Facts
Frenchman Nicolas Coutelot (player) was tested positive for a metabolite of cannabis after a qualifying match for the Vina del Mar tournament in February 2004, in Chili.
Under World Anti-Doping Code, cannabis is listed since 2004 as a "specified substance" and the use of a specified substance can carry a minimum penalty of a warning through to a maximum penalty of a one-year suspension.
The use of cannabis in this case was determined by the tribunal not used for performance enhancing reasons.

History
The reason for his positive test was his addiction to cannabis, although he knew the substance would be out of his system in two weeks he was unable to quit immediately because of withdrawal symptoms. He stopped using cannabis approximately around December 27 or 28, 2003.

Decision
The tribunal determined that the player committed a doping violation under the rules of the Tennis Anti-Doping Program. The independent tribunal, which heard evidence on August 2, 2004.
The tribunal has handed Frenchman Nicolas Coutelot a two-month suspension from the ATP Tour or Challenger Series event or other activity authorized or organized by the ATP.

Respondent, Torri Edwards, is an elite sprinter who was the gold medalist in the 100 meter event at the 2003 World Championships. She qualified for the 2004 United States Olympic Team in the 100 and 200 meter events.

On July19, 2004, the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel conducted a hearing pertaining to Respondent's positive doping test which occurred at the April 24, 2004 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) competition in Martinique known as the Meeting du Conseil Général.
At the hearing before the Panel, Respondent admitted that she had committed a doping offens through the ingestion of the prohibited stimulant nikethamide, but contended that exceptional circumstances existed which should result in the reduction of elimination of any period of ineligibility to be imposed in connection therewith. At the hearing, Respondent was given the opportunity to make a complete record regarding her claim of exceptional circumstances. She submitted document and testified about the circumstances surrounding her ingestion of nikethamide and submitted to cross examinations.
After the hearing the evidence and the arguments of counsel presented at the hearing the Panel concluded "that exceptional circumstances may here exist" and that " referral to the IAAF pursuant of Rule 38.16 is the proper course of action"

Acting upon the referral, the Doping Review Board of the IAAF issued a determination dated August 3, 2004. In this determination the IAAF Doping Review Board noted that it had reviewed the interim award, certain relevant correspondence, the exhibits presented at het hearing before the Panel and the transcript of the hearing before the Panel. That determination notes that Claimant and Respondent were given the opportunity to submit to the Doping Review Board evidence not presented during the hearing before the Panel.

The IAAF Doping Review Board summarized its conclusion on the question of the existence of “exceptional circumstances’ as follows: “The Doping Review Board does not consider the circumstances of this case to constitute Exceptional Circumstances as required by IAAF Rule 38.12. By reason of the factors, the Doping Review Board considers that Ms. Edwards is unable to establish that this anti-doping violation took place without significant fault of negligence on her part. On the contrary, in the Board’s view, the athlete was at significant fault and, in consequence of this, there are no Exceptional Circumstances in this case.

The presumptive sanction for Respondent’s doping offense is a minimum two year period of ineligibility to run from the date of the hearing pursuant to IAAF Rule 40.19a0, and disallowance of results obtained between the date of her positive drug test and the date on which her period of ineligibility begins, as set forth in IAAF Rule 39.4.
USADA had not sought a sanction of longer than the minimum two year period of ineligibility mandated by IAAF Rule 40.1(a), and the Panel has been presented with no evidence reflecting that a lengthier period of ineligibility is warranted.

Accordingly, pursuant to IAAF Rule 40.1(a)(i), the Panel hereby imposes a two year period of ineligibility upon Respondent to expire on July 17, 2006, and , in accordance with IAAF Rule 39.1 and 39.4, orders disqualification of all results obtained by Respondent at the April 24, 2004 competition in Martinique and all of Respondent’s subsequent competitive results through the date of this decision, including the forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money received as a result of competitions or appearances occurring during this period.

The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association and the compensation and expenses of the arbitrators shall by borne entirely by USADA.

This is the unanimous decision of the independent Anti-Doping Tribunal of the International Tennis Federation (“the ITF”) of the ITF Tennis Anti-Doping Programme 2004 (“the Anti-Doping Programme”) to determine a charge brought against Mr Travis Moffat (“the player”) following a positive drug test result in respect of a urine sample provided by the player on 4 February 2004 at the Sydney International wheelchair tennis event in Sydney, Australia.
In a fax dated 19 May 2004, the player admitted the doping offence, which makes a hearing unnecessary. Written representations are filed by the player and the ITF's solicitors.
In his sample the prohibited substance found was a metabolite of cannabis. The player did not request a B-sample analysis, by this he accepted the results of the A-sample.
The player was paralyzed by a car accident, he replaced the medicine he used with cannabis (THC) for control of all spasm and pain and in the process removed a myriad of side effects and instituted an efficacious treatment for his problems. He didn't use the TCH to enhance is sport performance. He didn't apply for a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) because the use of cannabis as a medicine is illegal.
January 1, 2004, cannabinoids became a prohibited substance for the first time. Cannabis and cannabinoids were not prohibited under the predecessors to the Anti-Programme for 2004.
The tribunal declares that the player shall be ineligible for a period of six months starting from the date of this decision from participating in any capacity in any event or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programmes) authorized by the ITF or any national or regional entity which is a member of or is recognized by the ITF as the entity governing the sport of tennis in that nation or region. Any computer ranking points or prize money gained in this period will be forfeited.

Calvin Harrison, the Respondent, gave a urine sample on June 21, 2003 following his participation in the U.S. Jr. and Sr. Outdoor National Track & Field Championships on that date. The existence of the substance “modafinil”, a prescription drug, was found in the Respondent’s bodily fluids in the urine sample.

Respondent denies that, when taken by him, modafinil was prohibited, and thus he did not commit a doping offense.
In 1993 Respondent provided an in-competition urine sample which tested positive for pseudoephedrine, ad drug then, but not currently, on IAAF’s prohibited substance list, for which he received a hearing resulting in the imposition, at that time, of the prescribed sanction. Since a finding that Respondent committed a doping offense would constitute a second offense under IAAF rules, USADA requests that the Panel impose a sanction that would include a minimum two-year period of ineligibility from July 26, 2004, the date of the evidentiary hearing and disqualification of Respondent’s result and award from the June, 2003 U.S. National Championships trough July 26, 2004.

The mere presence of a prohibited substance constitutes an offense. USADA is not required to prove any intent on the part of Respondent to take a prohibited substance, nor does Respondent allege a lack of such intent. The Panel find that Respondent, who admittedly took modafinil without a prescription, ingested a stimulant of the type specifically prohibited or pharmacologically related thereto
Since USADA met its burden of proving that Respondent ingested of prohibited substance, the Panel conclude that Respondent has committed a doping offense within the meaning of the applicable IAAF-rules.

Sanction:
- The North American Court of Arbitration for Sports Panel finds that Respondent committed a second offense.
- The Panel note that despite Respondent’s counsel’s undertaking that Calvin Harrison would be present at the hearing as a fact witness, to testify on his behalf and be examined by counsel and the Panel, he did not appear. In response to the Panel’ s inquiry, Respondent’s counsel affirmed that Respondent had been fully apprised of his rights to appear and express any “exceptional circumstances” for consideration by the Panel, but that he chose not to do so.
- Respondent’s counsel stipulated at the hearing that Respondent does not allege that there are any “exceptional circumstances” that might be considered by the Panel or IAAF in reducing the sanction prescribed under the IAAF Doping Control Rules.
- Accordingly Respondent is suspended for the minimum two-year period to commence from July 26, 2004, the date of the evidentiary hearing, to and including July 25, 2006. In addition Respondent is and shall be ineligible to receive any award or addition to his trust fund which would have resulted from his appearances or performances from June 21, 2003 through July 26, 2004.
The administrative fees and expenses of the AAA, the compensation of the aibitrators
and the costs of the hearing transcript shall be borne entirely by Claimant.

World Anti-Doping Code International Standard for Laboratories / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2004. - (International Standard for Laboratories (ISL), version 4.0, in force 1 January 2004)

Hartgens F, Kuipers H. Effects of androgenic-anabolic steroids in athletes. Sports Med. 2004;34(8):513-54.

In June 2004 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Danish swimmer Mette Jacobsen after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Salbutamol, Prednisolone and Prednisone. The Athlete had a valid TUE for the use of Salbutamol but no TUE for the use of Prednisolone and Prednisone. After notification the Athlete was heard for the FINA doping Panel.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substances. The Athlete suffered from Asthma since 1993 and she explained that in February 2004 she had used prescribed antibiotics for the pneumonia she suffered. As she became ill in April her doctor prescribed antibiotics again. Here the Athlete’s doctor recognized that in April 2004 he provided the wrong tablets to the Athlete.
In June 2004 the Athlete’s doctor made TUE applications with FINA and the IOC for the medication he prescribed.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation as her sample tested positive for prednisolone and prednisone. The Panel finds that the Athlete failed to establish without any doubt that the violation was the Athlete’s doctor fault because he provided wrong tablets to her. This is only a possibility. The Panel considers that the Athlete was tested before without issues, that the IOC already granted the Athlete a TUE for the use of glucocorticosteroids and most probably that the FINA also would have been granted a TUE for the use of glucocortcosteroids.

Therefore the FINA Doping Panel decides on 20 July 2004 only to impose a warning and reprimand on the Athlete without a period of ineligibility.

Anabolic steroid users' attitudes towards physicians / Harrison G. Pope, Gen Kanayama, Martin Ionescu-Pioggia, James I. Hudson. - (Addiction 99 (2004) 9 (September); - 1189-1194)

• PMID: 15317640
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00781.x

Abstract

Aims: To assess anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) users' trust in the knowledge and advice of physicians.

Design: Interviews of AAS users and non-users.

Setting: Research offices.

Participants: Eighty weight-lifters (43 AAS users, 37 non-users) recruited by advertisement in Massachusetts and Florida, USA.

Measurements: Personal interviews and questionnaire responses, including subjects' ratings of physicians' knowledge regarding various health- and drug-related topics. AAS users also rated their level of trust in various sources of information about AAS.

Findings: Both groups of subjects gave physicians high ratings on knowledge about general health, cigarette smoking, alcohol, and conventional illicit drugs, but gave physicians markedly and significantly lower ratings on knowledge about AAS. When rating sources of information on AAS, users scored physicians as no more reliable than their friends, Internet sites, or the person(s) who sold them the steroids. Forty percent of users trusted information on AAS from their drug dealers at least as much as information from any physician that they had seen, and 56% had never revealed their AAS use to any physician.

Conclusion: AAS users show little trust in physicians' knowledge about AAS, and often do not disclose their AAS use to physicians. These attitudes compromise physicians' ability to educate or treat AAS users. Physicians can respond to these problems by learning more about AAS and by maintaining a high index of suspicion when evaluating athletic male patients.

related case:
CAS 2004/A/690 Diego Hipperdinger vs ATP

Diego Hipperdinger (player) was heard on July 14,2004, via a conference telephone call before an Anti-Doping tribunal.The factual grounds: this arbitral proceeding originated at the ATP sanctioned tournament "BellSouth Open" held in Vina del Mar in Chile in February 2004. The Appellant participated in this tournament. On 9 February 2004, a urine sample was taken from the Appellant. The urine sample was send from Chile to the Laboratoire de Controle de Dopage in Montreal, Canada. On 27 February 2004, the laboratory issued its analytical report which found the presence of "cocaine and metabolites". On 27 April 2004, the laboratory carried out a confirmation test on the B-specimen, which also showed the presence of "cocaine and metabolites".
Because of altitude sickness the player used herbal tea and chewing the tea's coca leaves. An acquaintance provided him with a bag of coca leaves he was from an area were this product is commonly used.
He was unaware that these coca leaves would lead to the detection of cocaine, also he had no intention to enhance his sport performance.
The panel disregards no fault or negligence, no significant fault or negligence and special circumstances in this case. This means there is no reason for reduction of the period of ineligibility which will be a period of 2 years because it is a first offence.
The decision is a 2 year period of ineligibility, received prize money has to be returned also medals, titles and computer ranking points are forfeited. The period of ineligibility will commence on the day of the sample gathering for reasons of fairness.

CAS 2004/A/593 Football Association of Wales (FAW) v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)

• Football
• Doping (Bromantan)
• CAS jurisdiction
• Arbitrability of the dispute
• Complicity of the federation or the club

1. A decision, which effect is to permit one of the national football team concerned to compete in the last stages of Euro 2004 has obviously serious financial repercussions. Following a case-by-case approach and taking into account its effects, the disputed decision is predominantly of a pecuniary nature (as opposed to sporting nature) for both parties. According to art. 62 UEFA Statutes, CAS has jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed against a decision of a pecuniary nature.

2. “Implicated” is more than just being “involved”. This technique, applied to art. 12 UEFA DR, leads to the legitimate conclusion that “implicated association” means participation of an association in the voluntary or negligent use of a banned substance or method by a player being aware of his doing so.

3. When there is no evidence that a federation or a club cooperated intentionally or negligently in the use of the banned substance by the Player, the said federation or club cannot be assimilated to an “accomplice or abettor” of player under the terms of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations and consequently cannot be sanctioned.

In December 2003 the UEFA reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian football player Titov after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Bromantan.

Consequently the UEFA Control & Disciplinary Body decided on 22 January 2004 to impose:

• a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete and a CHF 10’000.- fine.
• a fine of CHF 20’000.- on FC Spartak Moscow.

In January 2004 the Football Association of Wales (FAW) filed a formal protest at the continued inclusion of Russia in the Euro 2004 finals. Because of Tito's anti-doping rule violation the FAW contended that in accordance with the UEFA Rules the Football Union of Russia (FUR) should be excluded from participation in the Euro 2004 in Portugal and that Wales should be awarded their place in the tournament.

On 3 February 2004 the UEFA Control & Disciplinary Body decided to reject the complaint of the FAW for being unfounded. Thereupon on 1 April 2004 the UEFA Appeals Body ruled that the appeal of the FAW was rejected inasmuch as it was admissible and it confirmed the Control & Disciplinary Body’s decision of 3 February 2004.

Hereafter in April 2004 the FAW appealed the UEFA Appeals Body Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The FAW requested the Panel for:

(1) a declaration that the Appealed Decision against is flawed by errors of law and is void and of no effect;

(2) a declaration that on the correct interpretation of the relevant UEFA rules and regulations, the FUR is implicated as an accomplice or abettor of Titov for having fielded a player who had a prohibited substance in his body, irrespective of the fact that the FUR was unaware when the matches in question were played that Titov had a prohibited substance in his body; and

(3) a declaration that on the correct interpretation of the relevant UEFA rules and regulations UEFA‟s disciplinary organs are accordingly empowered to impose on the FUR an appropriate sanction, and UFEA's disciplinary organs are obliged on the basis of the FAW's complaint to consider what sanction to impose within the powers conferred by the relevant rules and regulations.

Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that:

• The decision of the UEFA Appeals Body wasn't flawed by errors of law and was void and of no effect.
• The FUR was not implicated in any asserted doping violation by Titov.
• Without FUR's implication in any doping offence, there is no legal basis for applying a sanction on the FUR.

Therefore on 6 July 2004 the Court of Arbitration for Sport:

1.) Has jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by the Football Association of Wales on 10 April 2004.

2.) Dismiss the appeal filed by the Football Association of Wales. (…)