Facts
The French Boxing Federation (Fédération Française de Boxe, FFBoxe) - charges respondent M105 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on March 12, 2011, a sample for a doping test was taken. The sample tested positive for pseudoephedrine which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list, it is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent used medication to treat influenza, he was unaware that it contained the prohibited substance. He has a prescription for this medicine from his therapist.

Decision
1. The decision, dated August 17, 2011, by the disciplinary committee of the FFBoxe is cancelled.
2. The respondent receives a warning.
3. The results obtained on March 12, 2011, are cancelled. Medals, points and prizes are withdrawn.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M104 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on March 13, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test 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). Cannabis is regarded as a specified substance.

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

Decision
1. The decision is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFBB.
3. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served under the decision (three months period of ineligibility) dated March 30, 2011, from the disciplinary committee of the FFBB.
4. The decision dated March 30, 2011, from the disciplinary committee of the FFBB 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 French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M103 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an indoor athletics event on February 17, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample tested positive on recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO) which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent protests against the way his privacy is handled. And he doubts the quality of the samples.

Decision.
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years in which respondent can't take part in competition or sport manifestations organized by the FFA or related French sport federations.
2. The results obtained on February 17, 2007, are canceled. 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 French Concours Landais (Fédération Française de la Course Landaise, FFCL) charges Respondent M102 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a concourse on August 19 and 20, 2010, the Respondent had to undergo a doping test, which he refused.

History
The respondent didn't agree about how the doping test was conducted because he was asked to produce urine in the sight of other sportsmen.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Rugby Federation (Fédération Française de Rugby, FFR) charges respondent M101 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on January 23, 2011, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample tested positive on 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 occasionally before the doping test during an festivity. There was no intention to enhance sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months, in which the respondent can't take part in competition or sports manifestations organized or authorized by the FFR.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served by the decision of April 15, 2011, by the disciplinary committee of the FFR.
3. The decision (three months period of ineligibility) of April 15, 2011, by the disciplinary committee of the FFR should be modified.
4. The decision will start on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Federation for Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo and Associated Disciplines (Fédération Française de Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo et Disciplines Associées FFJDA) charges respondent M100 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a judo tournament on January 27, 2011, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of furosemide which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Furosemide is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent had taken medication three days before the doping test to lose weight quickly after an injury. This medication contained the prohibited substance the respondent was unaware of this. He had no intention to enhance his sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized by the FFJDA and related French sport federations.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served by the decision, dated May 4, 2011, from the disciplinary committee of the FFJDA.
3. The decision (three months period of ineligibility) dated May 4, 2011, from the disciplinary committee of the FFJDA should be modified.
4. The decision start on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Doping is a Sporting, Not an Economic Matter / Ian Blackshaw. –
( International Sports Law Journal (2005) 3/4 : p. 51-52)

The European Court of Justice ruled in the important case of David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission of the European Communities (Case T-313/02; Judgement 30 September 2004).
This was an appeal brought by two professional swimmers, who had tested positive for nandrolone and banned from competition, against a decision of the Commission (Case COMP/38158 - Mecamedina and Majcen/IOC) rejecting their claim for a declaration that certain rules adopted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and implemented by the Federation Internationale de Natation (FINA) - the World Governing Body of Swimming - as well as certain doping control practices were incompatible with the Community Competition Rules and the Freedom to provide Services in the European Union (Articles 81, 82 & 49 of the EC Treaty).
The case was brought by the swashbuckling and pioneering Belgian lawyer, Jean-Louis Dupont, of Bosman fame. However, on this occasion, he failed to persuade the Court, which upheld the Commission’s decision of 1 August, 2002.

In Meca-Medina, anti-doping rules were held to be purely sporting rules with no economic purpose and, therefore, outside the scope of Articles 49 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC. And also held not to be discriminatory - applying a ‘level playing field’ to all athletes subject to them.
As far as the Court was concerned, anti-doping regulations fulfilled two important social functions: fair play in sport and safeguarding the health of athletes and these were worth upholding. Furthermore, these regulations did not restrict the economic freedoms of athletes, as claimed by the appellants.

Facts
The French Boxing Federation (Fédération Française de Boxe, FFBoxe) - charges respondent M99 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on February 5, 2011, a sample for a doping test was taken. The sample tested positive for a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and 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 six months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFBoxe.
2. The results obtained on February 5, 2011, will be cancelled. Medals, points and prizes are withdrawn.
3. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served by the decision of first instance, dated April 20, 2011, of the disciplinary committee of the FFBoxe.
4. The decision dated, April 20, 2011, of the disciplinary committee of the FFBoxe should be modified.
5. The decision starts on the date of notification.
6. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Archery Federation (Fédération Française de Tir à l' Arc, FFTA) charges respondent M98 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on February 12, 2011, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample tested positive on alcohol. Alcohol is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
After his elimination in the match the respondent had been drinking whiskey together with his family and friends. This explains the positive test.

Decision
1. The respondent recieves a warning by the FFTA.
2. The results obtained at the match on February 12, 2011, are cancelled. Medals points and prizes are withdrawn.
3. The first decision of June 11, 2011, by the disciplinary committee of the FFTA is cancelled.
4. The decision will start on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

The WADA World Anti-Doping Code: The Road to Harmonisation / Janwillem Soek. - (International Sports Law Journal (2003) 2 : p. 2-11)

Content:
1.) Introduction
2.) Description of the doping offence (violation of the anti-doping rule)
2.1.) The definition of doping
2.2.) Description of the doping offence
3.) Out-of-competition testing
4.) Procedure after testing positive
5.) Provisional suspension
6.) Sanctions
6.1.) Sport sanctions
6.2.) Disciplinary sanctions for individuals
6.3.) Disciplinary sanctions for teams
6.4.) Remission of sentence
6.4.1.) Exceptional circumstances
6.4.2.) Cooperation in the investigation
6.5.) Reinstatement
7.) Right of the defence
8.) Proof of doping
9.) Appeals
10.) Athlete support personnel
11.) The role of the ADOs and NADOs
12.) Summary

The description of the doping offence has been laid down somewhat oddly in the WADC. No longer is the starting point the undesirable human act which is punished; instead it is the violation of anti-doping
rules. These rules describe the outcome of a human act. The way in which these matters are regulated by the WADC is neither elegant, nor transparent. The WADC provisions not only concern the athletes, but also persons from their entourage. The system providing for strict liability after a sample has tested positive in a laboratory may lead to the punishment of innocent people. The author argues in favour of the simple reversal of the burden of proof whereby the athlete is presumed guilty but is at least given the opportunity to prove his/her innocence.