Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Limited (UKAD) charged Kenneth Anderson, the athlete, for an omission of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on October 20, 2012, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of amphetamine, which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The athlete denies knowingly ingesting amphetamine or any other
banned substance before the fight. He said he would regard amphetamine as more of a hindrance than a help to his performance since he needs to be calm and collected when he fights, and understands amphetamine has the opposite effect. He recalled having been offered speed by his sister at the night club after the fight and began to wonder if the positive test result had anything to do with his sister who uses drugs. Someone confessed putting speed in Mr Anderson's coffee the night before the fight. The athlete made an official complaint of criminal conduct at the police station.
However the police station didn't provide any report related to this case.
The scientific evidence is inconclusive, the tribunal cannot know the time and date of ingestion, nor the dose, thus having no positive scientific evidence to corroborate the spiking claim.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years from 9 November 2012, the date with effect from which the Athlete was provisionally suspended.
2. The Athlete's results from the bout on 20 October 2012 are disqualified.
3. The prize money of £15,000 must be repaid to the British Boxing Board of Control.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Austin Denman, the athlete, for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On July 19, 2013, the Athlete was selected for an out-of-competition doping control sample of both blood and urine. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of terbutaline which is a prohibited substance according to the 2013 Wold Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list incorporated under the CADP.

History
The athlete suffers from asthma since childhood, for that reason he had used medication containing the prohibited substance. The reason for not applying earlier for an Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) was due to a busy training schedule. However he didn't mention this on the doping control form. Realizing his mistake during the procedure he tried to get an amended certificate. In the process he had received a TUE with the wrong date, which was the date of the doping control.
A retrospective TUE is only granted in medical emergencies or acute medical situations, this case is no considered to be exceptional. The Athlete has failed to establish that it would have been possible or beyond all reasonable expectations for him to submit a full application for a TUE prior to the doping control. Also it is considered that there had been enough time to apply for a TUE.

Decision
1. The Athlete has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation for the Presence of a Specified Substance in his bodily specimen;
2. The Athlete shall be sanctioned with a 2 month period of Ineligibility;
3. Because the Athlete has been serving a provisional suspension since December 16, 2013, the provisional suspension can be terminated effective immediately. The Athlete is free to compete.

Costs
Neither party has made a request for costs. Accordingly, no such order will be made.

Facts
The International Chess Federation (FIDE) charged Bobby Miller, the player, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On October 28, 2004, during the Chess Olympiad in Calvia, Mallorca the player refused a doping test.

History
The statement of the player was the following. He confessed that he refused to submit to the doping control. His teamcaptain has advised him to refuse. He did not know about the possible sanctions. Bermuda is a low team in the ranking. Bobby Miller is an amateur. He has no FIDE-rating . He played between the Olympiad in Bled in 2002 and the Olympiad in 2004 only one FIDE rated event, the Bermuda Open 2003. In that event he played only one game against a FIDE-rated player.
The panel considers: the player keeps his own responsibility to decide if he submits to the doping control or refuses. The advise of the team captain does not deprive the player from his own responsibility. The refusal of submitting a sample means that the player is considered to be positive tested. According to the FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations the disqualification of individual results is the automatic consequence in each doping case, also the exclusion from participating in events organised by FIDE or national chess federations is further the normal sanction after a refusal. However, the Panel has discovered that the FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations are not well known in a part of the federations in FIDE. Further, Bobby Miller is an amateur player who came on his own cost to the Olympiad. The FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations are in the first place meant for the professional players of whom there are many in chess. There is no place for an exclusion, but only a warning should
be given. A minority of two members of the Panel judges that also this sanctioning is to severe and there should be no cancelling of points, but just a warning.

Decision
1. The sanction is a warning.
2. The points obtained since the Bermuda Open 2003 till the Chess Olympiad 2004 are cancelled.

Facts
The International Chess Federation (FIDE) charged Shaun Press, the player, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On October 28, 2004, during the Chess Olympiad in Calvia, Mallorca the player refused a doping test.

History
On October 30, 2004, there was a hearing of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel. The statement of the player Shaun Press was the following. He confessed that he refused to submit to the doping control. The written statement of doctor Eduardo Ribot is not correct. When the doctor asked him to submit to the doping control, he asked to the doctor if there was any evidence that he had used forbidden substances. When the doctor said no, he refused because he can not be obliged to produce evidence against himself. He did not know the possible sanctions at that moment. In the meeting of team captains on october 15, 2004, before the first round the chief arbiter told that there would be doping controls in the last week of the tournament, but he did not say anything about the possible sanctions and he did not say that there were new anti-doping regulations that were different from the regulations that were accepted in Bled in 2002. When a team captain asked a question to the Chief Arbiter about the anti-doping regulations, the Chief Arbiter did not answer the question. Neither at any other moment had been told to the team captains or the players that there were new anti-doping regulations. FIDE did not inform the federations that there were new anti-doping regulations. During the Olympiad in Bled in 2002 there were refusals and nobody had been sanctioned. He presented a written statement by Stuart Fancy, in the last 15 month president of the Papua New Guinea Chess Federation, that he is not informed during that time by FIDE of any anti-doping regulations and that he has not been asked to check on any website of such regulations. He also presented a written statement of zone president Gary Bekker that he was not be made aware of the new anti-doping regulations prior to the 36th Olympiad. Further he was not all the time accompanied by a doping official in the hour between the refusal of the original test and the second visit to the doping room; so if he would have wished to take the test, then it would have been void. That is contrary to the anti-doping regulations. From the doping control form it is not clear which authorities are responsible for the doping controls. It was not known what would happen with the samples after the control. In the forms there was no information about the regulations of procedure. In Australia chess is not a sport. He has a FIDE-rating. He did not play any FIDE rated event between the Olympiad in Bled in 2002 and the Olympiad in Mallorca in 2004. He is an amateur player.
The panel considers: the refusal to submit to the doping control is a violation. The fact that the player was not accompanied by a doping official in the hour between his first visit and the second visit to the doping control and a test might be void, is not a good reason for a refusal. The new doping rules where available on the website www.fide.com. It is not assumable that the player was not able to get this information. The refusal of submitting a sample means that the player is considered to be positive tested. However, the Panel has discovered that the FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations are not well known in a part of the federations in FIDE. Further, Shaun Press is an amateur player who came on his own cost to the Olympiad. The FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations are in the first place meant for the professional players of whom there are many in chess. For these reasons a majority of three members of the Panel judges that next to the cancelling of the points gathered during the Olympiad, there is no place for an exclusion, but only a warning should be given.

Decision
1. The sanction is a warning.
2. The points obtained at the Chess Olympiad are cancelled.

Facts
The International Chess Federation (FIDE) charged Vassily Ivanchuk, the player for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match the Dresden Olympiad 2008 he didn't attend a doping control.

History
After losing a crucial game for his country, the player was distraught. The arbiter attempted to inform the player in English that he should accompany him for a doping test, the player apparently failed to understand the instructions, especially since English is not his first language. If there had been a Doping Control Officer present, he would have immediately gone to the player's board and there would have been communication between him and the player. In that case the outcome might have been different. Because there was no notification by the Doping Control officer, there was no refusal in the sense of the regulations.

Decision
The player is acquitted.

In October 2011 the International Cricket Council has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Guyanese cricket player Tremayne Smartt after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the ICC Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete did not challenge the test results and stated that in the past she underwent several treatments for her knee problems and the pain she suffered. Because she he had a swelling in her knee at the competition in September 2011 she used tablets Frusemide, purchased in a pharmacy in Guyana in July 2010, to reduce the swelling. The Athlete produced medical information about her knee problems.

The Tribunal accepts the Athlete's statement including the medical evidence and that the Frusemide tablets were used for the swelling in her knee in September 2011 without intention to enhance sport performance.
The Tribunal finds that the Athlete conducted insufficient enquiries about the content of her tablets and did not consult medical advisers about the medication she used.

Considering the circumstances in this case the ICC Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 14 December 2011 to impose a 5 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 October 2011.

In June 2013 the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cricket player Pradeep Sangwan after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the BCCI Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission, stated that the violation was not intentional and probably caused by the fat burning pills he had used to reduce weight. He had not received formal anti-doping education and he couldn't read the BCCI anti-doping information because it was in English and not available in Hindi.

The Tribunal accepts the Athlete's explanation and that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence without intention to enhance sport performance.

Therefore the BCCI Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 18 October 2013 to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the samplecollection, i.e. on 6 May 2013.

In November 2008 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Adrian Frȋncu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (nandrolone).

Therefore on 15 December 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of decision.

In October 2008 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Alexandru Ballai after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance drostanolone.

Therefore on 15 December 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of decision.

In October 2008 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Veronica Popescu after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance propranolol.

Considering the circumstances the ANAD Sanction Committee decides on 15 December 2008 to impose a reprimand on the Athlete and a warning to apply for a TUE.