Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Limited (UKAD) charges against Nathaniel Wilding, the athlete, for an omission of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 30 November 2013, the athlete provided an in competition sample for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the Wold Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and regarded as a specified substance.

History
The athlete explained at first that he used it among friends in the course of an overseas trip a few weeks before the doping control. But experts did not consider that his explanation was adequate. The athlete admitted he is a regular 'recreational' cannabis user. He uses cannabis in quantities ranging from 1g to 2g per day in and around the time of the sample collection. He had no intention to enhance his sport performance. The panel would normally sanctioned this with a four months period of ineligibility, but because of his improper confession it was determined to be six months.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months.
2. The Athlete's results from 30 November 2013 are disqualified;
3. The period of ineligibility is deemed to have commenced from December 19, 2013, and will therefore end at midnight on June 19, 2014.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Limited (UKAD) brought three charges against Dean Colclough, the respondent, for omissions of the Anti-Doping Rules. By letter dated November 14, 2013, the Respondent was charged with three anti-doping concerning possession, trafficking and attempting trafficking.
- charge 1: possession and attempted trafficking for the following substances since at least July 11, 2013: androsta-l,4,6-triene-3,17-dione (androstatrienedione); 17a-dimethyl-17b-hydroxy-5a-etiocholan-3-one, a derivative of drostanolone; 6-bromoandrostane-3-17-dione, a metabolite of androstenedione (androst-4-ene-3,17-dione); methyldienolone (17β-hydroxy-17a-methylestra-4,9-dien-3-one); mestanolone; stanozolol; and 17a-methyl-3-oxo-19-norandrostene-4, 17-diol; 4-chloro-17a-methylandros-4-ene-3b, 17b-diol; 2a, 3a-epithio-17a-methyl- 5a-androstan-17b-0l; 4-chloro-17a-methyl-1,4,diene-3,17-diol; 3-beta-hydroxyetioallocholan-17-one; 17-methyl-landrostene-17b-ol-3-one and other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect.
- charge 2: trafficking around May 6, 2013, metandienone and stanozolol.
- charge 3: trafficking on August 15, 2013, methyldienolone, mestanolone, stanozolol and androstenedione.

History
Respondent's comment
Charge 1: at first respondent admitted the charge but he was no registered, he was retired and no subject to the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) jurisdiction.
Charge 2: Respondent denies the trafficking.
Charge 3: Respondent denies the trafficking.
The panel
Charge 1: the anti-doping violation is established for two separate violations.
Charge 2: the anti-doping violation is committed.
Charge 3: the anti-doping violation is committed.
The registration of the respondent to the WRU is to be regarded as still valid.

Decision
The sanction is a period of ineligibility of eight years starting from November 14, 2013.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) alleges Bruce Croall, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During cycling events on October 6 and 9, 2013, samples were taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the samples showed the presence of Oxilofrine which is a prohibited substance according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. It is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The athlete explains that the prohibited substance must have been present in supplements he had used during the cycling events. He had no intention to enhance his sport performance. Allthough the supplement’s packaging contains no reference to Oxilofrine nor is there any listed ingredient that has been proved to contain it, the same supplement was used by another athlete who tested positive in a different sport. Tests in November 2013 from another sachet in the same batch confirmed the presence of Oxilofrine in that sample.

However it should be clear that it has not been established that such supplement became contaminated other than in the course of manufacture. That can't be known. Nevertheless, it must be abundantly clear to other athletes that there is at least a risk that any product bearing that name or description may be similarly contaminated.
In this case the athlete was tested before using, as he claims, the same supplements and the tests were negative. He had then no awareness of taking a prohibited substance.
The panel agrees to a reduction of the period of ineligibility because of no significant fault or negligence.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months.
2. All the result obtained at the cycling events on October 6 and 9, 2013, are cancelled. Medals, points and prizes are withdrawn.

Costs
Mr Croall will have to bear the “costs of results management by the UCI in the amount of CHF 2,500”.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Limited (UKAD) had charged Kenneth Anderson, the athlete, for an omission of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on October 20, 2012, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of amphetamine, which is a prohibited substance according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

The sanction dated May 16, 2013, was a period of ineligibility of two years from 9 November 2012, the date with effect from which the Athlete was provisionally suspended. The Athlete's results from the bout on 20 October 2012 are disqualified. The prize money of £15,000 must be repaid to the British Boxing Board of Control.

History
The athlete couldn't appear at the hearing because of hospitalization. His representative explained the appeal was made on two grounds: The first was that it was reasonably anticipated that fresh evidence could be available. The second was that the tribunal had misdirected itself as to the standard of proof and approached the Appellant's evidence with excessive caution. The notice asked for further time to obtain the fresh evidence.
However no new evidence was provided.

Decision
The appeal is dismissed, the sanction of the former decision remains.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Limited (UKAD) charged Kenneth Anderson, the athlete, for an omission of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on October 20, 2012, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of amphetamine, which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The athlete denies knowingly ingesting amphetamine or any other
banned substance before the fight. He said he would regard amphetamine as more of a hindrance than a help to his performance since he needs to be calm and collected when he fights, and understands amphetamine has the opposite effect. He recalled having been offered speed by his sister at the night club after the fight and began to wonder if the positive test result had anything to do with his sister who uses drugs. Someone confessed putting speed in Mr Anderson's coffee the night before the fight. The athlete made an official complaint of criminal conduct at the police station.
However the police station didn't provide any report related to this case.
The scientific evidence is inconclusive, the tribunal cannot know the time and date of ingestion, nor the dose, thus having no positive scientific evidence to corroborate the spiking claim.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years from 9 November 2012, the date with effect from which the Athlete was provisionally suspended.
2. The Athlete's results from the bout on 20 October 2012 are disqualified.
3. The prize money of £15,000 must be repaid to the British Boxing Board of Control.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Austin Denman, the athlete, for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On July 19, 2013, the Athlete was selected for an out-of-competition doping control sample of both blood and urine. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of terbutaline which is a prohibited substance according to the 2013 Wold Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list incorporated under the CADP.

History
The athlete suffers from asthma since childhood, for that reason he had used medication containing the prohibited substance. The reason for not applying earlier for an Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) was due to a busy training schedule. However he didn't mention this on the doping control form. Realizing his mistake during the procedure he tried to get an amended certificate. In the process he had received a TUE with the wrong date, which was the date of the doping control.
A retrospective TUE is only granted in medical emergencies or acute medical situations, this case is no considered to be exceptional. The Athlete has failed to establish that it would have been possible or beyond all reasonable expectations for him to submit a full application for a TUE prior to the doping control. Also it is considered that there had been enough time to apply for a TUE.

Decision
1. The Athlete has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation for the Presence of a Specified Substance in his bodily specimen;
2. The Athlete shall be sanctioned with a 2 month period of Ineligibility;
3. Because the Athlete has been serving a provisional suspension since December 16, 2013, the provisional suspension can be terminated effective immediately. The Athlete is free to compete.

Costs
Neither party has made a request for costs. Accordingly, no such order will be made.

Facts
The International Chess Federation (FIDE) charged Bobby Miller, the player, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On October 28, 2004, during the Chess Olympiad in Calvia, Mallorca the player refused a doping test.

History
The statement of the player was the following. He confessed that he refused to submit to the doping control. His teamcaptain has advised him to refuse. He did not know about the possible sanctions. Bermuda is a low team in the ranking. Bobby Miller is an amateur. He has no FIDE-rating . He played between the Olympiad in Bled in 2002 and the Olympiad in 2004 only one FIDE rated event, the Bermuda Open 2003. In that event he played only one game against a FIDE-rated player.
The panel considers: the player keeps his own responsibility to decide if he submits to the doping control or refuses. The advise of the team captain does not deprive the player from his own responsibility. The refusal of submitting a sample means that the player is considered to be positive tested. According to the FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations the disqualification of individual results is the automatic consequence in each doping case, also the exclusion from participating in events organised by FIDE or national chess federations is further the normal sanction after a refusal. However, the Panel has discovered that the FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations are not well known in a part of the federations in FIDE. Further, Bobby Miller is an amateur player who came on his own cost to the Olympiad. The FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations are in the first place meant for the professional players of whom there are many in chess. There is no place for an exclusion, but only a warning should
be given. A minority of two members of the Panel judges that also this sanctioning is to severe and there should be no cancelling of points, but just a warning.

Decision
1. The sanction is a warning.
2. The points obtained since the Bermuda Open 2003 till the Chess Olympiad 2004 are cancelled.

Facts
The International Chess Federation (FIDE) charged Shaun Press, the player, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On October 28, 2004, during the Chess Olympiad in Calvia, Mallorca the player refused a doping test.

History
On October 30, 2004, there was a hearing of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel. The statement of the player Shaun Press was the following. He confessed that he refused to submit to the doping control. The written statement of doctor Eduardo Ribot is not correct. When the doctor asked him to submit to the doping control, he asked to the doctor if there was any evidence that he had used forbidden substances. When the doctor said no, he refused because he can not be obliged to produce evidence against himself. He did not know the possible sanctions at that moment. In the meeting of team captains on october 15, 2004, before the first round the chief arbiter told that there would be doping controls in the last week of the tournament, but he did not say anything about the possible sanctions and he did not say that there were new anti-doping regulations that were different from the regulations that were accepted in Bled in 2002. When a team captain asked a question to the Chief Arbiter about the anti-doping regulations, the Chief Arbiter did not answer the question. Neither at any other moment had been told to the team captains or the players that there were new anti-doping regulations. FIDE did not inform the federations that there were new anti-doping regulations. During the Olympiad in Bled in 2002 there were refusals and nobody had been sanctioned. He presented a written statement by Stuart Fancy, in the last 15 month president of the Papua New Guinea Chess Federation, that he is not informed during that time by FIDE of any anti-doping regulations and that he has not been asked to check on any website of such regulations. He also presented a written statement of zone president Gary Bekker that he was not be made aware of the new anti-doping regulations prior to the 36th Olympiad. Further he was not all the time accompanied by a doping official in the hour between the refusal of the original test and the second visit to the doping room; so if he would have wished to take the test, then it would have been void. That is contrary to the anti-doping regulations. From the doping control form it is not clear which authorities are responsible for the doping controls. It was not known what would happen with the samples after the control. In the forms there was no information about the regulations of procedure. In Australia chess is not a sport. He has a FIDE-rating. He did not play any FIDE rated event between the Olympiad in Bled in 2002 and the Olympiad in Mallorca in 2004. He is an amateur player.
The panel considers: the refusal to submit to the doping control is a violation. The fact that the player was not accompanied by a doping official in the hour between his first visit and the second visit to the doping control and a test might be void, is not a good reason for a refusal. The new doping rules where available on the website www.fide.com. It is not assumable that the player was not able to get this information. The refusal of submitting a sample means that the player is considered to be positive tested. However, the Panel has discovered that the FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations are not well known in a part of the federations in FIDE. Further, Shaun Press is an amateur player who came on his own cost to the Olympiad. The FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations are in the first place meant for the professional players of whom there are many in chess. For these reasons a majority of three members of the Panel judges that next to the cancelling of the points gathered during the Olympiad, there is no place for an exclusion, but only a warning should be given.

Decision
1. The sanction is a warning.
2. The points obtained at the Chess Olympiad are cancelled.

Facts
The International Chess Federation (FIDE) charged Vassily Ivanchuk, the player for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match the Dresden Olympiad 2008 he didn't attend a doping control.

History
After losing a crucial game for his country, the player was distraught. The arbiter attempted to inform the player in English that he should accompany him for a doping test, the player apparently failed to understand the instructions, especially since English is not his first language. If there had been a Doping Control Officer present, he would have immediately gone to the player's board and there would have been communication between him and the player. In that case the outcome might have been different. Because there was no notification by the Doping Control officer, there was no refusal in the sense of the regulations.

Decision
The player is acquitted.

In October 2011 the International Cricket Council has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Guyanese cricket player Tremayne Smartt after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the ICC Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete did not challenge the test results and stated that in the past she underwent several treatments for her knee problems and the pain she suffered. Because she he had a swelling in her knee at the competition in September 2011 she used tablets Frusemide, purchased in a pharmacy in Guyana in July 2010, to reduce the swelling. The Athlete produced medical information about her knee problems.

The Tribunal accepts the Athlete's statement including the medical evidence and that the Frusemide tablets were used for the swelling in her knee in September 2011 without intention to enhance sport performance.
The Tribunal finds that the Athlete conducted insufficient enquiries about the content of her tablets and did not consult medical advisers about the medication she used.

Considering the circumstances in this case the ICC Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 14 December 2011 to impose a 5 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 October 2011.