On 10 January 2014 the Guardia Civil arrested the respondent after seizure of several substances in his motor home. Laboratory test identified the seized materials as the prohibited substances efedrine and desmopressin.
On 27 October as a result of the seizure and arrest by the Guardia Civil the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the respondent.

Hereafter in December 2014 the respondent appealed the AEPSAD decision with the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte (TAD), the Spanish Disciplinary Committee for Sports.
The Respondent filed several objections in his defence and disputed the admissibility of the evidence; the violation of his rights; the reliability of the laboratory and the test of the substances. In addition the respondent argued that the desmopressin found in his motor home was prescribed for his minor son as treatment.

The Tribunal rejects the arguments and finds that the test results were valid and performed in an accredited laboratory. Also the Tribunal notes that the respondent’s other younger son prior used prescribed desmospressin in October 2013. However different desmopressin was seized in respondent’s motor home without evidence of a prescribition.
Therefore on 17 April 2014 the Tribunal decides to dismiss the respondent’s appeal and confirms the AEPSAD decision of 9 October 2014.

On 9 October 2014 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

Hereafter in October 2014 the respondent appealed the AEPSAD decision with the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte (TAD), the Spanish Disciplinary Committee for Sports.
The respondent argued that he had no intention to enhance and that the prohibited substance wasn’t mentioned on the label of the product he used.
Considering the statements and evidence the Tribunal concludes that the respondent failed to research the ingredients of the product before using it and failed to prove that he acted without intention to enhance his performance.
Therefore on 9 January 2015 the Tribunal decides to dismiss the respondent’s appeal and confirmes the AEPSAD decision of 9 October 2014.

On 22 September 2014 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

Hereafter in October 2014 the respondent appealed the AEPSAD decision with the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte (TAD), the Spanish Disciplinary Committee for Sports.
The respondent admitted he purchased and used the product Jack-3d without research of the ingredients and he didn’t know it contained a prohibited substance. The respondent argued that he used the product only during training without intention to enhance his performance and he referered to similar cases with athletes sanctioned only for a period between 6 and 12 months.

The Tribunal concludes that respondent failed to research the ingredients of the supplement before using it and failed to mention the supplement on the Doping Control Form.
Considering jurisprudence of similar cases the Tribunal decides to partially accept the respondent’s appeal and to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the respondent.

On 24 September 2014 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the respondent after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.

Hereafter in October 2014 the respondent appealed the AEPSAD decision with the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte (TAD), the Spanish Disciplinary Committee for Sports.
The respondent requested to impose a warning and argued that he fully cooperated in this case as first violation and without intention to enhance sport performance.
The Tribunal rejects the respondents arguments and concludes that with no significant negligence the imposed sanction was proportional.
Therefore on 4 December 2014 the Tribunal decides to dismiss the respondent’s appeal and confirmes the AEPSAD decision of 24 September 2014.

On 14 July 2014 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the respondent after his sample tested positive for a prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

Hereafter in July 2014 the respondent appealed the AEPSAD decision with the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte (TAD), the Spanish Disciplinary Committee for Sports.
The Tribunal concludes after review of the case that AEPSAD failed to consider the submitted arguments of the Respondent in their decision due to technical problems and also mentioned in their decision that the respondent had not submitted a written statement in his defence.
Therefore on 12 September 2014 the Tribunal decides to partially accept the respondent’s appeal and to refer back the decision to AEPSAD.

TAD 2014_148 Respondent vs AEPSAD

On 10 June 2014 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) decided to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the respondent after her sample tested positive for a prohibited substance.
Hereafter on 10 July 2014 the respondent appealed the AEPSAD decision with the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte (TAD), the Spanish Disciplinary Committee for Sports.

The Tribunal concludes that the imposed sanction on the respondent was already reduced to a 2 months period of ineligibility without motivated reason.
Therefore the Tribunal decides to uphold the respondent’s appeal and to annul the AEPSAD decision of 10 June 2014 with reduction of the sanction to the time already served.

On 21 March 2014 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) decided to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances terbutaline.
In 2007 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) approved a TUE for 2 years for the responden's asthma medication and in 2009 the Real Federación Española de Natación (RFEN) applied with FINA for a new TUE for 2 years without indication of approval.

Hereafter in May 2014 the respondent appealed the AEPSAD decision with the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte (TAD), the Spanish Disciplinary Committee for Sports.
The respondent argued that he had no prior infringments with doping; his asthma medication does not enhance sport performance or mask the use of other prohibited substances; FINA had a TUE application granted before; and he had declared his medication on the Doping Control Form.

The Tribunal concludes that the imposed 2 months sanction was proportional due to the respondent acted negligence when he failed to apply for a TUE. Because of his health problems and prior applications with FINA he could know that a valid TUE for his medication was necessary.
Therefore on 8 July 2014 the Tribunal decides to dismiss the respondent’s appeal and confirms the AEPSAD decision of 21 March 2014.

Related cases:

• AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E02
  April 10, 2015
• AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E03
  March 30, 2015
• AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E04
  March 30,
• AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E05
  March 30, 2015
• AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E06
  May 20, 2015
• TAD 2014_063 Respondent E08 vs AEPSAD
  June 6, 2014
• TAD 2015_077 Respondent E02 vs AEPSAD
  June 26, 2015
• TAD 2015_083 Respondent E03 vs AEPSAD
  July 13, 2015
• TAD 2015_086 Respondent E06 vs AEPSAD
  July 30, 2015
• AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E41
  January 21, 2016

In March 2014 the Spanish police arrested 13 people in the police action operation Jimbo. Several Athletes were arrested whom operated in Lucena, Cantabria, Silla (Valencia), Marbella (Malaga), Almonte (Huelva) and Sevilla. After house searches the police confiscated blood bags, syringes, growth hormone, EPO and other doping substances.

After news reports in the national media about operation Jimbo the Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the respondent E11 for the possession and trafficking of S1 class (anabolic agents) and S2 class prohibited substances (peptide hormones, growth factors and related substances). Therefore a provisional suspension was ordered on 14 March 2014.

Hereafter in March 2014 the respondent appealed the AEPSAD decision with the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte (TAD), the Spanish Disciplinary Committee for Sports.
The respondent requested to lift the provisional suspension and claimed that withholding evidence in this case violated his rights.

The Tribunal notes that AEPSAD suspended the proceedings against the respondent already in March 2014 pending information from the police and the provisional suspension was imposed to prevent the participation in any competition.
In April 2014 the respondent and AEPSAD received files from the national police which respondent and AEPSAD could use for the disciplinary proceedings.

Considering the serious allegations the Tribunal finds that ordering a provisional suspension was justified.
Therefore the Tribunal dismiss the respondent’s appeal and decides on 6 June 2014 to confirm the AEPSAD decision of 14 March 2014.

Related cases:

• AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E02
  April 10, 2015
• AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E03
  March 30, 2015
• AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E04
  March 30,
• AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E05
  March 30, 2015
• AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E06
  May 20, 2015
• TAD 2014_074 Respondent E11 vs AEPSAD
  June 6, 2015
• TAD 2015_077 Respondent E02 vs AEPSAD
  June 26, 2015
• TAD 2015_083 Respondent E03 vs AEPSAD
  July 13, 2015
• TAD 2015_086 Respondent E06 vs AEPSAD
  July 30, 2015
• AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E41
  January 21, 2016

In March 2014 the Spanish police arrested 13 people in the police action operation Jimbo. Several Athletes were arrested whom operated in Lucena, Cantabria, Silla (Valencia), Marbella (Malaga), Almonte (Huelva) and Sevilla. After house searches the police confiscated blood bags, syringes, growth hormone, EPO and other doping substances.

After news reports in the national media about opertion Jimbo the Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the respondent E08 for the possession and trafficking of S2 class prohibited substances (peptide hormones, growth factors and related substances). Therefore a provisional suspension was ordered on 14 March 2014.

Hereafter in March 2014 in April 2014 the respondent appealed the AEPSAD decision with the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte (TAD), the Spanish Disciplinary Committee for Sports.
The respondent objected to the provisional suspension, denied the allegations and argued that the house search conducted by the police at his place was negative for prohibited subsances or other relevant evidence.

The respondent was surprised that EAPSAD ordered a provisional suspension based on news reports in the national media and requested lifting of the imposed provisional sanction.

The Tribunal notes that AEPSAD suspended the proceedings against the respondent already in March 2014 pending information from the police and the provisional suspension was imposed to prevent the participation in any competition. In April the respondent and AEPSAD received files from the national police which respondent and AEPSAD could use for the disciplinary proceedings.

Considering the serious allegations the Tribunal finds that ordering a provisional suspension was justified.
Therefore the Tribunal dismiss the respondent’s appeal and decides on 6 June 2014 to confirm the AEPSAD decision of 14 March 2014.

CAS 2015/A/4059 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Thomas Bellchambers et al., Australian Football League (AFL) & Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA)

CAS 2015/A/4059 WADA vs:

• Thomas Bellchambers
• Alex Browne
• Jake Carlisle
• Travis Colyer
• Alwyn Davey
• Luke Davis
• Cory Dell'Olio
• Ricky Dyson
• Dustin Fletcher
• Scott Gumbleton
• Kyle Hardingham
• Dyson Heppell
• Michael Hibberd
• David Hille
• Heath Hocking
• Cale Hooker
• Ben Howlett
• Micheal Hurley
• Leroy Jetta
• Brendan Lee
• Sam Lonergan
• Nathan Lovett-Murray
• Mark McVeigh
• Jake Melksham
• Angus Monfries
• David Myers
• Tayte Pears
• Patrick Ryder
• Henry Slattery
• Brent Stanton
• Ariel Steinberg
• Jobe Watson
• Australian Football League (AFL)
• Australian Sports Anti-Doping Autority (ASADA)
  
  

• Australian Football
• Doping (Thymosin Beta-4)
• Distinction between presence and use of a prohibited substance cases
• Appeal and answer complete
• CAS de novo review
• CAS scope of review
  Return to training

1. There is a distinction to be made between two forms of anti-doping rule violation. The first form is the presence of a prohibited substance in an athlete’s sample; the second form is use by an athlete of a prohibited substance. Unlike the proof required to establish presence of a prohibited substance, use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the athlete, witness statements, documentary evidence or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish presence. In a use of a prohibited substance case therefore, the absence of any adverse analytical finding does not prevent the adjudicating body from relying on any other reliable mean to establish the anti-doping rule violation.

2. The provision in Article R56 of the CAS Code purposively construed draws a distinction between reformulating an existing argument and advancing a new and distinctive argument. It is inherent in the forensic process that sometimes a party’s argument is developed and at other times discarded. There is nothing unfair to the other party in such process and to restrict a party to advancing argument in the precise way in which it was pleaded would be inimical to a just disposition of the case.

3. The de novo appeal to CAS is a cornerstone in CAS’s review of appeals, which is enunciated at Article 13.1.1 of the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), and also complying with the obligation set forth in Article 23.2.2 of the 2015 WADC that the provisions of the WADC, subject to certain exceptions, must be implemented by the signatories of the WADC “without substantive change”. The review is de novo even if the applicable national anti-doping regulations do not so provide, as national regulations that do not reflect the provisions of the WADC, in violation of a signatory’s obligation to implement them “without substantive change”, are inapplicable. The rationale underlying CAS’s de novo review is that the issue to be determined (in a doping case) is not whether the appealed decision was justifiable, but whether an athlete has committed an anti-doping violation. In short, and as is well established in CAS jurisprudence, the right of appeal to CAS by reason of Article R57 of the CAS Code necessarily carries with it subordination to the de novo principle irrespective of any purported restrictions in the regulations of the body from which such an appeal is brought, as is vouched for by Article 182 paragraphs 1 and 2 of Swiss Private International Law Act.

4. In reviewing a case in full, a CAS panel is of course limited to the issues arising from the challenged decision, and cannot go beyond the scope of the previous litigation. However, its scope of review is not limited to consideration of the evidence that was adduced before the body that issued the challenged decision. Rather, it can extend to all evidence submitted to the CAS panel.

5. A professional player needs to train with his/her team and keep his/her fitness in order to be prepared to play once his/her suspension expire. Without the ability to train, such suspension would have an even longer impact on the player’s ability to exercise his/her profession.

The Essendon Football Club supplements controversy (commonly known as the Essendon supplements saga) is a sports controversy which began in late 2011. The Essendon Football Club, a professional Australian rules football club playing in the Australian Football League (AFL), was investigated starting in February 2013 by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) over the legality of its supplements program during the 2012 AFL season and the preceding preseason.

On 31 March 2015 the Australian Football League Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to dismiss the ASADA reports about multiple anti-doping violations committed by 34 current and former player of the Australian Essendon Football Club for the administration and use of the prohibited substance Thymosin Beta-4.

Hereafter in May 2015 WADA, supported by ASADA, appealed the decision of the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
WADA requested the CAS Panel to set aside the decision of the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal of 31 March 2015 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athletes reduced by the period the Athletes already served under provisional suspension.

WADA submitted that the Essendon Sports Scientist Mr. Dank devised and implemented a team-wide supplementation program in which the Athletes received injections with the prohibited substance Thymosin beta-4 in the period from January to September 2012.

WADA argued that the Athletes cannot show lack of significant fault or negligence in committing the anti-doping rule violations because: they signed the consent forms to receive the prohibited substance; received the injections; and failed to disclose the injections on doping control forms.

Considering the statements and evidence the majority of the CAS Panel is comfortably satisfied that all Athletes violated Clause 11.2 of the 2010 AFL Anti-Doping Code and were significantly at fault in so doing; and one member of the Panel agrees with that conclusion save in the case of several players in respect of whom he is not comfortably satisfied that such use is made out.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 11 January 2016 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 8 May 2015 is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the Australian Football League Anti-Doping Tribunal 31 March 2015 is set aside.

3.) The Athletes Thomas Bellchambers, Alex Browne, Jake Carlisle, Travis Colyer, Alwyn Davey, Luke Davis, Cory DelFOlio, Ricky Dyson, Dustin Fletcher, Scott Gumbleton, Kyle Hardingham, Dyson Heppell, Michael Hibberd, David Hille, Heath Hocking, Cale Hooker, Ben Howlett, Michael Hurley, Leroy Jetta, Brendan Lee, Sam Lonergan, Nathan Lovett-Murray, Mark McVeigh, Jake Melksham, Angus Monfries, David Myers, Tayte Pears, Patrick Ryder, Henry Slattery, Brent Stanton, Ariel Steinberg, Jobe Watson, Stewart Crameri, and Brent Prismall are sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 2 years commencing as of 31 March 2015. Any period of ineligibility, whether imposed on or voluntarily accepted by the Players before the entry into force of this award, shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.

4.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne 75% by the Players and 25% by the Australian Football League.

5.) The Athletes and AFL shall jointly contribute CHF 30,000 (thirty thousand Swiss Francs) to the World Anti-Doping Agency for its legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings. The Australian Sports Anti- Doping Authority shall bear its own legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.

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