Ms. Fatema Alhasan is a Syrian athlete in the sport of IPC Powerlifting, participating in the 2011 IPC Powerlifting Open International Championship in Amman, Jordan; and the 2011 IPC Khorfakkan International 3rd Championship in Khorfakkan, United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against Ms. Fatema Alhasan (the Respondent) after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

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 that 27 October 2011.

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 TUE justifying the presence of the prohibited substance found in her 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 a provisional suspension starting on the date of the notification of an adverse analytical finding; and
- waived the right to a Hearing.

On 28 October 2011, the IPC received an email from the National Paralympic Syria stating that the have decided to sanction the athlete for a period of one year.

On 16 October 2011 Respondent competed at the IPC Khorfakkan International 3rd Championship in Khorfakkan, United Arab Emirates. The IPC thereafter reported an anti doping rule violation against Respondent after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

On 24 November 2011, the IPC notified NPC Syria of the second Adverse Analytical Finding and issued a second Letter of Decision for the Respondent to complete and return to the IPC.
IPC considered these two cases as one Anti-Doping Rule Violation because both sample collections happened before the first Notification to Respondent was issued.

Multiple attempts by the IPC to contact NPC Syria by telephone and email were not successful.
On 24 January 2012, the IPC received a phone message from NPC Syria requesting clarification on the Respondent’s status. The IPC responded by email that the athlete was still provisionally suspended and gave the athlete another opportunity to schedule a hearing in het case. No response was received from NPC Syria.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends the following to the IPC Governing Board:
(a) Respondent’s individual result obtained at the 2011 Powerlifting Open International Championship in Amman, Jordan and at any other event from the date of 22 July 2011 onwards should be automatically disqualified, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes won;
(b) Respondent declared the use of Jack 3D, a medication that contains the prohibited substance found in her body. Therefore it seems that the use of that supplement was to enhance her athletic performance. A two-year period of ineligibility should be imposed on the Respondent.
(c) The Panel considers that there were delays not attributable to the Respondent in the reporting of the analysis and consequently the notification process. Therefore the panel considers that the period of ineligibility shall start on the date of sample collection 22 July 2011 and last until 21 July 2013; and
(d) A financial sanction of € 1.500,- should be imposed on the Respondent.

On 13 February 2012 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

The ATP tour reports the player for an Anti-Doping violation. The player provided an In-Competition urine sample, the analysis indicated the prohibited substances Ephedrine, nandrolene or precursors, stanozolol and metabolites and Clenbuterol. By letter the Player admits to have used the prohibited substances, he used them to cure injuries. The player' s admission means that he accepted the lab report. A hearing before the Anti-doping Tribunal is not required.
Because it is a first offense the award will be a 2-year period of ineligibility commencing on the date of the decision, all competitive results obtained from the date the positive sample was collected through to the date of commencement of the ineligibility period ordered herein are disqualified with all the resulting consequences including forfeiture of computer ranking points and prize money.

Youssef Assouggane is a Maroccan athlete in the sport of IPC Powerlifting.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Mr. Youssef Assouggane (the Respondent) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (a metabolite of 19-norandrostenedione).

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 that 11 November 2011.

In the Letter of Decision, Respondent stated that he:
- he 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;
- that he accepted the consequences of the consequences of the anti-doping rule violation as proposed; and
- waived the right to a Hearing.

On 13 December 2013 a telephone conference was held with Respondent to ensure that Respondent understood the content of the Notification and the Letter of Decision as well as the consequences of accepting that he had committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation.
Respondent indicated that he had not received a translated version of the Notification but that the Vice President of his Federation translated the information to him. Respondent had no education in anti-doping matters and does not have any knowledge of his rights and the procedural steps.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee rules as follows:
(a) Respondent is automatically disqualified of any competition results in connection with an in-competition test, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes obtained on the date op sample collection (18 October 2011) and disqualified of all competition results including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes obtained subsequent to the sample collection date;
(b) A two-year ineligibility period is imposed on Respondent, starting the date of Notification (4 November 2011); and
(c) A financial sanction of € 1.500,- is imposed on the Respondent.

On 10 January the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

Mr. Radhi is an Iraqi athlete in the sport op IPC powerlifting, participating in the2010 Asian Para Games.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Mr. Mustafa Radhi (the Respondent) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (a metabolite of 19-norandrostenedione).

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 that 17 December 2010.

Respondent returned the signed Letter of Decision to the IPC in a timely fashion. In the Letter of Decision, Respondent stated that he:
- he 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 a provisional suspension starting on the date of the notification of an adverse analytical finding (17 December 2010); and
- that he accepted the consequences of the consequences of the anti-doping rule violation as proposed.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee rules as follows:
(a) The Athlete is automatically disqualified of his individual results obtained on the 2010 Asian Para Games from the date of 13 December onwards, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes won;
(b) A two-year period of ineligibility, commencing as from the date of the provisional suspension, is imposed on the Athlete.

On 22 December 2010 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

Player requested an hearing before the ATP Tour Anti-Doping tribunal. His doping test was positive for the prohibited substance caffeine, also the B-sample was tested positive for this substance.
The hearing was held on August 30, 2003, outside the 60 day guideline. An extension was agreed till July 30, 2993.
Another extension is granted till August 4, 2003, for which written statements are provided.
There is a difference in the amount measured from the two samples.
The player alleges that the statistical methodology used in the analysis of the player's urine yielded a miscalculation in the margin of error. The use of an alternative and widely accepted statistical methodology would have produced a result with a corresponding margin of error that would have warranted a finding of a concentration level below the threshold.
Also he mentions the Ulihrach decision were was dealt with the distribution of caffeine-containing product by the ATP Tour.
The player can specify how the caffeine came into his body regarding the rules about exceptional circumstances. He had not gained advantage from his conduct and the publication of his name in Argentina will cause him irreparable harm.

The respondent finds that the player has committed a doping violence because his samples tested positive on the prohibited substance caffeine during competition. The test are considered to have a sufficient confidence level. Also in contrast to the Ulihrach case, the Basel tournament provided the coffee not the ATP Tour. Also there are no exceptional circumstances, the player suggested the source of the caffeine and has not demonstrated his conduct was reasonable. For all of this the respondent finds the player guilty and penalties should be mandated.

An expert witness claims another alternative test would lower the range of caffeine below the threshold. The tribunal however can't conclude this, the difference in opinion by experts and Lab directors have to be resolved by those individuals and the accreditation bodies.
The tribunal finds the results not below the threshold.

The player applies for an estoppel.
However the ATP didn't give misleading information or suggested how many cups of coffee could be consumed below the threshold of the doping test. The player was the only person who was over the threshold while 46 samples where tested (in the Ulihrach case others were also over the threshold).
The lab didn't make any mistakes towards the qualification of the positive result or the quantification of the threshold.
The only reason for an estoppel would be if the ATP was responsible for administering the coffee, this was not the case. The tribunal also finds that there is no ground for the decision in the Ulihrach case.

Also the plea for saving the claimant from public embarrassment in his own country is something the tribunal can't avoid.

The final decision is that the prize money obtained from the tournament in Basel, Switzerland be forfeited and is to be repaid immediately to the ATP. It is ordered that Race/Entry System points earned at the same competition be struck out.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Mr. Mohsin (the 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 that 27 October 2011.

Respondent returned the signed Letter of Decision to the IPC in a timely fashion. In the Letter of Decision, Respondent stated that he:
- he 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;
- challenged the consequences set out in the ‘Notification of an Adverse Analytical Finding’ and wished to submit information to support a claim for a reduced or eliminated period of ineligibility; and
- waived the right to a hearing.

Respondent filed a statement in his defence and IPC decided to hold a hearing.
Respondent stated he did not take any prohibited substance deliberately and any us of substances was for medical reasons without knowing the composition of these medications.
None of these medication were declared on the doping control form. Medication and other products were used with the knowledge and approval of his coach and team doctor.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends the following to the IPC Governing Board:

(a) Respondent’s individual results obtained at the 2011 IPC Powerlifting Open International Championship in Amman, Jordan, and at any other event from the date of 23 July 2011 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 should not receive credit for the timely admission of the anti-doping rule violation and should there therefore be declared ineligible form 20 October 2011 until 19 October 2013; and
(d) a financial sanction of € 1.500,- should be imposed on Respondent.
The IPC Anti-Doping Committee concluded that the coach and the team doctor do not fully understand their duty to their athletes to assist them in avoiding potential doping substances. Therefore it is recommended to investigate the role and responsibilities of the coach and team doctor and take appropriate action.

On 5 December 2011 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

Mr. Virender is an Indian athlete in the sport of IPC Powerlifting, participating in the 2010 Asian Para Games.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Mr. Virender (the Respondent) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances epimetendiol and 17β-hydroxymethyl-17α-methyl-18-norandrost-1,4,13-trien-3-one (methandienone) and 19-norandrosterone (metabolites of 19-norandrostenedione).

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 that 18 December 2010.
Respondent returned the Letter of Decision to the IPC in timely fashion. In the letter, the Athlete singed that:
- he did not have a TUE granted for the prohibited substances in question;
- he accepted a provisional suspension starting on the date of the notification of an adverse analytical finding (18 December 2010);
- he accepted the results of the A sample analysis;
- he expressly waived the right to request the B sample analysis; and
- he accepted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.1 of the Code.

Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Committee.
Respondent admitted the us of Dianabol as well as the use of caffeine before the competition. He cannot explain the presence of 19-norandrostenedione.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends as follows:
(a) Respondent’s individual results obtained in the 2010 Asian Para Games from the date of 14 December 2010 onwards are automatically disqualified, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes won;
(b) A three year period of ineligibility is imposed on the Respondent;
(c) Respondent is declared ineligible form 14 December 2010 until 13 December 2013.

On 2 February 2011 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

TAS 2006/O/1111 Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO) c/Active Bay SL

CAS 2006/O/1111 ASO vs Active Bay SL

Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO) is organiser of the Tour de France. Active Bay SL is owner of the UCI Pro Tour license and owner of the Astana-Würth team.

In June 2006 ASO withdrew is invitation for participation into the Tour de France addressed to the Astana-Würth team because of their involvement in doping. The reason for ASO's action were the results of Operation Puerto in Spain were several persons were arrested for supplying doping products.

Following deliberations between ASO and Active Bay ASO filed a request for arbitration in June 2006 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

ASO requested the Panel to uphold its decision to refuse the participation of the Astana-Würth team in the 2006 Tour de France while Active Bay requested the Panel to confirm the participation of the cycling team.

Considering the large publicity about Operation Puerto the Panel establishes that after its own investigations the UCI License Commission had decided in June 2006 that for the time being the Astana-Würth team could continue its activities.

As a result the Panel concludes that for the moment there are insufficient grounds that justifies the exclusion of the cycling team.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decides on 29 June 2006 to dismiss ASO's request to exclude the Astana-Würth team from the 2006 Tour de France.

TAS 2007/A/1433 Danilo Di Luca c. CONI

CAS 2007/A/1433 Danilo Di Luca vs CONI

On 30 april 2008 The International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld the three-month suspension of Danilo Di Luca for his relationship with doctor Santuccione at the center of the “Oil for Drugs” scandal.

The CAS arbitrator assigned to the case rejected Di Luca’s appeal of the suspension claiming that there was ample evidence to support allegations that he had worked with Dr. Carlo Santuccione in 2004. CAS, however, also rejected a request by the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) that Di Luca’s suspension be extended to two years on the grounds that CONI raised new issues in the appeal as the basis for the requested extension.

While CAS appeals are normally heard by a three-member panel, both sides had agreed to the appointment of a single arbitrator, Luigi Fumagalli.

On 14 October 2007 CONI decided a three-month ineligibliltiy for Di Luca's alleged links to Santuccione. The doctor, who was known as “the chemist” and subject of an Italian police investigation of allegations that he had established a nation-wide sports doping program.

In 2004, a coordinated series of police raids resulted in the seizure of doping products and transfusion records, but the investigation has since moved slowly. Prosecutors offered police records and wiretaps that they said showed regular contact between Di Luca and Santuccione in 2004. The cyclist didn’t deny the contact, but claimed Santuccione had been his family doctor since childhood.

CAS arbitrator Fumagalli said evidence provided by CONI showed Di Luca’s “frequent medical encounters” with Santuccione constituted a violation of Italy’s national anti-doping regulations. When Di Luca filed his appeal of the suspension, CONI attorneys filed a counter-claim, citing article 2.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code as reason to suspend the cyclist for two years.

The Arbitrator Fumagalli, however, ruled that since the WADA code was never raised in the original CONI case brought against Di Luca and, therefore, did not fall within the scope of the appeal.

Facts
The Dutch Taekwondo Union (Taekwondo Bond Nederland, TBN) reports a violation of the Anti-Doping code(ADC). An out of competition doping test revealed the prohibited substance carboxy-finasteride.

History
The athlete was a member of the TBN and took part of the registered testing pool. After several efforts the defendant was found to administer a doping test in his residence. The test was done without the presence of an attendant and the defendant signed the doping consent form without mentioning any medication. No request for examining the B-sample has been made. No request for dispensation has been filed. In a written statement the defendant claims the use, on prescription, of the medicine propecia for baldness. Probably this medicine contains the prohibited substance. Defendant wasn't aware that his prescription contained the prohibited substance, for this he claims no fault or negligence. Every athlete is responsible for his body for not taking any prohibited substances.

Submissions
Defendant appeals for a reduction of the sentence.
Before the doping test he used medicine against baldness, for this he has a medical statement from his physician. His physician was aware he was an elite athlete but didn't warn him about prohibited substances.
The instruction leaflet of the medicine doesn't mention the prohibited substance.
However the prohibited substance doesn't enhance sport performance but belongs to the category masking agents. Also the defendant has a clean history regarding dope use, which indicates he doesn't want to enhance his sport performance.
The disciplinary committee findings are that the published doping list on the website of the TBN didn't correspond with the WADA doping list, the prohibited substance was not mentioned by the TBN website. This implicates a reduction of the sanction because of no significant fault or negligence.
The reduction of the sanction can not be lesser then half of the period of ineligibility for a first offense which means only one year. Although one year is still a severe punishment it lies within the rules.

Decision
The decision is a one year period of ineligibility commencing on the day of the verdict, reduced with the period of voluntary suspension.
An appeal can be made within 14 days.