Independent Observers (IO) Report XX Olympic Winter Games, Turin, Italy, 10-26 February 2006 / Arne Ljungqvist. - Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2006

CAS CG 06/01 Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) vs Raju Edwin

CAS CG 06/02 Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) vs Tajinder Singh

In March 2006 during the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games the Indian weightlifters Raju Edwin and Tajinder Singh tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

Following notification the Athlete's denied the use of any prohibited substance and disputed the validity of the test results.

Because there were 4 adverse analytical findings reported on the occasion of doping controls carried out on the Indian national team members in 2006 consequently the International Weightlifting Federation decided to suspend the Indian Weightlifting Federation.

On 25 March 2006 in this interim order the Ad hoc Panel provides the Athletes the opportunity to consider with the aid of an expert whether the analysis of the their samples relied on to support a case of violation of the anti-doping rules was in any way flawed.

Therefore on 26 March 2006 the Ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

(1) By 06:00pm Swiss time on 28 March 2006, the Respondents produce a report from their expert on the analytical data to be distributed in accordance with directions of the CAS Secretariat.

(2) By 06:00pm Swiss time on 29 March 2006, the Respondents indicate to CAS in Lausanne whether in the light of such report, the Respondents continue to dispute the findings of violation of an anti-doping rule, and if so, on what basis.

(3) If and in so far as the Respondents continue to dispute the findings on the basis that the analysis of their samples was in some material way flawed, the CGF has until 06:00pm Swiss time on 31 March 2006 to produce a report in defence of the analysis to be distributed on the same basis.

(4) The Panel refers the dispute to arbitration by the CAS in accordance with the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (Article 20 (a) and (c) (i) and (iii) of the ad hoc Rules)

(5) If a defence is advanced by the Respondents, further directions will be given for its resolution.

If, however, the Respondents advance no defence, the Panel will as soon as possible determine that an anti-doping rule violation has been committed (see article 28.8 (d) of the CGF Constitution), and the Federation Court will thereafter impose the sanctions provided for under article 28.9. (The Panel further draws attention to article 28.10, although its implementation is not a matter for it.)

The New Zealand Federation of Bodybuilders (NZFBB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol.

Respondent admitted the anti-doping violation, did not want to participate in the hearing and acknowledged that the Tribunal may impose a penalty on her without holding a hearing of the parties.
The Tribunal notes that Respondent admitted the violation but provided no further information to warrant any lesser penalty than the two year suspension set out in the WADA Code.
Therefore the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting from the date of the decision.

In February 2006 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Paulina Geanina Orlic after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide.
Therefore on 23 March 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 25 February 2006.

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 Elena Constantin after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.

Therefore on 23 March 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 4 March 2006.

Doping-Bilanz der NADA für den Deutschen Sport 2005 / Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA). - Bonn : NADA, 2006

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M23 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on July 23, 2005, respondent provided a sample for doping test purposes. 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.

History
The respondent had used cannabis in a social setting, it was his first time he had used is. To prove this fact he provided an additional test which he paid, this test was negative.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months, from which 2 months conditionally, respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFC.
2. The decision starts 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 M22 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on October 9, 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 mentioned the use of a pharmaceutical product which contains the prohibited substance for therapeutic reasons. However she fails to prove her condition with medical documentation.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 3 months 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.

Facts
The French Shooting Federation (Fédération Française de Tir, FFTir) charges respondent M21 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a shooting contest, on November 28, 2009, a sample for doping test purposes was taken. The sample tested positive on bisoprolol which is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent did mention the use of medication containing the prohibited substance. Due to heart problems he has to use this medication and he has documentation about his heart condition. The panel considers, regarding his medical files, the use of bisoprolol medical justified for his positive test.

Decision
1. The respondents is acquitted.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M20 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on July 23, 2005, respondent provided a sample for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of budesonide. Budesonide is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent had used a pharmaceutical product containing the prohibited substance. He suffers from exercise asthma and allergies since his adolescence. He has test evidence for the findings of a methacholine, which is treated with glucorticosteroids. The panel regards the treatment justifiable for the positive test result.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.