Link:

http://www.senat.fr/rap/r12-782-2/r12-782-2.html

Lutte contre le dopage : avoir une longueur d'avance : Tome II: Annexes / Commission d'enquête sur l'efficacité de la lutte contre le dopage. - M. Jean-François Humbert (Président); M. Jean-Jacques Lozach (Rapporteur). - Paris : Sénat, 2013. – 7828 p. : ill., fig. - Rapport n° 782 (2012-2013)
Rapport remis à Monsieur le Président du Sénat le 17 juillet 2013
Enregistré à la Présidence du Sénat le 17 juillet 2013
Dépôt publié au Journal Officiel – Édition des Lois et Décrets du 18 juillet 2013

La commission d'enquête a fait le constat que la France conservait une politique antidopage de qualité mais rencontrait néanmoins des difficultés réelles, expliquant pourquoi la lutte a encore souvent un temps de retard sur le dopage :
- les pouvoirs publics n'ont pas une bonne connaissance statistique, ni des pratiques dopantes, ni des trafics qui y sont liés;
- en matière de prévention, notre politique est à la fois trop peu dynamique et mal ciblée. Le ministère des sports, en charge de la prévention, n'a pas su dégager des lignes directrices pertinentes ou des outils efficaces;
- le dispositif de contrôle est plutôt solide, notamment en termes de quantité, mais il mériterait de gagner en qualité et en originalité;
- le laboratoire d'analyse français est toujours reconnu au niveau international. Néanmoins ses efforts en matière de recherche sont clairement insuffisants par rapport à d'autres laboratoires, notamment européens;
- la politique de sanction mériterait quant à elle d'être clarifiée. Le partage des compétences actuelles entre les fédérations et l'AFLD nuit clairement à l'uniformisation des sanctions, mais surtout à leur diversité;
- en matière de lutte contre les trafics, la France bute notamment sur une définition restrictive du sportif et sur une certaine complexité de nos dispositifs juridiques;
- enfin, les instances en charge de la lutte contre le dopage peinent fortement à travailler ensemble. Pour avoir une longueur d'avance sur le dopage, la commission d'enquête a fait 60 propositions.
Ces propositions peuvent être analysées ou commentées de manière isolée, mais elles sont construites dans un cadre cohérent de redynamisation de notre politique antidopage sur la base de sept piliers : une meilleure connaissance du dopage, une politique de prévention à rebâtir, un ciblage renforcé des contrôles, une optimisation des analyses, un panel de sanctions plus étoffé, une pénalisation des trafics plus fine, et surtout une coordination beaucoup plus organisée entre autorités antidopage et services de police et de gendarmerie.

SOMMAIRE

HOMMAGE À PHILIPPE GAUMONT
ANNEXE 1 – COMPTE RENDU DU DÉPLACEMENT AUX ÉTATS-UNIS
ANNEXE 2 – COMPTE RENDU DU DÉPLACEMENT EN SUISSE
ANNEXE 3 – COMPTE RENDU DU DÉPLACEMENT EN ESPAGNE
ANNEXE 4 – LUTTE CONTRE LE DOPAGE À TRAVERS LES LOIS FRANÇAISES
ANNEXE 5 – FAC-SIMILÉ DE LA LOI N° 65-412 DU 1ER JUIN 1965
ANNEXE 6 – RÉSULTATS TEST EPO - TOURS DE FRANCE 1998 ET 1999
ANNEXE 7 – PROCÈS-VERBAUX DES CONTRÔLES ANTIDOPAGE - TOURS DE FRANCE 1998 ET 1999
ANNEXE 8 – COURRIER DE L’UCI DU 3 JUILLET 2013
ANNEXE 9 – COURRIER DES CONSEILS DES CYCLISTES PROFESSIONNELS ASSOCIÉS
ANNEXE 10 – NOTE SUR LA LUTTE CONTRE LE DOPAGE ORGANISÉE EN RÉGION
ANNEXE 11 – NOTE DE LA FNASS TRANSMISE À LA COMMISSION D’ENQUÊTE
ANNEXE 12 – CONVENTION DE COOPÉRATION DANS LA LUTTE CONTRE LE DOPAGE PASSÉE ENTRE L’AFLD ET LA DIRECTION GÉNÉRALE DE LA GENDARMERIE NATIONALE
ANNEXE 13 - LISTE DES PERSONNES AUDITIONNÉES
ANNEXE 14 - COMPTES RENDUS DES AUDITIONS

Composition de la commission: M. Jean-François Humbert, président ; M. Jean-Jacques Lozach, rapporteur ; M. Alain Dufaut, Mme Chantal Jouanno, MM. Michel Le Scouarnec, Stéphane Mazars, Alain Néri, Jean-Vincent Placé, vice-présidents ; M. Dominique Bailly, Mme Marie-Thérèse Bruguière, MM. Jean-Claude Carle, Jean-Pierre Chauveau, Jacques
Chiron, Vincent Delahaye, Mme Frédérique Espagnac, M. Ronan Kerdraon, Mme Danielle Michel, MM. François Pillet, Bernard Saugey, Michel Savin, Jean-Marc Todeschini.

Lutte contre le dopage : avoir une longueur d'avance : Tome I: Rapport / Commission d'enquête sur l'efficacité de la lutte contre le dopage. - M. Jean-François Humbert (Président); M. Jean-Jacques Lozach (Rapporteur). - Paris : Sénat, 2013. – 238 p. : ill., fig. graf. - Rapport n° 782 (2012-2013)
Rapport remis à Monsieur le Président du Sénat le 17 juillet 2013
Enregistré à la Présidence du Sénat le 17 juillet 2013
Dépôt publié au Journal Officiel – Édition des Lois et Décrets du 18 juillet 2013

A French inquiry into sports doping has uncovered proof that 1998 Tour de France champion Marco Pantani and runner-up Jan Ullrich used a banned blood booster to fuel their performances.

After a five-month investigation focused on fighting sports doping, the France’s Senat Commission released a report, on Wednesday 24 July 2013, that reveals what many have long suspected: use of the banned substance EPO was rife in cycling in the late 1990s, before a test for the drug had been developed.

Pantani was suspended in 1999 from the Giro after failing a random blood test, and his career was damaged by several doping investigations. He died in 2004 at 34 of an accidental drug overdose. Ullrich has admitted to blood doping and last year was stripped of his third-place finish in the 2005 Tour.

The 1998 Tour de France was notable for the major scandal that emerged with the discovery of widespread doping on the French Festina team. The subsequent police crackdown led to seven of the original 21 teams either withdrawing or being ejected from the Tour.
Other star riders whose positive doping tests were disclosed by the senate report include double stage winner Mario Cipollini of Italy and Laurent Jalabert of France. Kevin Livingston, an American who finished 17th in that year’s Tour, also tested positive for EPO, according to documents included in the senate report. Third-place finisher, American Bobby Julich, last year admitted to his own EPO use during the 1998 Tour.

Senators took pains to point out that the 1998 Tour de France disclosures represented only a few pages of the 800-page report released, which mainly focused on establishing the size of
the sports doping problem and identifying ways of improving anti-doping measures.

SOMMAIRE:

La commission d'enquête a fait le constat que la France conservait une politique antidopage de qualité mais rencontrait néanmoins des difficultés réelles, expliquant pourquoi la lutte a encore souvent un temps de retard sur le dopage :
- les pouvoirs publics n'ont pas une bonne connaissance statistique, ni des pratiques dopantes, ni des trafics qui y sont liés;
- en matière de prévention, notre politique est à la fois trop peu dynamique et mal ciblée. Le ministère des sports, en charge de la prévention, n'a pas su dégager des lignes directrices pertinentes ou des outils efficaces;
- le dispositif de contrôle est plutôt solide, notamment en termes de quantité, mais il mériterait de gagner en qualité et en originalité;
- le laboratoire d'analyse français est toujours reconnu au niveau international. Néanmoins ses efforts en matière de recherche sont clairement insuffisants par rapport à d'autres laboratoires, notamment européens;
- la politique de sanction mériterait quant à elle d'être clarifiée. Le partage des compétences actuelles entre les fédérations et l'AFLD nuit clairement à l'uniformisation des sanctions, mais surtout à leur diversité;
- en matière de lutte contre les trafics, la France bute notamment sur une définition restrictive du sportif et sur une certaine complexité de nos dispositifs juridiques;
- enfin, les instances en charge de la lutte contre le dopage peinent fortement à travailler ensemble. Pour avoir une longueur d'avance sur le dopage, la commission d'enquête a fait 60 propositions.
Ces propositions peuvent être analysées ou commentées de manière isolée, mais elles sont construites dans un cadre cohérent de redynamisation de notre politique antidopage sur la base de sept piliers : une meilleure connaissance du dopage, une politique de prévention à rebâtir, un ciblage renforcé des contrôles, une optimisation des analyses, un panel de sanctions plus étoffé, une pénalisation des trafics plus fine, et surtout une coordination beaucoup plus organisée entre autorités antidopage et services de police et de gendarmerie.

SOMMAIRE

AVANT-PROPOS DU PRÉSIDENT
INTRODUCTION DU RAPPORTEUR
PROPOSITIONS DE LA COMMISSION D'ENQUÊTE : LES SEPT PILIERS DE LA LUTTE ANTIDOPAGE
PREMIÈRE PARTIE - LE DOPAGE : UN ENJEU ÉTHIQUE ET SANITAIRE

I. LE CONSTAT D'UN PROBLÈME PERSISTANT
A. LE DOPAGE DES SPORTIFS, UNE RÉALITÉ DIFFICILE À COMBATTRE
1. Un phénomène qui traverse l'histoire du sport
2. Le règne de l'omerta, facteur de complexité de la lutte contre le dopage
3. La médicalisation de la performance : un contexte porteur d'ambiguïté et de dérives
B. UNE PRÉVALENCE DU DOPAGE PLUS FORTE QUE LA RÉALITÉ STATISTIQUE
1. Un phénomène qui n'épargne aucune discipline ni aucun pays
2. Une réalité statistique qui sous-évalue largement l'ampleur du problème
3. Les sportifs amateurs et les non-licenciés : des pratiquants particulièrement touchés

II. LES OBJECTIFS SANITAIRES, ÉTHIQUES ET D'ORDRE PUBLIC
A. LES DANGERS DU DOPAGE
1. Un développement continu des substances et des méthodes interdites
2. Une liste des substances et méthodes interdites dans le sport qui ne donne pas entière satisfaction
3. Des risques sanitaires majeurs
B. UNE PÉNALISATION TARDIVE DU TRAFIC DE PRODUITS DOPANTS
1. Un dispositif pénal orienté vers les trafiquants de produits dopants
2. La difficile appréhension du trafic de produits dopants
III. UNE QUESTION PAR NATURE TRANSNATIONALE
A. UN ENJEU INTERNATIONAL
B. UNE RÉPONSE NÉCESSAIREMENT MONDIALE
1. Le rôle moteur de l'échelon européen
2. Un corpus de règles aujourd'hui négocié au niveau mondial

DEUXIÈME PARTIE - VOIES ET MOYENS DE LA LUTTE CONTRE LE DOPAGE

I. RENFORCER LA PRÉVENTION
A. LE RÔLE DE L'ÉTAT
1. Une responsabilité inscrite dans le code du sport
2. Une responsabilité interministérielle
3. Des outils de prévention faiblement mobilisés
4. Redonner à l'AFLD un rôle majeur dans la prévention
B. LA PRÉVENTION, MISSION NATURELLE DES FÉDÉRATIONS
1. Une responsabilité inscrite parmi les obligations des fédérations
2. Un rôle essentiel de promotion de la santé par le sport
3. La surveillance médicale réglementaire, une prévention contre le dopage qui ne dit pas son nom
4. Un contrôle insuffisant des calendriers des compétitions
C. UN MESSAGE DE PRÉVENTION QUI DOIT S'AFFINER

II. DE LA LOCALISATION À LA SUSPENSION : L'EXTENSION DU DOMAINE DE LA LUTTE ANTIDOPAGE
A. MIEUX CIBLER LES CONTRÔLES
1. Les acteurs du contrôle
2. Les contrôles en compétition
3. Les contrôles inopinés hors compétition
4. Améliorer le ciblage du dispositif de contrôle
B. OPTIMISER LES ANALYSES
1. Les moyens et les limites de l'analyse
2. Le département des analyses, une référence mondiale à mieux valoriser
3. L'échange d'informations avec les laboratoires pharmaceutiques
C. ASSURER L'INDÉPENDANCE ET L'EFFICACITÉ DE LA SANCTION DISCIPLINAIRE
1. Un dispositif de sanction inadapté
2. Retirer le pouvoir de sanction aux fédérations
3. Rendre les sanctions plus dissuasives
4. Accroître le nombre de sanctions sur la base d'éléments de preuve non analytiques
5. Encourager le repentir
D. RÉFORMER LA GOUVERNANCE DE L'AFLD
1. Faire du président de l'AFLD un pilote de la lutte antidopage en créant une commission des sanctions
2. Confier les enquêtes au département des contrôles
3. Créer un département de la prévention du dopage
4. Instaurer un financement paritaire entre la subvention publique et les financements privés
5. Fusionner l'AFLD avec l'Arjel : une fausse bonne idée

III. LA COOPÉRATION, MAÎTRE MOT DE LA RÉPONSE PÉNALE DE LUTTE CONTRE LE DOPAGE
A. UN DÉLIT D'USAGE DE PRODUITS DOPANTS, UNE SOLUTION INADAPTÉE
1. Une incrimination particulièrement difficile à mettre en oeuvre
2. Une incrimination inutile en tant que telle
B. UN IMPÉRATIF : MOBILISER LES NOMBREUX ACTEURS DE LA LUTTE ANTIDOPAGE
1. Des acteurs nombreux, aux buts différents, parfois divergents
2. L'impérieuse nécessité de mieux coordonner les structures qui luttent contre le dopage
3. La sensibilisation des juridictions à la problématique du dopage
C. UNE COOPÉRATION INTERNATIONALE À GÉOMÉTRIE VARIABLE
1. La coopération internationale, un facteur clef de la lutte antidopage
2. La prise en compte progressive de la question de la lutte contre le dopage par l'Union européenne

CONCLUSION : UN COMBAT PROTÉIFORME
EXAMEN EN COMMISSION
LISTE DES ACRONYMES

Composition de la commission: M. Jean-François Humbert, président ; M. Jean-Jacques Lozach, rapporteur ; M. Alain Dufaut, Mme Chantal Jouanno, MM. Michel Le Scouarnec, Stéphane Mazars, Alain Néri, Jean-Vincent Placé, vice-présidents ; M. Dominique Bailly, Mme Marie-Thérèse Bruguière, MM. Jean-Claude Carle, Jean-Pierre Chauveau, Jacques Chiron, Vincent Delahaye, Mme Frédérique Espagnac, M. Ronan Kerdraon, Mme Danielle Michel, MM. François Pillet, Bernard Saugey, Michel Savin, Jean-Marc Todeschini.

facts
Antony Dupuis (player) was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules(ADR) as a result of a positive doping test on May 2, 2006, Tunis Challanger Event in Tunis, Tunisia. His sample showed the presence of the prohibited substance salbutamol. The player admits the doping offense but claims no fault or negligence.

history
The player suffered from asthma and allergic symptoms since childhood. He uses an inhalator with ventoline which contains salbutamol, for which he doesn't have an abbreviated therapeutic use exemption (ATUE) or therapeutic use exemption (TUE). However the player's doctor signed a certificate but the date is unclear (2005 or 2006). The player claims not to have know he needed a TUE.

submissions ITF
The ITF strongly disputed the proposition of the player that he was without fault but did not assert that the player intended to enhance his sporting performance.

Decision
The tribunal:
(1) confirms the commission of the doping offense specified in the notice of charge set out in the ITF’s letter to the player dated 1 August 2006: namely that a prohibited substance, salbutamol, has been found to be present in the urine specimen that the player provided on 2 May 2006 at the Tunis Challenger Event in Tunis, Tunisia;
(2) orders that the player’s individual result must be disqualified in respect of the Tunis Challenger Event, and in consequence rules that the one ranking point and the prize money of US $1,300 obtained by the player through his participation in that competition, must be forfeited;
(3) orders, further, that the player’s individual results in competitions subsequent to the Tunis Challenger Event shall be disqualified and all prize money and ranking points in respect of those competitions forfeited;
(4) finds that the player has succeeded in establishing on the balance of probabilities that his use of salbutamol leading to the positive test result was not intended to enhance sport performance;
(5) declares the player ineligible for a period of 2½ months, running from 27 August 2006 until midnight London time on 10 November 2006, from participating in any capacity in any event or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized by the ITF or any national or regional entity which is a member of or is recognized by the ITF as the entity governing the sport of tennis in that nation or region.

Facts
David Buck (player) was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). During the US Open Wheelchair Tennis Championship, on October 6, 2005, he was selected for doping control. On the doping form he declared medication and "medical use of marijuana". He voluntarily abstained from competitive tennis from October 10, 2005, onwards awaiting a likely positive test result. His A sample tested positive on a metabolite of cannabis known as 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

History
The player is paraplegic following a complete spinal chord injury. In his state the use of cannabis is restricted but doctors are able to recommend its use. He uses it each day to threat post-traumatic arthritis, degenerative arthritis, muscle spasm, insomnia and nausea.
Cannabinoids are prohibited substances since January 1, 2004. The player however continued using cannabis and also didn't apply for a therapeutic use exemption ("TUE"). However he did sent in a TUE application signed by his doctor the day after his sample was reported with the prohibited substance.

Decision
Accordingly the Tribunal:
(1) confirms the commission of the doping offence specified in the notice of charge set out in the ITF’s letter to the player dated 31 January 2006: namely that a prohibited substance, 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, a cannabis metabolite, has been found to be present in the urine specimen that the player provided at San Diego on October 6, 2005;
(2) orders that the player’s individual result must be disqualified in respect of the singles and doubles events at the US Open Wheelchair Tennis Championships 2005, and in consequence rules that the two ranking points in respect of the singles event and the two ranking points in respect of the doubles event, and the prize money of US $105 in respect
of the singles event, and of US $26 in respect of the doubles event, obtained by the player through his participation in that competition, must be forfeited;
(3) finds that the player has succeeded in establishing on the balance of probabilities that his use of cannabis leading to the positive test result in was not intended to enhance sport performance;
(4) declares the player ineligible for a period of 3½ months running from October 10, 2005 to January 24, 2006 from participating in any capacity in any event or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized by the ITF or any national or regional entity which is a member of or is recognized by the ITF as the entity governing the sport of tennis in that nation or region.

Facts
Todd Perry (player) was reported for an Anti-Doping rule violation. During an ATP sanctioned Tour in Capablanca, Morocco on April 7, 2005, an in-competition doping test showed the presence of salbutamol in his A sample. The player used his right to have a hearing before the Anti-Doping Tribunal,

History
The player suffered from asthma since his childhood, for this he uses bronchodilator medication terbutaline administered by inhaler. For this an abbreviated therapeutic use exemption. However the tournament doctor supplied him with salbutamol. The player didn't knew he got another medication.

written submissions player
Counsel for the player wants to govern the procedure by the laws of the state of Delaware to apply for an estoppel precluding the ATP form enforcing its Anti-Doping Rules (ADR).
The player thought by using the tournament doctor he followed the ADR.
The player wasn't aware he used other medication. That the tournament doctor failed to notify the player is also a reason for an estoppel.
The doctrine of proportionality ought to be used.

written submissions ATP
The ATP submits that the player should not be found to have committed a doping offense.
Tournaments guidelines prescribed the salbutamol inhaler.

reasoning
The counsel for the player resquested for an estoppel, however the tournament doctor is not a representative of the ATP, he is assigned but not an employee of the ATP. Therefore the doctrine of an estoppel can't apply.

Decision
The tribunal makes the following orders:
1. A doping has occurred because of the presence of a prohibited substance for which no therapeutic use exemption had been granted.
2. ATP is ordered to disqualify the individual result at the Casablanca Competition, it is further ordered that there be a forfeiture of any medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money obtained at the competition. The disqualification of the results and other consequences will have effect from the time provided.
3. The player is found to have committed "No Fault or Negligence" in respect of the use of the specified substance, the period of ineligibility is eliminated. Furthermore, the findings of the tribunal with respect to a doping offense are specifically limited in their effect as prescribed as not being considered a doping offense for purposes of calculating any future infractions of the Anti-Doping Rules should occur.
4. As a consequence of the finding of "No Fault or Negligence" for the doping offense it is ordered that no other disqualification of results other than as referred to shall arise in this case.
5. By rule the ATP is ordered to issue a warning and reprimand to the player because of the decision.

Facts
Ryan Newport (player) was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules under the Tennis Anti-Doping Program 2005. During an ATP sanctioned tournament Odlum Brown Vancouver Open in Vancouver, Canada, an in competition doping test was conducted at Jule 30, 2005. His A sample indicated the presence of Cannabis (11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the B sample analysis confirmed the presence of the prohibited substance.

History
The player visited friends in Houston before leaving to the Vancouver tournament. There he admits to having participated in the passing around of a joint after having a few drinks. This event must be the cause of the positive analytical result. The player imposed upon himself a suspension till the time of the decision.

written submission player
The player asserts that this was just a one-time event. The player would accept a 60 days period of ineligibility.

written submissions ATP
The presence of a cannabis metabolite is a doping offense and has been admitted by the player. Cannabis is a specifies substance under the rules.
The ATP has no evidence the player didn't use the cannabis for enhancing sport performance.
Being a first offense a 60 days period of ineligibility is issued with consideration of the time in voluntary suspension.
The period of ineligibility is off season but the rules don't adjust the commencement.

Decision
The tribunal makes the following orders:
1. The player admitted a first doping offense thereby establishing a doping offense. The doping offense involved the use of a specified substance cannabanoids referred to in appendix three "The 2005 Prohibited List".
2. Disqualifies the results obtained at the ATP sanctioned Tournament in Vancouver, B.C. Canada in July 2005. Any medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money (without reduction for tax) obtained at the competition are forfeited. The commencement of the forgoing consequences is to be effective in accordance with the rule.
3. The period of ineligibility otherwise applicable is determined to be two months. In accordance with the rules the ineligibility shall commence on November 16, 2005.
4. Fairness dictates that there is no disqualification of the results from the time of sample collection until the commencement of the period of ineligibility.

Facts
Miguel Gallardo Valles (player) provided an urine sample during the ATP sanctioned Tournament "Stella Artois Championships" in London, England on June 4, 2005. His A sample showed the prohibited substance cannabis (11-nor-9-carboxy-delta9-tetrahydrocannobinol). His B sample analysis confirmed the presence of the prohibited substance.

History
The player believes that the positive test originates from an attended post-event party in Germany on May 23, 2005. He was persuaded to smoke marijuana, which was his first time in life. He is concerned about the embarrassment this matter will bring to himself, his family and the sport of tennis and deeply regrets the mistake he has made.
He started with a voluntary suspension on August 29, 2005.

written submissions player
Player asks for a minimum sanction, a suspension of two months with reference at the "Melle van Gemerden" and "Oliver case".
He didn't intend to enhance his sport performance.

written submissions ATP
The counsel for the ATP thinks a period of ineligibility of 60 days is appropriate, the player admits his doping offense and it is his first doping offense. The use of the prohibited substance was not intended to enhance sport performance. The period of voluntary suspension should be considered within his period of ineligibility.

Decision
The Tribunal makes the following orders.
1. The Player under Rule K. 1.c admitted a first doping offense thereby establishing the doping offense defined in Rule C
1. The doping offense involved the use of a Specified Substance Cannabinoids referred in S. 8 of Appendix Three "The 2005 Prohibited List".
2. Rule L. 1 disqualifies the results obtained at the "Stella Artois Championships" in London, England June 5 2005. Any medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money (without reduction of tax) obtained at the competition are forfeited. The commencement of the foregoing consequences is to be effective in accordance with Rule M. 8.
3. Under rule m. 3. the period of ineligibility otherwise applicable is determined to be time served to date of this decision. In accordance with Rule M. 8. c. i. this suspension shall be deemed to commence on September 15, and cease on the day ate this decision is dated but not later than November 10, 2005.
4. Under Rule M. 7. fairness dictates that there is no disqualification of results from the time of sample collection until the commencement of the period of ineligibility on September 15, 2005.

Facts
Melle van Gemerden (player) was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an in competition ATP sanctioned challenger tournament in Phoenix his doping test showed the presence of a cannabis metabolite. His B sample analysis confirmed the existence of the prohibited substance. The player applied for a hearing which took place on April 28, 2005.

History
The player stated that a visit in an Amsterdam disco in a period he was having serious personal (family) problems. He drank to much and took two zips of somebody else's joint. Marijuana is not illegal in the Netherlands. He regrets the embarrassment of this incident brought upon the ATP and has no intention to repeat his misconduct.

Consideration ATP
There is no evidence of the statement of the player how the prohibited substance entered his body, also there is no evidence that he was not intending to improve is sport performance.

Considerations panel
A doping offense has occurred which means disqualification of the results. The panel finds that the use of cannabis was not intended to enhance performances. In an earlier case 2 months of ineligibility was suitable, considering the voluntary suspension this should be the starting point of the period of ineligibility till the day of the decision.

Decision
The Tribunal makes the following orders.
1.
The Player, under Rule K. 1. c., admitted a First Doping Offense
thereby establishing that a Doping Offense occurred as defined in Rule C 1. The Doping Offense involved the use of the Specified Substance cannabinoids, referred to in S. 3 of Appendix Three “the 2004 Prohibited List”.
2. Rule L. 1. disqualifies the results obtained at the tournament in Pheonix, Mauritius on 2 December 2004. Any medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money (without reduction for tax) obtained at the Competition are forfeited. The commencement of the foregoing Consequences is to be effective in accordance with Rule M. 8.
3. Under Rule M. 3. the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable is
determined to be the period of voluntarily foregoing participation in
Competitions. In accordance with Rule M. 8. c. (i) this
Ineligibility shall terminate on the day May 16, 2005.

related cases:
CAS 2006_A_1025 Mariano Puerta vs ITF
July 12, 2001
ITF 2003 Mariano Puerta vs ATP Tour
January 1, 2001

Mariano Puerta (player) was reported for an Anti-Doping Rule violation, his urine sample provided on June 5, 2004, at the French Open Roland Garros in Paris, tested positive for etilefrine.
The player did not dispute the presence in his body of a prohibited substance etilefrine. He asserted "No Fault or Negligence" and "No Significant Fault or Negligence" for the offense and requested an oral hearing, which took place December 6 and 7, 2005. He claims by accident used the glass of his wife which contained the prohibited substance, which she uses as medication to treat hypo-tensive episodes, particularly during menstruation.
However it is likely that the prohibited substance was taken accidentally but it can't be proven. The athlete stays responsible for what he ingests.

Due to an earlier doping violation this case is regarded as a second offense.

Decision
The Tribunal:
(1) confirms the commission of the doping offense specified in the notice of charge set out in the ITF’s letter to the player dated 21 September 2005, namely that a prohibited substance, etilefrine, has been found to be present in the urine sample that the player provided at the 2005 French Open on 5 June 2005;
(2) orders that the player’s individual results in both the singles and doubles competitions must be disqualified in respect of the 2005 French Open, and in consequence rules that the prize money (half the prize money awarded to the doubles pair, in the case of the doubles competition) and ranking points obtained by the player through his participation in those competition must be forfeited;
(3) orders, further, that the player’s individual results in all competitions subsequent to the French Open shall be disqualified and all prize money and ranking points in respect of those competitions forfeited;
(4) declares that the player shall be ineligible for a period of eight years commencing on 5 June 2005 from participating in any capacity in any event or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programmes) authorized by the ITF or any national or regional entity which is a member of or is recognized by the ITF as the entity governing the sport of tennis in that nation or region

Ms. Kristina Antoniychuk (Respondent) is an Ukrainian tennis player. On 22 February 2010 Respondent competed at the 2010 Abierto Mexicano TELCEL presentado por HSBC in Acapulco, Mexico, where she provided a sample for doping control.

The International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Respondent after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.

Respondent stated she used furosemide to treat a medical condition she has for two years. She presented medical records confirming the diagnosis, and further confirming that in January 2010, when the condition worsened, she was prescribed furosemide by a doctor. Respondent stated she was not aware the medication prescribed to her contained any prohibited substance.
Respondent acknowledged that she did not consult a sports medicine specialist, nor did she ensure that the doctor she consulted understood the strict anti-doping rules to which she is subject.

The Tribunal concluded that 19 years old Respondent was inexperienced in relation to doping matters. The ITF finds a reduction of eight months appropriate in this case.

The International Tennis Federation Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decides that Respondent had committed an anti-doping rule violation and that the following consequences should be imposed:
(a) A fourteen-month period of ineligibility, backdated to commence on 22 February 2010 and therefore ending on 21 April 2011.
(b) Disqualification of her results achieved in 6 tennis competitions, including the forfeiture of the ranking points and prize money awarded.