In March 2012 the International Skating Union (ISU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete Kirill Golubev after he failed to be tested. Here the Athlete had already left the ice rink before ensuring that he had not been selected.
The Athlete was recalled from the hotel and returned to the rink where he provide a sample with a negative test result.

The ISU Disciplinary Commission finds that the Athlete made the mistake to leave the ice rink before checking whether he had been selected for anti-doping testing. His carelessness is regrettable but can’t be considered as a gross offence.
Therefore the ISU Disciplinary Commission decides on 31 May 2012 to impose a reprimand and a warning with disqualification of his results obtained at the Championships on 2-4 March 2012.

In March 2012 the International Skating Union (ISU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Ukrainian Athlete Anastasia Galyeta after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.

After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and waived her right to be heard for the ISU Disciplinary Commission.
The Athlete stated that she suffered from a swollen face and excess weight after she got a a cold and a sore throat. Therefore she consulted a pharmacist who suggested the use of furosemide and failed to consult the team doctor and her coach.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete acted negligently without intention to enhance her sport performance.
Therefore the ISU Disciplinary Commission decides on 23 May 2012 to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 10 December 2012.

Related case:
CAS 2011/A/2615 Thibaut Fauconnet vs ISU
CAS 2011/A/2618 ISU vs Thibaut Fauconnet
April 19, 2012

In May 2011 the International Skating Union (ISU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French Athlete Thibaut Fauconnet after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance tuaminoheptane.
After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and waived to be heard for the ISU Discilinary Commission.
The Athlete admitted the violation and stated he used Rhinofluimucil to solve his breathing problems due to a cold that occurred in China. He also admitted that he should have known that this product contained tuominoheptane and that he should have requested a TUE. The Athlete asserted that he was tested before in 2010 en 2011 without any presence of prohibited substancs.

The Panel accepts that Athlete’s statement and concludes that he acted negligently without intention to enhance his sport performance.
Therefore on 10 October 2011 the ISU Disciplinary Commission decides to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 27 December 2010 and ending on 26 June 2012.

Related case:
ISU 2008 ISU vs Yuri Larionov
April 6, 2008

On 6 December 2008 the ISU Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Russian Athlete Yuri Larionov after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.

Hereafter in March 2009 the Athlete and the Figure Skating Federation of Russia requested the ISU for a reduction of the imposed period of ineligibility, due to in January 2009 the revised ISU Anti-Doping Rules became effective which provides a reduction in cases where an Athlete can establish that he had no intention to enhance his sport performance before the period of ineligibility has expired.

The ISU Disciplinary Commission agreed that the imposed sanction was overly severe in light of the circumstances of the case. The Panel considers that the substance furosemide is a specific substance and that the Athlete was negligent without intention to enhance his sport performance.
The panel reduced the imposed period of ineligibility with 6 months of the originally imposed 2 year period of ineligibility.
Therefore on 21 April the ISU Disciplinary Commission decides that the imposed period of ineligibility is reduced to 18 months, starting on 19 February 2008 and ending on 17 July 2009.

Related case:
ISU 2009 Yuri Larionov vs ISU – Revision
April 21, 2009

In February 2008 the International Skating Union (ISU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete Yuri Larionov after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and waived his right to be heard for the ISU Disciplinary Commission.

The Athlete stated that on the morning of the doping test he had a severe headache and therefore used a pill, provided by his father, and without intention to enhance his sport performance. The pill was Lasix (furosemide) prescribed to his father who suffered from headache caused by high blood pressure.
The Panel concludes that the Athlete acted significant negligent due to he used non-prescribed medication and without consulting the team doctor.
Therefore the ISU Disciplinary Commission decides on 6 December 2008 to impose 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 19 February 2008.

CAS 2007/A/1318 Anthony Lobello v. International Skating Union (ISU)

Related case:

ISU 2007 ISU vs Anthony Lobello
June 8, 2007

• Skating
• Doping (whereabouts information)
• Standard of proof
• Burden of proof

1. According to Art. 3.1 ISU Rules, the standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. When the ISU Anti-Doping Rules place the burden of proof upon a skater or other persons alleged to have committed an ISU Anti-Doping Rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability.

2. In the context of an alleged failure by a skater to provide whereabouts form to the ISU, the ISU has not proved its case in terms of Article 3.1 of the Rules, if the athlete has produced (although late) a document (a facsimile and its confirmation sheet) establishing that he/she fulfilled his/her obligation to provide whereabouts information to the IF and if the IF has not proven any fabrication of evidence by the athlete.

On 8 June 2007 the International Skating Union (ISU) decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete Anthony Lobello after he failed to provide his whereabouts reports three times within six months, despite several reminders and two formal warnings.

Hereafter in June 2007 the Athlete appealed the ISU decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete claimed that he never received any facsimile, email or other information, either orally or in writing, from either the ISU or US Skating, that the ISU had failed to receive his Whereabouts Form for the first and second quarter 2007.

US Skating confirmed that the ISU had sent to US Speedskating reminders notices for those Athletes who had not submitted their whereabouts forms for the second quarter of 2007. However those reminders notices were not notified by US Skating to some Athletes, including the Athlete Anthony Lobello.

The Athlete’s mother, Sharon Lobello, testified that she sent his Whereabouts Form by fax to the ISU in December 2006 with a facsimilie slip confirmation as evidence.
The Athlete argued that communications from the ISU to individual Athletes were not always received by the Athlete, and that those that were received were not always received in a timely manner.

The ISU denied that it had previously lost or misplaced whereabouts forms sent by skaters, or that it had done so on this occasion.

In addition US Speedskating wrote a letter of support to the ISU dated 3 July 2007:

"As a result of this new information, we believe the second warning issued by the ISU to Mr Lobello on January 19, 2007, should be rescinded and, as a result, he should have no period of ineligibility. He should be placed back in a position where he has two warnings on his record, and not three which would result in a penalty pursuant to Article 2.4 of the ISU Anti-Doping Rules".

The Panel considers that the doubts surrounding the transmission of the whereabouts form lead to the conclusion in this case that it was more likely than not that the Athlete’s whereabouts form was transmitted and received on 13 December 2006.

Thefore on 6 December 2007 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides :

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Anthony Lobello on 29 June 2007 against a decision of the International Skating Union Disciplinary Commission dated 8 June 2007 is upheld.

2.) The decision of the ISU Disciplinary Commission of 8 June 2007 to impose a period of ineligibility on Mr Lobello is reversed and annulled.

3.) This award is rendered without costs except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss francs) already paid by Mr Lobello, which shall be retained by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

4.) Each party shall bear its own legal and other costs.

5.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

Related case:
CAS 2007/A/1318 Anthony Lobello vs ISU
December 6, 2007

In April 2007 the International Skating Union (ISU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American Athlete Anthony Lobello after he failed to provide his whereabouts reports in 2007.

The Athlete admitted the violations and explained that his schedule was out of control in that period due to the fact that he wasn’t sent home to Michigan but sent to several locations in the country and he had to find a new home after his team moved to Salt Lake City. Here he had to travel by car through the country in that period. Once settled into Salt Lake City he had immediately sent his new permanent address to the ISU, on the same day on which he received the third formal warning.
In support U.S. Speedskating stated that it relocated its headquarters to Salt Lake City in that period and it had a complete overhaul of staff with board meetings elsewhere resulting in missing the ISU warnings about the Athlete’s whereabouts failures.

The ISU Discilinary Commission concludes that the Athlete acted negligently: he failed to submit the whereabout reports three times within six months, despite several reminders and two formal warnings. Considering the circumstances the Panel deems it adequate to impose half of the maximum sanction.
Therefore the ISU Disciplinary Commission decides on 8 June 2007 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

Facts
The French Triathlon Federation (Fédération Française de Triathlon, FFTri) charges respondent M52 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on October 9, 2005, a sample was collected for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisolone which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
In her decision the disciplinary committee of the FFTri had sanctioned the respondent with a six month period of ineligibility. But in his appeal the appeal committee of the FFTri sanctioned him only with a warning.
Respondent had mentioned the use of pharmaceutical products on the doping control form, but these products don't contain prednisolone. Also he had an injection to treat tendon bursitus in his left ankle. The panel concludes that amount measured doesn't match with the time the injection was administrated.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFTri.
2. The present decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Federation of American Football (Fédération Française de Football Américain, FFFA) charges respondent M51 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on March 25, 2008, respondent didn't attend the doping control.

History
The respondent wanted to shower first before the doping control, there were showers at the doping control station. His request to use another facility was denied. Despite explaining the consequences the respondent left the scene. The sports director of the team had written a complaint about the late hour of the doping control.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the French sport federations.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Triathlon Federation (Fédération Française de Triathlon, FFTri) charges respondent M50 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on September 25, 2005, a sample was collected for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of terbutaline which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent uses a pharmaceutical product containing the prohibited substance against allergic reactions from the cat of his children. He has copies of the medical transcriptions and the application for a therapeutic use exemption (TUE). However there is no report of a examination of his lungs which states he has allergic asthma.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months, for which three months conditionally, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFTri.
2. The present decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.