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 December 2004 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances marijuana (cannabis) and cocaine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement, sustained with evidence, in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.
The Athlete admitted the use of marijuana for his medical condition (haemophilia) without a TUE. He denied the use of cocaine and argued that tampering, contamination or a false positive as possibility for the test results.

The Tribunal did not accept the Athlete's arguments and evidence and finds that Athlete used marijuana without medical advice and without a TUE. With no evidence of tampering or a false positive and with marijuana and cocaine metabolites found in his samples the Tribunal concludes that the Athlete commited an anti-doping rule violation.
Without exceptional circumstances the Tribunal decides on 7 February 2005 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 January 2005.

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 Canada, the federal government established the Commission of Inquiry Into the Use of Drugs and Banned Practices Intended to Increase Athletic Performance, headed by Ontario Appeal Court Chief Justice Charles Dubin. The Dubin Inquiry (as it became known), which was televised live, heard hundreds of hours of testimony about the widespread use of performance-enhancing drugs among athletes.

The inquiry began in January 1989 and lasted 91 days, with 122 witnesses called, including athletes, coaches, sport administrators, IOC representatives, doctors and government officials.
The Dublin Inquiry recommended that the Athlete (the Applicant) Tony Sharpe and other named athletes be suspended for life from federal funding. However the Athlete was not suspended from competition as an athlete.

The negative public attention drawn to the actions of the Applicant has had both damaging and stigmatizing effects on his personal reputation and dignity, including being rejected from university programs and post graduate opportunities. In 1993 the Applicant began working at Xerox Canada in sales. After six years he moved from Xerox to a position in sales with Bell Canada where he worked for nearly eight years until cutbacks ended his career.

In 2006 the Applicant re-committed himself to training, mentoring and involving himself in sport. He incorporated a company called “Need 4 Speed” which advocates a “sport for life” mentality of using sport to prepare young athletes for the rest of their lives. Through Need 4 Speed the Applicant has worked with many provincial and national youth and junior champions from a variety of sports. He also runs an SAT prep course for his senior athletes to assist them in obtaining university scholarships.

The Dubin Report also outlines enumerate factors (The Dubincriteria) to be weighed in determining whether the lifetime withdrawal of access to direct federal funding should be lifted.
Therefore the Applicant filed an application for reinstatement in July 2012 to Sport Canada and he was heard for the arbitrator.

After the statements made by the Applicant and sustained by recommendations the arbitrator concludes that the Applicant (now 51 years old) has made an important contribution to Canadian track and field. The Applicant is a talented and well accomplished athlete and coach. These are favourable accomplishments that could be applied more broadly if the Applicant became entitled to direct federal funding.

Consideration to all of the written and oral evidence the arbitrator is satisfied that the Applicant has met the Dubin criteria necessary for reinstatement to the program of federal funding. The Dubin criteria, weigh substantially in favour of reinstatement and it is in the public interest to grant the Application.

Therefore the arbitrator decides on 30 July 2012 to grant the Application and direct that the Applicant’s lifetime withdrawal of access to direct federal funding should be lifted forthwith.

In Canada, the federal government established the Commission of Inquiry Into the Use of Drugs and Banned Practices Intended to Increase Athletic Performance, headed by Ontario Appeal Court Chief Justice Charles Dubin. The Dubin Inquiry (as it became known), which was televised live, heard hundreds of hours of testimony about the widespread use of performance-enhancing drugs among athletes.

The inquiry began in January 1989 and lasted 91 days, with 122 witnesses called, including athletes, coaches, sport administrators, IOC representatives, doctors and government officials.
The Dublin Inquiry recommended that the Athlete (the Applicant) Desai Williams and other named athletes be suspended for life from federal funding. However the Athlete was not suspended from competition as an athlete.
Hereafter the Athlete continued to compete up until 1992 without the assistance of federal funding. The negative public attention drawn to the actions of the Athlete had damaging effect on his personal repuration and dignity.

The Dubin Report also outlines enumerate factors (The Dubincriteria) to be weighed in determining whether the lifetime withdrawal of access to direct federal funding should be lifted.
Therefore the Athlete filed an application for reinstatement in October 2010 to Sport Canada and he was heard for the adjudicator.

After the statements made by the Applicant, sustained by witnesses, the adjudicator concludes that the Applicant (now 51 years old) has made significant contibutions to the sport of track and field for extended period of times as an athlete, a teammate, a role model, and a coach. It is clear from his testimony that he is remorseful and has endured significant economic and emotional hardship as a result of this experience.

The adjudicator notes that of deepest concern on this Application for Reinstatement is the ongoing unresolved controversy with respect to the extent of the Applicant’s drug use. Most of the criteria that weigh negatively in this Application are related to the fact that the Applicant has not reconciled this issue.

Considering all of the written and oral evidence the adjudicator is satisfied that the Applicant has met the Dubin criteria necessary for reinstatement to the program of federal funding. The Dubin criteria, weigh substantially in favour of reinstatement and it is in the public interest to grant the Application.

Therefore the adjudicator decides on 26 November 2010 to approve the Application and direct that the Applicant’s lifetime withdrawal of access to direct federal funding should be lifted forthwith.

In October 2009 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis at a concentration of 30 ng/mL.

The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal. The Athlete admitted the use of cannabis during the 2009 football season and the night prior to the doping control.
The Tribunal concludes that the Athlete had no intention to enhance his sport performance and used cannabis to deal with the stresses of his life.
Without provisional suspension the Tribunal decides on 4 January 2010 to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 21 December 2009.

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.

In November 2004 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 cannabis at a concentration of 130 ng/mL. The Athlete had used cannabis after the competition and before he provided a sample for drug testing, which explains the reason why his results were so high. Also the Athlete walked away to smoke cannabis with some fans after he was notified by the DCO and Chaperone and finally showed up within the allotted time to provide a sample.

The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the SDRCC Doping Tribunal. The Athlete admitted that he had used cannabis and stated that he already had expressed his apologies to the DCO and Chaperone for his behavior after he had returned to provide a sample.
The arbitrator finds that the Athlete had no intention to enhance sport performance and normally only a warning and reprimand would be imposed as first anti-doping violation. However the arbitrator considers the Athlete’s disappearance after notification by the DCO an aggravating factor.

Therefore on 6 May 2005 the SDRCC Doping Tribunal decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision. Any period of provisional suspenstion shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.

The independent commission report #2 / Richard H. McLaren, Richard W. Pound and Günter Younger. - WADA : Montreal, 2016

The contents of the material in this report #2 will be incorporated into IC Report #1 to form a single comprehensive IC Report. For purposes of convenience, this chapter has been separately set out to minimize the size of the document provided at the press conference scheduled for 14 January 2016.

Part I provides details of the information delivered to the French authorities in August 2015. Publication of such material was delayed to avoid possible interference with the activities of the French investigation. Thus, while reference was made to such referral in the IC Report #1 delivered on 09 November 2015, the underlying evidence was not disclosed at that time.

Part II discusses certain developments following the release of IC Report #1 as well as the leaked email, dated 19 July 2013, sent by IAAF Deputy Secretary General Nick Davies to Papa Massata Diack.

Part III addresses the allegations made on ARD German television and in The Sunday Times (as well as in other media) that the anti-doping activities of the IAAF (specifically with respect to blood doping) were inadequate in the circumstances.

On December 3, 2014, the German television channel ARD aired the documentary “Top Secret Doping: How Russia makes its Winners”, alleging the existence of a sophisticated and well established system of state-sponsored doping within the All Russia Athletics Federation (ARAF), the governing body for the sport of athletics in Russia, recognized as such by the responsible international federation (IF), the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF).
Implicated in the documentary were Russian athletes, coaches, national and international sport federations, the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) and the Moscow WADA-accredited laboratory. Witness statements and other evidence allegedly exposed high levels of collusion among athletes, coaches, doctors, regulatory officials, and sports agencies to systematically provide Russian athletes performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) in order to achieve the state’s main goal, as alleged in the ARD documentary: producing winners.

Related case:
AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E19
August 17, 2015

In June 2013 the Spanish police arrested 4 people among them two elite level athletes in the police action operation Gym-Sin. After house searches in Alovera, Guadalajara and Madrid the police confiscated various prohibited substances, including anabolic steroids, EPO and growth hormone, provided from China and distributed among professional sportsmen in gyms across Madrid and Guadalajara.

After news reports in the national media about operation Gym-Sin the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the respondent E19 for the possession and use of forbidden methods of S1 (Anabolic Agents); S2 (Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors); S5 (Diuretics and Other Masking Agents); and S6 (Stimulants) prohibited substances.
On 24 July 2015 the criminal prosecution of the respondent was suspended. On 17 August 2015 AEPSAD decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the respondent.

Hereafter in August 2015 the respondent appealed the AEPSAD decision with the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte (TAD), the Spanish Disciplinary Committee for Sports.
Invoking ne bis in idem the respondent requested the Tribunal to set aside the AEPSAD decision of 17 August with the disciplinary proceedings due to the criminal proceedings against the responder were suspended. He denied the possession of prohibited substances and disputed the violation of his rights. In addition the respondent requested the retroactive application of more favourably legislation now in force.

The Tribunal concludes that AEPSAD is authorized to cooperate with the judicial branch and is authorized to continue disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal finds that the evidence seized by the police are proof of possession of prohibited substances.
With the principle of lex mitior the Tribunal agrees that AEPSAD had to apply retroactively the new legislation Ley Orgánica 3/2013 and not Ley Orgánica 7/2006 for the imposition of the appropriate sanction on the respondent.

Therefore on 27 November 2015 the Tribunal partially accepts the repondent’s appeal and decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the respondent.