In June 2009 the International Triathlon Union (ITU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jiao Caiping after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance prednisone.
After notification the Athlete waived her right to be heard for the ITU Anti-Doping Hearing Panel and filed a statement and medical documentation in her defence.

The Athlete submitted that she suffered from a heel injury in January 2009 and was treated in a hospital in China. Following rehabilitation and physiotherapy, a prednisone injection was administered in March 2009. The Athlete stated that she consulted with her team doctor about the use of prednisone out-of-competition and was told that she did not need to apply for a TUE for local treatment like the administered prednisone injection. She further asserted that she did not declare the use of the substance on her doping control form because the form indicated that the medical declaration was for substances used 7 days prior to doping control. Since her injection was on 19 March, she did not declare the Prednisone injection on her form and had no intention to enhance her sport performance.

Considering the evidence and statements, the Panel concludes that the Athlete had a valid injury and a valid medical treatment without intention to enhance her sport performance.
Therefore the ITU Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 3 July 2009 to impose a warning on the Athlete.

Facts
The French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M24 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on November 12, 2005, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolites of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent smokes cannabis and accepts the consequences, it was also her last participation in the sport.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months, from which one month conditionally, during this period respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFHMFAC.
2. The decision start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M23 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on July 23, 2005, respondent provided a sample for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent had used cannabis in a social setting, it was his first time he had used is. To prove this fact he provided an additional test which he paid, this test was negative.

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

In April 2013 the Wold Curling Federation (WCF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Matt Dumontelle after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance metandienone.
After notification the WCF ordered a provisional suspension.
The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and waived his right to attend the hearing of the WCF Case Panel.

The Athlete accepted the test result and submitted that he suffered from psoriatic arthritis since the age of 22 and used medications. The Athlete stated that the treatment worked well for his pain but side effects are fatique and weight loss. Therefore he also used some supplements to deal with the weight loss and fatique without taking energy drinks or coffee to give him energy.

The WCF Case Panel concludes that the Athlete was negligent and decides on 14 June 2013 to impose 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 6 May 2013.

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M22 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on October 9, 2005, respondent was asked to provide a doping sample. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of salbutamol which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
Respondent mentioned the use of a pharmaceutical product which contains the prohibited substance for therapeutic reasons. However she fails to prove her condition with medical documentation.

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

Related case:
BWF 2014 BWF vs Lee Yong Dae & Kim Ki Jung
April 14, 2014

On 14 April 2014 the Badminton World Federation (BWF) Doping Hearing Panel decided for the acquittal of the Korean Athletes Lee Yong Dae and Kim Ki Jung related to whereabouts failures.

After investigation no available evidence suggests that the Athletes ever received notice from the BWF via the Badminton Korea Association (BKA).
The BKA office staff had made false representation to the BWF by drafting letters from players and using their names and signature stamps thereby unrightfully documenting to BWF that the players were aware about their Whereabouts Failures.

The BWF Panel recommended to the BWF to consider the role of the BKA in supporting the Whereabouts Programme of the Korean players on the BWF Registered Testing Pool.
The charges considered by the BWF Disciplinary Committee against the BKA were focused around negligence in communication with Players and BWF about necessary information, failing to educate BKA players and staff and making false representation to BWF by communication without proper consent and communication from the Players.

The Disciplinary Committee found:
- That despite BKA taking remedial action, BKA as a Member of the BWF, had to take responsibility for not complying with the BWF Anti-Doping Regulations and had obligations under those Regulations - and this remedial action did not take away the fact that breaches of the Regulations occurred - and that BKA had admitted to these breaches.
- That the BKA had a “duty of care” for the players under its jurisdiction and under the Anti-Doping Regulations. That through the administrative failure of the BKA it had allowed two Athletes to have three strikes against them – and become ineligible.

The BWF Disciplinary Committee ruled that the Badminton Korea Association shall:
- pay a fine to the BWF of USD $40,000 ($20,000 x two players as per Clause 12.2.3 of the BWF Anti-Doping Regulations);
- refund the BWF USD $1,170 being the fees charged by the external provider of testing services for each athlete who was unavailable for testing during two missions to test Korean Players on the Registered Testing Pool (as per Clause 12.2.3 of the BWF Anti-Doping Regulations).

The Committee also strongly recommended that the Badminton Korea Association:
- makes the players responsible for updating their own Whereabouts Information in ADAMS since they were ultimately responsible under the WADA Anti-Doping Code and BWF Anti-Doping Regulations;
- seeks advice and support from the Korea Anti-Doping Agency on:
1) running an effective Whereabouts Programme;
2) educating BKA administrative staff;
3) educating athletes on the Registered Testing Pool on their obligations under the BWF Anti-Doping Regulations; and
4) educating coaches, team managers and those supporting players on key aspects of the anti-doping programme and their obligations under the Regulations.

Related case:
BWF 2014 BWF vs Badminton Korea Association
March 24, 2014

In 2013 the Badminton World Federation (BWF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Korean Athletes Lee Yong Dae and Kim Ki Jung after they made 3 whereabouts failures resulting in missed tests. After notification the Athletes were heard for the BWF Doping Hearing Panel and on 23 January 2014 the BWF Panel decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athletes.

The Panel concluded there were extenuating circumstances to only sanction the Athletes for one (1) year of ineligibility (as opposed to the maximum two years) due to the Badminton Korea Association’s failure, on behalf of the players, to make diligent efforts to keep the BWF informed about the players’ whereabouts. Due to such lack of diligent efforts, the BWF panel has recommended that the BWF should fine Badminton Korea Association. Given this recommendation, the BWF has initiated a process to decide on any additional disciplinary sanction against the Badminton Korea Association.

Hereafter evidence came available that the BKA took full responsibility for the administrative failure for all Filing Failures and Missed Tests. No available evidence suggests that the Athletes ever received notice from the BWF via BKA. The BKA office staff had made false representation to the BWF by drafting letters from players and using their names and signature stamps thereby unrightfully documenting to BWF that the players were aware about their Whereabouts Failures.

Therefore on 14 April 2014 the BWF Doping Hearing Panel rules that:
1.) All strikes for Missed Tests and Filing Failures recorded against Lee Yong Dae and Kim Ki Jung, in 2013 are cancelled.
2.) No Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been committed by the Korean Athlete’s Lee Yong Dae and Kim Ki Jung, and their sanctions are now lifted.
3.) In the light of the above, the BWF must undertake an Administrative Review of all other Missed Tests and Filing Failures declared against Korean Badminton Players in 2013.

Facts
The French Shooting Federation (Fédération Française de Tir, FFTir) charges respondent M21 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a shooting contest, on November 28, 2009, a sample for doping test purposes was taken. The sample tested positive on bisoprolol which is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent did mention the use of medication containing the prohibited substance. Due to heart problems he has to use this medication and he has documentation about his heart condition. The panel considers, regarding his medical files, the use of bisoprolol medical justified for his positive test.

Decision
1. The respondents is acquitted.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M20 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on July 23, 2005, respondent provided a sample for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of budesonide. Budesonide is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent had used a pharmaceutical product containing the prohibited substance. He suffers from exercise asthma and allergies since his adolescence. He has test evidence for the findings of a methacholine, which is treated with glucorticosteroids. The panel regards the treatment justifiable for the positive test result.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Related case:
FIA 2014 FIA vs Pál Lónyai
April 3, 2014

On 3 April 2014 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee (ADC) of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) decided for disqualification of the competitive results of the Driver Pál Lónyai – without a period of ineligibility - after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine.
The ADC concluded that the Driver has established that he bore no fault or negligence in this case.

Due to the FINA ADC imposed no period of ineligibility on the Driver the FIA decides to appeal the ADC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)