Facts
The French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M56 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on December 17, 2005, respondent didn't supply a sample for doping control.

History
The respondent did attend the doping control but was summoned to go to his job and didn't undergo his doping control. To prove his good faith he used a private laboratory and this analysis showed the presence of testosterone, cortisol, caffeine and ephedrine.

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

Facts
The French Federation of Ice Sports (Fédération Française de Sports de Glace, FFSG) charges respondent M55 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on October 29, 2005, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of metabolites of metandienone. Metandienone 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 substances 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 French Ice Hockey Federation (FFHG).
2. The decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Landgericht Köln, 28. Zivilkammer - 28 O (Kart) 38/05

On 10 August 2003 the Kenyan-American Athlete Bernard Lagat provided a sample in Germany during an out-of-competition doping test which was analysed at the German WADA-accredited laboratory in Cologne.

The Kenyan Athletics Federation (KAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A-sample tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). KAF notified the Athlete on 4 September 2003 of the positive test result and ordered a provisional suspension.

The Athlete requested the B-sample to be tested and hereafter on 29 September 2003 the result of the B-sample did not confirm the test result of the A-sample. This false positive test result of the A-sample was caused by an ineffective rhEPO test.
On 1 October 2003 the IAAF published the news on its webpage that result of the B-test did not confirm the result of the A-Test which is why the Athlete was eligible to run.

In October 2005 the Athlete filed a claim with the Cologne District Court in Germany against the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF).

The Athlete claimed compensation of € 155.000 because of loss of income in the second half of 2003, and further loss of income of € 200.000. In this legal dispute the Athlete appealed exclusively to German legal provisions and claimed that German law was applicable.

The Athlete argued that he had lost profit due to the false positive result of the A-sample and the provisional suspension. Also he claimed compensation because he was badly branded in the news due to the announcement and worldwide publication of the positive test result of his A-sample.

The Court concludes that the Athlete failed to show that any of his sponsors or potential sponsors abandoned him due to the news about his positive test result and his provisional suspension. Also after the provisional ban was lifted the Athlete could participate in the years from 2004 in sporting events in Germany without any further restrictions or losses of income.

The Court notes that the Athlete assumed that WADA, IAAF, or the KAF made the announcement of the Athlete’s positive test result. In fact it was a trainer of the Kenyan athletics team who mentioned the positive test result in an interview with a Kenyan newspaper. Also the Athlete failed to adequately illustrate his loss in profit for the sporting events in which he could not participate during the period he was provisionally suspended.

On 13 September 2006 the Cologne District Court in Germany rules that it has no international jurisdiction for the compensation claims of the Athlete. The Court decides that the Athlete’s claim is partially not permissible and otherwise without ground.

CAS 2006/A/1057 UCI v/Barry Forde & Barbados Cycling Union

• Cycling
• Doping (testosterone)
• Independence of the CAS panel
• CAS power of review in connection with the translation of documents
• Burden and standard of proof in case of an exogenous source of a prohibited substance
• Determination of the applicable sanction for a second anti-doping violation

1. Considering that the CAS list of arbitrators is in line with the constitutional demands of independence and impartiality applicable to arbitral tribunals and that the arbitrators selected on said list are experts familiar with both legal and sports-related issues, a party’s complaint concerning the unlawful composition of the arbitral tribunal is unfounded.

2. Pursuant to the Code of Sport-related Arbitration, it is up to the arbitration panel to decide what documents need to be translated or not. A panel can choose not to order any further translation than that which is provided by an appellant, especially if the respondents never requested the translation of the disputed documentation before the filing of the answer, never referred to any stipulation which obliges the federation or the accredited laboratory to spontaneously translate the relevant documents and if the panel knows from other CAS procedures that the respondent’s counsel is also comfortable with the language of the documents and the largest part of the documentation consists of scientific statistics.

3. According to the applicable anti-doping rules, a federation shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the federation has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. Furthermore, WADA-accredited laboratories are presumed to have conducted sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the International Standard for Laboratory analysis. Therefore, the test results conducted by an accredited laboratory indicating an exogenous source of testosterone, shift the burden of adducing exculpatory circumstances to the athlete. When the contentions made by the athlete are not substantiated by anything concrete, his allegations are not established and do not suffice to put into question the quality of the test itself or to reverse the presumption implemented by the anti-doping rules. The result is that at any concentration, an athlete’s sample shall be deemed to contain a prohibited substance and no further investigation is necessary.

4. It is well established that a two-year suspension for a first time doping offence is legally acceptable. The fact that, according to the applicable anti-doping rules, the period of ineligibility imposed for a second anti-doping violation shall be a minimum of two years and a maximum of three years does therefore not appear as disproportionate in the absence of any established exceptional attenuating circumstances. Where an athlete is unable to establish how the prohibited substance entered his system, no elimination of the period of ineligibility or reduction of the period of ineligibility can be applied and a minimum sanction of 2 years (for a first violation) must be imposed according to the rules in force (UCI and WADA). Nevertheless, the circumstances in which the first doping offence occurred i.e. use of ephedrine, its mild sanction, the years which went by and the athlete’s presence and testimonies at the hearing are element which should be taken into account to assess the applicable sanction for a second violation.

In November 2005 the International Cycling Union (UCI) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Barbados cyclist Barry Forde after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone.

However the Barbados Cycling Union (BCU) decided on 23 February 2006 to cease the disciplinary proceedings against the Athlete. Here the BCU accepted the medical evidence that the Athlete underwent treatment for his condition and it explained his elevated testosterone/epitestosterone levels in that period.

Hereafter in March 2006 the UCI appealed the BCU decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The UCI requested the Panel to set aside the BCU decision of 23 February 2006 and to sanction the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation.

The UCI argued that the presence had been established of exogenous Testosterone in the Athlete’s sampleand that his medical condition could not explain these test results. The Athlete had no TUE for the use of Testosterone whereas this is his second anti-doping rule violation.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested the Panel to uphold the BCU decision. The Athlete and BCU argued that there had been departures regarding the right to fair evidence proceedings and regarding the test results.

The Panel rejected the arguments that the documentation provided by the French LNDD Lab had not been translated into English. Also the Athlete and the BCU failed to demonstrate that the right to fair evidence proceedings had been volated. Their complaints regarding the B-sample analysis procedure were unfounded.

The Panel finds that the Athlete and the BCU failed to demonstrate that the LNDD Lab had not tested the samples in accordance with the international standards. Considering the test results the Panel finds as beyond doubt that the source of the Testosterone was exogenous and that the presence of a prohibited substance in the Athlete’s samples can’t be explained by a physiological or pathological condition.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 11 September 2006:

1.) The appeal filed by the Union Cycliste Internationale on 23 March 2006 is upheld.

2.) The appealed decision issued on 23 February 2006 by the Barbados Cycling Union is set aside.

3.) Mr Barry Forde shall be declared ineligible for two years and two months from 31 December 2005.

4.) Mr Barry Forde’s results, points and prizes obtained during the "6 jours de Grenoble" which took place from 27 October to 2 November 2005 as well as during all subsequent races are forfeited.

5.) (…)

Related case:
SDRCC 2007 CCES vs Shari Boyle
May 31, 2007

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Shari Boyle after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Ephedrine in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

History
The Athlete accepted the test result and denied that the violation was intentional. Having ruled out some nutritional supplements the Athlete assumed that the source of her positive test was her use of Yogi Tea. She did not consider the tea to be either a supplement or performance enhancing. She has no other explanation for the positive result. She made effort to find out where the Yogi Tea was purchased, but it was a gift together with other treas out of the package. Research on the ingredients showed that from two sources one mentioned the ingredient ephedrine.

Submission arbitrator
Although the Athlete claimed that she carefully checked the supplements she used and purchased them from reputable sources, the Yogi Tea theory is suggestive of conduct that fell well short of her personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance entered her body. The conclusion is that the circumstances warrant imposing the high end of the scale of sanctions for use of Specified Substances.

Decision
The Athlete will be Ineligible for a period of 1 year from 3 September 2006 (being the date of the decision) and concluding on (and including) 3 September 2007.

Facts
The French Motorcycling Federation (Fédération Française de motocyclisme, FFM) charges respondent M54 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a motorcycling event on Juni 3, 2006, respondent was unable to complete the doping control.

History
The respondent failed to produce enough urine for a valid sample, and a complementary sample was not produced.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFM.
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 M53 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on March 25, 2006, respondent didn't attend the doping control.

History
The respondent wanted to shower first before the doping control, there were showers at the doping control station. His request to use another facility was denied. Despite explaining the consequences the respondent left the scene. The sports director of the team had written a complaint about the late hour of the doping control.

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 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 Triathlon Federation (Fédération Française de Triathlon, FFTri) charges respondent M52 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on October 9, 2005, a sample was collected for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisolone which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
In her decision the disciplinary committee of the FFTri had sanctioned the respondent with a six month period of ineligibility. But in his appeal the appeal committee of the FFTri sanctioned him only with a warning.
Respondent had mentioned the use of pharmaceutical products on the doping control form, but these products don't contain prednisolone. Also he had an injection to treat tendon bursitus in his left ankle. The panel concludes that amount measured doesn't match with the time the injection was administrated.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFTri.
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 Federation of American Football (Fédération Française de Football Américain, FFFA) charges respondent M51 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on March 25, 2008, respondent didn't attend the doping control.

History
The respondent wanted to shower first before the doping control, there were showers at the doping control station. His request to use another facility was denied. Despite explaining the consequences the respondent left the scene. The sports director of the team had written a complaint about the late hour of the doping control.

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 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 Triathlon Federation (Fédération Française de Triathlon, FFTri) charges respondent M50 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on September 25, 2005, a sample was collected for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of terbutaline which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent uses a pharmaceutical product containing the prohibited substance against allergic reactions from the cat of his children. He has copies of the medical transcriptions and the application for a therapeutic use exemption (TUE). However there is no report of a examination of his lungs which states he has allergic asthma.

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