Facts
Amanda Gerhart (claiment) appeal's against the decision of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre Of Canada (SDRCC) dated April 18, 2013. In this decision the athlete had received an award of two years of ineligibility for not attending an out of competition doping control.

Submission
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) opposes that the appeal was brought out of time.
The Canadian Amateur Wrestling Association (CAWA) doesn't oppose of the late appeal.
Only "justified grounds" are needed to extend or reduce time limits generally in an SDRCC arbitration proceeding, while "exceptional circumstances" are needed to file a Request (including a notice of appeal in a Doping Appeal) late when all parties do not agree to the late filing.

AWARD
(1) The Claimant's Notice of Appeal to commence her Doping Appeal was filed approximately two months late;
(2) Article 3.4 of the SDRCC Code applies to Doping Appeals under the SDRCC Code and thus Article 3.4(e) of the SDRCC Code applies to notices of appeal to commence Doping Appeals that are filed late;
(3) In the present case there are no exceptional circumstances and there is no agreement of all of the Parties within the meaning of Article 3.4(e) of the SDRCC Code that would allow the late filing of the Claimant's Notice of Appeal.
(4) Accordingly, the SDRCC does not have jurisdiction to proceed with the Claimant's Doping Appeal, and the Claimant's Doping Appeal is dismissed.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges that on January 30, 2013, Amanda Gerhart (the Athlete) committed an anti-doping rule violation by refusing to submit to Doping Control Sample collection after she was notified that she had been selected for Out-of-Competition testing.

History
The CCES submits the Athlete was clearly notified that she had been selected for Sample collection. Further, the Chaperone and the Doping Control Officer (DCO) advised her that she had been selected but she left the premises without providing a sample and without the DCO' s permission or approval. The Athlete acknowledges that she failed to submit to Sample collection but alleges there was compelling justification for her actions, namely her fear of losing her employment. Alternatively, the Athlete asserts there were “exceptional circumstances” warranting a reduction or elimination of the proposed period of Ineligibility from Competition.
The chaperone testified she informed her, the athlete spoke shortly to the DCO but didn't return.
The coach advised her to stay, but the athlete went to her job.
The Athlete’s employer was called as a witness. He confirmed that the Athlete’s starting time at work on the date of the doping control. He said her employment status was as a probationary employee and lateness could have cost her her job. He also stated she is a good employee. He was aware of her status as an athlete. He said she did not call or contact him about her issue with the testing and that “she just came to work”.

Decision
a. There was no compelling justification for the Athlete’s failure to submit to Sample collection and to leave the training facility without explanation and against the express advice of her coach and the Chaperone;
b. The Athlete did not accept her responsibility to discuss the situation in an appropriate manner after notification by the Doping Control Officer (DCO) that she had been selected for Sample collection or even to advise the DCO that she was leaving the premises;
c. The Athlete has not established that she bears No Fault or Negligence or alternatively, that she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary on both headings;
d. On the basis of the evidence, I find the appropriate sanction is a two year period of Ineligibility of the Athlete from Competition. The Athlete shall be credited with the time spent since the Provisional Suspension was imposed and accordingly, the period of Ineligibility shall commence March 13, 2013.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Austin Denman, the athlete, for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On July 19, 2013, the Athlete was selected for an out-of-competition doping control sample of both blood and urine. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of terbutaline which is a prohibited substance according to the 2013 Wold Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list incorporated under the CADP.

History
The athlete suffers from asthma since childhood, for that reason he had used medication containing the prohibited substance. The reason for not applying earlier for an Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) was due to a busy training schedule. However he didn't mention this on the doping control form. Realizing his mistake during the procedure he tried to get an amended certificate. In the process he had received a TUE with the wrong date, which was the date of the doping control.
A retrospective TUE is only granted in medical emergencies or acute medical situations, this case is no considered to be exceptional. The Athlete has failed to establish that it would have been possible or beyond all reasonable expectations for him to submit a full application for a TUE prior to the doping control. Also it is considered that there had been enough time to apply for a TUE.

Decision
1. The Athlete has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation for the Presence of a Specified Substance in his bodily specimen;
2. The Athlete shall be sanctioned with a 2 month period of Ineligibility;
3. Because the Athlete has been serving a provisional suspension since December 16, 2013, the provisional suspension can be terminated effective immediately. The Athlete is free to compete.

Costs
Neither party has made a request for costs. Accordingly, no such order will be made.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport charges Dmitry Shulga for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). An urine sample was collected in competition on 16 February 2013 during SNC's Speedo Eastern Canadian Championships. His sample tested positive on metabolites of the prohibited substance bumetanide, these substances are identified as a "specified substances".

History
The Athlete was able to establish to the satisfaction of the CCES that the presence of Butanamine in his system was the result of his ingestion of the nutritional supplement Craze ("Craze"), sold by Driven Sports Inc. ("Driven Sports"). The label states "This product may contain ingredients banned by certain organizations. Shulga emailed Driven Sports: The athlete emailed the Driven Sports: "As a WADA tested athlete I am subject to drug testing and I was wondering if any banned substances are present in your pre-workout supplement Craze." On 8 August 2012 he received the following response: I can assure you that there are absolutely no controlled or prohibited substances in Craze. We fully stand by our product and have spent a lot of money researching and developing the ingredients on the label. We have been told of many users that are tested for employment including military personnel, athletes, police officers, parole officers and also parolees, who have had no issue with Craze.
Also in later contacts the Athlete was told that the product didn't contain prohibited substances.

Decision
The athlete is declared ineligible for a period of 11 months, commencing on 7 April 2013.

Costs
This Award is made without any award of costs, other than with respect to the costs and expenses incurred by each party in the arbitration, which shall be borne by each of them respectively.

Related case:
CAS 2013_A_3370 UCI vs Jack Burke & Canadian Cycling Association
July 17, 2014

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Jack Burke for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. The Athlete provided a urine sample during a stage of the competition held in Malartic, Quebec on 18 July 2013. The analysis of the sample revealed the presence of the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide.

History
It is submitted that the trace amount of HCTZ detected in the Athlete's samples entered his body through contaminated water obtained from a tap sourced by a well in Malartic, Quebec. The Athlete relies on expert testimony from Dr. Robert that HCTZ can be present in raw water, surface water, sludge, and treated drinking water to argue that on a balance of probabilities, contaminated water is the probable cause of the Athlete's adverse analytical finding. the concentration of HCTZ was not consistent with an effort to dilute the urine and was insufficient to have any masking effect.

Decision
I conclude that the Athlete's degree of fault falls at the lowest end of the spectrum. This case represents only a technical violation of the ADR. A two-year period of Ineligibility would be vastly disproportionate to the Athlete's degree of culpability. I therefore exercise my discretion in favour of the Athlete when his sport has done absolutely nothing to educate him about any aspect of anti-doping and no degree of utmost care other than not using tap water from a well would have prevented the circumstances. Therefore, I find there is no fault and that the appropriate sanction is a reprimand, which will still represent a first doping infraction. I do not impose any period
of Ineligibility.

Based on records from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on June 21, 2013, the Athlete Nathan Zettler pleaded guilty to inter alia one count of possession, and two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in anabolic steroids. Convictions were registered on June 21, 2013.

Consequently the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for the Athlete's subsequent convictions on 3 counts of possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking in anabolic steroids.

Here the Athlete failed to respond to the CCES communications.
Considering aggravating circumstances in this case the SDRCC decides to impose a 4 year period of ineligibilty on the Athlete starting on 8 September 2014.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Yak Al-Rekabi (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On March 23rd, 2013, the Athlete won the bronze medal in the senior category of the 120kg division at the Junior / Senior National Wrestling Championships in Fredericton, New Brunswick. He was subject to an in-competition doping test, and refused to provide a sample, as required under the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). He signed the Athlete Refusal Form, acknowledging that he was violating the rules of the CADP.

Decision
The athlete has committed a doping infraction under Rule 7.31 of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program, by refusing to submit to an in-competition Sample collection. There is no reason to reduce the period of ineligibility that is envisioned in Rule 7.39, therefore the athlete is ineligible for a period of two (2) years, commencing on the date of this Award.

Costs
No submission was made on costs, and I make no order.

Appeal
I retain jurisdiction and reserve the right to hear any dispute relating to the interpretation or application of the present decision.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports charges Alicia Brown, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Her sample, taken during a out-of-competition doping control in November 24, 2013, tested positive on hydrochorothiazide (HCTZ) which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Her B sample showed the same findings, the amount measured was low (a trace) in both samples.

History
She had established that she had no significant fault or negligence because she claimed, on a balance of probabilities, that the HCTZ had entered her body most probably by drinking contaminated water at Ingersoll. The athlete had quickly admitted the anti-doping violation and had not participated in a sanctioned race for over a year.

Decision
- The sanction is a reprimand.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports charges François Valiquette, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On June 15, 2014, in Lachute, Québec, during an out-of-competition doping control, the Athlete provided an urine sample for doping control purposes. The analysis indicates the presence of a metabolite of metandienone. Metandienone is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 Prohibited List.

History
The athlete claimed the positive test derived from the use of creatine. An unsealed specimen and two sealed specimens were examined, one of the sealed specimens was of the same batch. Only the unsealed specimen contained metandienone. It is not possible to determine how the prohibited substance had became part of the unsealed specimen.

Decision
The period of ineligibility is set to two years. The ineligibility period will be served, starting from the date of the sample collection, from June 15, 2014 to June 15, 2016.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports charges Jordan Arkko, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On March 3, 2014 Jordan Arkko, the Athlete, provided a sample collected
during an out of competition doping control in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The sample showed the presence of GHRP - 2, classified as a prohibited substance according to the 2014 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List.

History
The athlete was provisionally suspended as of April 25, 2014. In writing the athlete claimed he had no intention to enhance sport performance. The athlete wanted to attend the hearing by telephone conference, but failed to settle a date. By this he failed to provide any evidence which would enable this tribunal to find "exceptional circumstances" to reduce the period of ineligibility. The arbitrator reached a decision based on the submissions.

Decision
- The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years.