In March 2006 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Octavian Ovidiu Ciora after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methandienone.
Therefore on 11 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, i.e. on 11 March 2006.
Anti-Doping controls and positives : statistical data 2005 / Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI). - Roma : CONI, 2006
Related case:
ST 2009_02 DFSNZ vs Aaron Neemia
June 12, 2009
Softball New Zealand (SNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.
Respondent filed a statement in his defence and waived his right to be heard before the Tribunal. Respondent admitted he had smoked Cannabis at a party the night before competition.
The Tribunal concludes that Respondent did not smoke Cannabis to enhance sport performance.
Therefore the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a warning and a reprimand on the Respondent.
Related case:
ISR 2005 KNCB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2005072 T
November 24, 2005
Defendant appeals against the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal Netherlands Cricket Association (Koninklijke Nederlandse Cricket Bond, KNCB) dated November 24, 2005.
Defendant presents a written defence and attends the oral hearing on March 22, 2006.
Defendant argues:
There is a violation of the rights for a fair trial: he should have been notified that he was entitled to ask copies of the lab-tests. But the KNCB did notify him by letter.
Lack of (convincing) evidence: defendant claims that the opinion of the disciplinary committee that the results of the lab can be missed. The appeal committee doesn't agree because the defendant didn't ask for a B-sample analyses. Defendant didn't ask for copies although he was informed to do so. A derivation of the international standard for laboratories was mentioned by the defendant but the appeal commission doesn't regard this as a reproach.
The appeal commission is not aware of any circumstances in which his confession is not considered to be valid.
The detected substances don't enhance sport performance: the appeal commission concludes it doesn't matter if a substance enhances sport performance, the fact that it is a prohibited substance is the violation.
Conflict with equality of principles: The defendant claims equality of principles for his recreational use of a narcotic, the appeal commission disagrees because cannabinoids are on the prohibited list.
Penalty: The defendant also claims the period of ineligibility is too long, his council mentions the principle of proportionality. Only when the defendant can prove his that there is no significant fault or Negligence the period of ineligibility can be reduced. The appeal committee sees no regulations for recreational use of drugs.
The appeal commission considers: not having the intention of enhancing sport performance; the drug was used social / recreational; there is no regular use; no prior disciplinary convictions; the athlete is not a professional in cricket
The appeal commission decides that the penalty will be reduced. The two years of ineligibility will be partly conditional (for 12 months) with a test period of 2 years commencing on the date of his last game.
Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M27 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on August 15, 2005, respondent provided a sample for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of Salbutamol which is a prohibited substance according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.
History
The respondent had used medication containing the prohibited substance. He had mentioned the use on the doping control form. He suffers from severe hyperactive bronchi, for which he has declarations. The panel concludes from his medical files that the medication is justifiable.
Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted
2. The decision wil not be published.
3. The decision will be sent to the parties involved.
Facts
The French Surfing Federation (Fédération Française de Surf, FFSurf) charges respondent M26 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a surf event on July 30, 2005, the respondent didn't attend the doping control.
History
The respondent asked to dry his hands and takes of his wet suit before attending the doping control but never returns. By letter he admits that he was affraid that his use of cannabis would be detected.
Decision
1. The respondent is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of eighteen months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFSurf.
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 Boxing Federation (Fédération Française de Boxe, FFBoxe) - charges respondent M25 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on December 17, 2005, respondent was asked to provide an urine sample.
History
The respondent refused to sign the doping control form, also he was unable to provide enough urine for a valid sample for doping test purposes. When offered to drink something and try again he went away.
Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 1 year in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFBoxe.
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 M24 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on November 12, 2005, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolites of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.
History
The respondent smokes cannabis and accepts the consequences, it was also her last participation in the sport.
Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months, from which one month conditionally, 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.
CAS 2005/A/967 Alexis Chardenoux v/IWGA
In July 2005 the International World Games Association (IWGA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French dancer Alexis Chardenoux after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Finasteride.
Consequently the IWGA decides on 15 August 2005 to impose a period of ineligibility of the 2005 World Games and for disqualification of his results.
Although the Athlete had not a valid TUE for his medication he applied for a TUE 5 days before the competition which was denied thereupon by the International Dance Sport Federation (IDSF) in July 2005. The IDSF only approved the use of a medication for another condition he suffered.
Hereafter in September 2005 the Athlete appealed the IWGA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to annul the Appealed Decision and to annul the imposed sanction.
The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample. Accordingly the Panel rules that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation which automatically leads to disqualification of the individual result obtained in the competition.
Following assessment of the IWGA Rules the Panel establishes poor drafting in the sub-sections under article 10. Here the IWGA acknowledged that an error in drafting the Rules had occurred. The Panel orders that the IWGA needs to apply further refinement of its Rules.
The Panel confirmes the Ineligibility imposed on the Athlete by the IWGA. However for purposes of clarity the Panel defines the temporal scope of the sanction in harmony with the applicable provisions of the IWGA Rules.
In view of the Athlete's conduct the Panel concludes that he acted negligently regarding his TUE application and his participation into the competition without a valid TUE. Further the Panel holds that the IDSF Anti-Doping Director also bears a degree of fault regarding the Athlete's TUE application.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 April 2006:
1.) The Appellant's motion on appeal to set aside the decision of the IWGA Anti-Doping Panel Chamber of 15 August is dismissed.
2.) The decision of the IWGA Anti-Doping Panel Chamber of 15 August 2005 is to be supplemented in Pt. 1 and Pt. 2 with the following clarifying language:
"1. The Athlete is declared ineligible for Rock' n' Roll competition for the entire term of the 2005 World Games held in Duisburg, Germany between 14 and 24 July 2005.
2. The Athlete is disqualified of all results achieved in the Rock' n' Roll competition of the 2005 World Games held in Duisburg, Germany between 14 and 24 July 2005, in particular, his third place ranking and shall forfeit all medals received"
3.) This award is rendered without costs except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs), which is retained by the CAS.
4.) The Parties shall bear the costs which they have individually incurred in the present arbitration procedure.
Effects of blood withdrawal and reinfusion on biomarkers of erythropoiesis in humans : Implications for anti-doping strategies / Rasmus Damsgaard, Troels Munch, Jacob Mørkeberg, Stefan P. Mortensen, José González-Alonso
Abstract
To discriminate autologous blood doping procedures from normal conditions, we examined the hematological response to blood withdrawal and reinfusion. We found that biomarkers of erythropoiesis are primarily affected in the anemic period. Therefore, individual variations in [Hb] exceeding 15% between samples obtained shortly before any major competition would be indicative of autologous blood manipulation.
