Facts
The French Federation of American Football (Fédération Française de Football Américain, FFFA) charges respondent M66 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on July 5, 2008, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis 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 had used cannabis four day before the match, he uses cannabis occasionally but has no intention to enhance his sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of four months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFFA.
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 American Football (Fédération Française de Football Américain, FFFA) charges respondent M65 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on March 22, 2008, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis 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, also he failed to appear before the hearing.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the French sport federations.
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 M64 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on July 5, 2008, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a erythropoietin (EPO) especiallly of the type CERA which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent denies the use of EPO and holds the detection method for CERA as not valid. But this is ignored by the panel.

Decision
1. The sanction is period of ineligibility of two years in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by French sport federations.
2. All the results obtained at the cycling event of July 5, 2008, are cancelled. Medals, points and prizes are withdrawn.
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 M63 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on April 28, 2007, samples were taken for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of nandrolone and a abnormally high testosterone on epitestosterone level. For the last a additional radiospectromatic analysis showed the presence of testosterone with exogenous origin. Nadrolone and exogenous testosterone are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent didn't provide any information about how the prohibited substances had entered his body. Also two earlier doping reports from doping control on March 8 en April 12, 2008, gave rise to the detection of prohibited substances. Which makes it an unique case to deal with two infractions at the same time.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by all French sport federations.
2. The decision by the disciplinary committee of the FFHMFAC on June 17, 2008, should be modified.
3. The period of ineligibility should be reduced by the period already served under the sanction already imposed by the decision of June 17, 2008.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M49 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on April 27, 2008, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cocaine. Cocaine is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

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

Decision
1. The sanction is period of ineligibility of four years in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by French sport federations. This was the same sanction as pronounced by the disciplinary committee of the FFC on July 28, 2008.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Triathlon Federation (Fédération Française de Triathlon, FFTri) charges respondent M60 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on June 22, 2008, a sample was collected for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of methylprednisolone which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. It is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent admits the use of a pharmaceutical product containing the prohibited substance, it was used in the morning of the athletic event and the whole week before to treat an injury. There was no intention to enhance sport performance. She has a prescription from her physician but this indicates neither the name nor the dosage of the drug present, including the frequency and route of administration are also not indicated.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFTri.
2. The present decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Related cases:

• ITF 2005 ATP vs Guillermo Cañas
  August 7, 2005
• Swiss Federal Court 4P.172_2006 Guillermo Cañas vs ATP Tour & CAS
  March 22, 2007
• CAS 2005/A/951 Guillermo Cañas vs ATP - Revision
  May 23, 2011 & May 23, 2012
• European Court of Justice T-508_09 Guillermo Cañas vs European Commission
  March 26, 2012

In March 2005, the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Guillermo Cañas after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide (HCT).

After notification the Athlete was heard and thereupon the ATP Anti-Doping Tribunal decided on 7 August 2005 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 11 June 2005.

Thereupon in August 2005 the Athlete appealed the ATP decision of 7 August 2005 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Panel considered the Appellant’s arguments on EU law and the majority of the Panel rejected them.

Assuming that EU law would be applicable to the present case, as alleged by the Appellant, although such application has not been specifically agreed by the parties, the Panel is of the view that the present decision does not violate EU law.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling de novo decides:

1.) The appeal filed by the Athlete Mr Guillermo Cañas on 29 August 2005 is partially upheld.

2.) Mr Guillermo Cañas has committed a Doping Offense during the “Abierto Mexicano de Tenis” held in Acapulco, Mexico on 21 February 2005 and his results from the competition shall be disqualified. Any prize money collected at such Tournament not previously returned to ATP Tour shall be returned to ATP Tour within 7 days of the date of this award.

3.) Mr Cañas shall be ineligible to compete on the ATP Tour for the fifteen months period beginning from 11 June 2005.

4.) To the extent that ATP Tour has collected prize money for competitions in which Appellant competed after the Tournament, those amounts shall be returned to Appellant by ATP Tour within 7 days of the date of this award.

5.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500.- already paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS.

6.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS decision of 23 May 2006 (CAS 2005/A/951) with the Swiss Federal Court. The Athlete argued that his right to be heard was violated by the CAS Panel.
On 22 March 2007, the Swiss Federal Court ruled that the Appellant’s right to be heard was disregarded by the CAS Panel and on that basis, the Swiss Federal Court annulled the CAS Panel’s award (Swiss Federal Court 4P.172_2006).

In the light of the judgment of the Swiss Federal Tribunal, the CAS Panel has reviewed the submissions and evidence originally submitted by the parties and issues a new revised award (23 May 2007) in substitution of the award rendered on 23 May 2006.

The Athlete Guillermo Cañas submitted a complaint to the European Commission on grounds of alleged violations of EU antitrust law, committed by WADA, ATP and ICAS, related to his anti-doping rule violation case and the imposed sanction. The European Commission decided on 12 October 2009 to dismiss the Athlete’s complaint (decision C(2009)7809).

The Athlete then challenged the European Commission's rejection with the European Court of Justice (case T-508/09) who decided on 26 March 2012 there was no need to adjudicate.

Finally on 20 June 2013 the European Court of Justice dismissed the Athlete’s next appeal (case C-269/12 P) against the previous ECJ decision of 26 March 2012 (case T-508/09).

Related cases:

• ITF 2005 ATP vs Guillermo Cañas
  August 7, 2005
• Swiss Federal Court 4P.172_2006 Guillermo Cañas vs ATP Tour & CAS
  March 22, 2007
• CAS 2005/A/951 Guillermo Cañas vs ATP - Revision
  May 23, 2011 & May 23, 2012
• European Court of Justice C-269_12 P Guillermo Cañas vs European Commission
  June 20, 2013

In March 2005, the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Guillermo Cañas after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide (HCT). Consequently the ATP Anti-Doping Tribunal decided on 7 August 2005 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 11 June 2005.

Thereupon in August 2005 the Athlete appealed the ATP decision of 7 August 2005 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Panel considered the Appellant’s arguments on EU law and the majority of the Panel rejected them.

Assuming that EU law would be applicable to the present case, as alleged by the Appellant, although such application has not been specifically agreed by the parties, the Panel is of the view that the present decision does not violate EU law.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling de novo decides:

1.) The appeal filed by the Athlete Mr Guillermo Cañas on 29 August 2005 is partially upheld.

2.) Mr Guillermo Cañas has committed a Doping Offense during the “Abierto Mexicano de Tenis” held in Acapulco, Mexico on 21 February 2005 and his results from the competition shall be disqualified. Any prize money collected at such Tournament not previously returned to ATP Tour shall be returned to ATP Tour within 7 days of the date of this award.

3.) Mr Cañas shall be ineligible to compete on the ATP Tour for the fifteen months period beginning from 11 June 2005.

4.) To the extent that ATP Tour has collected prize money for competitions in which Appellant competed after the Tournament, those amounts shall be returned to Appellant by ATP Tour within 7 days of the date of this award.

5.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500.- already paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS.

6.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS decision of 23 May 2006 (CAS 2005/A/951) with the Swiss Federal Court. The Athlete argued that his right to be heard was violated by the CAS Panel.

On 22 March 2007, the Swiss Federal Court ruled that the Appellant’s right to be heard was disregarded by the CAS Panel and on that basis, the Swiss Federal Court annulled the CAS Panel’s award (Swiss Federal Court 4P.172_2006).

In the light of the judgment of the Swiss Federal Tribunal, the CAS Panel has reviewed the submissions and evidence originally submitted by the parties and issues a new revised award (23 May 2007) in substitution of the award rendered on 23 May 2006.

Next the Athlete Guillermo Cañas submitted a complaint to the European Commission on grounds of alleged violations of EU antitrust law, committed by WADA, ATP and ICAS, related to his anti-doping rule violation case and the imposed sanction. The European Commission decided on 12 October 2009 to dismiss the Athlete’s complaint (decision C(2009)7809).

The Athlete then challenged the European Commission's rejection with the European Court of Justice (case T-508/09) who decided on 26 March 2012 there was no need to adjudicate.

Related cases:

• ITF 2005 ATP vs Guillermo Cañas
  August 7, 2005
• CAS 2005/A/951 Guillermo Cañas vs ATP – Revision
  May 23, 2006 & May 23, 2007
• European Court of Justice T-508_09 Guillermo Cañas vs European Commission
  March 26, 2012
• European Court of Justice C-269_12 P Guillermo Cañas vs European Commission
  June 20, 2013

In March 2005, the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Guillermo Cañas after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide (HCT). Consequently the ATP Anti-Doping Tribunal decided on 7 August 2005 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 11 June 2005.

On 29 August 2005 the Athlete appealed the ATP decision of 7 August 2005 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the CAS Panel for a reopening of the case based on new facts and on new evidence pursuant to the exceptional circumstances provision of the rules.

Considering the evidence and statements, the CAS Panel finds that the Athlete has established that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence in this exceptional case, allowing to be reduced the period of ineligibility, nevertheless he acted negligence in ingesting a banned substance.

Thefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling de novo decides:

1.) The appeal filed by the Athlete Mr Guillermo Cañas on 29 August 2005 is partially upheld.

2.) Mr Guillermo Cañas has committed a Doping Offense during the “Abierto Mexicano de Tenis” held in Acapulco, Mexico on 21 February 2005 and his results from the competition shall be disqualified. Any prize money collected at such Tournament not previously returned to ATP Tour shall be returned to ATP Tour within 7 days of the date of this award.

3.) Mr Cañas shall be ineligible to compete on the ATP Tour for the fifteen months period beginning from 11 June 2005.

4.) To the extent that ATP Tour has collected prize money for competitions in which Appellant competed after the Tournament, those amounts shall be returned to Appellant by ATP Tour within 7 days of the date of this award.

5.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500.- already paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS.

6.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS decision of 23 May 2006 (CAS 2005/A/951) with the Swiss Federal Court. The Athlete argued that his right to be heard was violated by the CAS Panel.

On 22 March 2007, the Swiss Federal Court ruled that the Appellant’s right to be heard was disregarded by the CAS Panel and on that basis, the Swiss Federal Court annulled the CAS Panel’s award (Swiss Federal Court 4P.172_2006 Guillermo Cañas vs ATP Tour & CAS).

In the light of the judgment of the Swiss Federal Tribunal, the CAS Panel has reviewed the submissions and evidence originally submitted by the parties and issues a new revised award (23 May 2007) in substitution of the award rendered on 23 May 2006.

Swiss Federal Court 4P.148_2006 Danilo Hondo vs WADA, UCI, Swiss Cycling & Swiss Olympic
January 10, 2007

Related cases:
CAS 2005/A/922 Danilo Hondo vs Swiss Cycling & Swiss Olympics
CAS 2005/A/923 WADA vs Danilo Hondo & Swiss Olympics
CAS 2005/A/926 UCI vs Danilo Hondo & Swiss Olympics
January 10, 2006

In March 2005 the International Cycling Federation (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Danilo Hondo after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance carphedon. After notification by Swiss Cycling the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Chamber for Dopingcases of Swiss Olympic. On 2 June 2005 the Disciplinary Chamber decided to impose 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, with 1 year suspended for a 5 year period. Also the Disciplinary Chamber sanctioned the Athlete with a CHF 50,000 fine and ordered to pay CHF 5,000 for the procedural costs.

Hereafter in July 2005 the Athlete, UCI and WADA appealed the Swiss Olympic Decision of 2 June 2005 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Considering the Athlete’s arguments the CAS finds that no departure from the ISL occurred in this case; the Athlete failed to establish how the substance entered his system and without grounds for reduction of the sanction.
Considering the arguments of UCI and WADA, the CAS Panel concludes that the UCI Anti-Doping Rules doesn’t allow the imposition by Swiss Olympics of a suspended period of ineligibility, nor the possibility to fine an Athlete guilty of an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides:
1.) to allow the WADA appeal;
2.) to allow the UCI appeal;
3.) to dismiss the appeal of the Athlete Danilo Hondo;
4.) to set aside the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber for Dopingcase of Swiss Olympic of 2 June 2005;
5.) to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 1 April 2005 until 31 March 2007.

In July 2006 the Athlete appealed the CAS Decision of 10 January 2006 with the Swiss Federal Court after his previous appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal Cantonal de Vaud on 16 May 2006.
The Swiss Federal Court considers the Athlete’s arguments and decides on 10 January 2007 to dismiss his appeal.