ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2008_03 ANAD vs Marin Aurel Lighean

22 Jan 2008

In November 2007 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Marin Aurel Lighean after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances furosemide and metandienone.

Therefore on 22 January 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2008_02 ANAD vs Petrişor Adrian Vȃleanu

22 Jan 2008

In November 2007 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the AthletePetrişor Adrian Vȃleanu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.

Therefore on 22 January 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2008_01 ANAD vs Marcel Manea

22 Jan 2008

In November 2007 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Marcel Manea after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances furosemide. The Athlete admitted the use of the substance and waived his right to have the B sample analysed.

Therefore on 22 January 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

ITF 2008 ITF vs John Paul Fruttero

21 Jan 2008

Facts
John Paul Fruttero (player) was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the Comerica Challenger tournament in Aptos, California, on July 16, 2007, he provided an urine sample for a doping test. Both samples (A and B) tested positive for the prohibited substance modafinil and metabolites. The player admitted the doping offence but requested an oral hearing.

history
The player used Provigil for jet lag and problems resuming normal sleep patterns when traveling extensively. He didn't knew it was a stimulant and would be performance enhancing. The substance is not mentioned on the prohibited list for this reason he claims no significant fault or negligence. The player voluntarily suspended himself from competition after receiving notification about the confirmed B sample analysis.

Before the oral hearing was held the parties agreed a compromise and an oral hearing was cancelled.

decision
The tribunal rules:
1. It confirms the commission of the doping offence specified in the notice of charge set out in the ITF's letter to the player dated November 7, 2007.
2. It orders in accordance with the results obtained by the player (double and single competitions) at the tournament be disqualified, including forfeiture of the associated ranking points and prize money (without deduction for tax).
3. It accepts the player's plea of no significant fault or negligence. In consequence, it imposes a period of ineligibility of 14 months instead of the period of two years otherwise applicable.
4. The commencement of this period of ineligibility is to be back-dated to October 1, 2007. Accordingly, the player shall be ineligible until (and including) November 30 from participating in any event or activity (other than authorized by the ITF or any national or regional entity which is a member of or is recognized by the ITF as the entity governing the sport of tennis in that nation or region.
5. The player's result in tournaments after the tournament but prior to October 1, 2007, shall not be disqualified, but his results from October 1, 2007, onwards shall be disqualified, including forfeiture of the associated ranking points and prize money (without deduction for tax).

IOC 2007 Floyd Landis vs IOC & WADA

21 Jan 2008

In July 2006 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Floyd Landis after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold and he was fired from the Phonak team on 5 August 2006.

As a result on 20 September 2007 the American Arbitrators Association Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. This sanction was uphold by the Court of Arbitration for Sport on 30 June 2008 when appealed by the Athlete in October 2007.

Previously Mr Richard Pound, IOC member and Chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) made comments in 4 press articles about Floyd Landis at the time that he was accused of an anti-doping rule violation.

In May 2007 the Athlete file a complaint against Mr. Richard Pound and against WADA with the Ethics Commission of the International Olympic Committee.

The Athlete accused Mr Richard Pound of being in breach of the fundamental principles of the Olympic Charter, the World Anti-Doping Code and the IOC Code of Ethics, and in particular of having failed to:
- respect the rights of athletes;
- safeguard the dignity of individuals involved in the Olympic Movement;
- abide by his duty not to engage in actions causing mental injury to the participants;
- scrupulously respect the provisions of the World Anti-Doping Code and the related rules and regulations, and their obligations not to harass the participants.

The Ethics Commission holds that only one article quoting Mr. Richard Pound needs to be taken into consideration. Here the Ethics Commission observes that, at the time that Mr Richard Pound made his comment to the journalist from Bicycling magazine, the anti-doping rule violation by Mr Floyd Landis had not been established, as the case was still pending; he was merely accused of an anti-doping rule violation. The Ethics Commission thus notes that, in June 2007, Mr Floyd Landis still benefited from the fundamental principle of being “presumed innocent”.

The Ethics Commission notes that it lacks jurisdiction with regard to the part of the complaint against WADA, pursuant to the World Anti-Doping Code.

Therefore the IOC Ethics Commission decides on 21 January 2008:

1.) to declare that it has no jurisdiction with regard to the complaint against the World Anti-Doping Agency, pursuant to the World Anti-Doping Code;
2.) to recommend that the IOC Executive Board remind Mr Richard Pound, IOC member, of the need to comply with the duty of reserve indispensable to respecting Olympism when making public statements which could affect the reputation of others, in particular when an anti-doping rules violation by an athlete has not yet been established.

FISA 2008 FISA vs Alexander Litvintchev, Evgeny Luzyanin & Ivan Podshivalov

14 Jan 2008

Related case:
FISA 2008 FISA vs Anastasia Fatina & Anastasia Karabelshchikova
February 5, 2008
FISA 2008 FISA vs Russian Rowing Federation (1)
January 27, 2008
FISA 2008 FISA vs Russian Rowing Federation (2)
April 4, 2008

The International Federation of Rowing Associations (FISA) was informed that medical materials were found in a rubbish bin near the hotel used by the Russian team in Lucerne during the World Cup Regatta from 13-15 July 2007.
This comprised intravenous infusion equipment, along with legal substances such as creatine and fructose.
The materials were taken to the Anti-Doping Laboratory in Lausanne and analysed. Hereafter the DNA of three of the blood samples, provided by the Russian Athlete’s, matched with the DNA samples from the blood found on the needles.

In September 2007 the International Federation of Rowing Associations (FISA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athletes Alexander Litvintchev, Evgeny Luzyanin and Ivan Podshivalov for intravenous infusion with no legitimate medical treatment. FISA notified the Athletes and a provisional suspension was ordered.
The president of the Russian Rowing Federation filed statements in their defence and appeared for the FISA Doping Hearing Panel on behalf of the Athletes.

FISA had received a document from the Russian Rowing Federation which stated that the team doctor did not use intravenous injections to introduce substances to the Athletes. However in a second document the former team doctor admitted his involvement with intravenous infusions and he did administer intravenous infusions to these three Athletes as prescribed medical treatment for dehydration and convulsions. In a third document the president of the Russian Rowing Federation stated, in contradiction with the first document, that intravenous infusions took place as legitimate medical treatment administered by the team doctor.

On the basis of the medical reports provided by the Russian Federation and the advice of the medical experts, the Panel concludes that the Athletes used a prohibited method, intravenous infusion, for sports recovery purposes, rather than medical treatment. The intravenous infusion of a fructose substance is not a remedy for the illness diagnosed and therefore not a legitimate medical treatment. The Panel notes that the contradiction in the Russian statements does raise questions as to the reliability of the submitted evidence.
The FISA Doping Hearing Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete’s, starting on 27 August 2007.

AFLD 2008 FFA vs Respondent M03

10 Jan 2008

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M03 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on October 25 en 26, 2009, respondent was summoned for doping test purposes. However the respondent refused to attend.

History
The respondent didn't attend the doping control and was difficult to get in touch with. Also his explanations were doubtful and his actions are seen as a deliberate evasion of the doping control. On April 12, 2007, he had received a sanction by the disciplinary committee of the FFA: a period of ineligibility of six months, with three months reprieve.

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 French sport federations.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served by the decision of the appeal committee of May 4, 2007.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2008 FFFA vs Respondent M02

10 Jan 2008

Facts
The French Football Federation (Fédération Française de Football Américain, FFFA) charges respondent M02 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on February 24, 2007, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis 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 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 manifestations organized or authorized by the FFFA.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2008 FFBS vs Respondent M01

10 Jan 2008

Facts
The French Baseball and Softball Federation (Fédération Française de Baseball et Softball, FFBS) charges respondent M01 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on May 20, 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 substances.

History
The respondent explains that he uses cannabis five or six times a day, he uses it in a recreational setting and only out of the sports season.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of nine months, as pronounced in the decision dated September 29, 2007, by the disciplinary committee of the FFBS but extended to all relevant French sport organizations.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the time already served by the voluntary suspension and the decision of September 29, 2007.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Swiss Federal Court 4A_460_2008 Ricardo Lucas Dodô vs FIFA & WADA

9 Jan 2008

Related cases:
CAS 2007/A/1376 & 1370 FIFA & WADA vs Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebo (STJD) & Confederacao Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) & Ricardo Lucas Dodô
September 11, 2008

In June 2007 the Confederaçãoo Brasileira de Futebol (CBF), the Brazilian Football Confederation, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ricardo Lucas Dodô after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance fenproporex.
On 24 July 2007 the CBF Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a 120 day period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Athlete appealed against this decision with the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD), the Brazilian High Sports Court of Football, which dismissed the CBF decision on 2 August 2007 due to the Athlete was victim of a contamination without acting negligent.

In September 2007 both FIFA and WADA appealed the STJD decision of 2 August 2007 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). FIFA and WADA requested the CAS Panel to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. On 11 September 2008 the CAS Panel decided to dismiss the STJD decision of 2 August 2007 and to impose a 23 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete (CAS 2007/A/1370 & 1376).

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS Decision of 11 September 2008 with the Swiss Federal Court. The Athlete requested the Court to dismiss the CAS Decision and argued that CAS has no jurisdiction due to STJD decisions are undisputable for FIFA affiliated bodies.
However 9 January 2009 the Swiss Federal Court rules that CAS has jurisdiction and therefore dismissed the Athlete’s Appeal.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin