Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges Quentin Bigot, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The athlete provided a sample for doping control purposes on June 21, 2014, during the European championships for teams in Germany. The sample showed the presence of metandienone and stanozolol which are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 prohibited list.

History
The athlete explains that he had used medication containing the prohibited substances to accelerate the recovery of muscle injuries.

Decision
1. The doping violation has been established and there were no objections.
2. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of four years, from which two years conditionally, in which the athlete can not take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFA and other French sport federations.
3. The individual results of June 21, 2014, are cancelled. Points, medals and prizes will be withdrawn.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published in the official bulletin of the FFA and by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF).

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges Bertrand Moulinet, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The athlete provided a sample for an in-competition doping control on April 13, 2015. The sample showed the presence of FG-4592 which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2015 prohibited list.

History
The athlete had mentioned medication but these are known for containing budesonide instead of FG-4592. Budesonide was not detected.
On March 30, 2015, the athlete had also been tested positive during an out-of-competition doping test for FG-4592. But the two findings are seen as only one doping violation.

Decision
1. The doping violation has been established and there were no objections.
2. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of four years in which the athlete can not take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFA and related French sport federations.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges Laureline Gaussens, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The athlete provided a sample for doping control purposes on May 30, 2015, during an ultra trail. The sample showed the presence of morphine which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2015 prohibited list.

History
The athlete asked for a B sample analysis, this analysis confirmed the earlier findings. She has no explanation how the prohibited substance had entered her body, she only uses homeopathic products. She had mentioned medications on the doping control form but these do not contain the prohibited substance. The athlete could not provide any explanation about how the prohibited substance had entered her body.

Decision
1. The doping violation has been established and there were no objections.
2. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years in which the athlete can not take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFA and other related French sport federations.
3. The results of May 30, 2015, are cancelled. Points, medals and prizes will be withdrawn.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges Sabine Petitjean, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The athlete provided a sample for doping control purposes on December 21, 2014, during a cross run. The sample showed the presence of tuaminoheptane which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 prohibited list.

History
The athlete was taking medications to treat a chest infection, one of these medications was the cause for the positive test. The athlete had a prescription from her physician.
The panel considers a reduction of the sanction because it is a first offence and there was no intention to enhance sport performance.

Decision
1. The doping violation has been established and there were no objections.
2. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of nine months in which the athlete can not take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFA and other French sport federations.
3. The results of December 21, 2014, are cancelled. Points, medals and prizes will be withdrawn.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges M. Larbi Es-Sraidi, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The athlete provided a sample for doping control purposes on June 14, 2015, during a marathon. The sample showed the presence of triamcinolone which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2015 prohibited list.

History
The athlete had not collected his mail in which he was invited to appear for a hearing. No information was provided about how the prohibited substance had entered her body. Also there was no mentioning on the doping control form that he had had therapeutic treatment.
Because there was no information provided there was no reduction in the sanction.

Decision
1. The doping violation has been established and there were no objections.
2. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years in which the athlete can not take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFA and related French sport federations.
3. The results of June 14, 2015, are cancelled. Points, medals and prizes will be withdrawn.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published in the official bulletin of the FFA.
6. The decision can be reformed within two months by the French Anti-Doping Agency (Agence Française de Lutte contre le Dopage, AFLD).

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges Marilyn Bouche, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Respondent provided a sample for doping control purposes on December 14, 2014, during competition. The sample showed the presence of heptaminol which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 prohibited list.

History
The athlete had used medication to improve a problem with her veins. She had not mentioned the use on the doping control form. Also she had not checked the product she used on the internet for which she can regarded as negligent.

Decision
1. The doping violation has been established.
2. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which the athlete can not take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFA.
3. The results of December 14, 2014, were cancelled. Points, medals and prizes will be withdrawn.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published in the official bulletin of the FFA.
5. The decision can be reformed within two months by the French Anti-Doping Agency (Agence Française de Lutte contre le Dopage, AFLD).

Finnish Anti-Doping Agency annual report 2014 / FINADA

CONTENTS
Introduction 2
Administration 4
Board 4
Supervisory board 5
Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee 5
Quality management 5
Office 5
Doping control and testing 6
Doping testing 6
Therapeutic use exemptions 7
Results management 7
Parties that commissioned training and education 8
Target groups for training and education 8
Anti-Doping education 8
Communication 9
The clean win programme 9
International activities 10
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 10
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (INADO) 10
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) 11
Council of Europe (COE) 11
The European Union 11
International Anti-Doping Arrangement (IADA) 11
Nordic Cooperation 11
Research 12
Athlete Survey 12
Development projects 13
Recreational athletes' Anti-Doping programme 13
Finances 14
Important events during and after the financial year 14
Appendices 1
FINADA bodies and staff 15
Board 2014–2015 15
Supervisory board 2013–2014 15
Therapeutic Use Exception Committee 16
Ad hoc working group responsible for planning the criteria and the evaluation system of sport federations' Anti-Doping programmes 16
Office 16
Appendix 2
Doping test statistics 2014 17
Appendix 3
Education events in 2014 18
Appendix 4
FINADA information stands at sporting events in 2014 21
Appendix 5
FINADA'S international representation in 2014 22
Appendix 6
Summary of research by united MEDIX Laboratories LTD. 23

Rechtbank Haarlem
Sector civiel recht
July 24, 2009
159578 / KG ZA 09-404
ECLI:NL:RBHAA:2009:BJ3767

Related cases:
- ISR 2009 NWWB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009064 T
June 29, 2009
- ISR 2009 NWWB Decision Appeal Committee 2009064 B
January 29, 2010

Facts
Athlete X filed for a preliminary relief proceeding with the Dutch Civil Court in Haarlem. He wants the sanction for a doping violation, a two year period of ineligibility, based on the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Netherlands Water Ski and Wakeboard Federation (Nederlandse Waterski en Wakeboard Bond, NWWB), to be annuled based on violation of his right of privacy.

History
The athlete had been selected for an out-of-competition doping test. Analysis of the A and B samples showed the prohibited substance nandrolone. The athlete used several prescribed medication as treatment for a serious condition he suffered. One medication was prescribed nandrolone, the other medication will not be mentioned because of privacy reasons. The medication nandrolone is the source of the positive test.

The NWWB doubts that the court has jurisdiction in this case, but the judge contradicts this. There is an urgent need for the athlete for a quick decision because he wants to take part in the national championship. There is no guaranty that the NWWB Appeal Committee or the Netherlands Institute for Sport Adjudication (Instituut voor Sportrechtspraak, ISR) can or will deliver a decision in time. The judge rules it has jurisdiction in this case.

The athlete has a disability but this disability has no consequences for the rules regarding the doping control. The judge notices that the athlete did not made any objection during the doping control how his personal data was handled. In the NWWB decision of 29 June 2009 the athlet's medical condition nor the other medication was mentioned. The judge finds that mentioning the name of the prohibited substance nandrolone as medicine in the NWWB decision does not violate the athlete's privacy. The assumption that the information mentioned in this case could be an indication for some medical specialists about the athlete's medical condition does not alter this.

Decision op 24 June 2009:
- The athlete's request is denied.
- The athlete has to bear the legal costs of the NWWB.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Brian Banner, the player, for a violation of the Anti-Doping rules. On April 26, 2015, during a training camp the player provided a sample for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of four separate anabolic agents, namely, oxandrolone, metandienone, drostanolone and dehydrochlormethyltestosterone. These substances are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2015 prohibited list, their use is prohibited at all times, both in and out of competition.

History
The athlete agreed to a provisional suspension and admitted the anti-doping rule violation. He claimed that the positive test derived from a supplement he had used. From a friend he had used Tribulus Terrestris (TT) capsules from an unsealed bottle. He was told that it was a natural product and used it for curing an injured shoulder. He stopped using it because it did not seemed to work. However there is no indication that the four steroids where part of this supplement. The product had not been tested. An expert indicates that the distribution of such substances is illegal in Canada although they can be acquired on the black market. Especially drostanolone preparations must be injected intra-muscularly. In conclusion, the expert expressed the opinion that it was not possible that all four anabolic agents detected in the athlete's urine sample were contained in the TT product that he claimed to have ingested or were formed by his body following ingestion.
The cause of the positive test is not made clear, the Athlete can not establish that the violation was not intentional. Because of the early admission the period of ineligibility starts from the date of the sample collection.

Decision
- The sanction is a period of ineligibility of four years running from April 26, 2015.

Report on doping in the Danish Cycling 1998-2015 1998-2015 [original: Rapport om doping I Danks cykelsport 1998-2015] / Anti Doping Danmark. - 2015

The investigation group responsible for this report was administratively appointed by Anti Doping Denmark (ADD) and the NOC and Sports Confederation of Denmark (DIF).

The Rasmussen investigation had disclosed specific information about alleged anti-doping rule violations committed by other Danish riders and leading support personnel requiring further investigation. The administrations of ADD and DIF mandated the investigation group to proceed its investigation with the aim of possibly collecting the necessary proof for the alleged violations in order to facilitate subsequent prosecution of anti-doping rule violations.
In total, 50 persons with a relation to Danish cycling from 1998 and onward have been interviewed. Among these are previous and current riders, sports directors, team directors, team owners and others. The persons have been selected based on an assessment of their relevance for the investigation and a reasonable balance between persons with former and current functions has been sought. In total, 100 hours of interviews have been conducted.

The conclusion of this investigation is that Bjarne Riis, Johnny Weltz, and Alex Pedersen and a number of Danish former riders have violated applicable anti-doping rules. ADD (who has had the prosecuting competence since 1 January 2015) would have been able to bring doping cases forward against these persons before DIF's Doping Tribunal on the basis of the findings of the investigation. However, since all of the alleged anti-doping rule violations have been committed outside the statute of limitations it is not possible for ADD to bring any of these cases forward. It should be emphasized that it is not within the mandate of the investigation to determine how the Doping Tribunal would have assessed the proof that would have been brought forward in each case and hence whether sanctions would have been imposed.

Notwithstanding the fact that no doping cases can be brought forward, the investigation group have received significant information through the interviews about patterns of a systematic doping culture in cycling. Consequently, it was decided administratively that the investigation group should continue its work with the purpose to produce and publish a report about doping in Danish cycling from the beginning of professional cycling in Denmark in 1998 until the present in 2015.

As for the team generally known as Team CSC (Currently Team Saxo Tinkoff), it is the opinion of the investigation group that the information received during this investigation about the team's former owner and leading sports director Bjarne Riis would have constituted grounds to bring forward a doping case before the Danish Doping Tribunal against Bjarne Riis for violation of anti-doping regulations in force at the time of each of the alleged violations - in particular the applicable rule about assisting anti-doping rule violations. (The current rule is the 2015 WADA Code's article 2.9 about Complicity). However, due to the statute of limitations no case will be brought forward against Bjarne Riis.
This assessment is, among other things, based on the fact that Bjarne Riis has admitted that he, as team owner and leading sports director during the period when Tyler Hamilton was employed by Team CSC, had knowledge about the fact that Tyler Hamilton was using doctor Eufemiano Fuentes for blood doping and did not take action to stop it. Additionally, Riis has admitted that in his own career as a rider, he has used blood doping and hereby has personal knowledge about blood doping practices.
Furthermore, the assessment is based on the following matters which the investigation group finds established by the information received through the interviews:
• Bjarne Riis has requested Bo Hamburger to provide EPO to Jörg Jaksche.
• A comprehensive use of cortisone without medical justification took place on Team CSC.
• In his capacity as team owner and leading sports director, Bjarne Riis had knowledge that other riders on the team besides Tyler Hamilton were using doping.
The investigation group finds that a leader is obliged to act on knowledge about anti-doping rule violations committed by employees on the team. Bjarne Riis has not fulfilled this obligation. On the contrary, he has silently accepted the use of doping and such silent acceptance from a team leader constitutes in the opinion of the investigation group a case of complicity, re. art. 2.9 in the current World Anti-Doping Code, which includes the covering up of doping offences, encouraging, aiding etc. of any type of intentional complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation.

In the opinion of the investigation group Johnny Weltz and Alex Pedersen who also silently accepted the use of doping among riders have also violated applicable anti-doping rules about complicity.

However, as team owner and leading sport director Riis had a greater responsibility than the others as he had authority to make take decisions about suspending riders who doped and report the violations to the responsible anti-doping authorities.
In the absence of statute of limitations, the investigation group also finds that there would be grounds to bring doping cases forward against a number of Danish riders who have admitted either their own doping violations or where the interviews have given the investigation group knowledge about their alleged offences.

ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS
It is the assessment of the investigation group that without the statute of limitations, ADD would have been able to bring a case forward against Bjarne Riis forward for violation of the Danish Antidoping Regulations § 6.8 about complicity in force at the time (re. the current art. 2.9 of the 2015 WADA Code). According to the current art. 2.9, assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, conspiring, covering up or any other type of intentional complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation is prohibited.
This assessment is, among other things, based on the following:
• Bjarne Riis has admitted that he as team owner and leading sports director, while Tyler Hamilton was riding on Team CSC, had knowledge about the fact that Tyler Hamilton was working with Fuentes about blood doping, and in addition, Riis has admitted that in his career as an active rider, he has tried blood doping and thus he has personal knowledge of the mechanics of blood doping
These matters are admitted by Bjarne Riis.

• Bjarne Riis has requested Bo Hamburger to provide EPO to Jörg Jaksche
This assessment is built on the fact that Bo Hamburger's statement about this is confirmed by
Jörg Jaksche who has first-hand knowledge about the request.

• A comprehensive misuse of cortisone without medical justification took place on Team CSC.
A number of named and unnamed riders and sports directors have informed the investigation group about a widespread misuse of cortisone against the rules in cycling generally and concretely on Team CSC. Michael Rasmussen, Tyler Hamilton, Jörg Jaksche, and Alex Pedersen have all informed the investigation group that riders were provided with cortisone by the team without medical justification.

• In his capacity as team owner and leading sports director, Bjarne Riis had knowledge that other riders on the team in addition to Tyler Hamilton used doping.
This assessment is based on the fact that three other riders in addition to Hamilton - Bo Hamburger, Michael Rasmussen and Jörg Jaksche - have stated that Riis knew about their use of doping.

In addition, the statements of the three riders to the investigation group is supported by the statements of other interviewees:

Hamburger's statement is the strongest as he is backed by Alex Pedersen who has first-hand knowledge about a conversation between himself, Hamburger, and Riis which demonstrates Riis's knowledge of Hamburger's use of EPO before the result of Hamburger's doping test was available.
Johnny Weltz, who was involved in Michael Rasmussen's case about a high hematocrit level due to use of EPO and who had actual conversations about Riis about the high level, supports Michael Rasmussen's statement about Riis's knowledge of Rasmussen's use of EPO. Weltz have stated to the investigation group that he is convinced that Riis knew that Rasmussen took EPO, although this is a general observation and not a reflection of an actual conversation or episode.
Finally, Tyler Hamilton confirms having talks with Jörg Jaksche in 2007 where Jaksche and Hamilton exchanged experiences from their time with Riis and agreed that Riis behaved hypocritically by publicly denouncing them after their doping sentences. Nevertheless, Hamilton's knowledge of Riis's knowledge of Jaksche's use of doping is second hand knowledge as it comes from Jaksche himself.
The investigation group finds that actual knowledge about rules being broken gives a leader a duty to take action which Bjarne Riis has not lived up to. On the contrary, as a minimum he has silently accepted the use of doping and such silent acceptance from a team leader is in the opinion of the investigation group a case of prohibited complicity which is in breach of the Danish Anti-doping Regulations § 6.8 about complicity in force at the time (re. art. 2.9 in the current WADA Code). The same goes in the opinion of the investigation group for Johnny Weltz and Alex Pedersen, but as team owner and leading sports director Riis had a greater responsibility than the others as he as the top manager had authority to make the decisive decisions about suspending doping users and reporting them to the anti-doping authorities. Accordingly, the investigation group finds that there is a great need for strengthening the leadership of the cycling teams and the group has proposed a number of recommendations in this respect.

In conclusion, the investigation group finds that the statute of limitation in the World Anti Doping Code - and in the Danish Anti-doping Regulations - which was 8 years until 31st January 2014 and 10 years from 1st January 2015 prevent ADD from bringing forward a doping case against Bjarne Riis for an anti-doping rule violation. The same apply to Johnny Weltz and Alex Pedersen.