CAS 2006/A/1081 Motorcycling Australia Limited v. Andrew Ledingham

• Motorcycling
• Doping (amphetamine and methamphetamine)
• No Significant Fault or Negligence
• Definition of “utmost caution”

1. To have the benefit of the mandatory sanction of 2 years ban reduced, an athlete must establish that there was No Significant Fault or Negligence on his/her part in using the Prohibited Substance. The athlete therefore, must establish that he/she did not, while taking the utmost caution, know or suspect and could not reasonably know or suspect, that he/she had used a prohibited substance.

2. To gain a reduction of sanction, the athlete must establish “utmost caution”, that is, that in all the circumstances, he/she took the highest degree of care to ensure he/she knew what the substance he/she ingested was, such that he/she could not know or suspect nor reasonably know or suspect that he/she had used a prohibited substance.

On 25 November 2005 the Judicial Committee of Motorcycling Australia (MA) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the motorcyclist Andrew Ledingham after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances amphetamine and methamphetamine. In first instance the Athlete admitted that 72 hours prior to the sample collection had used tablets that retard sleepiness and contained the substances.

Hereafter MA appealed the decision of 25 November 2005 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
MA requested the Panel to set aside the decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Panel finds that the Athlete has established, in the totality of the circumstances, no unique nor exceptional circumstance to persuade the Panel that the sanction should be reduced. He was, on the evidence and accepting all he has put to the Panel in his submission, simply not at all cautious.

In the totality of the circumstance, the Panel does not believe the Athlete acted with the utmost caution, that is the highest level of care, to ensure he did not ingest a prohibited substance.

The Panel regards that the Judicial Committee accepted the word of the Athlete that No-Doz tablets contained the Prohibited Substances while on the evidence before the Panel this was an error of fact. Further, as to the determination it had to make of No Significant Fault or Negligence, the Judicial Committee failed to give its reasoning and as such made an error of law.

Accordingly the Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to establish that his fault or negligence in using a prohibited substance was Not Significant, in relation to his violation of the Anti-Doping rule. The Panel deems that the Athlete must be sanctioned for 2 years starting on the date of the sample collection.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 28 April 2006 that:

1.) Mr Andrew Ledingham is ineligible to compete during the period commencing on 25 September 2005 for 2 years, expiring at midnight on 24 September 2007.

2.) There be no order as to costs.

Related case:
ANAD Comisia de Apel 2006_01 Claudiu Stefan Grama vs ANAD
June 27, 2006

In April 2006 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Athlete Grama Ianula Sofia Micu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandorsterone, metabolite of nandrolone.

The Athlete admitted the use of the medication keratyl, which contained the prohibited substance.
Therefore on 28 April 2006 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection.

The New Zealand Federation of Body Builders (NZFBB) has reported an anti-doping rule violations against Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Nandrolone on two occasions in October 2005.
After notification the Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal. Respondent stated that prior to the competitions he was provided with a sample dietary product and had no idea that the product contained a prohibited substance. He did not research the ingredients of the product before using it and expressed genuine remorse for his error of judgment.

The Tribunal accepts Respondent’s evidence that he took the substance once only and treats the two positive tests as being the first violation.
The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on 31 October 2005. In addition the Respondent is disqualified from the two competitions.

Softball New Zealand (SNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.
After notification by SNZ the Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.
The Respondent admitted he had smoked Cannabis at a party a week before the tournament. Respondent had no intention to enhance his sport performance, apologised and requested that he be allowed to continue play softball.

The Tribunal concludes that the Respondent did not smoke cannabis for performance-enhancing purposes and the use of Cannabis was unrelated to the sport. Therefore the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a warning and a reprimand on the Respondent.

Facts
The French Federation for Public Physical Education (Union Française des Oeuvres Laïques d'Éducation Physique, UFOLEP) charges respondent M32 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on July 10, 2005, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of dexamethasone which is a prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent had used without medical advice, ointment and tablets containing the prohibited substance, in order to treat an inflammation. Glucocorticosteroids are not the proper medication to treat a skin disorder. Respondent didn't use the substance to enhance sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months conditionally in which he can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by UFOLEP
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 for Company Sport (Fédération Française du Sport d'Entreprise, FFSE) charges respondent M31 for a violation of the Anti-Doping rules. During an athletics event on June 18, 2005, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of budesonide which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The disciplinary committee of the FFSE had delivered a warning in her decision on November 7, 2005.

The respondent had used a pharmaceutical product on the day of the coping control containing the prohibited substance. He uses medication to treat his asthma and has documents that proof his condition and his need for medication.

Decision
1. The decision of the disciplinary committee will not be changed.
2. The present decision will not be published.
3. The decision will be sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Pétanque Federation (Fédération Française de pétanque et jeu provençal, FFPJP)) charges respondent M30 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on September 11, 2005, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of atenolol which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The disciplinary committee of the FFPJP had sanctioned the respondent with a three months period of ineligibility conditionally. The respondent used medication containing the prohibited substance. He had declared the use on the doping control form, his medical file indicated the need for this medication.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision will not be published.
3. The decision will be sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Rugby Federation (Fédération Française de Rugby, FFR) charges respondent M29 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on November 26, 2005, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample tested positive on salbutamol which is a prohibited substance according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

History
The respondent hadn't mentioned the use of medication on the doping control form. The respondent claims to have bronchospasmes for which he uses medications. He has a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) from the International Rugby Board (IRB). However the panel concludes that the quantity measured is higher then allowed by the inhalation of salbutamol.

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

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M28 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on September 25, 2005, respondent was asked to provide a doping sample. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of salbutamol which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
Respondent had received a warning for this violation from the disciplinary committee of the FFA. Respondent doesn't dispute the results of the analysis. He had mentioned on the doping control form a drug containing the substance found in his urine. He needed the medication to treat asthmatic bronchites and exercise induced asthma from which he suffers over ten years. He has reports to prove his condition (the results a cardiopulmonary exercise test and a bronchial provocation test).
The panel doesn't regards the reports as prove for having asthma.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 6 months conditionally in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFA.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Årsrapport Antidoping Norge 2005 / Antidoping Norge (ADNO). - Oslo : ADNO, 2005

Innhold

Årsberetning 2005 fra styret 3
Innledning 6
Styret 6
Påtalenemnd 7
Administrasjon og drift 8
Kontrollvirksomhet 10
Informasjon og forebyggende arbeid 12
Internasjonalt arbeid 15
Forskning 16
Oppdragsvirksomhet 17
Andre oppdrag 17
Medisinrelaterte oppgaver 18