Related case:
SDRCC 2007 CCES vs Shari Boyle
May 31, 2007

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Shari Boyle after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Ephedrine in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

History
The Athlete accepted the test result and denied that the violation was intentional. Having ruled out some nutritional supplements the Athlete assumed that the source of her positive test was her use of Yogi Tea. She did not consider the tea to be either a supplement or performance enhancing. She has no other explanation for the positive result. She made effort to find out where the Yogi Tea was purchased, but it was a gift together with other treas out of the package. Research on the ingredients showed that from two sources one mentioned the ingredient ephedrine.

Submission arbitrator
Although the Athlete claimed that she carefully checked the supplements she used and purchased them from reputable sources, the Yogi Tea theory is suggestive of conduct that fell well short of her personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance entered her body. The conclusion is that the circumstances warrant imposing the high end of the scale of sanctions for use of Specified Substances.

Decision
The Athlete will be Ineligible for a period of 1 year from 3 September 2006 (being the date of the decision) and concluding on (and including) 3 September 2007.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Jacques Bouchard (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. On May 27, 2007, the CCES conducted an in-competition doping control at the Canadian Marathon Championships in Ottawa, Ontario. Mr. Bouchard underwent doping control on that date. His sample indicates an adverse analytical finding for the presence of ephedrine measured at 14ug/mL. The presence of ephedrine, classified as a stimulant, above the allowable threshold of 10ug/mL, is named as a prohibited substance in the 2007 WADA Prohibited List. Ephedrine is further classified as a “Specified Substance”.

History
By letter the athlete wants that the CCES revives the actual position and change for a warning only based on the facts that the athlete is not competing anymore, the test was not done on an official race and there was certainly no intention to take it in the idea to improve performances. He reviewed the labels of the products he had taken and that “one does show the name ephedra”, as an indication that the product contained ephedrine.

Decision
It is hereby ordered that the sanction of six months ineligibility proposed by the CCES be imposed upon Mr. Bouchard. Given that there was no provisional suspension imposed upon him, the sanction is hereby deemed to come into effect as of October 12, 2007, the date that this Tribunal communicated its decision without reasons to the SDRCC for distribution to the parties.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Lee Ryckman. On June 30th, 2007, Ms. Ryckman competed in the National BMX (Cycling) Championships in Bromont, Quebec. The CCES conducted an in-competition doping control session and collected an urine sample from the athlete. The Analysis indicated an adverse analytical finding for the presence of Cannabis.

History
The athlete took part in some "social sharing of cannabis" as late as the night before her event. However, she states that she did not use cannabis to use any advantage over her competitors.

Decision
The imposes penalty on the athlete is a warning and reprimand. There shall be no period of ineligibility and the provisional suspension is terminated. The athlete remains eligible for sport related financial support.

Related case:
CAS 2008_A_1489 Serge Despres vs CCES
September 30, 2008

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) charges Serge Despres (the athlete) with a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Policy (CADP). On August 9, 2007, the CCES conducted out-of-competition doping control in Calgary, Alberta. A sample collection took place which included the athlete. The sample contained nandrolone or precursors-norandrosterone which is a prohibited substance.

History
The athlete does not dispute that an anti-doping rule violation occurred in the circumstances of this case. However, the athlete claims there are "exceptional circumstances" that justify a reduction in the two-year period of suspension. The athlete has established that the taking of the Kaizen HMB supplements containing the prohibited substance caused the adverse analytical finding. After an accident he used the supplement for fast recovery, he did some examination to see if the product was safe to use.

Submissions CCES
The CCES claims there are "no exceptional circumstances" in this case and that the athlete is significantly at fault or negligent for the violation that occurred.

Decision
1. The evidence, together with the admissions and stated positions of the parties, establish that an anti-doping violation occurred involving the presence of nandrolone or precursors over the 2 ng/mL threshold set out in CADP Rules 7.16-7.20 and 7.37 in the athlete's collected sample.
2. The evidence, together with the admissions and stated positions of the parties establish there was fault or negligence by the athlete in ingesting this material. The source was found to be Kaizen HMB supplements, purchased by the athlete.
3. The issue before me is whether the two-year provisional suspension issued November 8, 2007 should be reduced, having
regard to the totality of the evidence and the conduct of the athlete. More specifically, the question is whether the athlete
bears "no significant fault or negligence" and if so, what is the appropriate reduction, if any, to the two-year period of
ineligibility of the athlete from competition.
4. In the unusual and particular circumstances of this case, after a careful review of the evidence, the arbitrator determines:
a. While the athlete bears fault or negligence, his conduct does not quite rise to the level of significant fault or negligence.
b. While there are grounds established by the evidence for a reduction in the imposed sanction, such reduction must be
proportional to the totality of the evidence and the underlying principles of the Rules.
c. Accordingly, the period of ineligibility is hereby reduced to twenty months, to July 8, 2009. The period of ineligibility shall commence November 8, 2007, the date of the provisional suspension, in accordance with CADP Rule 7.12.

Related case:
SDRCC 2006 CCES vs Shari Boyle
September 8, 2006

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported a second anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Shari Boyle for her failure to submit to sample collection. During the athlete's period of ineligibility she was allowed to train and there she was requested to provide a sample during an out-of-competition coping control. However the Athlete left the training facility and did arrive at the doping control station.

History
The athlete asked to finish her training round after being asked to attend the doping test. During her training she felt ill. Unable to comply she left the training facility with a friend, she did mention she felt ill to the chaperone of the Doping Control Officer (DCO).

Decision
As a result of her second anti-doping rule violation, the Athlete should serve a further period of Ineligibility of 2 years in addition to the 1 year suspension that she is presently serving for her first violation. Her current period of ineligibility runs until 3 September 2007. Taking a purposive approach to interpretation of the CADP, in the view that the second period of Ineligibility would not start to run until the existing period of Ineligibility has been completed. However, if wrong, a period of Ineligibility of approximately two years and three months is imposed, which falls within the discretion provided by rule 7.10. Either way, the result is that the sanction imposed for this anti-doping rule violation is a further period of Ineligibility of two years in addition to the period of Ineligibility presently being served by the Athlete, with the result that the Athlete’s period of Ineligibility shall continue up to, and including, 3 September 2009.
Pursuant to Rule 7.37 of the CADP, the Athlete shall be permanently ineligible to receive any direct financial support provided by the Government of Canada

Costs
If any party wishes to exercise that discretion in its favour, it should make a written request by no later than 8 June 2007. I will then provide such directions as may be appropriate concerning submissions on costs.

Facts
Christopher Jarvis (claiment) appeals against the decision of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES). He was sentenced with a penalty of three months of ineligibility for not providing the information about his whereabouts.

History
His heavy travel agenda, coupled with his training schedule and travel to competitions, caused him to be distracted from paying close attention to his email communications, particularly as his email in-box became more heavily loaded with messages connected to his extensive community work. In the result, he was not focused on his obligations to report his whereabouts in a timely way, as required by the rules.

Decision
The claim must be dismissed. The Tribunal hereby finds and declares that the Claimant did commit an Anti-Doping Rule Violation by his failure to provide the requisite whereabouts information in three separate quarters within an 18 month period, contrary to article 10 of the Guidelines. The minimum sanction of three months’ ineligibility, as required under article 7.27 of the Doping Violations and Consequences Rules, is therefore justified. The Tribunal directs that the period of ineligibility of claiment be calculated to begin on November 20, 2007.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) charges André Aubut (claiment) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The claiment directly administered a prohibited substance, erythropoietin (EPO), to Geneveira Jeanson while he was her coach.

Decision
Since this anti-doping rule violation by claiment involves in particular the administration of prohibited substances to a minor, the Arbitrator orders that the sanction for this violation be a lifetime ineligibility in accordance with Rule 7.36.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Marshall Young (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. On June 15, 2008, the Athlete competed in the Canadian Club Water Polo Championships in Quebec City, Quebec. On June 15, 2008, the Athlete was selected for no advance notice, in-competition doping control. He attended at doping control and provided a urine sample for testing as required. His sample showed the presence of cannabis, measured at 284 ng/mL (+/- 23 ng/mL) (the “Adverse Analytical Finding”). The presence of cannabinoids, above the threshold of 15 ng/mL, is a prohibited substance according to the 2008 WADA List of Prohibited Substances.

History
The athlete states in an email: I do cannabis for recreation and recreational purposes only. I have been playing in the Canadian National Waterpolo League for 10 years now and it has never been brought to my attention that there will be drug testing for cannabis. It is not a performance enhancing drug nor do I use it as one. I merely use it in my pass time for enjoyment and recreation. This is the second anti-Doping Violation. The Athlete’s first anti-doping rule violation occurred in June, 2005 and was also for his use of cannabis. The sanction imposed for the first violation was a warning and reprimand.

Decision
The period of ineligibility is 2 years commencing December 4, 2008. The Athlete is permanently ineligible to receive any direct financial support provided by the Governtment of Canada.

Costs
No Party made any submission regarding costs. Accordingly, each Party shall bear its own costs of the proceeding

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Valentyna Zolotarova (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On July 5, 2008, the CCES conducted out-of-competition doping control in St. John, New Brunswick. A sample collection took place which included the athlete. Her sample tested positive on Hydrochlorothiazide.

History
The athlete does not dispute that an anti-doping rule violation occurred in the circumstances of this case. However, Ms. Zolotarova claims there are “exceptional circumstances” that justify a reduction in the two-year period of suspension. The athlete submits that taking into account the totality of the evidence, the appropriate suspension should be reduced, commencing with the date when the anti-doping rule violation was detected. The resulting anti-doping rule violation was probably caused by the athlete taking a diuretic, prescribed by a doctor in connection with excessive swelling in her sprained ankle, which did contain Hydrochlorothiazide. Also she took medication without making any independent inquiry or even questioning her doctor.

Decision
The evidence establish that the athlete's conduct cannot be characterized as insignificant fault or negligence. Accordingly it is no proper basis to reduce the mandated two-year period of ineligibility. The ineligibility shall commence as of the date of this Decision.

In October 2009 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis at a concentration of 30 ng/mL.

The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal. The Athlete admitted the use of cannabis during the 2009 football season and the night prior to the doping control.
The Tribunal concludes that the Athlete had no intention to enhance his sport performance and used cannabis to deal with the stresses of his life.
Without provisional suspension the Tribunal decides on 4 January 2010 to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 21 December 2009.