The National Anti-Doping Agency of India (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
After notification INADA did not order a suspension but the Athlete voluntarily accepted a provisional suspension.
The Athlete stated she had used prescribed medication as treatment for a knee injury.
The Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) concluded there were grounds to annul or to reduce the period of ineligibility. On 17 January 2011 the ADDPI decided not to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

WADA appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI). A parallel WADA appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was withdrawn.

The Appeal Panel finds that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation due to she failed to obtain a TUE and failed to mention the medical treatment on the Doping Control Form. The Athlete also failed to research the ingredients of the medication before using it.
Considering the circumstances the Appeal Panel concludes that the Athlete has not established that she exercised utmost caution and therefore she does not bear 'no fault or negligence'.
Therefore the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India rules to set aside the ADDPI decision and decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 16 May 2010.

The National Anti-Doping Agency of India (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.
INADA notified the Athlete and ordered a provisional suspension. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete admitted that he had used prescribed medication for a long term medical treatment.
ADDPI concluded that the violation was not intentional and that there are grounds to annul or to reduce the period of ineligibility.
On 31 August 2010 ADDPI decided not to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

WADA appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI). A parallel WADA appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was withdrawn.

Considering the circumstances in this case the Appeal Panel concludes that the Athlete has not established that he exercised utmost caution and that he bore no fault or negligence.
Therefore the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India decides to set aside the ADDPI decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 March 2010.

In January 2010 the National Anti-Doping Agency of India (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Kavita Chaudhary after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance nandrolone.
The 14 year old Athlete admitted that 3 decadurabolin (Nandrolone) injections were administered, prescribed by her doctor as part of her treatment for her shoulder.
Considering the exceptional circumstances and with no fault or negligence the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided on 31 August 2010 not to impose a sanction on the Athlete.

WADA appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI).
WADA argued that the Athlete failed to establish that she exercised utmost caution and bore no fault or negligence and the fact she is a minor could not exonerate her entirely of any fault or negligence.

Considering the circumstances and evidence in this case the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel rules that the WADA appeal is partly allowed and decides on 10 February 2011 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting in the date of the decision.

CAS 2012/A/2759 Oleksandr Rybka v. Union of European Football Association (UEFA)

Related case:
Swiss Federal Court 4A_522_2012 Oleksandr Rybka vs UEFA
March 21, 2013

In January 2012 the Union of European Football Association (UEFA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.
The UEFA notified the Player and a provisional suspension was ordered. The Player filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for UEFA Control and Disciplinary Body (CDB).

The Player stated that due to a large swelling he took a medication in November 2011 on the advice of his wife without thinking about its content.
On 27 January 2012 the CDB decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Player.
On 6 February 2012 the Player appealed the CDB decision with the UEFA Appeals Body.
On 16 March 2012 the UEFA Appeals Body dismissed the Player’s appeal and confirmed the CDB decision of 27 January 2012.
On 28 March 2012 the Player appealed the decision of the UEFA Appeals Body with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel notes that the Player must establish how the prohibited substance entered his body on the balance of probabilities. However the Panel finds Player’s statement not credible but considers the evidence clear that the Player used diuretics for the purpose of weight loss which would explain the adverse analytical finding.
Unless and until the player establish the presence of the prohibited substance, the issue of degree of fault simply does not arise. In other words, it is not necessary for the Panel to consider whether, and if so, how negligent the player was.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport rules:
1.) The appeal filed by the Player on 28 March 2012 against the decision of the UEFA Appeals Panel dated 16 March 2012 is dismissed.
2.) (…)
3.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

Facts
The French Shooting Federation (Fédération Française de Tir, FFTir) charges respondent M22 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a national shooting contest for handguns, on June 17, 2012, a sample for doping test purposes was taken from the respondent. The sample tested positive on triamterene and methylclothiazide which are prohibited substances on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. These substances are regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent uses medication for arterial hypertension, this medication is the cause of the adverse analytical finding.

Decision
1. The decision of the disciplinary committee of the FFTir, dated October 4 , 2012, is cancelled.
2. The respondent receives a warning.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M21 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the "championnat d'Auvergne de velo tout-terrain", on June 17, 2012, a sample for doping purposes was taken from the respondent. The sample showed the presence of bendroflumethiazid which is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent used medication for pre menstrual pains (PMS) which contained the prohibited substance.
A therapeutic use exemption (TUE) was refused by the French Anti-Doping Agency. There are alternatives for the medication she uses without the prohibited substance.

Decision
1. A warning is delivered to the respondent.
2. The decision starts on the date of the notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the involved parties.

CAS 2013/A/3077 WADA vs Ivan Mauricio Casas Buitrago & GCD
CAS 2013/A/3077 World Anti-Doping-Agency (WADA) v. Ivan Mauricio Casas Buitrago & Colombian Olympic Committee (COC),

Cycling
Refusal to submit to doping control
Restrictive interpretation of compelling justification
Measure of the sanction

1. As determined in the case law of CAS, the defence of a compelling justification is to be interpreted restrictively to the effect that, whenever physically, hygienically and morally possible, the sample be provided despite objections by the athlete. Refusal of the athlete to submit to sample collection because he already has urinated, despite the request of the doping control officer to hydrate and wait for another urination, is not compelling justification.

2. For an anti-doping rule violation committed in the form of refusing to submit to sample collection, Article 10.3.1 of the WADA Code provides for a fixed sanction of two years of ineligibility with the only exception of mitigating or aggravating circumstances according to Articles 10.5 and 10.6 of the WADA Code. Refusal of the athlete to submit to sample collection, although selected for doping control, and, against the advice of the DCO to wait for another urination, is made intentionally and in the awareness of the circumstances, which excludes the application of mitigating circumstances.

The Athlete Ivan Mauricio Casas Buitrago already committed an anti-doping rule violation in August 2008 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Federación Colombiana de Ciclismo (FCC), the Colombian Cycling Confederation, decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. However on 14 March 2009 the same FCC Disciplinary Committee annulled this decision.

In May 2012 the Colombian Administrative Department of Sports (COLDEPORTES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after he refused to provide a sample for drug testing.

On 29 May 2012 the Athlete was selected to provide a sample but he was already in his hotel. After notification in the hotel the Athlete told the chaperone that he already had taken a shower and urinated.
At the Doping Control Station (DCS) the Athlete stated, according to him, the notification did not meet the standards of the WADA Code and the UCI. He further stated that he had urinated already. After a request to hydrate and to wait until he was able to urinate again, the Athlete had a phone conservation with his medical doctor and refused to submit a sample. He signed the Doping Control Form and left the DCS.

On 27 September 2012 the Disciplinary Commission of the Colombian Cycling Confederation, Federación Colombiana de Ciclismo (FCC) acquitted the Athlete of all allegations. COLDEPORTES appealed the FCC decision with the General Disciplinary Commission (GDC) of the Colombian Olympic Committee (COL).
On 18 December the General Disciplinary Commission concluded that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation by refusing to submit to the doping control without justification. Therefore the Commission imposed a 11 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In February 2013 WADA appealed the decision of the Colombian Olympic Committee General Disciplinary Commission with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Without a hearing the CAS Sole Arbitrator rules on the basis of the parties written submissions.

WADA requested CAS to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete because of Athlete’s intentional behaviour due to the express refusal to provide a sample. Also WADA made a second appeal with CAS against the FCC decision, dated 14 March 2009, to annul the FCC decision to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. WADA withdraw this second appeal in August 2013, due to the rules in force in 2008, WADA had no right of Appeal.

The CAS Panel Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation by refusing or to submit to sample collection after notification and without mitigating circumstances.
Due to the fact that no provisional suspension was ordered or accepted the sanction imposed on the Athlete will start on the date of the CAS Award.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 December 2013 that:

1.) The decision rendered by the General Disciplinary Commission on 18 December 2012 is set aside as far as the determination of the sanction imposed on the Athlete is concerned.
2.) The Athlete is declared ineligible to compete for a period of two years which shall commence on the day of the issuance of the present Award.
3.) All competitive results, medals, points, and prizes obtained by the Athlete from 29 May 2012 to the issuance of the present Award are disqualified.
4.) The costs of arbitration, to be calculated by the CAS Court Office and communicated separately to the parties, shall be borne entirely by the Athlete and the General Disciplinary Commission, who are ordered to pay each 50% of such costs.
5.) They shall each pay CHF 1,500 to WADA as contribution towards its legal costs.
6.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération française d'athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M20 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a doping control on July 22, 2012, at a semi-marathon, a sample was collected. The sample revealed the presence of a testosterone report on epitestosterone abnormally high, estimated at 9.1 , analysis complementary by mass spectrometry isotope ratio indicating an exogenous origin metabolites of testosterone . Exogenous testosterone is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
Respondent claims to have received treatment for therapeutic reasons the drug used for the treatment contained testosterone. The respondent is bounded to transmit the results of cytogenetic examination realized June 29, 1989.
This is a second violation, the respondent had earlier received a sanction for the use of nandrolone.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility for four years in which the respondent can't participate in competitions and sporting events organized or authorized by sports federations.
2. All individual results obtained by the respondent on July 22, 2012 , during the semi- marathon athletics Marvejois-Mende, with all resulting consequences including removal of medals , points and prizes.
3. The decision will start on the date of notification of the respondent.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération française d'athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M19 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the athletic event "Corrida de Caen", on July 6, 2012, the respondent provided a sample for doping test. His sample tested positive on amiloride which is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent absorbed daily one tablet of a drug - Modamide - containing amiloride. He uses this medicine for therapeutic purposes to treat a genetic kidney pathologie. His therapeutic use exemption (TUE) expired on October 30, 2012. He did mention the use of the medicine on the doping form.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decison of August 18, 2012, of the Disciplinary Committee of the FFA is cancelled.
3. The decision is published and sent to the parties involved.

The present decision maybe subject of a full juridic review before the Council of State within two months of its notification.

CAS 2013/A/3075 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Laszlo Szabolcs & Romanian Anti-Doping Agency (RADA)

Wrestling
Doping (methylhexaneamine)
Requirements for the application of a reduced period of ineligibility for the use of a Specified Substance
Assessment of the athlete’s degree of fault
Determination of the ineligibility period

1. In order to prove his entitlement to any reduced period of ineligibility for the use of a specified substance under the applicable national law which implements the provisions of the WADA Code (Article 10.4), an athlete must establish: 1) how the specified substance entered his body; and 2) that the specified substance was not intended to enhance his sport performance or to mask the use of another prohibited substance. If these requirements are satisfied, the athlete’s “degree of fault” will be considered to determine whether the presumptive two-year period of ineligibility should be reduced, and if so, by what period of time.

2. An athlete who makes an internet research on various websites aimed at checking the ingredients of the product and at comparing the detected ingredients with the contents of the Prohibited List before ingesting the product has taken some precautions. Even if further reasonable precautionary steps could have been taken such as the obtaining of a doctor or any reliable person advice, the fault of the athlete can be considered as not significant. The fact that prohibited substances are referred to by different names and do not appear from the Prohibited List as such is not self-evident and is to be taken into account. Therefore, the negligence for not having taken this last step can be considered as rather small.

3. In case of use of a Specified Substance, the standard sanction of a two-year period of ineligibility may be replaced with a sanction ranging between a mere reprimand, with no period of ineligibility, up to two (2) years of ineligibility, depending upon the athlete’s degree of fault. Where the negligence of an athlete is rather light and in light of the analysis of several other CAS decisions, the appropriate period of ineligibility can amount to a few months of ineligibility.

In August 2012 Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification ANAD ordered a provisional suspension. The Athlete file a statement in his defence and he was heard for the ANAD Hearing Commission.

The Athlete stated he used a supplement provided by a person he knew. He argued that before using he researched the ingredients of the supplement on the internet and double-checked 1,3 dimethylamylamine as a prohibited substance on the ANAD and WADA website. He had no intention to enhance his performance and did not know that 1,3 dimethylamylamine is another name for methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
On 20 September 2012 the Romanian Hearing Commission decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 August 2012.

On 14 November 2012 WADA appealed the decision of the Hearing Commission with the Appeal Commission of the Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency. On 18 December 2012 the Appeal Commission dismissed WADA’s appeal and confirmed the decision of the Hearing Commission.

Hereafter in February 2013 WADA appealed the decision of the Romanian Appeal Commission with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested CAS to set aside the decision of the Appeal Commission and to sanction the Athlete with a 18 month period of ineligibility.

Considering the circumstances the sole CAS arbitrator concludes that the Athlete’s negligence is rather light and finds that a 5 month period of ineligibility is appropriate in this case.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 12 August 2013:

1.) The Appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against the decision of the Appeal Commission of the Romanian Anti-Doping Agency dated 18 December 2012 is partially upheld.
2.) The decision of the Appeal Commission of the Romanian Anti-Doping Agency dated 18 December 2012 is set aside and replaced with the following: The Athlete is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 5 months, commencing on 8 August 2012.
3.) All sporting results obtained by the Athlete from 8 August up to the date of the expiring of the period of ineligibility shall be disqualified.
4.) The costs of arbitration, to be calculated by the CAS Court Office and communicated separately to the parties, shall be borne entirely by the World Anti-Doping Agency.
5.) Each party shall bear its own legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration
6.) All other or further claims are dismissed.