Facts
The French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M08 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on May 20, 2006, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The samples showed the presence of a metabolite of stanozolol and a metabolite of nandrolone. These substance are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent was surprised about the detection of the prohibited substances, he thinks it came from the use of food supplements, ordered by the internet, but there was no mentioning of prohibited substances on the label. He had no intention to enhance his sport performance.

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 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 Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M07 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 a metabolite of stanozolol, a metabolite of exemestane, a metabolite of nandrolone, canrenone and ephedrine. All of these substances are prohibited 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, as pronounced by the disciplinary committee of the FFHMFAC on October 3, 2006, is a period of ineligibility of three years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by all French sport federations.
2. The period of ineligibility should be reduced by the period already served under the sanction of October 3, 2006.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

CAS 2006/A/1153 WADA v/ Portuguese Football Federation & Nuno Assis Lopes de Almeida

Related case:

Swiss Federal Court 4A_170_2007 Nuno Assis Lopes de Almeida
June 8, 2007

• Football
• Doping (19-norandrosterone)
• Notification of a decision
• Scope of “doping-related decisions” with regard to WADA’s
• right of appeal
• Respect of the right of proper defence
  Sanction

1. As a basic rule, a decision or other legally relevant statement is considered as being notified to the relevant person whenever that person has the opportunity to obtain knowledge of its content irrespective of whether that person has actually obtained knowledge. Thus, the relevant point in time is when a person receives the decision and not when it obtains actual knowledge of its content.

2. A 6-month suspension of a player for a doping offence is indisputably a “doping-related decision” as set forth under Article 61 para. 5 of the FIFA Statutes. The fact that a higher judicial body later acquitted the player exclusively on procedural grounds rather than entering into the substance does not change the nature or the cause of the proceedings initially opened, which remains the doping offence. Therefore, WADA is entitled to appeal against the acquittal decision.

3. A CAS panel’s scope of review is basically unrestricted. It has the full power to review the facts and the law. Hence, if there has been procedural irregularities in the proceedings before the first instance bodies, it can be cured by the arbitration proceedings if the party has been given all opportunities to exercise its right to be heard, both in writing and orally. Any potential breaches with respect to principle of natural justice are therefore remedied.

4. A two-year suspension for a first time doping offence is legally acceptable. However – provided that the applicable regulations do not incorporate the sanction of a 2-year suspension provided for in the World Anti-Doping Code but permit the tribunal dealing with the matter to exercise its discretion to impose a sanction of between 6 months and two years – in case of procedural delay, with the result that the player is left in a state of uncertainty for a period of 12 months, added to the fact that the player has already been suspended for a certain period of time after which he has reintegrated his team, a lesser sanction may be imposed so that it is not perceived as being a bigger penalty than one continuous suspension.

Mr. Nuno Assis Lopes de Almeida is a Portuguese professional footballer who played in 2006 for the club Sport Lisboa e Benfica.

In December 2005 the Federação Portuguesa de Futebol (FPF), the Portuguese Football Federation, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Nuno Assis after his A and B sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Consequently the FPF Disciplinary Committee decided on 9 June 2006 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Yet following the Athlete's appeal the FPF Judicial Board decided on 14 July 2006 to set aside the first instance decision and to acquit the Athlete.

Hereafter WADA appealed the decision of the FPF Judicial Board with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the decision of 14 July 2006 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In his defence the Athlete asserted that he was the victim of a conspiracy; he disputed the reliability of the doping test; and claimed that there had been irregularities with the transport, the testing and the analytical reports.

The CAS Panel establishes no irregularities regarding the proceedings before the FPF Disciplinary Committee. Further the Panel establishes no inconsistencies with the doping test conducted in the Lisbon Laboratory.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and deems that he failed to produce any evidence in support of his wild and unsubstantiated allegations.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 January 2007:

1.) The appeal filed on 25 August 2006 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision issued on 14 July 2006 by the Judicial Board of the Portuguese Football Federation is upheld.

2.) The decision issued on 14 July 2006 by the Judicial Board of the Portuguese Football Federation is set aside.

3.) Mr Nuno Assis Lopes de Almeida is ineligible to play football for 12 months as from the notification of this award, less 161 days already served under the provisional suspensions.

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

5.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the court office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) paid by the World Anti-Doping Agency, which is retained by the CAS.

6.) Mr Nuno Assis Lopes de Almeida and the Portuguese Football Federation, remaining jointly and severally liable, are ordered to pay to the World Anti-Doping Agency a contribution towards all its costs incurred in connection with the present arbitration procedure in an amount of CHF 5,000 (five thousand Swiss Francs).

CAS 2007/A/1201 Nathan Baggaley vs Australian Canoeing, International Canoe Federation & Surf Life Saving Australia

Related case:

CAS 2006_A_1168 Nathan Baggaley vs ICF
December 29, 2006

The Application before us was filed with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Oceania Registry on 4 January 2007, it being what is commonly seen as and entitled, an Application. It has the effect of being a Statement of Appeal under Rule 48 of the Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration Rules, edition 2004 (the Code). There was also filed with the CAS Oceania Registry on 15 January 2007 an Amended Application form.

One of the paragraphs of the Order for Directions given in this matter dealt with the jurisdiction of the presently constituted Panel. That order was signed and executed by the Appellant (Mr Baggaley), the respondent, Australian Canoeing Inc. (ACI), and by the then affected parties, Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA), Australian Sports Commission (ASC) and Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA).

The order was not executed by or on behalf of the then respondent, International Canoe Federation (ICF) which submitted in substance that this Panel did not have authority to arbitrate the dispute alleged against the ICF. Consequently, there arose at the very beginning of these proceedings the question as to whether this Panel had jurisdiction to entertain the Application, being in the nature of appeal, and specifically to make orders of the specific nature sought in the Application.

Therefore, we have concluded that there is no jurisdiction in the Panel to make orders of the nature sought by Mr Baggaley against the ICF, it being a respondent to the appeal before us.

For those reasons, we conclude that the jurisdictional point taken by and on behalf of the ICF is sound and we uphold the submission.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 January 2007 that:

1.) The appeals of Mr Baggaley against the decisions of ACI of 14 December 2006 and SLSA of 15 January 2007 are dismissed.

2.) The question of costs is reserved. The Panel directs that the parties within 21 days of this date file with the CAS Oceania Registry their submissions relevant to the question of costs.

The Féderation Internationale de Natation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swimmer after his A and B samples tested positive in July 2006 for the prohibited substance Epitestosterone. The FINA notified the Swimmer and ordered a provisional suspension.

The FINA Doping Panel decided that an expert witness was to review the analytical reports by the laboratory in Bogotá (Colombia) on the A and B sample.
After reviewing the laboratory reports the FINA Doping Panel decides to dismiss the case as the persons who conducted the analysis of the B sample were also involved in the analysis of the A sample. This is a violation of the International Standards for Laboratories. The Panel did not consider in detail the further arguments submitted by the Swimmer and the FINA.

Related case:

CAS 2008_A_1473 Joe Warren vs USADA
July 24, 2008

The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the wrestler Joe Warren after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis. This is the Athlete's second violation due to he was sanctioned for 3 months in 2006 for the presence of Cannabis.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel (AAA).

The Athlete admitted the use of marijuana and that he had committed a second anti-doping rule violation. He asserted that exceptional circumstances justify a finding of No Significant Fauly or Negligence based on the facts of his case and therefore the imposition of a reduced sanction.

Additionally, he argued that the application of the principle of
proportionality applies to this sanction justifying a reduction below that allowed by the FILA Regulations.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete makes a good case for exceptional circumstances regarding his one use of marijuana in May of 2007. However the panel must consider his overall conduct of continued use after his first positive in 2006, a lifestyle conducive to placing his career and his liberty in jeopardy.

The Arbitrator considers that the Athlete failed to seek competent mental and medical advice despite the obvious need for it. He also made a calculated decision to take the chance on a possible positive test with full knowledge of the consequences.

The Arbitrator deems that these considerations do not justify a reduced period of eligibility based on the principle of proportionality nor do they justify afinding of No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the AAA Tribunal decides on 14 January 2007 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspenson, i.e. on 23 July 2007.

Facts
The French Federation of American Football (Fédération Française de Football Américain, FFFA) charges respondent M06 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on May 14, 2006, 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 used cannabis several times a week before the match. He used it because he was depressed. There was no intention to enhance his 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.

Facts
The French Fencing Federation (Fédération Française d'Escrime, FFE) charges respondent M05 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a Match on June 4, 206, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list, it is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent had used cannabis in a social setting preceding the match, he was under the influence of alcohol when he used it. There was no intention to enhance sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one year in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized or authorized by the FFE as pronounced by the disciplinary committee of the FFE on October 11, 2006.
2. The present decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will apply until the end of the execution of the sanction imposed on October 11, 2006, by the Disciplinary Committee of the FFE which started on the date of voluntary suspension since October 26, 2006, the date of referral of the Agency.
4. The decision will be sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Fencing Federation (Fédération Française d'Escrime, FFE) charges respondent M04 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a Match on May 16, 2011, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of finasteride it is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent used the medication to treat androgenetic alopecia, this medication contained the prohibited substance. He has a medical certificate from his physician to certify the medication.

Decision
1. The sanction (a warning) dated October 11, 2006, by the disciplinary committee of the FFE doesn't need to be modified.
2. The present decision will not be part of any publicity.
3. The decision will be sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Triathlon Federation (Fédération Française de Triathlon, FFTri) charges respondent M03 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on April 30, 2006, respondent didn't provide a sample for doping control purposes.

History
The respondent doesn't want to provide a sample in the doping control station because he is rejecting the room, also he is not willing to go to another area for handling the control.

Decision
1. The sanction a period of ineligibility of one year in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFTri including training sessions.
2. The present decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.