Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport ("CCES") alleges an anti-doping violation by Amanda Galle (the Athlete).On January 24, 2009, Ms. Galle tested positive for the presence of Nandrolone during an in-competition doping control . The cause of the positive was a wrong injection by her nutritious coach.

History
After being notified of the test result, Galle exercised her right to a hearing under the rules of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program, where she sought to have the customary two-year ban for an athlete testing positive reduced to one year. At the hearing, she testified that her conditioning coach had "mistakenly injected her with deca-durabolin" instead of her usual vitamins B6 and B12.

Decision
The arbitrator found that Galle "failed to demonstrate that she bears no significant fault or negligence in relation to the violation," and upheld the two-year ban. The date of the first sample collection, January 24, starts the period of ineligibility.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Chelse Zarboni-Berthiaume for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. On November 6, 2009, two doping control officers (DCO) went to Chelse’s training venue at the Centre Sportif Gadbois.
Here the Athlete was not able to provide a sample and eventually she left the Doping Control Station after the arrival and intervention of her mother.

History
The DCO's made the athlete aware of the consequences for not providing a sample for doping tests. The Athlete admitted the violaton but there were also some inconsistencies in her statements she filed. The Arbitrator did not accept the statements made by the Athlete and her mother and deems that the Athlete showed a lack of cooperation with the Doping Control.

Decision
The Arbitrator establish that the Athlete in fact evaded the Doping Control influenced by het mother and decides on 11 February 2010 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension i.e. on 18 December 2009.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Curtis Cates for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). For doping test purposes a sample collection session took place on October 10, 2009. His sample tested positive on cannabis, Cannabis is a specified substance on the prohibited list of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

History
The athlete smoked he smoked cannabis for a significant period of time before the sample collection. he had no intent to enhance his sport performance or mask another prohibited substance by using cannabis. His explanation, in summary, is that he used cannabis socially and only in recreational settings.

Decision
The CCES submits that based on the evidence now disclosed, the athlete should be sanctioned by the doping tribunal to a period of ineligibility of five months' duration. The CCES feels that such a sanction is fair and proportionate to the athletes' degree of fault for the anti-doping rule violation that has been determined.
However, the doping tribunal has the absolute discretion to select the proper sanction in every case and may accept the period proposed by the CCES or impose a lesser or greater sanction, as long as the period of ineligibility falls within the permitted range.
I agree with the CCES in this regard and, therefore, I adopt its recommendation for sanction in this matter. Accordingly, I hereby rule that athlete Curtis Cates is sanctioned to a period of ineligibility of five months' duration, commencing from March 5, 2010.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport ("CCES") alleges an anti-doping violation by Valerio Moscariello (respondent). He is Amanda Galle's conditioning coach and in regards to her positive drug test result of January 24, 2009, Ms. Galle tested positive for the presence of Nandrolone, respondent must take full responsibility. The Statement was obtained during the course of an earlier Doping Tribunal hearing involving Ms. Amanda Galle.

History
In his Statement, the respondent states that as part of Ms. Galle's conditioning regime he injected her, on a bi-weekly basis with a combination of vitamins B6 and B12 but that on January 14, 2009 he mistakenly injected her with deca-durabolin, which he had prepared for his personal use as an amateur body builder. He further states that after Ms. Galle left his residence he realized his error but did not advise her of this mistake because he thought "nationals were months away" and he did not want to "unnecessarily worry her and distract her from her training".

Decision
A twelve year period of ineligibility, commencing on the date of this decision, which is proportionate to the gravity and harm occasioned by Mr. Moscariello's conduct and appropriate in all of the circumstances.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Zach White (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. On September 12, 2009, the CCES conducted an in-competition doping control in Ottawa involving the athlete. He was notified for doping control on that date and provided an urine sample. Analysis indicated an adverse analytical finding for the presence of cannabis above the threshold of 15 ng/ml. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according to the 2009 WADA Prohibited List, which states that all prohibited substances shall be considered as 'Specified Substances'.

History
Based upon a psychiatric interview it is indicated that the athlete got into the use of cannabis purely for recreational reasons in the context of peer relationships. There is no indication in my assessment that the use of cannabis is motivated by the desire to improve his performance in sports or any other skills. His frequency of use had been very variable, dependent on the social circumstance and did not appear to be related to periods that he was involved in sports. There appeared to be no temporal relationship between his drug use and involvement in sport practices or participation in competitive sports activities.
The athlete declares that he was consuming about 2 grams per session per day. He had a psychological need to consume the drug and probably a physical desire as well, without realizing any addiction going on within his body.

Decision
The sanction for the anti-doping rule violation committed by the athlete be seven (7) months of ineligibility. This period of inelligibility is to be served commencing on November 18, 2009, the date the athlete accepted a voluntary provisional suspension. It will end on June 18, 2010.

Facts
Cecil Russell has applied for reinstatement of his eligibility to participate in organised sport.

History
Cecil Russell a successful swimmer in the past was in various ways a swimming coach, because of possession and trafficking anabolic steroids he was sanctioned for period of ineligibility for life. The sanction was lifted, but imposed again because of violation of the ban.

The criteria for category II reinstatement are:
A. Exceptional circumstances:
a) Age
b) Remorse
c) Circumstances surrounding the infraction, including any factors that may have caused or contributed to the Applicant’s diminished capacity.
d) The Applicant’s experience in sport.
e) The Applicant’s favourable prospects for rehabilitation.
f) The Applicant’s prior, and post-infraction, conduct.
g) The Applicant’s contribution to (the) sport.
h) The Applicant’s cooperation with investigating bodies.
i) The length of suspension served by the Applicant at the time of hearing.
j) Additional factors advanced by or on behalf of the Applicant and determined by the adjudicator to be relevant.
B. The adjudicator may give such weight as he/she decides appropriate.

Decision
When all of the criteria are considered and the evidence is weighed, the arbitrator has to come to a different conclusion than the arbitrator did in 2005. In addition to the evidence that was already before the arbitrator about the convictions that led to to the imposition of Mr. Russell’s lifetime ban and his subsequent brushes with the law, there is now evidence that Mr. Russell has been criminally convicted in the United States for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ecstasy; there is evidence that he was involved in a murder and helped to dispose of a body; there is evidence that he asked someone to commit perjury to help him escape conviction; and there is a finding by a judge of the Superior Court that his failure to disclose the Arizona conviction at the 2005 hearing was calculated to deceive.
1. In the circumstances, the arbitrator is not now prepared to reinstate Mr. Russell.
2. As a practical matter, the arbitrator suspect that Mr. Russell will have difficulty persuading any adjudicator that he should be reinstated so long as he continues to skirt around the edges of his ban in the manner described in this decision. Even if he cannot be prevented from continuing with the pattern of coaching-like activities in which he has engaged to date (in respect of which the arbitrator makes no finding) he would be well advised to refrain from such activities because, in my view, they have had, and will continue to have, a significant impact on the overall presentation of his circumstances in a way which has a very negative impact on his objective of being reinstated.
3. This is not a decision about whether or not Mr. Russell is a good coach. Rather, the arbitrator has to decide whether there are “exceptional circumstances” which warrant his reinstatement. In my opinion, the sands having shifted since more evidence has emerged, Mr. Russell has failed, on a balance of probabilities, to discharge his onus of establishing that the conditions for reinstatement are met at this time.
4. While the arbitrator realizes that there will be many parents and athletes who are disappointed with this decision, they will hopefully appreciate that anti-doping rules exist to protect athletes and maintain integrity and fairness in sport. Until Mr. Russell can bring himself more squarely within the criteria which would support his claim for reinstatement, he must continue to be ineligible.

Costs
126. Section 11.2.4 (iv) of the SOP expressly provides that an adjudicator on a Category II reinstatement application does not have the authority to determine or make recommendations for the payment in part or all of the applicant’s legal and other costs incurred for a review. If any party is of the view that the arbitrator has authority to award costs to a party other than the applicant, and the amount of such costs, to whom and/or by whom they should be paid cannot be agreed, the arbitrator will entertain written submissions on (a) the basis for asserting that the arbitrary seeking costs should deliver submissions by 5:00 p.m. EDT on 17 August 2009. Any party against whom costs are sought will until 5:00 p.m. EDT on 24 August 2009 to deliver responding submissions.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Brandon Krukowoski for committing an anti-doping rule violation. The athlete failed to submit to sample collection during an out-of-competition doping control on March 31, 2010 in Waterloo, Ontario. The athlete requests subsequently to revoke the Waiver of Hearing Form send in by by the athlete, which resulted in a finding that an athlete was guilty of an anti-doping rule violation, with the result that the athlete would get a new hearing on the issue of whether he had, in fact, committed an anti-doping rule violation.

History
On 31 March 2010 a Doping Control Officer (DCO) and a Chaperone assigned by the CCES attended the Athlete’s residence at 7:14 a.m. for the purposes of conducting out-of-competition doping control testing pursuant to the CADP. The Athlete informed the DCO that he was no longer a member of the University of Waterloo football team due to injury. He refused to be tested despite being warned of the consequences of refusing. He send in a Waiver of Hearing form in which he I accepts the sanction for this violation which is four (4) years of ineligibility and waives his right to a hearing.

Decision
The request to revoke the waiver is denied. Because the waiver was validly given, the Player’s acknowledgement that he committed an anti-doping rule violation, his acceptance of the sanction proposed by the CCES, and the resulting decision of the CCES stand, a period of four (4) year ineligibility commencing on 24 May 2010 (day of sending in the waiver) till 24 May 2014.

The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jake Glass after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Cocaine and Cannabis.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete failed to respond to the CCES communication. As a result the SDRCC rendered a decision based on the written submissions.

The Arbitrator holds that the Athlete was given every opportunity to participate in a hearing. The Arbitrator finds that the Athlete has not provided any evidence to support the finding of an exceptional circumstance.
Therefore the SDRCC decides on 20 January 2011 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 15 October 2010.

Related case:
CAS 2007_A_1312 Jeffrey Adams vs CCES
May 16, 2008
SDRCC 2006 CCES vs Jeffrey Adams
June 11, 2007

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jeffrey Adams for his refusal or failure to provide sample without compelling justification.
Hearings were held on October 21, 22, 24 and 25, 2010 Toronto, Ontario.

History
The Athlete was previously the subject of a 2007 Doping Tribunal. That decision became the subject matter of a 2008 Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) arbitral award (“DT/CAS Determination”). In May, 2009, the Athlete commenced proceedings in respect of the DT/CAS Determination by Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and for Judicial Review in the Divisional Court.
On September 30, 2009, the Athlete was selected for doping control by the CCES. However, that session was terminated by the CCES before a sample was given. On November 24, 2009, as a follow up for the terminated session, the Athlete was again selected for doping control to take place on November 28, 2009. This session also did not result in the Athlete providing a sample. The CCES alleges the session ended because the Athlete refused to participate. The Athlete states that the CCES terminated the session and there was no refusal.

Decision
The conclusion is that the Athlete did not provide a sample at the November 28th Session because the CCES failed to clarify who was responsible for ensuring that the CCES supplied catheter was contamination free. This is an assurance that the CCES could readily have given in respect of other Sample Collection equipment which must be provided by the CCES.
1. The requirement is consistent with the mutuality concept of contract compliance which is the framework for the relationship between the parties. How can one be said to be in default or in breach of a contract when a requirement is questioned without a response being given or the parties have not reached an agreement on a critical term; such as, “Who is responsible to ensure that a CCES-supplied catheter is contamination free?”
2. The Athlete is contractually entitled to the procedural and substantive rights established by the CADP and applicable jurisprudence which includes the DT/CAS Determination.
3. The DT/CAS Determination arose at a point in time when the guidelines applicable to disabled athletes were evolving. This evolution is reflected in Annex 6B to the CADP which establish the CCES’s obligations to disabled athletes. In the circumstances of the November 28th Session, these obligations were not respected.
4. Unable to conclude on the evidence before me that the Athlete refused to continue with the test because he was retired, as urged by the CCES.
5. The responsibility for the unsatisfactory evidentiary record rests with the CCES, which had refused the request of Mr. Bagg that the session be recorded on videotape. Further, it did not at the time review, challenge or clarify the Athlete’s position that was clearly
spelled out in his written Supplementary Report. Had the CCES chosen an alternate approach at the November 28th Session, it may have succeeded in meeting its burden of proof by avoiding the existing, contradictory, evidentiary record.
6. In determining the outcome, governed by the burden of proof and standard of proof set out in CADP Rule 7.81. It is comfortably satisfied that on the evidence before me, the CCES has failed to discharge its burden that any anti-doping rule violation occurred on November 28, 2009. That is because of its failure to adduce sufficient evidence of a refusal to satisfy even the lower standard of proof in civil cases of a mere balance of probability. Concluded above that the strict liability nature of CADP Rule offences is not engaged in these circumstances. CCES can thus not succeed in this hearing.
7. I am quite able to reach this conclusion on a “comfortable satisfaction”level bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. I am not persuaded that in these circumstances, the Athlete refused to provide a test sample as alleged. This is not a case requiring examination of whether “compelling justification”existed for the Athlete’s refusal as I have concluded that no refusal occurred. However, had I found the Athlete failed to submit to Sample Collection, I would have concluded there was “compelling justification” for the Athlete’s action as the CCES failed to comply with its CADP Rule obligations.
8. The CCES has not established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Doping Tribunal that an anti-doping rule violation occurred on November 28, 2009.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Socholotiuk for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On March 31, 2010, at the specific request of the University of Waterloo, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) attended at the university campus to conduct out-of-competition drug testing on the entire football team. The athlete was tested as a player on the team and provided both a urine sample and a blood sample. His urine sample tested positive on testosterone and his bloods sample tested positive on the presence of recombinant Growth Hormone.

History
The Athlete replies in writing, regarding the testerone, that the substance he was using was not a banned substance. For the presence of recombinant Growth Hormone: the athlete replies in writing: the blood test for Human Growth Hormone is very unreliable. The athlete neither signed a waiver of hearing nor requested an arbitration hearing. It was not possible to get in touch with the athlete and he didn't attend the hearing.
On March 31, 2010, the CCES attended at the university campus and conducted drug tests on the entire football team at the request of the university’s administration. This unprecedented request was generated by criminal charges laid previously by local police against a member of the team for possession and trafficking in substances which also are banned in sport. The CCES tested 61 athletes and collected 61 urine samples and 20 blood samples. It is currently managing potential anti-doping rule violations involving 9 of these athletes. These 9 athletes do not include the two who were criminally charged, since the CCES has decided to postpone their consideration pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against them. The large number of athletes from the same team who tested positive is also unprecedented.

Decision
As stated in the decision issued on August 23, 2010, an anti-doping rule violation by the Athlete has been established. The sanction imposed is a period of ineligibility of three years commencing on June 4, 2010.