Mr. Nikolay Marfin (Respondent) is a Russian athlete in the sport of IPC Powerlifting. Respondent competed at the London 2012 Paralympic Games where he provided a sample for doping control.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Respondent after his blood samples showed an adverse analytical finding classified as S2. Growth Hormone on de WADA 2012 Prohibited List.
The IPC notified Respondent of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension. The notification letter enclosed a letter “Letter of Decision” for the Respondent to complete and return to IPC by no later than 5 September 2012. Respondent returned the signed Letter of Decision to the IPC.

Respondent admitted he has committed an anti-doping rule violation and that he accepts the consequences. The team doctor and NPC Russia confirmed that the substances declared on the doping control forms did not contain the prohibited substance.
Respondent stated that he had injected the prohibited substance himself. He had suffered serious injuries prior to the competition. To assist with the recovery from his injuries, he researched the internet and found a product containing the prohibited substance.
Respondent had provided a sample before and tested negative at the Paralympic Pre-Games Camp on 1 August 2012 in Russia. The Russian Anti-Doping Agency did not conduct blood testing due to the high costs connected with such testing.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends to the IPC Governing Body:
(a) to impose a two-year period of ineligibility from 23 August 2012 (date of the notification);
(b) to impose a financial sanction of € 1500,- on Respondent.

On 8 September 2012 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

Mr. Shota Omarashvili (Respondent) is a Georgian athlete in the sport of IPC Powerlifting.
Respondent competed at the London 2012 Paralympic Games where he provided a sample for doping control.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Respondent after his sample showed an adverse analytical finding related to the prohibited substance 5α-androstane-3α,17α-diol. The IPC notified Respondent of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension.
The notification letter enclosed a letter “Letter of Decision” for the Respondent to complete and return to IPC by no later than 6 September 2012. Respondent returned the signed Letter of Decision to the IPC.

Respondent stated that he admits that he has committed an anti-doping and that he accepts the consequences.
Respondent stated that he was unsure of how the prohibited substance entered his body, but suspects that it may have been contained in one of the nutritional supplements he used prior to the competition. He had purchased these supplements at supermarkets an pharmacies in Georgia, therefore he searched the internet and studied the product labels and did not note any prohibited substances on the label. Respondent had no doctor or a sports nutritionist that advised him on medication or nutrition. He has been advised by friends on what supplements to use and did not, but did not inform his coach about the supplements he was taking.

The Committee noted that in this particular case, the current system op NPC Georgia had not worked. NPC Georgia responded that it is working on putting in place an anti-doping program and that cases like this one highlighted the need for a more structured system.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends to the IPC Governing Body:
(a) to impose a two-year period of ineligibility from 6 September 2012 (date of the notification);
(b) to impose a financial sanction of € 1500,- on Respondent.

On 8 September 2012 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

Facts
Dimitry Vlasov (player) was reported for a doping offence during the ATP sanctioned tournament the "Kremlin Cup" at Moscow on October 9, 2004. His urine sample tested positive on pemoline which is a prohibited substance on the 2004 prohibited list. By not requesting for a B-sample analysis the player accepted the findings of the A-sample.

History
He had used the substance for an urgent and emergency treatment his insomnia, back pain and depression. The player relied on the physician and was unable to read the Spanish leaflet of the medicine. The amount of the prohibited substance is low and has no enhancing effect for sport performance.

Consideration2
The panel considers the prohibited substance similar to a specified substance, there are no exceptional circumstances regarding no fault or negligence or no significant fault or negligence also it is wrong to call it no significant fault or negligence. However the origin of the prohibited substance is determined and was for proven medical reason, which makes it in this case special circumstances also due to the fact that it wasn't used to enhance sport performance.

The ATP wants a period of ineligibility of two years, Pemoline is not a specified substance listed in the appendix of "2004 prohibited list", which means no lesser sanction. The player has proven the source of the prohibited substance but this was without fault of significant fault. For this the penalties should be as mandated.

Decision
A doping offence has occurred. For being detected in competition individual results will be disqualified with the forfeiture of any medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money obtained in the competition or in the period of ineligibility.
The period of ineligibility is reduced to one year.

Facts
Alex Bogomolov Jr (player) was reported for a doping offence during the Australian Open 2005 in Melbourne. The player tested positive on the prohibited substance salbutomol. He doesn't dispute the use of this substance but it was not intended to enhance sport performance. Also he claims no fault or negligence for this offense.
The oral hearing took place in New York City on September 2, 2005.

History
The player had a temporary exemption for the use of salmeterol and salbutamol, he uses an inhaler for asthma. Resuming to use the exemption failed, because the handling practitioner didn't receive the fax for giving further details about the medication, the case was put on hold. Finally an exemption was granted but it was until 31 December 2004, the year that the application form was handled. The player took part of the Australian Open 2005 without knowing his TUE had expired.

Considerations
The panel concludes that not knowing that the prohibition applied to him is not a "no fault or negligence". They do agree that the substance wasn't used to enhance sport performance. The panel regards that it's the player's responsibility to look after the correct procedure toward a TUE and it's validness.

Decision
The decision is that a doping offense has occurred on January 13, 2005. All individual results of the Australian Open are disqualified, prize money and ranking points obtained must be forfeited. Individual results in competition subsequent to the Australian Open shall be disqualified, all prize money and ranking points for those competitions are forfeited, up and to the Mexico City Challenger (April 4-10, 2005), all results subsequent to the Mexico City Challenger shall remain undisturbed.
There was no intention to enhance sport performance.
The period of ineligibility will be 1,5 month starting on September 26,2005, expiring at 12 noon London time November 10, 2005.

Mr. Luis Carlos Martins Goncalves (Respondent) is a Portuguese athlete in the sport op IPC Athletics. Respondent competed on 27 June 2012 at the IPC Athletics European Championships in Stadskanaal, The Netherlands, where he provided a sample for doping control.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine.
The IPC notified Respondent of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension.The notification letter enclosed a letter “Letter of Decision” for the Respondent to complete and return to IPC by no later than 18 July 2012.

Respondent returned the signed Letter of Decision to the IPC in a timely fashion. In the Letter of Decision, Respondent stated that he:
- had no valid TUE justifying the presence of the prohibited substance found in his sample;
- accepted the A sample analysis and waived the right for the B sample analysis;
- accepted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation;
- accepted the consequences as set out in the ‘Notification of an Adverse Analytical Finding’; and
- waived the right to a Hearing.

Respondent stated he had take a supplement (Lipo 6 Black – Nutrex) prior to the competition and that he did not declare on the doping control form. Respondent took the supplement because he was feeling tired. He believes the prohibited substance was in this supplement and accepts responsibility for his mistake.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends the following to the IPC Governing Board:
(a) Respondent’s individual results obtained at the 2012 IPC European Athletics Championships in Stadskanaal, The Netherlands, and at any other event from the date of 27 June 2012 onwards should be automatically disqualified, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes won;
(b) A two-year period of ineligibility should be imposed on the Respondent;
(c) Respondent shall receive credit for the period of provisional suspension and should therefore be declared ineligible from 27 June 2012 (date of the notification) until 26 June 2014; and
(d) A financial sanction of € 1500,- should be imposed on Respondent.

On 31 July 2012 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

Mr. Pinheiro Carra (Respondent) is a Brazilian athlete in the sport of IPC Powerlifting. Respondent competed at the London 2012 Paralympic Games where he provided a sample for doping control.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Respondent after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide.
The IPC notified Respondent of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension. The notification letter enclosed a letter “Letter of Decision” for the Respondent to complete and return to IPC by no later than 29 August 2012.

Respondent returned the signed Letter of Decision to the IPC in a timely fashion. In the Letter of Decision, Respondent stated that he:
- did not accept that he had committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation;
- had no valid Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) justifying the presence of the prohibited substance founds in the sample;
- requested the analysis of the B sample;
- did not challenge the provisional suspension; and
- wished to challenge the Anti-Doping Rule Violation and/or the consequences.

Respondent and the team doctors stated that none of the team doctors had prescribed any medication to Respondent and he was not taking any medication unknown to the team doctors. Respondent used green tea capsule “Chà Verde” to maintain his weight. These supplements were provided by Respondent’s coach and purchased in a Brazilian supermarket.
Respondent suspected this supplement of containing the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide and requested the supplement be analysed.

Based on the facts the IPC Anti-Doping Committee concluded that Respondent’s provisional suspension should not be eliminated.
The reasons being:
- Respondent was negligent in using a manufactured supplement;
- Respondent competes in a weight category sport, in which diuretics play a role in performance based on the weight class allocations; and
- Respondent used the supplement for the purpose of eliminating water from his body to reduce and/or maintain weight.
The IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommended to the IPC Governing Board to impose a provisional suspension. Following receipt of the results of the analysis of the green tea supplements from the laboratory, a full hearing in the case to determine a sanction will be held.

On 2 September 2012, the IPC received the report from the Laboratory regarding the analysis of the Chà Verde Product.
The laboratory confirmed that the Chà Verde Product contained the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide.The results of the Chà Verde Product Laboratory Report were presented in the second hearing.
Respondent’s coach stated he was aware of the problem of contaminated or mis-labelled supplements, but had never heard about it in connection with green tea capsules.
The Committee concludes that Respondent can establish how the substance entered his body and that he did not intend to enhance his performance. However the Committee considers Respondent and his coach negligence with using the food supplement. The coach bears some responsibility for the Respondent’s adverse analytical finding.
The Committee thinks the NPC Brazil must review the conduct of the coach. He had bought the product for his wife but then gave it to his athlete. He had not reviewed the product label for the ingredients of the product or done any other research into the composition of the product. Therefore he put the Respondent at unacceptable and considerable risk.

The Hearing Body of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends to the IPC Governing Board:
(a) to impose a nine month period of ineligibility, starting on 28 August 2012, the date of the notification;
(b) to impose a financial sanction to € 560,-.

On 5 September 2012 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

Alejandro Vargas Aboy (player) was reported for violating the Anti-Doping rules.
The player refused a doping test during the Luigi Pezzoli Tournament in Bergamo, Italy. He was unaware of the consequences of this failure due to language difficulties. The player had refused the test because he took a doping substance for various physical problems he suffered. In his present state he is willing to collaborate with the ATP in exchange for reducing the sanction. The tournament doctor supplied him with a compound named testoviron, which is known for the prohibited substance testostrone.
A hearing before the full tribunal is not required.
the player's admission triggered the jurisdiction of Rule M. 5.c, for which the penal can adjust the period of ineligibility.
The final decision for this first doping offence is an ineligibility of 2 years commencing retroactively on the date of the possible infraction. During this period all points, medals, titles or prize money will be forfeited.

Ms. Elena Chistilina (Respondent) is a Russian athlete in the sport of IPC Athletics.
On 26 June 2012, Respondent competed at the IPC Athletics European Championships in Stadskanaal, The Netherlands, where she provided a sample for doping control.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Respondent after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance N-ethylnicotinamide (a metabolite of nikethamide).
The IPC notified Respondent of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension. The notification letter enclosed a letter “Letter of Decision” for the Respondent to complete and return to IPC by no later than 26 July 2012.

Respondent returned the signed Letter of Decision to the IPC in a timely fashion. In the Letter of Decision, Respondent stated that she:
- had no valid Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) justifying the presence of the prohibited substance founds in the sample;
- requested the analysis of the B sample; and
- challenged the provisional suspension.

Respondent filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the Committee. Respondent stated that two medications were not reported on the Doping Control Form obtained directly from her team doctor.
The Committee finds that no evidence was provided on how the prohibited substance entered Respondent’s body and it was not used with the intention of enhancing her sport performance.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends the following to the IPC Governing Board:
(a) Respondent’s individual results obtained at the 2012 IPC Athletics European Championships and at any other event from the date of 26 June 2012 onwards should be automatically disqualified, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes won;
(b) A two-year period of ineligibility should be imposed on the Respondent;
(c) The Respondent shall receive credit for the period of provisional suspension and should therefore be declared ineligible from 20 July 2012 (date of notification) until 19 July 2014; and
(d) a financial sanction of € 1.500,- should be imposed on Respondent.

On 9 August 2012 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

This is the unanimous decision of the independent Anti-Doping Tribunal of the International Tennis Federation (“the ITF”) of the ITF Tennis Anti-Doping Programme 2004 (“the Anti-Doping Programme”) to determine a charge brought against Mr Travis Moffat (“the player”) following a positive drug test result in respect of a urine sample provided by the player on 4 February 2004 at the Sydney International wheelchair tennis event in Sydney, Australia.
In a fax dated 19 May 2004, the player admitted the doping offence, which makes a hearing unnecessary. Written representations are filed by the player and the ITF's solicitors.
In his sample the prohibited substance found was a metabolite of cannabis. The player did not request a B-sample analysis, by this he accepted the results of the A-sample.
The player was paralyzed by a car accident, he replaced the medicine he used with cannabis (THC) for control of all spasm and pain and in the process removed a myriad of side effects and instituted an efficacious treatment for his problems. He didn't use the TCH to enhance is sport performance. He didn't apply for a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) because the use of cannabis as a medicine is illegal.
January 1, 2004, cannabinoids became a prohibited substance for the first time. Cannabis and cannabinoids were not prohibited under the predecessors to the Anti-Programme for 2004.
The tribunal declares that the player shall be ineligible for a period of six months starting from the date of this decision 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. Any computer ranking points or prize money gained in this period will be forfeited.

Mr. Yousefi Pashaki (Respondent) is a Iranian athlete in the sport of IPC Powerlifting.
On 5 February 2012, Respondent competed at the Malaysian Open Powerlifting Championships in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, where he provided a sample for doping control.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine.
The IPC notified Respondent of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension. The notification letter enclosed a letter “Letter of Decision” for the Respondent to complete and return to IPC by no later than 7 March 2012.

Respondent returned the signed Letter of Decision to the IPC in a timely fashion. In the Letter of Decision, Respondent stated that he:
- had no valid Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) justifying the presence of the prohibited substance founds in the sample;
- challenged the consequences set out in the ‘Notification of an Adverse Analytical Finding’ and wished to be invited to a hearing;
- waived his right to request the B sample analysis; and
- accepted the provisional suspension.

Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Committee.
Respondent stated that he used the supplement Jack3d for the first time prior to the competition and he did not know it contained a banned substance. Respondent’s claim that he stopped taking the supplement 12-15 days prior to the competition is incompatible with the analytical finding of the laboratory considering the quick elimination of the half-life of the prohibited substance.
The Committee finds that Respondent is negligent in his general anti-doping duties because Respondent knowingly purchased the supplement Jack3d with the intention of improving his performance.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends the following to the IPC Governing Board:
(a) Respondent’s individual results obtained at the Malaysia Open Powerlifting Championships and at any other event from the date of 5 February 2012 onwards should be automatically disqualified, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes won;
(b) A two-year period of ineligibility should be imposed on the Respondent;
(c) The Respondent shall receive credit for the period of provisional suspension and should therefore be declared ineligible from 29 February 2012 (date of notification) until 28 February 2014; and
(d) a financial sanction of € 1.500,- should be imposed on Respondent.

On 31 July 2012 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.