Facts
The French Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M07 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on April 30, 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 used the cannabis in a recreational setting and claims it was the first and last time he had used it.

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 FFBB.
2. The decision starts 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 M06 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an event on September 23, 2007, samples were collected for doping control purposes. His sample tested positive on methylprednisolone. Methylprednisolone is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent had used medication containing the prohibited substance to treat a toothache. There was no intention to enhance sport performance. The panel however sees no medical justification for the use of the prohibited substance. And the respondent has no proof that she didn't use the prohibited substance to enhance sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is period of ineligibility of two years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFCT or FFC (French Cycling Federation).
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 American Football (Fédération Française de Football Américain, FFFA) charges respondent M05 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on May 12, 2007, respondent provided samples for doping control purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of clenbuterol and a metabolite of nandrolone. Clenbuterol and nandrolone are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

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

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years as pronounced by the disciplinary committee of the FFFA on October 5, 2007, but extended to all relevant French sport federations.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served by the decision of October 5, 2007, and the period of voluntary suspension.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. 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 M04 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on June 29, 2007, samples were taken for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of furosemide and a metabolite of stanozolol. Furosemide and stanozolol are prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent didn't help in any way during the procedure.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three 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.

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 Daniel Ostrovschi after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.