Related cases:
ANAD Comisia de Audiere 2014_16 ANAD vs Elena Madalina Capraru
October 28, 2014
ANAD Comisia de Apel 2014_01 Elena Madalina Capraru vs ANAD
January 21, 2015

On 12 March 2015 the Hearing Commission of the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, decided to impose lifetime ineligibility on the coach Laurentiu Basarab as athlete support personnel for the administration of the prohibited substance 17β-hydroxymethyl-17α-methyl-18-norandrost-1,4,13-trien-3-one (metandienone) to a minor Athlete.

Hereafter the coach appealed the decision of 12 March 2015 with the ANAD Appeal Commission.
The coach requested to annul the imposed sanction and argued that he was not an official coach under contact with the tennis club where the minor athlete was training and therefore not to be considered and sanctioned as athlete support personnel. As a former tennis player he stated that he was only requested to give the athlete private tennis lessons.

Considering the statements and evidence the Appeal Commission concludes that the coach has liability and a coaching relationship with the athlete in spite of he was not an official coach under contract with the tennis club.

Therefore on 22 June 2015 the ANAD Appeal Commission decides to dismiss the appeal and to uphold the decision of the ANAD Hearing Commission of 12 March 2015 to impose lifetime ineligibility on the coach.

The case involved a request for revision of an arbitral award issued on 25 July 2011. The dispute was about a sponsorship contract between the Italian company TMC Italia and the Spanish company managing the cycling team Geox-TMC. The arbitral tribunal ordered the Italian company to keep paying the amounts in the contract. But it then turned out that the athlete Denis Menchov of the Geox-TMC cycling team was banned for two years for doping.

The Italian company TMC Italia sought revision of the arbitral award and the Swiss Federal Court rejected the petition on 21 August 2012.

A second attempt was filed on 10 November 2014, again unsuccessfully and the Swiss Federal Court confirmed on 20 February 2015 that, in order to obtain revision, the petitioner must show not only that he was unaware of some essential facts that took place prior to the award but also that they would have been pertinent had the arbitrators become aware of them.

In 2013 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to perform further analyses for prohibited substances on certain samples collected during the 2004 and 2010 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2004 and 2010.
The Athlete disputed the IOC decision to reanalyse these samples and after continuation the Athlete appealed in February 2014 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Due to deliberations with the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) about the impartiality of an arbitrator the Athlete appealed in August 2014 the ICAS refusals with the Swiss Federal Court in Lausanne.
The Court concludes that it has no jurisdiction to rule about the decisions of ICAS due to ICAS is a private Council.
Therefore on 28 November 2015 the Swiss Federal Court decides to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal.

Related cases:

• DIS 2011 NADA vs Patrick Sinkewitz
  June 19, 2012
• CAS 2011/A/2479 Patrik Sinkewitz vs UCI
  July 8, 2011
• CAS 2011/A/2479 Patrik Sinkewitz vs UCI
  September 13, 2011
• CAS 2012/A/2857 NADA vs Patrik Sinkewitz
  February 21, 2014

The case involved the professional cyclist Patrik Sinkewitz who tested positive for testosterone in June 2007 and again in February 2011. The German anti-doping agency referred the case to the German Arbitral Institution (DIS) and in June 2012 the sole arbitrator appointed by the DIS held that the Decision Limits had not been properly established in the case as there were significant differences between the results of the A and B Samples taken from the athlete.

An appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was made by the German national anti-doping agency and a three-member Panel was constituted (with arbitrators Dirk-Reiner Martens and Martin Schimke and Christoph Weder as chairman).

In the arbitral award CAS 2012/A/2857 of 21 February 2014 the DIS decision was overturned. The athlete was banned for eight years, his results disqualified and a fine of EUR 38,500 was imposed.

An appeal was made to the Swis Federal Court and noted by the Court as yet another example of a hopeless appeal that should not have been made, although it is understandable that in view of the rather severe sanction imposed, the athlete would want to exhaust every possible legal remedy available.

The opinion confirms that the Swiss Federal Court will not review, let alone correct or rectify, the manner in which an arbitral tribunal assesses the evidence at hand. It is only if relevant and properly submitted evidence is rejected or disregarded that a violation of the right to be heard can be argued successfully.

The Swiss Federal Court also reaffirmed that the right to be heard does not encompass a right to reasons in international arbitral proceedings (as opposed to domestic matters) or that an allegedly inaccurate decision on the merits cannot be challenged under the cloak of an violation of the right to be heard.

In December 2014 the Fédération Française de Cyclisme (FFC), the French Cycling Federation, has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent M45 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances prednisone and prednisolone.

After the FFC decided on 13 February 2015 to impose no sanction the AFLD opened disciplinary proceedings against the respondent hereafter.
The Athlete admitted his negligence and stated in his defence, sustained with evidence, that he used prescribed medication for his condition and without intention to enhance his performance.
Considering the exceptional circumstances the AFLD accepts the respondents explanation and concludes that the concentration of the prohibited substances found in the respondent’s sample were consistent with the prescribed medication he used.
Therefore the AFLD decides on 24 September 2015 to confirm the FFC decision of 13 February 2015 and not to impose a sanction on the respondent.

In September 2014 the Fédération française de ballon au poing (FFBP) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the respondent M44 after he refused to provide a sample for drug testing. The respondent initially didn’t produce enough urine for a sample and refused to wait to produce a complementary sample.

After notification and an ordered provisional suspension the FFBP failed to settle the case within the time limit, the AFLD opened disciplinary proceedings against the respondent hereafter.
Considering the circumstances and without a statement in his defence the AFLD decides on 24 September 2015 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 December 2014.

Related cases:

• AFLD 2008 FFJDA vs Respondent M29
  April 17, 2008
• AFLD 2016 FFJDA vs Respondent M49 - Appeal
  April 21, 2016

In December 2014 the French Federation for Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo and Associated Disciplines (FFJDA), has reported a second anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent M42 for three whereabouts filing failures within a 12 month period.

After notification and a provisional suspension the FFJDA imposed on 5 February 2015 a 10 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent. Hereafter the AFLD appealed the FFJDA decision and started new disciplinary proceedings against respondent M42.

The Respondent admitted his whereabouts failures, expressed his regrets and he disputed the reliability and flexibility of ADAMS to report his new whereabouts within 17 hours. He argued that his failures were not intentional and that his samples tested negative.

The AFLD finds that the respondent failed to report his whereabouts three times and failed to prove that he made additional and appropriate efforts to report his new whereabouts on time to the AFLD.

Considering this is the Respondent's second anti-doping rule violation the AFLD decides on 10 september 2015 to annul the FFJA decision of 5 February 2015 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent, starting on de date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 December 2014.

In December 2014 the Fédération Française de Boxe (FFBoxe), the French Boxing Federation, has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent M41 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances ephedrine. clenbuterol and testosterone with at a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.
After notification the respondent did not file a statement in his defence.

Decision:
To impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the respondent starting on the date of the notification of the decision.

Related case:
AFLD 2015 FFTri vs Respondent M73
December 16, 2015

In October 2015 the Fédération Française de Cyclisme (FFC), the French Cycling Federation, has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent M40 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances prednisone and prednisolone.
After notification a suspension was ordered by the FFC and the respondent failed to attend the hearing, nor did he file a statement in his defence.

Decision:
To impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the respondent starting on the date of the notification of the decision.

A brief overview of the risks surrounding sports supplements and how these can be solved. The video looks at how sports supplements get contaminated with WADA banned substances and how athletes can avoid inadvertent doping.

Check out
www.informed-sport.com
or
www.informed-choice.org
for more information on safer supplements.

Informed-Sport is a quality assurance programme for sports nutrition products, suppliers to the sports nutrition industry, and supplement manufacturing facilities. The programme certifies that all nutritional supplements and/or ingredients that bear the Informed-Sport logo have been tested for banned substances by the world class sports anti-doping lab, LGC. Athletes choosing to use supplements can use the search function above to find products that have been through this rigorous certification process.

Informed-Choice is a quality assurance program for sports nutrition products, suppliers to the sports nutrition industry, and supplement manufacturing facilities. The program certifies that all nutritional supplements and/or ingredients that bear the Informed-Choice logo have been tested for banned substances by the world class sports anti-doping lab, LGC.

Athletes choosing to use supplements can use the search function on http://www.informed-choice.org/ to find products that have been through this rigorous certification process.