Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Mathieu Marineau, the athlete, for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. On June 15, 2014, he underwent a urine test administered out of competition by the CCES. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of SARM S-22 which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The Athlete requests a B sample analysis. He explained that he had recently received an injection for knee and shoulder pain and that
he would ask his physician whether the injection could be linked to the result of the analysis. The B sample confirmed the findings of the A sample. His physician confirmed that the positive test derived from an injection against inflammation. However an expert in this field explained that the serum of the injection couldn't have been responsible for the positive test. The athlete still claims he has now idea how the prohibited substance had entered his body, this still means he would not be discharged of the burden of establishing the absence of significant fault or negligence.

Decision
The sanction is a two years period of ineligibility beginning on July 8, 2014.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports appeals against the decision of the doping tribunal, dated January 5, 2015, in which Alicia Brown, the athlete, was sanctioned with a reprimand for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Her sample, taken during a out-of-competition doping control, tested positive on hydrochorothiazide (HCTZ) which is a prohibited substance according the Wold Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. 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 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. In this particular case the athlete made a cross-appeal.

Submissions
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) requests in his appeal to overturn the decision of January 5, 2015, and impose a period of ineligibility of two years on the athlete effective from November 26, 2013, the date of the sample collection.
The athlete wants the imposed sanction to be maintained.
THe CCES submits that the arbitrator's decision is unreasonable and must be set aside.
However the athlete claims that the decision of the arbitrator is reasonable, "means of ingestion" can be broadly interpreted. She had never heard of the substance before and it provided no benefit to her. The extreme low level of HCTZ was so low that some WADA approved laboratories would not have detected it. The athlete had made efforts to find to source of the inadvertent ingestion.
The appeal tribunal concludes that the athlete did not discharged her burden of proving on a balance of probabilities how HCTZ entered her body through a single probably source of ingestion.

Decision
- The appeal is allowed;
- The cross-appeal is denied;
- The decision rendered on January 5, 2015, by the Doping Tribunal is set aside;
- The athlete is ineligible for a period of two years commencing on November 26, 2013;
- Each party shall bear its own costs and expenses incurred in the appeal and cross-appeal;
- All other request for relief by the parties are dismissed.

In June 2015 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ana Laura Portuondo-Isasi after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance salbutamol with a concentration above the WADA threshold.

The Doping Control Laboratory concluded that no plausible and reasonable explanation could be provided, scientifically, to justify the high concentration in the Athlete’s sample.
The Athlete suffered from asthma and used the prescribed medication Ventolin (salbutamol) and Flovent.

In June 2015 the Athlete underwent a controlled pharmacokinetic study, as described in the WADA Prohibited List, reproducing the key circumstances of het salbutamol intake on the day of the sample collection. This study did not produce adverse findings.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in her defence and was heard for the SDRCC Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that she used the prescribed dosage of salbutamol. She requested a reduced sanction because she acted without significant fault or negligence.

In her defence the Athlete disputed the scientific validity of the test sustained by the testimony of an expert witness. The expert witness argued that a gravity correction factor is required in order to differentiate an excessive intake of salbutamol from a state of dehydration on the part of an athlete. He also argued that the pharmacokinetic study of June 2015 did not succeed in reproducing the existing conditions of the day of the competition. Among others, the Athlete was not significantly dehydrated during the pharmacokinetic study.

Considering the evidence and statements of the expert witnesses of both parties the Tribunal concludes that the Athlete’s admission is incomplete because she failed to explain how the concentration salbutamol in her samples exceeded the WADA threshold of 1000 ng/mL.
Therefore the Tribunal decides on 23 February 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 17 May 2015.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Brian Banner, the player, for a violation of the Anti-Doping rules. On April 26, 2015, during a training camp the player provided a sample for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of four separate anabolic agents, namely, oxandrolone, metandienone, drostanolone and dehydrochlormethyltestosterone. These substances are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2015 prohibited list, their use is prohibited at all times, both in and out of competition.

History
The athlete agreed to a provisional suspension and admitted the anti-doping rule violation. He claimed that the positive test derived from a supplement he had used. From a friend he had used Tribulus Terrestris (TT) capsules from an unsealed bottle. He was told that it was a natural product and used it for curing an injured shoulder. He stopped using it because it did not seemed to work. However there is no indication that the four steroids where part of this supplement. The product had not been tested. An expert indicates that the distribution of such substances is illegal in Canada although they can be acquired on the black market. Especially drostanolone preparations must be injected intra-muscularly. In conclusion, the expert expressed the opinion that it was not possible that all four anabolic agents detected in the athlete's urine sample were contained in the TT product that he claimed to have ingested or were formed by his body following ingestion.
The cause of the positive test is not made clear, the Athlete can not establish that the violation was not intentional. Because of the early admission the period of ineligibility starts from the date of the sample collection.

Decision
- The sanction is a period of ineligibility of four years running from April 26, 2015.

In July 2015 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Dushane Farrier after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance SARM-S-22 (Selective androgen receptor modulators).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and after several delays he was heard for the Tribunal after WADA refused to reduce the proposed sanction.

The Athlete submitted a prompt admission and stated that he didn’t know that the product was prohibited and admitted that he acted negligece due to he failed to research the ingredients of the product Ostarine (SARM S-22) before using. He stated that he used the product, as suggested by a friend, to support the recovery of a physical injury without intention to enhance his performance and he requested the Tribunal to impose a less severe 2 year period of ineligibility for his violation. The Athlete asserted that he consulted the previous WADA 2014 prohibited list where SARM’s were not mentioned. Ostarine with SARM’s were mentioned in the current WADA 2015 list.

The Tribunal concludes that the Athlete was aware that there was a significant risk that the ingestion of the product may result in a doping infraction. The Tribunal believes that the Athlete consulted the WADA lists after the ingestion of the product, whether before of after he was notified about his anti-doping rule violation. He also failed to consult his coach, his doctor, CCES or to search on the internet whether Ostarine was a legitmate product to use.

Considering the Athlete’s prompt admission the Tribunal decides on 25 January 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection i.e. on 3 July 2015.

Related case:
CCES 2016 CCES vs Earle Connor
June 16, 2016

In July 2015 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Earle Connor after his samples, collected in April, May and July 2015, tested positive for testosterone and 19-norandrosterone (nandrolone). The Athlete had a valid TUE only for testosterone.

After notification the Athlete failed repeatedly to respond, to produce information, to respect the outlined deadlines and failed to attend the hearing for the SDRCC Tribunal.
Without the Athlete’s response the Tribunal decides on 4 March 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 29 July 2015.

Related case:
CAS 2015_A_4127 Ian Chan vs CWSA & CCES
December 11, 2015

In March 2015 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete, a wheelchair rugby player, after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances fentalyl and oxycodone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he mentioned the use of oxycodone on the Doping Control Form with a TUE application still under review.
The Athlete submitted that his team doctors made the TUE application and he believed that the TUE was already approved when the team doctors gave him permission to play. Hereafter the Athlete applied for a TUE on 3 February 2015 which was approved on 5 March 2015 for a period of 4 years.
Due to his medical and personal situation the Athlete used prescribed oxycodone and also oxycodone supplied by a friend. The Athlete acknowledged that he did not conduct any research to ensure that these pills were not contaminated with a prohibited substance (fentalyl).

The Tribunal finds that the Athlete failed in his responsibility that no prohibited substances enters his body. Considering the Athlete’s circumstances and with a high degree of fault the Tribunal decides on 23 June 2015 to impose a 16 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 13 december 2014.

In December 2015 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Justin Maheu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance ephedrine in a concentration above the WADA threshold.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SDRCC Tribunal.

The Athlete recognized the violation and argued, sustained by expert witnesses, that the sanction is unjust and disproportionate to his degree of fault. He testified that he had breathing problems in the summer of 2015 and that he had to consult his his doctor but he could not find time because he was both working and studying full-time.
Instead without intention to enhance he had purchased Sudafed (pseudoephedrine) at the pharmacy and later Kaizen ephedrince hcl supplement pills which he failed to mention on the Doping Control Form.

After the accepted provisional suspension the Athlete underwent a Pulmanory Function Test which showed that the Athlete has a “moderate obstructive lung defect, a form of asthma. His doctor prescribed a Ventolin inhaler and an application was filed for a TUE.

The sole arbitrator of the Tribunal finds that the Athlete was transparent in his explanation on how he consumed the ephedrine pills, and in what quantities. The Athlete’s fault is not significant, although the degree of the fault is, itself, significant.
Therefore the Tribunal decides on 2 May 2016 to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 25 October 2015.

In April 2015 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.

The Athlete submitted that he used the same basic supplements for several years. The Athlete was provided with Kaizen Naturals Whey Protein supplement that had been purchased by his father from a friend in Egypt. Prior to 31 March 2015 when he provided a sample, he took the Kaizen Naturals Whey Protein due to he had depleted the protein he had been taking. The Athlete’s father stated that the regular supplements were tested without a positive result. The Naturals Whey Protein was not tested because it had been fully consumed by to point the Athlete was notified he was tested positive.

The Athlete stated that he did not take testosterone intentionally and suggested that the source of the substance might have been the Kaizen Naturals Whey Protein powder that his father brought back from Egypt or that one of his supplement bottles had been sabotaged by someone in the sparring camp where he was when he was testen.

The expert witness from the laboratory ruled out the possibility of contamination or sabotage of the Kaizen Natural Whey product as source of the testosterone. The Athlete’s test results showed a testosterone concentration with an T/E ratio abnormal high above the threshold, sufficient to shut down his own body’s production.

The Tribunal finds that the Athlete failed to produce evidence of contamination or sabotage, failed to give an explanation for the high levels of testosterone in his sample, neither that he had no intention to enhance his sport performance.
Therefore the Tribunal decides on 31 December 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In July 2016 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Shawnacy Barber after his A and B samples tested positive for cocaine.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and his was heard for the SDRCC Tribunal.

The Athlete had signed a timely admission of the violation and denied the intentional use of cocaine. He stated that the evening before the competition and the sample collection he had a sexual encounter with a woman in a hotel room. He asserted that the likely source of the presence of cocaine in his system was the kissing that occurred during his sexual encounter.
The woman also testified and confirmed that she had used alcohol and cocaine several times that evening and prior to her sexual encounter.
The Athlete argued that he bears no fault or negligence and he invoked the case of CAS 2009/A/1926 ITF vs Richard Gasquet in which the athlete tested positive for cocaine after he had kissed a woman in a club who had been ingesting cocaine prior to their rendezvous.
The CCES accepted the Athlete’s statement and the scientific evidence presented by the Athlete and that the anti-doping violation was non intentional.

A review and consideration of the evidence presented by the parties in this matter lead the Panel to conclude that the Athlete has satisfied the burden of establishing, on a balance of probability, that he bears no fault or negligence in committing a anti-doping violation. The evidence showed that the Athlete did not know or suspect, and could not have reasonably known or suspected, even with the exercise of utmost caution, that he was at risk of ingesting a prohibited substance by kissing the woman.

The Panel adopts the conclusion in the Gasquet case CAS 2009/A/1926 that the Athlete acted without fault or negligence and decides on 11 August 2016 to eliminate the Athlete’s period of ineligibility. This makes him eligible to compete at the Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic Games.