ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2006_10 ANAD vs George Cosmin Dobros

11 Apr 2006

In December 2005 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete George Cosmin Dobros after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.
The Athlete stated he used a medication, which contained the prohibited substance.
On 11 April 2006 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 11 March 2006.

ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2006_09 ANAD vs Claudiu Stefan Grama

28 Apr 2006

Related case:
ANAD Comisia de Apel 2006_01 Claudiu Stefan Grama vs ANAD
June 27, 2006

In April 2006 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Athlete Grama Ianula Sofia Micu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandorsterone, metabolite of nandrolone.

The Athlete admitted the use of the medication keratyl, which contained the prohibited substance.
Therefore on 28 April 2006 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection.

ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2006_08 ANAD vs Grama Ianula Sofia Micu

11 Apr 2006

In March 2006 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Grama Ianula Sofia Micu after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.
Therefore on 11 April 2006 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 11 March 2006.

ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2006_07 ANAD vs Octavian Ovidiu Ciora

11 Apr 2006

In March 2006 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Octavian Ovidiu Ciora after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methandienone.
Therefore on 11 April 2006 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 11 March 2006.

ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2006_06 ANAD vs Paulina Geanina Orlic

23 Mar 2006

In February 2006 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Paulina Geanina Orlic after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide.
Therefore on 23 March 2006 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 25 February 2006.

ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2006_05 ANAD vs Elena Constantin

23 Mar 2006

In March 2006 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Elena Constantin after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.

Therefore on 23 March 2006 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 4 March 2006.

ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2006_04 ANAD vs Diana Mihaela Tudorache

14 Mar 2006

In April 2006 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Diana Mihaela Tudorache after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methandienone.
Therefore on 14 March 2006 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 11 February 2006.

Swiss Federal Court 4A_624_2009 Süreyya Ayhan Kop vs IAAF & TAF

12 Apr 2009

Related cases:

  • CAS 2005_A_1585 Yücel Kop vs IAAF
    November 10, 200
  • CAS 2008_A_1586 Süreyya Ayhan Kop vs IAAF & TAF
    November10, 2009

In June 2005, due to an anti-doping rule violation, the Athlete Süreyya Ayhan Kop was sanctioned with a 2 year period of ineligibility which expired in August 2006.

In October 2007 the IAAF reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her out-of-competion sample tested positive for the prohibited substances stanozolol and methandienone.

Therefore on 25 January 2008 - and again confirmed on 2 April 2008 - the Turkish Athletics Federation (TAF) Disciplinary Commission decided - as second violation - to impose a lifetime ban on the Athlete. The Athlete appealed the TAF decision and on 30 May 2008 the Turkish Youth and Sport Tribunal decided to reduce the sanction to a four year period of ineligibility.

In June 2008 the Athlete appealed the Turkish Tribunal decision of 30 May 2008 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). On 10 November 2009 the CAS Panel decided to set aside the previous Turkish Tribunal decisions and imposed a lifetime ban on the Athlete (CAS 2008/A/1585&1586), starting on the date of the decision.

Hereafter on 10 December 2009 the Athlete appealed the CAS decision of 10 Novemer 2009 with the Swiss Federal Court. The Athlete argued that CAS would have issued a decision inconsistent with public policy and claimed that her right to be heard was violated.

The Swiss Federal Court dismissed the Athlete’s arguments and therefore decides on 12 April 2010:

1.) The appeal is rejected.

2.) The judicial costs, set at CHF 3’975.-, shall be borne by the Appellant.

3.) This decision shall be notified to the Parties and to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS).

Swiss Federal Court 4A_237_2010 Erwin Bakker vs UCI

6 Oct 2010

Related cases:

  • CAS 2005/A/936 UCI vs Erwin Bakker & KNWI
    April 20, 2006
  • CAS 2005/A/969 Erwin Bakker vs KNWU & UCI
    Mai 5, 2006
  • ECHR 7198/07 Erwin Bakker vs Switzerland
    September 26, 2019

In April 2005 the Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie (KNWU), the Royal Dutch Cycling Federation, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Erwin Bakker after his A and B samples – provided during the Mountain Bike Cycling Race Vuelta Internacional a Valladolid in Spain in March 2005 –  tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.

On 1 July 2005, the KNWU Anti-Doping Committee issued a decision that acquitted the Athlete from any charges related to a doping offence. Hereafter in August 2005 the UCI appealed the KNWU decision of 1 July 2005 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

On 20 April 2006, the CAS Panel upheld the UCI appeal, annulled the decision issued by the KNWU, disqualified the Athlete from the Vuelta Internacional a Valladolid 2005 and any other race in which he competed between 26 March 2005 and 2 February 2006 and declared the Athlete ineligible for competition for two years commencing on 2 February 2006 (CAS 2005/A/936).

Already involved in the ADRV proceedings – reported in april 2005 – the Athlete participated in Canada in the Mount-Sainte-Anne contest in June 2005.
In July 2005 the KNWU reported a second anti-doping violation against the Athlete after his sample – provided in Canada in June 2005 – tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoetin (rhEPO).

On 5 September 2005, the KNWU Anti-Doping Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete and a CHF 2000 fine for the ADRV committed in Canada.

The Athlete appealed the KNWU decision of 5 September 2005 with CAS in October 2005 (CAS 2005/A/969). At the same time the Athlete was already involved in the case CAS 2005/A/936 after the UCI had appealed the KNWU decision for acquittal of 1 July 2005.

Considering the previous CAS decision of 20 April 2006 (CAS 2005/A/936) as a first ADRV the CAS Panel decided on 5 May 2006 (CAS 2005/A/969):

1.) The appeal filed by the Athlete Mr Erwin Bakker is rejected.

2.) The decision of the Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie’s Anti-Doping Commission dated 5 September 2005 is annulled.

3.) Mr Erwin Bakker shall be declared ineligible for competition for lifetime.

4.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 already paid by Mr Bakker, which is retained by the CAS.

5.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

Hereafter in April 2010 the Athlete appealed the CAS decision of 5 May 2006 (CAS 2005/A/969) with the Swiss Federal Court.

The Athlete argued that in the case CAS 2005/A/936 upon receipt of the results of the A-sample analysis he demanded the analysis of a B-sample. Once the latter was done and assessed he would have received only the counter analysis of the B-sample two pages in length, yet not the laboratory’s report which contained more than 80 pages. Neither would he have been advised of the possibility to request the complete analysis report of the B-sample.

The Athlete further argued that his counsel did submit during the February 2006 hearing in front of the CAS that he should be allowed to review the full laboratory’s report; however neither the CAS nor the UCI responded to the request which “very likely was not even mentioned in the record”. Only through an e-mail of 29 January 2010 would he have received the full report concerning the B-sample. At that point in time he would have learned that the A and B analysis had been conducted at least in parts by the same lab technicians.

According to the applicable rules of the International Standard for Laboratories this is not allowed. Thus a breach of the rules took place, which according to the Athlete should have led to an acquittal. An acquittal in CAS 2005/A/936 would lead in turn “inevitably to a milder sanction in the CAS case 2005/A/969 to be reopened”, namely only to a two years ban and not to a ban for life.

Considering the Athlete’s arguments the Swiss Federal Court decides:

1.) The request for revision is rejected to the extent that the matter is capable of revision.

2.) The judicial costs set at CHF 2’000.- shall be paid by the Athlete.

3.) The Athlete shall pay to the Respondent CHF 2’500.- for the federal proceedings.

4.) This judgment shall be notified in writing to the parties and to the court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

ST 2014_14 DFSNZ vs Gareth Dawson

1 Aug 2014

Related case:
ST 2017_05 DFSNZ vs Gareth Dawson
December 15, 2017

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent Gareth Dawson after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance tamoxifen. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation. He developed a medical condition in 2011, which was sore and annoying when competing, and went to a doctor in Timaru who diagnosed the condition but didn’t prescribe treatment. The condition went away for 18 months then returned. In 2013 Mr Dawson researched the condition online, saw references to tamoxifen as a treatment and ordered tamoxifen tablets from an online pharmacy but didn’t receive them as they were intercepted in the mail by NZ Customs. When the tablets didn’t arrive he consulted a doctor in Invercargill where he was now living. He requested a “repeat prescription” of tamoxifen and was prescribed tamoxifen, which he later took. He said this was the source of the positive test.

The Tribunal was satisfied how the prohibited substance entered the Athlete’s body, that he didn’t intend to enhance his sports performance or mask the use of a performance enhancing substance and that it was obtained by prescription and taken to deal with a medical condition.
Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 May 2014.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin