Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) charges Steve Molnar (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). An earlier violation happen in August 1988, for the presence of stanozolol in his sample he had received a period of ineligibility of four years. The second violation occurred during an in-competition doping control conducted at the 2005 Canadian National Championships in Calgary, Alberta on October 21, 2005. His urine sample returned an adverse analytical finding for cannabis, methandienone and oxymetholone, all prohibited substances on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List.

Decision
Pursuant to Rules 7.20 and 7.9, Steve Molnar's penalty is lifetime
ineligibility, effective immediately.

In September 2004 the Canadian Cycling Association (CCA) has reported an anti-doping violation against the Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance marijuana (cannabis) at a concentration of 22,6 ng/mL with automatic forfeiture of her gold medal and points.

The Athlete filed statements with evidence in her defence and was heard for the SDRCC Anti-Doping Tribunal.
The Athlete stated that she used only marijuana until April 2004 due to her shoulder injury and depression. She considered using marijuana during training and racing unsafe and didn’t know the competition threshold for marijuana had been changed from 40 ng/mL to 15 ng/mL.
The Athlete and her husband, sustained by other witnesses, testified she didn’t smoke marijuana during the competition where she tested positive.
They stated that during training and prior to the competition a majority of the athletes smoked cannabis in their hotel and therefore made it difficult to stay away from the smoke of marijuana.
The Athlete argued that she was exposed to second-hand marijuana smoke as explaination for the positive test.

Considering the circumstances the arbitrator accepts the Athlete’s statements and evidence and concludes that the Athlete inhaled high levels of second-hand smoke while training for the competition.
With forfeiture of her gold medal and points the Tribunal decides on 14 April 2005 to impose only a warning and a reprimand on the Athlete.

CCES 2005 Yvan Darsigny vs
- Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES)
- Canadian Weightlifting Federation (CWF)
- International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)
- Governement of Canada
- World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)

Facts
Yvan Darsigny (applicant) appeals against the decision of the Doping Appeal Tribunal of 17 April 2005. In this decision the applicant received an award of 2 years ineligibility for evading sample collection. Respondents in this case are: Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES), the Canadian Weightlifting Federation (CWF), the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF), the Government of Canada, and the World Anti-Doping Agency WADA).

History
The Athlete consistently argued that he would be astonished to discover that he is still considered an international-level athlete given that his last international-level competition took place in 1994. The CWF declared: that it had never provided the IWF with a list of Canadian athletes who were to be designated international-level athletes.
Due to family matters the applicant didn't treat the Doping Control Officers in a kind way and refused to comply when they came for an unannounced doping test.
The athlete claims that the notification of the doping control was not handled correctly, the position of the Athlete in this respect rests on a misunderstanding of the anti-doping rule in question.
The Appeal Tribunal rejects the Appellant's arguments for exceptional circumstances.

Decision
(1) The appeal is rejected, in part;
(2) The Decision rendered on 7 April 2005 by the Doping Tribunal is maintained;
(3) The Athlete committed the anti-doping rule violation set out in Rule 7.24 of the CADP, specifically, evading sample collection;
(4) The Athlete is ineligible for a period of two years commencing on 23 January 2005;
(5) Each party shall bear its own costs and expenses incurred in the appeal.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Christiano Paes for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. On November 25, 2006, the Athlete underwent a doping control. It was a notified, Out-of-Competition sample collection session. The Athlete provided a urine sample which, following analysis, is alleged to have contained an elevated testosterone-epitestosterone (TIE) ratio greater than four (4) to one (1), and an IRMS results consistent with exogenous origin.

History
The Athlete admitted that he used a wide variety of nutritional supplements.

Decision
The required sanction for a first anti-doping rule violation is a two year period of ineligibility from sports as well as a permanent ineligibility from direct Government of Canada funding this sanction is reasonable in these circumstances.
The CADP states that the period of ineligibility shall start on the date of the hearing decision providing for ineligibility.
In the circumstances, the period of ineligibility should start on the date of the hearing decision namely, March 5, 2007.

Costs
Unless applied for, there shall be no award of costs in this matter.

Facts
The Certificate attests to the presence of Stanozolol metabolites in the Athlete's sample. Stanozolol is a prohibited substance named in the 2006 WADA Prohibited List.

Decision
The Athlete's written explanation, dated and received August 17, 2006, acknowledges his use of the prohibited substance. This early admission by the Athlete is to his credit. In this circumstance, it is fair that the period of ineligibility should commence on August 17, 2006. The period of ineligibility is two years commencing August 17, 2006.

Costs:
No party made any submission regarding costs. Accordingly, each party shall bear its own costs of the hearing.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges James Kelleher (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On 4 September 2006 Mr Kelleher refused, without compelling justification, to submit to sample collection after having received due and proper notification that he had been selected for doping control. On 4 October 4 2006 the SDRCC convened an administrative conference call with all parties involved in this matter. Mr. Kelleher received notice of the call but chose not to participate. On 13 October 2006, the pre-hearing conference call took place. The CCES, Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) and the Government of Canada were all represented on that call. Mr. Kelleher did not participate.

Decision
1. The athlete has committed the anti-doping rule violation set out in CADP Rule 7.24, namely, refusing to submit to sample collection;
(2) The period of ineligibility imposed for this violation, Mr. Kelleher's first anti-doping rule violation, shall be two years, as required by CADP Rule 7.25;
(3) Mr. Kelleher shall, in addition, be permanently ineligible to receive any direct financial support provided by the Government of Canada, in accordance with CADP Rule 7.37.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Jarret Lukin (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On November 3, 2006, the Athlete competed in a hockey game in Calgary, Alberta, between the U of C and the University of Regina and was randomly selected for no advance notice in-competition doping control. He attended a doping control and provided an urine sample for testing as required. His sample showed the presence of a cocaine metabolite. Cocaine is a prohibited substance according to the 2006 WADA Prohibited List.

History
The Athlete provided a written confirmation of his use of cocaine. He also wrote that he had not used the prohibited substance to enhance his performance in sport. His use of the prohibited substance was in a social setting.

Decision
The period of ineligibility is two years commencing November 28,2006. The Athlete is permanently ineligible to receive any direct financial support provided by the Government of Canada.

Costs
Neither party made any submission regarding costs. Accordingly, each party shall bear its own costs of the hearing.

Related cases:

• CAS 2007_A_1312 Jeffrey Adams vs CCES
  May 16, 2008
• SDRCC 2010 CCES vs Jeffrey Adams
  December 21, 2010

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Jeffrey Adams for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. On 28 May 2006, in accordance with the Doping Control Rules of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (the "CADP Rules" or the "CADP Rule"), the Athlete submitted to an in-competition doping control test administered by the CCES. the presence of cocaine metabolites caused an adverse analytical finding (the "AAF") in the Athlete’s "A" sample. Cocaine is a prohibited substance in-competition as provided for by the 2006 WADA List of Prohibited Substances.

History
The Athlete provided a written response to the AAF, that response included an allegation that errors were made in the doping control
procedure by the CCES and that the Athlete had used a contaminated catheter to provide the urine sample. The other possible source of contamination was on 21 May 2006, the Athlete and Karir visited the Vatican bar at Queen St. West in Toronto. Around eleven o'clock in the evening, the Athlete alleges that an unknown woman inserted cocaine into his mouth with her fingers while seated beside him on a sofa in the bar. He claims this was done against his consent. The witness Karir testifies that following the alleged assault she verbally confronted the woman, whom she believed was on drugs. Karir states she observed that the woman was carrying a plastic pouch, which the woman confirmed to her contained cocaine. In the following doping test he used an unclean catheter which was possibly contaminated with cocaine. The chaperon didn't made any remarks using an unclean catheter.
The only disagreement is whether the catheter used by the Athlete was contaminated, and which party is responsible for any contamination. The Athlete alleges that he used the Vatikan Catheter to provide a sample of urine because it was the only catheter he had brought to the Competition.

Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation is found to have occurred under CADP Rule. This being a first violation the period of Ineligibility prescribed by CADP Rule is two years.
2. The period of Ineligibility prescribed by this Award is to commence on 18 August 2006 in accordance with CADP Rule being the date on which the Athlete voluntarily elected not to compete and filed a letter to that effect with the Arbitrator. In accordance with this award and the CADP Rules the period of Ineligibility will terminate on 17 August 2008.
3. The competition result achieved by the Athlete at the ING Ottawa Marathon held at Ottawa, Ontario on 28 May 2006 is disqualified by virtue of CADP Rule and he is to forfeit any medals, points or prizes in accordance with the CADP.
4. In accordance with CADP Rule 7.37 the Athlete is permanently ineligible to receive any direct financial support provided by the Government of Canada.
5. Under Rule 7.69 of the CADP, the Doping Tribunal may award costs to any party payable at its discretion. Unless applied for, there shall be no award of costs in this matter.

Costs
Any application for costs is to be in written form addressed to the SDRCC and received not later than 10 days following the receipt of this Award.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Kane Waselenchuk for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). The CCES in-competition urine test was done here on May 27, 2006 the day Waselenchuk won his fourth Canadian title at the Mayfield Inn & Suites Athletic Club. Notified of the test findings by the CCES, the racquetball ace from suburban Devon waived his right to a hearing and acknowledged the anti-doping rule violation.

History
By letter the athlete expresses his astonishment at the positive test for cocaine. It also states, "As for the cannabis detected in the sample, that is correct. I realize that this is a prohibited substance, unfortunately for me, I made a mistake ... a bit of celebration prior to the commencement of the competition in which I did partake in this foolish act with cannabis only."

submissions
There was a problem with the signed waiver by the athlete his waiver was a true and valid one. Its effect is that there will be no further hearing of this matter before a Doping Tribunal.

Decision
The athlete has been banned from competition for two years after testing positive for cocaine and cannabis.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Rashad Najeeb (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping program. On October 20, 2006, the athlete was selected for out-of-competition doping control. His sample indicated an adverse analytical finding for the presence of Testosterone precursor.

History
In a letter to the CCES dated November 29, 2006, Mr. Najeeb explained that he had been fasting and that some four days before providing his urine sample, he returned home after work and practice and was extremely tired and out of breath. He also explained that he ate quickly and then experienced difficulty breathing, as a result of which he used his sister’s asthma inhaler approximately three times. He stated that he notified the “testers” of his use of the inhaler and his use of Echinacea for a sore throat and sinus problems. Dr. Christiane Ayotte, the Director of the Laboratory, advised the CCES that in her opinion, fasting, the use of the inhaler or Echinacea based products could not have caused the adverse analytical finding.
The CCES then informed Mr. Najeeb that it did not accept his explanation and offered him a further opportunity to explain the presence of Testosterone in his sample. The athlete admitted using Testosterone booster pills and he evidently did so with the intention of enhancing his performance. While he expressed regret for his actions, given his intentional use of Testosterone.

Decision
There can be no question of eliminating or reducing the penalty based on exceptional circumstances. In the result, in accordance with the CADP, the penalty required to impose for a first anti-doping rule violation is a two year period of ineligibility from sport and permanent ineligibility for direct financial support from the Government of Canada.
The period of ineligibility shall run from the date of this decision.

Costs
Unless a written request is made to the SDRCC within one week of the date of the decision, there will be no order as to costs.