Facts
International Federation of Pétanque and Provençal Game (Fédération Française de pétanque et jeu provençal, FFPJP) charges respondent M27 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the final of "la coupe de La Reunion de pétanque" on September 1, 2012, a sample for doping test was taken from the respondent. His sample tested positive for a metabolite of Cannabis in a concentration of 105 ng/ml. Cannabis is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent didn't explain the origen of the positive result of the doping test.

Decision
1. The sanction will be a period of ineligibility of 6 months, in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized by the FFPJP.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced with the time of voluntary suspension.
3. The decision will start on the date of notification.
4. The earlier decision made by the disciplinary committee from the FFPJP on November 14, 2012, will be modified (3 months of ineligibility).
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
International Federation of Pétanque and Provençal Game (Fédération Française de pétanque et jeu provençal, FFPJP) charges respondent M26 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the final of "la coupe de La Reunion de pétanque" on September 1, 2012, a sample for doping test was taken from the respondent. His sample tested positive for a metabolite of Cannabis in a concentration of 90 ng/ml. Cannabis is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent didn't explain the origen of the positive result of the doping test.

Decision
1. The sanction will be a period of ineligibility of 6 months, in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized by the FFPJP.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced with the time of voluntary suspension.
3. The decision will start on the date of notification.
4. The earlier decision made by the disciplinary committee from the FFPJP on November 14, 2012, will be modified (3 months of ineligibility).
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M25 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the race track "Les cretes du Soulor", on July 29, 2012, a sample for doping test was taken from the respondent. His sample tested positive on the prohibited substances prednisone and prednisolone. Prednisone and prednisolone are prohibited substances on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and are regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent suffered since childhood from asthma and allergies and used medication for this, this medication is the cause of the positive doping test. The respondent has a declaration from her physician regarding her condition.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 6 months in which the athlete can't take part in competition or manifestations of the FFA.
2. All results obtained at the match on July 29 are cancelled. Medals, points and price money are withdrawn.
3. The decision, dated October 25, 2012, of the IAA 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 Athletics Federation (Fédération française d'athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M24 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. A sample for doping tests was taken during the athletics event "Ultra Champsaur" on July 8, 2012. The sample showed the presence of prednisone and prednisolone, which are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent used medication for a sinusitis treatment. These medications where the cause of the positive doping tests. Prove of this was a X-ray foto and prove of the give medication.

Decisions
1. The respondent receives a reprimand.
2. All results from the athletics event "Ultra Champsaur" are cancelled. Price money, medals and points have to be returned.
3. The decision will start on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Motor Sports Federation (Fédération Française du Sport Automobile, FFSA) charges Respondent M23 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The respondent provided a sample for doping test during a motor car contest "43e Tour auto-rallye de La Reunion", on July 28, 2012. The sample tested positive on betamethasone and hydrochlorothiazide, which are prohibited substances on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and called specified substances.

History
The respondent claims that the cause of the positive doping is the use of medication for a condition called arterial hypertension.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 6 months in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations related to his sport.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period allready served in voluntary suspension.
3. The decision will start on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

In March 2011 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 clenbuterol.
INADA notified the Athlete and ordered a provisional suspension.
The Athlete admitted that she had used prescription medicines as treatment for painful menstrual cycle.
Considering the circumstances the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 10 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter WADA appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI).
WADA argued that an anti-doping rule violation was established; the Athlete did not obtain a TUE; the medication prescription shown to the Disciplinary Panel does not contain a prohibited substance; and the Athlete’s disease does not need to be treated with anabolic agents.

Considering the facts in this case the Appeal Panel concludes that there are no grounds for 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 21 March 2011.

The Athlete was involved in a motorcycle accident 29 May 2010 and suffered injuries. He underwent treatment for his injuries and soframycin was prescribed at the at the National Institute of Sports (NIS).

On 8 July 2010 the Athlete provided a sample for drug testing and hereafter the National Anti-Doping Agency of India (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance clostebol.

The Athlete stated that after the motorcycle accident he took due care and caution to seek treatment only from the NIS Medical Centre, Patiala and not from any other private doctor. Soframycin was prescribed and the Athlete had no reason to suspect that at the Medical Centre any other substance than soframycin would be used as treatment for his injuries.

The Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) ruled that the medical records at the Medical Centre were manipulated and holds the Athlete responsible for this. On 23 August 2011 the ADDPI decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Both WADA and the Athlete appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI).
The Appeal Panel finds that the ADDPI decision is based on conjectures and surmises. The Appeal Panel examined the medical records at the NIS Medical Centre and concludes that these were not manipulated by the Athlete.
A mistake in the medical application of clostebol, instead of the prescribed soframycin, was made by the nurses at the NIS Medical Centre. The Appeal Panel rules that the NIS Medical Centre bears fault or negligence and not the Athlete.

Considering the exceptional circumstances in this case and with no fault or negligence the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India decides to annul the imposed period of ineligibility. Accordingly the ADDPI decision, dated 23 August 2010, is set aside and the WADA appeal is dismissed.

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.