Facts
The Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, charged Tigirlas Victoria, the physician, for a violation of the anti-doping rules. Following a doping control conducted in competition on November 1, 2013, at a handball event in Braila, the analytical result of the athlete Irimia Raluca Ionela sample, indicated the presence of the prohibited substance dexamethasone.

History
The athlete received treatment for a shoulder pain for which her phycisian prescribed a local and general non-steroid anti-inflammatory treatment, ice bags and, when necessary (if the pain persists), Ketonal and Dexamethasone, intravenously. The treatment was administered to her by the sport club’s physician, Tigirlas Victoria. However the day before the match the club's physician injected her with dexamethasone. The athlete demonstrated how the prohibited substance entered her body, through the fact that the physician Tigirlas Victoria administered to her the prohibited substance although she had other allowed therapeutic alternatives or ways of administration of the same substance, which are not prohibited. The athlete had been sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of one month.

Decision
- The physician was sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four years based on the ruling towards the administration of a prohibited substance to an athlete.
- The decision starts from the date of the decision, respectively January 23, 2014 and shall end on January 22, 2018.
- The decision will be sent to the parties involved.

In April 2015 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Kylie Palmer after her sample - provided in July 2013 - tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide in a low concentration.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and waived her right to be heard for the FINA Doping Panel. A decision was rendered based on the parties submissions.

Before the Athlete was notified there were deliberations between FINA and WADA about the Athlete's test results and on 13 March 2015 WADA appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport challenging FINA's decision not to bring forward an anti-doping rule violatien (ADRV) based on the analysis of Ms. Palmer's 31 July 2013 sample.

The Athlete asserted that she was unaware of what may have caused her positive test and that the failure to notify her of her positive finding for such an extended period of time undermined her ability to conduct an investigation to ascertain the source of the furosemide in her sample.

The FINA Doping Panel considered the low concentration of the prohibited substance coupled with the absence of furosemide from tests on 25 July 2013 and 1 August 2013 bookending the athlete's positive test from 31 July 2013 is sufficient corroborating evidence in this case to establish the absence of an intent to enhance or mask use of a prohibited substance.
However by informing the athlete late about the positive finding she had not a chance to request for re-testing the sample.

Decision
- The athlete receives a public reprimand and no period of ineligibility for her first anti-doping rule violation.
- All results obtained by the athlete on 31 July 2013 are disqualified and any medals, points and prizes achieved on that date shall be forfeited. Fairness requires that all results obtained by the athlete after 31 July 2013 shall not be disqualified.
- All costs of this case shall be borne by Swimming Australia LTD. (SAL) in accordance with the FINA ruling.

In July 2015 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Daniel Novia after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited susbstances Methasterone, Tamoxifen and Testosterone.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right to be heard, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the CCES.

The Athlete stated that the violation was not intentional, that he had used supplements provided by a friend and that these supplements must have contained the prohibited substances. He explained that he was 'retired' when he used these supplements and he stopped using these supplements once selected to the Pan Am Games team.

The CCES has significant concerns about the Athlete's explanation due to he failed to produce the supplements in question and consequently they could not be tested. Due to the Athlete waived his right for a hearing it was impossible to determine a reduction of his sanction on the basis of his degree of fault.

Nevertheless WADA and CCES agree that the Athlete should be afforded a reduction of 4 months of the period of ineligibility for his waiver for his right to a hearing.
Therefore the CCES decides on 16 September 2015 to impose a 3 year and 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 July 2015.

Prohibited List January 2016 : The World Anti-Doping Code International Standard / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2015.

- The official text of the Prohibited List shall be maintained by WADA and shall be published in English and French. In the event of any conflict between the English and French versions, the English version shall prevail.
- This List shall come into effect on 1 January 2016

The 2015 Prohibited List International Standard : The World Anti-Doping Code / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2014.

- The official text of the Prohibited List shall be maintained by WADA and shall be published in English and French. In the event of any conflict between the English and French versions, the English version shall prevail.
- This List shall come into effect on 1 January 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 substances Clenbuterol and Tamoxifen.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the CCES.

Considering the circumstances and the Athlete's degree of fault WADA and the CCES agree to allow the Athlete a reduction of 3 months of the period of ineligiblity.

Therefore the CCES decides on 13 October 2015 to impose a 3 year and 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 July 2015.

The doping cases and the need for the International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) / Tricia Kavanagh
In: UNSW Law Journal, no. 3 (Vol. 22) p. 721-745

There is a long recorded history of the use by athletes of substances for performance enhancement. The use of substances in the form of drugs was officially recognised after the 1928 Winter Olympics when the International Federation of Sports Mediation (FIMS) was established as a forum to discuss doping in sport. Slowly an awareness grew in the international community that athletes were competing assisted by drugs to enhance performance. This awareness became sharper after the Second World War when amateur sporting events became much more competitive. France enacted anti-doping legislation in 1963, Belgium in 1965. Other countries followed suit. There were attempts to detect drug use at the 1964 Tokyo Olympics but such attempts were not successful. When prominent athlete Tommy Simpson died in the Tour de France and his death was exposed as drug induced, it led to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) establishing a Medical Commission (the IOCMC). Historically this became one of the most significant developments, as through the Medical Commission was published the International Charter Against Doping in Sport (now known as the IOC Medical Code) was published. The Charter included a ‘list’ of banned substances, which was used as the foundation for all drug testing programs in sport around the world. It is now annually reviewed by the IOCMC. Its contents are often challenged. The Charter provides:

• guidelines as to functions and penalties;
• a model national anti-doping program;
• the list of doping classes and methods of doping; the requirements for accreditation of laboratories and laboratory practice; the standard operating procedures for doping control; the rights, responsibilities and status of athletes and their entourages;
• and, principles and guidelines for in and out of competition testing.

Up until the International Charter Against Doping in Sport, anti-doping efforts had been somewhat ad hoc. However, when the preeminent sports organisation, the IOC, set a standard and imposed it upon its sporting federations an imprimatur was given to policies committed to drug free sport. Over the last ten years, international co-operation and initiatives improved as drug testing programs were put in place by National Olympic Committees (NOCs) (for example the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC)), international and national federations (ISFs and NSOs) through their rules and by-laws, and by governments through legislative reform or administrative process (for example the Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA)).
However, three impediments to successful anti-doping programs were quickly exposed. There was a lack of harmonisation and consistency of procedures and accountability for the integrity of the urine testing. Secondly, there was a lack of agreement between sports federations internally between national and international organisations and externally between the various sports as to the appropriate sanctions for breaches. Thirdly, when doping disputes went to the sporting tribunals and from the tribunals to domestic courts on appeal, there developed an awareness and appreciation of the need for sound jurisprudential and equitable principles in the hearing of doping disputes. In response to these impediments, the sports organisations have attempted to harmonize sanctions and testing procedures. However, the sports tribunals have met some difficulties as they have traveled through the legal labyrinth revealed by sports appeals, particularly appeals from positive findings of drug use.

In examining the legal complexities and legal principles revealed in the doping cases, this paper traces the steps taken by parties involved in sports law to bring consistency and integrity to international sports law through the establishment by revised rules and procedures of an International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The role of the CAS was praised by Ms Watt’s Counsel, David Grace QC, as a “terrific way” of settling disputes. He stated: This is a perfect system for settling these disputes in an atmosphere that's much more relaxed, where the procedures are easy to comply with and the dispute can be heardquickly, efficiently and inexpensively.
The Court is an independent forum which allows each side to put its case anyway it likes. The procedures are often moulded to suit the subject matter of the hearing and the ordinary rules of evidence don not necessarily apply.
The fundamental question now is the extent to which national courts will follow the Swiss lead in recognizing and enforcing CAS awards in the face of due process or public order claims. The result will be what Nafziger calls “a blending of national and international institutions into a single process of justice that avoids judicial complexity”. This is the voice of the hopeful, who have been perplexed by the anomalies that have developed in the jurisprudential principles so far enunciated in doping disputes.

Normative trends confirm the growing commitment of national legal systems to the process of international sports law. Adjudication is a last resort. If there should be adjudication it is hoped the CAS provides the final orders.
Nevertheless, as jurisprudential principles flow from the CAS, effective monitoring must be built into the process to protect the interests of all parties. It is imperative that the court promptly publish reasons for any decisions it makes. Gradually through arbitrary decisions a distinctive lex specialis should emerge.
The motivation behind the establishment and recognition of the CAS has been to protect the interests of international sporting competition while giving due recognition to the legal rights of the athletes. The process of refining its procedural rules must be a continuous one. There is no room for complacency.

iNADO Update #64.2
It is the second of two that summarises documents of particular interest to NADOs, RADOs and Public Authorities for the upcoming WADA ExCo/FB meetings of November 17-18, 2015. I hope it will assist you prepare the Public Authorities representatives for the meetings. The documents are well worth review in any event.

Collection of sports-related case-law / Estelle de La Rochefoucauld

I. COMPATIBILITY OF CERTAIN SPORTS REGULATIONS WITH COMMUNITY LAW 5
A. SPORTS REGULATIONS CONTAINING NATIONALITY CLAUSES AND COMMUNITY LAW 5
a) Case of Walrave v UCI (ECJ, 12.12.74, case no. C-36/74) 5
b) Case of Doña v Montero (ECJ, 14.7.76, case no. C 13-76) 6
c) Case of Markakis v ASBL Fédération Royale Belge des Sociétés de Basketball (Belgian Royal Federation of Basketball Clubs - FRBSB) (Brussels Court of First 7
Instance, Belgium, 8.9.92) 8
B. SPORTS REGULATIONS CONTAINING TRANSFER AND NATIONALITY CLAUSES AND COMMUNITY LAW 9
a) Case of Bosman v Royal Club Liégeois SA and UEFA (ECJ, 15.12.95, case no. C-415/93) 9
b) Case of Lehtonen v Fédération Royale Belge des Sociétés de Basket-ball (Belgian Royal Federation of Basketball Clubs - FRBSB) (ECJ, 11.4.00, case no. C-176/96) 11
c) Case of Grubba v German Table Tennis Federation (Frankfurt am Main Appeal Court, Germany, 25 November 1997, case no. 2-14 0 254/97) 13
C. SPORTS REGULATIONS PROVIDING FOR NATIONAL QUOTAS AND SELECTION PROCEDURES FOR PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENTS 15
a) Case of Deliège v Ligue francophone de judo (Francophone Judo League), Ligue belge de judo (Belgian Judo League), Union européenne de judo (European Judo Union), (ECJ 11.4.00, joined cases C-51/96 and C-191/97) 15
D. SUMMARY OF SPORTS-RELATED EUROPEAN REGULATIONS 16

II. COMPATIBILITY OF DRUG TESTING WITH THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY 18
a) Case of Hill v National Collegiate Athletic Association, Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University (Court of Appeal of California, USA, 25 September 1990) 18
b) Case of Miller v Cave City School (United States Court of Appeals (8th circuit), 31 March 1999) 19

III. DOPING 22
A. PROOF OF DOPING 22
a) Case of USA Triathlon v Spencer Smith (Court of Arbitration for Sport, Lausanne, 31.5.00) 22
b) Case Z. v. DFB (German Football Federation), DFB sports tribunal, 1999 23
c). Case of Dieter Baumann v. International Olympic Committee (IOC), National Olympic Committee of Germany and International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF), CAS, 22 september 2000 25
B. VALIDITY OF SPORTS FEDERATION RULES IN DOPING CASES AND THEIR COMPATIBILITY WITH COMMUNITY LAW 28
a) Case of Wilander and Novacek v Tobin and Jude (Court of Appeal of England and Wales, Civil Division, 20 December 1996) 28
C. JURISDICTION OF A CIVIL COURT TO ORDER A PRIVATE SPORTS ORGANIZATION TO STRIP A CHAMPION OF HIS TITLE 30
a) Case of Schulz v United States Boxing Association, IBF, Botha, Moorer (United States Court of Appeals (3rd circuit), 24 January 1997) 30
D. VALIDITY OF DOPING SANCTIONS 32
a) Case of Katrin Zimmerman Krabbe v Deutscher Leichtathletik Verband (DLV) and International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) (Munich Court of Appeal, Germany, 28 March 1996) 32
b) Case of Edwards v The British Athletic Federation (High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, United Kingdom, 23.6.97) 34
c) Case of Bouras v IJF (Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Lausanne, 20.12.99, CAS 99/A/230).. 35
d) Case of Johnson v Athletics Canada and IAAF (Ontario Court of Justice, Canada, 25.7.97)......... 37
e) Case of Vincent Guérin v FFF (Versailles Administrative Court, France, 2 July 1998).................. 38
f) Case of David Meca-Medina v FINA and Igor Majcen v FINA (Court of Arbitration for Sport, Lausanne, 29 February 2000, CAS 99/A/234 and CAS 99/A/235) 39

IV. INTERPRETATION OF SPORTS RULES 40
A. POSSIBILITY FOR AN ATHLETE TO BRING AN ACTION BEFORE A CIVIL COURT ON THE BASIS OF A FEDERAL LAW 40
Elr, Recueil JP 01.02 3
a) Case of Michels v USOC (United States Court of Appeals - 7th circuit, 16 August 1984) 40
B. JURISDICTION TO INTERPRET A FEDERATION'S RULES OF PROCEDURE IN DOPING CASES 41
a) Case of Smith v International Triathlon Union (Supreme Court of British Colombia, Vancouver, Canada, 26 August 1999) 41
b) Delisa Walton-Floyd v The United States Olympic Committee (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1st district, Houston, USA, 26 February 1998) 43
C. INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES OF AN INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION 45
a) Case of Korda v International Tennis Federation (ITF Ltd) (High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, United Kingdom, 29.1.99) 45
b) Case of ITF Ltd v Korda (Court of Appeals (Civil Division), United Kingdom, 25.3.99) 45
c) Case of ITF v Korda (CAS, Lausanne, 31 August 1999, CAS 99/223/A) 45

V. CONTRACTS 48
A. EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS 48
a) Case of Loranger v Mount Allison University (New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Moncton, Canada, 9-10 November 1998) 48
b) Case of Tanguay v Association Chamonix Mont-Blanc, (Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, France, 23 January 1997) 49
c) Case of Bill Belichick v New York Jets (District Court, USA, 25.1.00) 50
B. CONTRACTS ON BROADCASTING RIGHTS FOR SPORTS COMPETITIONS 52
a) Case of EBU (European Broadcasting Union) v SA Canal + (Paris Court of Appeal, 1st chamber, section A, France, 27 July 2000) 52

VI. RESTRAINT OF TRADE 55
a) Case of Newport Association Football Club Ltd and others v Football Association of Wales Ltd (High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, United Kingdom, 12.4.95) 55
b) Case of the German Football Federation (DFB) v German Federal Cartel Office (German Federal
Supreme Court, 11.12.97) 56

VII. DISCRIMINATION IN SPORT 59
A. GENDER-BASED DISCRIMINATION 59
a) Case of Kemether v Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association Inc. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 8 November 1999) 59
b) Case before the Châlons en Champagne Administrative Court, France (28 January 1999, cases 98-711 and 98-1034) 61
B. OTHER FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION 62
a) Case of Olympique de Marseille (OM) v Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) (Berne Civil Court III, Switzerland, 9 September 1993) 62

VIII. RESPONSIBILITY OF A FEDERATION TOWARDS AN ATHLETE 64
A. CONTRACTUAL RESPONSIBILITY OF A FEDERATION TOWARDS AN ATHLETE 64
a) Case of E.L. v Fédération Française de Gymnastique (French Gymnastics Federation - FFG) (Paris High Court, 1st chamber, 2nd section, France, 1 July 1999) 64
B. FEDERATION'S LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE IN RESPECT OF AN ATHLETE 65
a) Case of Michael Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Limited (BBBC) (High Court of Justice, United Kingdom, 2000) 65
b) Case of Agar v Hyde and Agar v Worsley, High Court of Australia (HCA), 3.8.00 67

IX. STATUS OF REFEREES 69
A. STATUS OF REFEREES IN THE EVENT OF A FAULT 69
a) . Case Ancion v. ASBL Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association (URBSFA), Brussels Labour Court (Interim Relief Division), Belgium, 20 April 2000 69
b) . Case Lyra v. Marchand, Rita Berlaar and ASBL Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association (URBSFA), Malines Court of First Instance (Belgium), 8 February 2001 71
X. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SPORT 73
A. COPYRIGHT 73
a) Case of National Basketball Association (NBA) v Motorola and STATS (New York Second Circuit Court of Appeals, USA, 480 US 941 (1987)) 73
B. TRADE MARK OWNERSHIP 75
a) Case of National Football League v Coors Brewing Co. (99 Civ. 4627 at 496, SDNY, 4 August 1999) 75
XI. MAIN PROVISIONS QUOTED 77
A. TREATIES, LAWS AND RULES 77
a) EEC Treaty 77
b) Council of Europe Anti-Doping Convention of 16 November 1989 79
c) French Act no. 89-432 of 28 June 1989 on prevention and repression of the use of doping products in sport: 80
d) French Decree no.91-387 of 30 August 1991, Article 6: 81
e) Section 1636 of the French Civil Code 81
f) Amateur Sports Act 36 USC Sec. 382b 82
g) Constitution of the United States of America 82
B. SPORTS REGULATIONS 82
b) Rules of the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) 2000-2001, Rule 60: Sanctions: 83
c) International Tennis Federation (ITF) Anti-Doping Programme - 1999: 83

Doping- och antidopingforskning : En inventering av samhälls- och beteendevetenskaplig forskning och publikationer 2004-2007 / David Hoff
Riksidrottsförbundets : Stockholm

This is a survey of the social and behavioral research on doping in 2004-2007. The purpose of the study is to systematize and thematic research in doping and the anti-doping field to analyze the state of research on the basis of social science perspectives. The report intends to try to give the full picture of the state of knowledge on doping area. The development of doping research 2004-2007 studied also in comparison with the research 1994-2004.
The research included in the survey are primarily international publications in research journals ("peer-review journals"), but also Scandinavian items. The inventory was made via conventional information retrieval tools, provided by the library at the University of Kalmar. The most important databases has been the "Social Science Citation Index" and "ELIN Kalmar".
The survey is limited to articles in English (or articles with English abstracts), or articles published in any of the Scandinavian languages.
The report goes first through the main directions of research from 1994-2004 to compare these with the current research trends (2004-2007). Then the recognized the social and behavioral research from 2004-2007 in themes whose aim is to include the most important and influential research results: doping at gyms, doping among young people, doping, sport and doping and supplements. The final chapter discusses the research findings in a broader sociological context.