Related case:
ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2006_09 ANAD vs Claudiu Stefan Grama
April 28, 2006

In 28 April 2006 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the minor Athlete Claudiu Stefan Gram after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandorsterone, metabolite of nandrolone.

Hereafter in May 2006 the Athlete appealed the decision of the ANAD Sanction Committee with the ANAD Appeal Commission. The Athlete argued that he used prescribed medication due to a diagnosed eye inflammation of the cornea. The prescribed eye-drops medication contained the prohibited substance nandrolone. Also the Athlete mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form.

The ANAD Appeal Commission concludes that the detected concentration nandrolone was low and that the Athlete had no intention to enhance his sport performance. The Commission rules that his negligence is not significant in relation to anti-doping rule violation and decides on 27 june 2006 to reduce the imposed 2 year period of ineligibility to 1 year.

The Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Sebastian Mirel Varga after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
Therefore on 9 October 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 9 September 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).