Related cases:
- ANAD Comisia de Apel 2008_06 Olimpic Sport Club & Corina Dumbrӑvean vs ANAD
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 the fact that she did not know and did not suspect that prohibited substances were administrated.

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.

Facts
The Royal Dutch Athletics Association (Koninklijke Nederlandse Atletiek Unie, KNAU) reported a violation of the Anti-doping Code (ADC). His urine sample taken during a doping test was positive for the a metabolite of stanozolol which is on the list or prohibited substances. Also the B sample tested positive.

History
The athlete was unaware of the cause of contamination. He had sent a few products for testing to the RIVM for examination, and on of these products which was used to treat muscle pain contains a metabolite of stanozolol.

Decision
The disciplinary committee will impose a period of ineligibility of two years commencing on the date of the doping control.
The legal costs and fees will be borne by the athlete.

Facts
The French Tennis Federation (Fédération Française de Tennis, FFT) charges respondent M14 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on June 23, 2007, the respondent provided a sample for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample revealed 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
Respondent had smoked cannabis the evening before the match. He had used the cannabis in a recreation setting, there was no intention to enhance sport performance. Also he doesn't practice the sport as a professional.

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 FFT.
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 Full Contact Sports (Fédération Française de Full Contact, FFFC) charges respondent M13 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a full contact match on April 21, 2007, the athlete didn't provide a sample for doping control.

History
The respondent was unable to provide enough urine for a correct sample collection.

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 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 Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M12 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on April 28, 2007, samples were taken for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of canrenone which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent used medication to treat stomach problems, he didn't mention this on the doping control form. However this medication didn't contain the prohibited substance, which means he didn't provide any explanation about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

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

Facts
The French Tennis Federation (Fédération Française de Tennis, FFT) charges respondent M11 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on June 3, 2007, the respondent provided a sample for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample revealed 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
Respondent had smoked cannabis 10 days before the match. He had used the cannabis in a recreation setting, there was no intention to enhance sport performance.

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

Facts
The French Equestrian Federation (Fédération Française d'Équitation, FFE) charges respondent M10 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an event on October 18, 2008, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of betamethasone. Betamethasone is a prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent claims to have used medicine containing the prohibited substance to treat a serious fall from the horse, she has a prescription. There was no intention to enhance sport performance. However the panel considers, from the information in the package of the pharmaceutical drug presented by the respondent, that the stated pathology respondent is suffering doesn't match the therapeutic indications for which the product is obtained.

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

Facts
The French Cycle Tourism Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclotourismo, FFCT) charges respondent M09 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an event on September 23, 2007, respondent was asked to attend a doping test but he didn't go to the doping control.

History
The respondent was asked by announcement in French to attend the doping control, but he wasn't able to understand this because he speaks English. The panel agrees that in this case there is a problem with the announcement of the doping control.

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

In January 2008 the Lyfjaráð ÍSÍ, the Iceland ISI Anti-Doping Committee, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances stanozolol and drostanolone.
The ISI Tribunal decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility, starting on the day of the sample collection, i.e. 28 December 2007 up to 28 December 2009.

The Dutch Royal Strength Sport Fitness Federation (KNKF) has reported an anti doping rule violation against this person because of the discovery of the prohibited substances 2α-methyl-5α-androstan-3α-ol-17-one (metabolite of Drostanolone), boldenone and 17α-methyl-5β- androstane-3α, 17β-diol (metabolite of methyl testosterone) in the A portion of the urine sample of the person concerned during an out of competition test. Person has filed a statement of defence. The case was handled in writing while Federation and person in question waived their right of a hearing in person.
Upon arrival at the laboratory the seal of the laboratory bag containing the urine sample of the person in question was not present. As explained in the documentation this did not affect the identity and integrity of the individual urine sample.
Person acknowledges in his defence that he has committed the offense. The person concerned argued that not all used food supplements were mentioned during the doping control and that he was totally unaware of the prohibited substances in the product used. Person concerned stated never to have used the supplements. He stated that he had been to a supplement company in complete trust. He states that he was naive thrusting the company. However, the defence of the person concerned is ineffective. The mere presence of a prohibited substance is namely already a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The Disciplinary Committee considers the offense sufficiently plausible and the offense proven.
Since it is a first offense, it will be punished with an exclusion for a period of two years. Person concerned appeals on mitigating circumstances. On the basis of the documents provided it was clear person in question was taking supplements on a regular basis without the determination whether these preparations contain prohibited substances. Subject has thus taken a risk. There is no absence of significant fault or negligence, so there is no reason to reduce the sanction. The costs associated with the treatment of this case were also charged to the person concerned.