In August 2022 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the equestrian Athlete Ben Asselin after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Amfetamine and Dexamphetamine (d-amphetamine, dextroamphetamine).

Following notification a provisional suspension was accepted by the Athlete. He filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Tribunal of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada.

The Athlete (28) suffers from sustained attention, impulsivity, hyperactivity and executive functions. A scheduled testing for ADHD in November 2021 was postponed while he used his Vyvans self-medication a few days before testing in June 2022.

After the positive test the Athlete received a prescription for his Vyvans medication in August 2022 while he was formally diagnosed with ADHD in September 2022. In October 2022 he filed an application for both a retroactive and prospective TUE.

Thereupon in January 2023 the Athlete's prospective TUE for the use of his medication was granted. However his retroactive TUE was denied because at the time of the use of the medication there had been no diagnosis of a medical condition.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He requested for a reduced sanction due to his medication was used out-of-competition as treatment for his ADHD and unrelated to sport performance.

CCES contended that the Athlete at the material time had used a prohibited substance without an official diagnosis for ADHD and without a valid TUE. Only after the sample collection there was issued a medical prescription, an official diagnosis and a TUE application.

In view of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that the substance was used as treatment for his ADHD. Although at that time he had no formal diagnosis, he made an honest mistake and he admitted his failure.

Therefore the SDRCC Tribunal decides on 16 June 2022 to impose a 14 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of his provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 August 2022.

In August 2022 the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Nigerian Athlete Grace Nzubechi Nwokocha after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Enobosarm (Ostarine) and LGD-4033 (Ligandrol).

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the CGF Court.

CGF deemed that the Athlete had tested positive for the presence of two prohibited substances and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. Consequently her results obtained at the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games shall be disqualified.

Further CGF contended that the Athlete had not demonstrated how the prohibited substances had entered her system. CGF considered the Athlete's explanation speculative and insufficient to determine the source of substances.

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substances. She asserted that there had been an inadvertent ingestion of a contaminated substance for which she was not negligent or at fault.

She argued that she had checked her supplements befor using and that prior she was tested without issues. She assumed that the source of contamination was a teammate who drunk from her drinks bottle.

None of the supplements the Athlete had used at the Games had been tested for contaminants. Further she had attempted to contact the manufacturers of her supplements about contaminations.

Following assessment of the evidence the Panel determines that the CGF has establised that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation to its comfortable satisfaction. The Panel deems that the Athlete had failed to demonstrate that she bore No Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the CGF Court decides on 17 May 2023 to disqualify the Athlete's results obtained at the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games with all resulting consequences.

In September 2022 the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Pakistani wrestler Ali Asad after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone. Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered while the Athlete failed to respond to the CGF communications.

Because the Athlete failed to respond within the set deadline the CGF determines that the Athlete was deemed to have admitted the violation, waived his right to a hearing and accepted related consequences.

Therefore the CGF decides on 12 October 2022 to disqualify the Athlete's results obtained at the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games.  United World Wrestling (UWW) is requested to consider any further action within its own competence.

In December 2022 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the recreational Athlete Toccata Murphy for the use of the prohibited substance Prasterone (Dehydroepiandrosterone, DHEA).

In July 2022 the Athlete (53) had mentioned a high number of supplements and medications on her Doping Control Form including her prior use of the DHEA supplement although she didn't test positive for this substance. She explained in October 2022 to USADA with medical information that she had used this over-the-counter DHEA supplement for her diagnosed health problems.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel. (AAA). Meanwhile the Athlete's application for a retroactive TUE was granted by USADA in April 2023.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She asserted that she had attempted to mention properly all the supplements and medications she had used on the Doping Control Form.

She argued that USA Track and Field (ASATF) failed to provide proper anti-doping information to recreational athletes. Further she acknowledged that she was not aware that she needed to research the DHEA supplement more thoroughly.

USADA accepted that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that she had demonstrated that she acted with some degree of of Fault or Negligence. USADA considered that she had mentioned her supplements and medications on the Doping Control Form while she had not received any formal anti-doping education from either USADA or USATF.

The Sole Arbitrator determines that the violation of the recreational Athlete was not intentional due to her use of the DHEA supplement. In view of the evidence the Arbitrator rules that the Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The Sole Arbitrator deems that while the Athlete’s mistake was careless, it was understandable given her lack of anti-doping education and personal stress related to her health conditions. It is concluded that her error was careless but not highly careless given the totality of the circumstances and is a basis for reducing the Athlete’s subjective capacity to act according to the required standards.

Therefore the AAA Tribunal decides on 6 July 2023 to impose an 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 9 December 2022.

In August 2022 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Zachary Schober after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Amfetamine, GW1516 and Methylphenidate.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel (AAA).

During the proceedings the Athlete requested several time to reschedule the hearings whereas USADA established that the Athlete had breached the provisional suspension.

The Athlete asserted that he had used prescribed medication for his diagnosed ADHD without a valid TUE. He had applied for a retroactive TUE because he discovered that there was no record on file with USADA of his previous TUE application he made in February 2020.

The Athlete claimed that a contaminated supplement was the source of the substance GW1516. However analysis of two supplements in a laboratory revealed no prohibited substances while he was unable to produce the test results of other suspicious supplements.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Arbitrator determines that the Athlete failed to produce any evidence in his defence in order to receive a reduced sanction. Further the Arbitrator considers that the Athlete had violated his provisional suspension through his participation in two competitions in August and in October 2022.

Therefore the AAA Tribunal decides on 17 April 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of this decision.

Between September 2021 and September 2022 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) recorded 2 Missed Tests and 1 Filing Failure against the powerlifter Maria Htee. Consequently the CCES reported in February 2023 an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for 3 Whereabouts Failures within a 12 month period.

Following Notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, signed an Agreement on Consequences, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the Centre. CCES accepted that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that she acted with with a light degree of fault.

Therefore CCES decides on 18 July 2023 to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the notification, i.e. on 2 February 2023.

After a positive test for Cannabis in August 2005 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decided to impose a warning and a reprimand on the Australian boxer Anthony Little without a period of ineligibility.

In first instance the Sole Arbitrator determined that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete had demonstrated that the Cannabis was passively inhaled by him in August 2005 prior to the doping test and that he did not actively ingest Cannabis.

Although the Athlete won gold at the Commonwealth Games selection trials in 2005, and he was cleared by the CAS Tribunal, Boxing Australia Inc. decided in February 2006 to exclude the Athlete for the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed with the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division the decision of the BAI Appeal Panel of 21 February 2006, regarding his non-selection for the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

The Athlete asserted that BAI failed to give careful consideration to its undoubted power to amend the Criteria in question and to properly follow and/or implement the Nomination Criteria.

Following assessment of the case the Sole Arbitrator determines that BAI gave consideration to the matters raised by the Athlete and it exercised its discretion not to amend the Criteria in question. Also there is no evidence that BAI acted in an appropriate manner or acted inconsistently with its contractual obligations.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 March 2006:

1.) The Appeal by Anthony Little against the failure of the Respondent to nominate him to the Australian Commonwealth Games Association for selection in the Australian Team to compete in the 2006 Commonwealth Games, is dismissed.

(…).

CAS 2018/A/5913 Sabina Ashirbayeva v. International Gymnastics Federation (FIG)

• Gymnastics (rhythmic)
• Doping (furosemide, hydrochlorothiazide, chlorothiazide)
• Athletes’ duty of care to avoid ingestion of prohibited substances
• Communication of an athlete’s admission to the competent sanctioning body
• Difference between a plea for mercy and a plea in mitigation

1. An athlete’s duty to take care to avoid an ingestion of prohibited substances axiomatically arises before ingestion, not after it. A breach of that duty cannot be cured by a prompt repentance and avoidance of repetition to which an appellant testifies.

2. While the applicable anti-doping rules do not expressly read that an athlete’s admission, to have any legal relevance, must be communicated to the relevant governing body as opposed to some unrelated third party, no contrary conclusion can be reached. It is an athlete’s duty to ensure that any such admission is communicated to it.

3. A plea for mercy invites a decision outside the relevant rules whereas a plea in mitigation invites a decision within them.

On 6 August 2018 the Disciplinary Committee of the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Kazakh Athlete Sabina Ashirbayeva for multiple anti-doping rule violations. Following notification in June 2018 the Athlete failed to respond to the charges, nor participated in the proceedings.

In this case the Athlete's 4 separate samples tested positive for prohibited substances:

• Furosemide in April 2017;
• Hydrochlorothiazide and Clorothiazide in April 2017
• Hydrochlorothiazide in June 2017;
• Furosemide in June 2017.

Hereafter in August 2018 the Athlete appealed the FIG Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). She requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and plead for a reduced sanction.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substances. She explained that these substances had been used as prescribed medication to relieve swelling in connenction with her disease.

She asserted that in June 2017 she had filed a voluntary early admission of her violations. She alleged that thereupon the sports officials failed to inform the FIG or WADA about this early admission.

The FIG accepted that the Athlete's violations were not intentional and to be considered as one single first violation. Further the FIG contended that the Athlete failed to establish that she had communicated a prompt admission.

Following assessment of the evidence and the Athlete's conduct in this case the Sole Arbitrator determines that:

• The Athlete's violation was not intentional;
• The Athlete already had received a reduced sanction of 2 years;
• She failed to establish that she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence;
• It was the Athlete's duty to ensure that any early admission was communicated to the FIG.
• The Athlete's plea for mercy invites a decision outside the relevant rules whereas a plea in mitigation invites a decision within them.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 March 2019 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Mrs Sabina Ashirbayeva (“the Appellant”) on 14th August 2018 against the decision rendered by Disciplinary Committee of the International Gymnastics Federation on 6th August 2018 is dismissed.

2.) The decision rendered by Disciplinary Committee of the International Gymnastics Federation on 6th August 2018 in the case related to Mrs Sabina Ashirbayeva is confirmed and upheld.

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Related case:

SDRCC 2021 CCES vs Constantinos Papanikolaou
May 19, 2023

In December 2021 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athletes Dimitrios and his brother Constantinos after their A and B samples - collected in October 2021 - tested positive for the prohibited substance LGD-4033 (Ligandrol).

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. With delays in the proceedings the CCES agreed in September 2022 to lift the provisional suspension at the request of the Athletes.

Hereafter in November 2022 the CCES reported new anti-doping rule violations against these Athletes after their A and B samples - collected in October 2022 - again tested positive for the substance LGD-4033.

Following notification in November 2022 of these second anti-doping rule violations the provisional suspension was again imposed. The Athletes filed statements in their defence and were heard for the Tribuanl of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC).

The Athletes admitted the violations and denied the intentional use of the substance. They asserted that their first violations were caused by a contaminated supplement Plantman Multivitamin they had used.

Furthermore the Athletes admitted their second anti-doping rule violations and denied the intentional use. They alleged that the second positive test was caused by residual presence of the substance after their use of the Plantman supplement a year before.

The CCES contended that the Athletes failed to demonstrate that their first anti-doping rule violations were caused by a contaminated product, nor that the admitted violations were not intentional. Alternatively, if the violations were not intentional the CCES deemed that the Athletes acted with significant fault and negligence.

In the matter of the second anti-doping rule violations the CCES rejected the Athletes' explanation about the presence of the subtance in their samples. The CCES contended that the Athletes failed to establish with corroborating evindence that their second violations were not intentional.

Following assessment of the evidence and the Parties' arguments the Arbitrator deems that:

• The Plantman supplement in question falls outside of the definition of a contaminated product because the prohibited substance found in the Plantman is disclosed in information available in a reasonable internet seach.
• The Athletes have demonstrated that their first violations were caused by their use of the Plantman Multivitamin.
• The Athletes failed to demonstrate that their first violations were not not intentional.
• The Athlete failed to produce any evidence to support their assertion that their second violations must have been caused by Plantman residue.
• The Athletes failed to demonstrate that their second violations were not intentional.
• There are a series of errors in judgement and actions taken by the Athletes whereas they disregarding all risks and warnings repeatedly regading supplement use.
• The unknown circumstances of the seconds violations counterbalance any reduction in sanction that might have been possible when making a determination on the entirety of the circumstances of the first violations.
• The Athletes' second anti-doping rule violations carry a period of ineligibility of 8 years.
• As the first anti-doping rule violations carry a period of ineligibility of 4 years, the total period of ineligibility applicable as a result of both anti-doping rule violations is 12 years.

Therefore the SDRCC Tribunal decides on 19 May 2023 that:

• The Athlete Dimitrios Papanikolaou has committed 2 anti-doping rule violations for the use and presence of LGD-4033 (Ligandrol).
• The Athlete Constantinos Papanikolaou has committed 2 anti-doping rule violations for the use and presence of LGD-4033 (Ligandrol).
• The applicable period of ineligiblity for these anti-doping rule violations is 12 years.
• The sanctions are to be served consecutively and terminate on February 25, 2034.
• The Athletes will receive credit for the two periods of provisional suspension already served.

Related case:

SDRCC 2021 CCES vs Dimitrios Papanikolaou
May 19, 2023

In December 2021 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athletes Constantinos and his brother Dimitrios after their A and B samples - collected in October 2021 - tested positive for the prohibited substance LGD-4033 (Ligandrol).

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. With delays in the proceedings the CCES agreed in September 2022 to lift the provisional suspension at the request of the Athletes.

Hereafter in November 2022 the CCES reported new anti-doping rule violations against these Athletes after their A and B samples - collected in October 2022 - again tested positive for the substance LGD-4033.

Following notification in November 2022 of these second anti-doping rule violations the provisional suspension was again imposed. The Athletes filed statements in their defence and were heard for the Tribuanl of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC).

The Athletes admitted the violations and denied the intentional use of the substance. They asserted that their first violations were caused by a contaminated supplement Plantman Multivitamin they had used.

Furthermore the Athletes admitted their second anti-doping rule violations and denied the intentional use. They alleged that the second positive test was caused by residual presence of the substance after their use of the Plantman supplement a year before.

The CCES contended that the Athletes failed to demonstrate that their first anti-doping rule violations were caused by a contaminated product, nor that the admitted violations were not intentional. Alternatively, if the violations were not intentional the CCES deemed that the Athletes acted with significant fault and negligence.

In the matter of the second anti-doping rule violations the CCES rejected the Athletes' explanation about the presence of the subtance in their samples. The CCES contended that the Athletes failed to establish with corroborating evindence that their second violations were not intentional.

Following assessment of the evidence and the Parties' arguments the Arbitrator deems that:

• The Plantman supplement in question falls outside of the definition of a contaminated product because the prohibited substance found in the Plantman is disclosed in information available in a reasonable internet seach.
• The Athletes have demonstrated that their first violations were caused by their use of the Plantman Multivitamin.
• The Athletes failed to demonstrate that their first violations were not not intentional.
• The Athlete failed to produce any evidence to support their assertion that their second violations must have been caused by Plantman residue.
• The Athletes failed to demonstrate that their second violations were not intentional.
• There are a series of errors in judgement and actions taken by the Athletes whereas they disregarding all risks and warnings repeatedly regading supplement use.
• The unknown circumstances of the seconds violations counterbalance any reduction in sanction that might have been possible when making a determination on the entirety of the circumstances of the first violations.
• The Athletes' second anti-doping rule violations carry a period of ineligibility of 8 years.
• As the first anti-doping rule violations carry a period of ineligibility of 4 years, the total period of ineligibility applicable as a result of both anti-doping rule violations is 12 years.

Therefore the SDRCC Tribunal decides on 19 May 2023 that:

• The Athlete Constantinos Papanikolaou has committed 2 anti-doping rule violations for the use and presence of LGD-4033 (Ligandrol).
• The Athlete Dimitrios Papanikolaou has committed 2 anti-doping rule violations for the use and presence of LGD-4033 (Ligandrol).
• The applicable period of ineligiblity for these anti-doping rule violations is 12 years.
• The sanctions are to be served consecutively and terminate on February 25, 2034.
• The Athletes will receive credit for the two periods of provisional suspension already served.