Facts
The French Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M39 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on December 14, 2013, a sample was taken for doping tests purposes. The 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 a week before the match but denies wanting to improve athletic performance.
The panel acknowledges that the cannabis wasn't use to improve athletic performance, but it is strictly prohibited to use it.

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 FFBB.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Rugby Federation (Fédération Française de Rugby, FFR) charges respondent M38 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on December 8, 2013, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of tuaminoheptane which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. It is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent had used medication a few days before the match containing tuaminoheptane. He claims using it for treatment against a nose obstruction from which he suffers since since childhood and has turned chronic. He has medical reports and a certificate to prove his condition. He wasn't informed by his physician about the prohibited substance nor did he read the information of the medication.
The panel doesn't see any documentation about the duration of the treatment which makes the medical justification unestablished.

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 period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period: already served in voluntary suspension, the period already served by the decision of the disciplinary committee of the FFR dated February 11, 2014.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Football Federation (Fédération Française de Football, FFF) charges respondent M34 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on November 16, 2013, a sample was provided 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. It is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent had admitted during the hearing of the disciplinary committee he uses cannabis occasionally. However he didn't provide any information how the substance had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 9 months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFF.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by: the period already served in voluntary suspension, the period already served by the decision (six months period of ineligibility) of the disciplinary committee of the FFF dated February 12, 2014.
3. The decision of February 12, 2014, will be modified.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The Sophie Tinklin appeals against the decision UK Anti-Doping committee dated May 28, 2014. The sanction was a period of ineligibility of four years.

History
On July 12, 2012 the police executed a search warrant at respondents house address. They got hold of the prohibited substances, documentation/papers a laptop linked to the ordering of the prohibited substances and the cellular phone of the second respondent. The laptop and cellular phone contained information about suppliers and clients of the prohibited substances. Sophie Tinklin was taking part in the distribution of the prohibited substances together with her father Philip Tinklin who had a leading role. Sophie Tinklin practices boxing (on a high level) and is a member of the Welsh Amateur Boxing Association (WABA).
The defence claims:
1. Presented facts where based on "an unsigned witness statement to the Anti-Doping Tribunal".
2.) The information about Money Laundering was based on hearsay and was otherwise unsatisfactory and incomplete;
3. There was no forensic evidence to support the alleged involvement of the Appellant;
4. The material on which UKAD relied was "merely an unsubstantiated biased opinion as a consequence of a frustrated criminal prosecution against the Appellant". It is said that this constituted a "vexatious attempt to violate the principles of natural justice"
5. Essentially, as we noted under Ground 1 above, the complaint is that there was no adequate evidence to support the finding that the Appellant was aiding and abetting or complicit in the dissemination of prohibited substances.
The penal doesn't support the claims.

Decision
The appeal is dismissed.

Facts
The French Rugby Federation (Fédération Française de Rugby, FFR) charges respondent M33 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on December 1, 2013, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. It is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent had used a dietary supplement, shortly before the doping control, which contained the prohibited substance. It was used against fatigue and pain caused by a match. He took it on advice of a teammate who guaranteed that it was harmless under the Anti-Doping Rules. He had no intention to enhance his sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFR.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period: already served in voluntary suspension, the period already served by the decision (six months period of ineligibility) of the disciplinary committee of the FFR dated February 11, 2014.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Rugby Federation (Fédération Française de Rugby, FFR) charges respondent M32 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on November 19, 2013, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of terbutaline which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. It is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent had used medication contraining terbutaline fifteen days before the doping control. He used it to treat bronchopathic asthma cough with fever. He has a certificate for the medication. However the respondent had used the medication longer then it was subscribed in his prescription which is seen as self medication.

Decision
1. The sanction is a warning as pronounced by the disciplinary committee of the FFR on February 11, 2014.
2. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M31 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on November 30, 2013, 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 and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent didn't provide any explanation about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of nine months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFC and related federations.
2. All the results obtained at November 30, 2013, are cancelled. Medals, points and prizes are withdrawn.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Organization (UKAD) charges Jonathan Tiernan-Locke, the rider, for a violation against the Anti-Doping Rules. A blood sample was taken on September 22, 2013, his Athlete's Biological passport (ABP) indicated the use of an erythropoietin stimulating agent and blood doping or physical manipulating of the blood.

History
The rider claims that his exceptional and extreme intake of alcohol consumption on September 20, 20013, caused the changes in his blood. Dehydration decreases the plasma level and increases the concentration of hemoglobin. He denies to have taken or used a prohibited substance or method.
Three expert unanimously think that a prohibited substance was used. In the final conclusion it is regarded that there is no valid explanation for the abnormal high level of hemoglobin and the low level of reticulocytes, which compels the conclusion that a prohibited substance or method has been used by the rider.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years starting from January 1, 2014.
2. All his results obtained at the 2012 Tour of Britain and the 2012 UCI World Tour are cancelled.
3. A fine of £ 15,400 is imposed.
4. The rider has to pay the costs of € 324 and CHF 2,500.

Doping in unorganised sports / Health Council of the Netherlands. - The Hague : Health Council of the Netherlands, 2010. (Publication no. 2010/03E).

• ISBN 78-90-5549-801-7

Request for Advice

In recent years, reports from the former Netherlands Centre for Doping Issues (NeCeDo) and the subsequently founded Doping Authority showed that doping in sports is likely a growing problem in our country. Use of doping in sports is largely associated with professional sports. However, in addition to organised sports (at both professional and amateur levels), doping is supposed to be widespread in unorganised sports. The Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport has asked the Health Council of the Netherlands to investigate the nature and severity of doping use in unorganised sports, particularly with regard to the harmful effects on health, both short- and long-term, the implications of highrisk drugs in terms of health risk, disease burden and care consumption, and to make recommendations regarding these topics. Additionally, the Council is asked to provide a vision statement on improving prevention of health damage based on current scientific insights. The request for advice defines doping in unorganised sports as improper use of authorised or unauthorised medicinal products with the objective of obtaining a muscular or slim physique. It indicates that the use of anabolic steroids and stimulants by gyms and fitness centre attendees in particular is worrying.

The Committee sees a number of possibilities for supplementing/improving current doping policies. The Committee has four general recommendations: 1) approaching doubters and users differently; 2) addressing the foundations of per-missive ideas (attitudes) towards doping use, namely: that the risks are accepta-ble in relation to the goals pursued; 3) differentiating more specifically between various target groups; 4) combining interventions focused on demand reduction, harm reduction and supply reduction.

Facts
The French federation of Full Contact and associated sports (Fédération Française de Sports de Contact et Disciplines Associées, FFSCDA) charges respondent M30 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on June 15, 2013, a sample for doping test purposes was provided. 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. It is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent didn't provide any information about how the cannabis had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one year in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFSCDA and associated federations.
2. All the individual results obtained on June 15, 2013, are cancelled. Medals, points and prizes are withdrawn.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.