Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Chris McKay (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. On September 28, 2005, the Athlete was a member of the Okanagan Suns Junior Football Team. He was randomly selected for out-of-competition doping control at a team practice in Kelowna, British Columbia. The Athlete refused or failed to provide a urine sample for testing.

History
The athlete refused to give an urine sample, returned the sample container and left. He didn't participated in the hearing process; contested the anti-doping rule violation asserted by the CCES or the evidence put forward by the CCES; or offered any explanation for his prima facie refusal to submit to Sample collection.

Decision
The CCES has met the burden of proof that the Athlete refused or failed without compelling justification to submit to Sample collection after authorized notification.
The Athlete's refusal constitutes an anti-doping rule violation as provided in Rule 7.24 of the CADP. This is a first violation.
The sanctions to be imposed on the Athlete are two years' ineligibility and permanent ineligibility for direct financial support from the Government of Canada.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Christopher Sheppard for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). The athlete was selected for a no advance notice, out-of-competition doping control in Kamloops, British Columbia.
Pursuant to the rules of CADP the Athlete provided a urine sample for testing on 29 May 2005. His sample tested positive on the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). Also the B-sample tested positive on this substance.

History
This is the first Canadian doping case to deal with the Prohibited Substance rhEPO.

Decision
It has been established that a Prohibited Substance was present in Mr. Sheppard's urine sample. Therefore, an anti-doping rule violation has occurred under the CADP Rule 7.16. The Athlete raised no issue of no fault or negligence, or, any significant fault or negligence. Therefore, it is no required to examine the elimination or reduction of the sanction. In the circumstances, the imposed sanction for a first anti-doping rule violation of a two year period of ineligibility as provided for by Rule 7.20. CADP Rule 7.37 applies. Mr. Sheppard is from the date of this award permanently ineligible for direct financial support provided by the Government of Canada.
The foregoing period of ineligibility in respect of the sanction and the financial support starts on the date of this decision in accordance with the CADP.

Costs
No submission was made on costs. Unless applied for, no order in respect of the same will be made.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) Alleges Giulio Zardo (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On April 21 and 22, 2005, the CCES attempted to conduct no-notice, Out-of-Competition doping control on the Athlete but despite several attempts on these two days, the Doping Control Officer (DCO) was unable to locate the Athlete for the purpose of sample collection. On April 22, 2005, the CCES re-scheduled the Athlete’s no-notice test to an advance notice test. The CCES asserts that the Athlete refused to submit to sample collection on April 23, 2005 after being informed of his selection for doping control and that he has not demonstrated “compelling justification” for his refusal.

History
The athlete was retiring from his sport. In the past he had several Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUEs) he thinks if ask for he would have gotten a TUE again.

Desicion
The required sanction for a first anti-doping rule violation for refusal to submit to doping control, in the circumstances to impose, is a two year period of ineligibility from sport as well as permanent ineligibility from direct Government of Canada funding.
The CADP states that the period of ineligibility shall start on the date of the hearing decision providing for Ineligibility. Any period of Provisional Suspension shall, however, if any, be credited against the total period of Ineligibility to be served.
The period of Ineligibility should start on the date of the hearing decision, namely August 31, 2005.

Costs
Under Rule 7.69 of the CADP, the Doping Tribunal may award costs to any party payable as it directs.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Joseph Frans (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. Pursuant to the rules of CADP the Athlete provided a urine sample for testing on 8 March 2005. His sample tested positive for cocaine and its metabolites, these substances are on the Prohibited List of the
International Standard issued by World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

History
The athlete has no idea how he got contaminated. He does visit parties where he smokes.

Decision
I am satisfied that the Athlete was given every opportunity to participate in a hearing before me. He failed to respond to the various attempts made to acquire his participation in a hearing or waiver of the same. The parties were advised that I was closing the hearing in this matter and that it would proceed merely upon the written record I had received.
The proper selection of the Athlete for testing, the integrity of the sample collection and the chain of custody of the urine sample are all established on the record. The Lab has reported an adverse analytical finding and there is no indication that the chemical analytical process used by the Lab was in any way flawed.
Rule 7.17 and 7.18 make an athlete responsible for any prohibited substance found in the urine sample analysis. As was held in the decision of Arbitrator it is not necessary that intent, fault or knowing 'use* by an athlete be demonstrated to establish this anti-doping rule violation. I am comfortably satisfied that, on a review of all of the evidence before me, an anti-doping rule violation has occulted.
Cocaine is not a "specified substance" identified in Rule 7.7. It is a prohibited substance when it is detected at any level; a point made in the recent cocaine case, supra, by Arbitrator Mew. The failure of the Athlete to participate in these proceedings means that there is no necessity for me to refer to the Exceptional Circumstances Rules 7.38 and 7.39. There must be evidence from the Athlete, or presented on his behalf, that there was either no fault or negligence or no significant fault or negligence. The only evidence before me from the Athlete is the 11 April 2005 explanation sent to the CCES. That statement is one of denial and an inability to explain what has occurred. I take notice of the fact that cocaine cannot enter the human body by the consumption of alcoholic drink or the smoking of tobacco as referred to in the Athlete's explanation. In short, the Athlete has provided no explanation of the adverse analytical finding. In the absence of any satisfactory evidence, by way of explanation from the Athlete, I need not address further the Exceptional circumstances provisions of the Rules. They have no application in this case.
I find that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred under the CADP and the Rules prohibiting the use of a prohibited substance. In the circumstances I have no other choice than to impose the sanction for a first anti-doping rule violation of a two-year period of ineligibility and permanent ineligibility for direct financial support from the Government of Canada. The foregoing period of ineligibility starts on the date of this decision in accordance with the Rules.

Costs
No submission was made on costs. Unless applied for, I make no order in respect of the same.

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.