler. The Athlete had the benefit of an Abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemption Form (ATUE) for the two year period from 2005, that shortly prior to the expiry of that period in 2007, a new ATUE form was applied by the Athlete and his doctor but, for whatever reason, the application for the ATUE did not reach the Irish Sports Council. The Panel was satisfied that this arose due to an administrative oversight and not used for enhancing his sport performance.

Decision
The Panel was satisfied that no period of ineligibility was appropriate having regard to the evidence. However, under Article 10.3 of the Rules, the Panel was obliged to issue and did issue a warning and reprimand to the player IS-1519.