Facts
The French Federation of Bullfighting (Federation Française de course camarguaise, FFCC) charges respondent M03 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an event on July 29, 2013, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisolone, prednisone and terbutaline. These substances are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent used medication containing prednisolone which metabolizes into prednisone to treat asthma. This was mentioned on the doping control form. Also he suffers from allergies, for which he had taken terbutaline at an emergency in his condition. He has an allergy report and a report on his pulmonary function to prove his condition.
The panel concludes that there is no adequate explanation for the use of terbutaline.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFCC.
2. All the results obtained at July 29, 2013, are cancelled. Medals, points and prizes are withdrawn.
3. The decision (a warning) dated October 21, 2013, by the disciplinary committee of the FFCC is cancelled.
4. The present decision will start on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M02 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on June 2, 2013, respondent provided a sample for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of nikethamide and it's metabolites, tamoxifen and it's metabolites, 19-norandrosterone, a metabolite of nandrolone and a high testerone on epitestosterone ratio, a additional spectrometric analysis on isotopes showed testosterone of exogenous origin. Nikethamide, tamoxifen, nandrolone and exogenous testosterone are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent had not intention to enhances his sport performance. He had used steroids to treat chronic hepatitis C which causes a joint complaint. He has certificates and reports to prove his condition. He admits he had made an error with the injections. For some substances he hadn't provide any explanation how they had entered his body.
The panel concludes that these products where used for an intentional effect on his sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by French sport federations.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served in: voluntary suspension, the decision of the disciplinary committee of the FFC (dated August 28, 2013) and the decision of the appeal committee of the FFC (dated September 30, 2013).
3. The decision of the appeal committee, dated September 30, 2013, should be modified
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M01 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The respondent was convicted for the possession of erythropoietin and growth hormones by the correctional court (on May 28, 2012, finalized on June 8 2013) for an imprisonment of four months and a fee of 5.000 euro.

The disciplinary committee sanctioned respondent, in her decision on August 7, 3007, with a period of ineligibility of four years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations of French sport federations. All his result obtained after June 8, 2013, are cancelled with all it's consequences.
The appeal commission confirmed the decision in first instance.

The AFLD will consider the sanctions of the committees.

Respondent confessed before the correctional court the use of erythropoietin and growth hormones in the period May-June 2009 in order to improve athletic performance.

Considering that under independence of the criminal and disciplinary prosecution, the same facts may give rise to both criminal sanctions and disciplinary sanctions in accordance with the principle of proportionality.

Respondent was already sanctioned, by a decision of November 23, 2009, with the prohibition to participate for two years any competition or sporting event organized or authorized by the French cycling federation, this sanction concerned using formestane, and not that of erythropoietin or growth hormones, he was would already sanctioned and doesn't accept a sanction for the same facts.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of four years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the French sports.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced with the period already served by the decision, dated August 7, 2013, by the disciplinary committee of the FFC and the period served under the sanction, dated September 30, 2013, by the appeal committee of the FFC.
3. The decision of September 30, 2013, should be modified.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M61 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on February 25, 2007, respondent provided a sample for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of betamethasone which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent had used a pharmaceutical product containing betamethasone. He had use the remnants of a product he had used years ago but was unable to contact the health specialist who had described it. The reason why he had used it was because of toothache. He has statements of his general practitioner and two statements by a dental surgeon.
The panel regards this as a case of self medication.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one year in which 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 period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served by the sanction from the disciplinary committee of the FFC, dated July 27, 2007, and the time served in voluntary suspension.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Triathlon Federation (Fédération Française de Triathlon, FFTri) charges respondent M59 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on May 19, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes.

History
The respondent had mentioned the use of a pharmaceutical product on the doping control form, she was using it for a therapeutic reason. There was no intention to enhance sport performance. A Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) was delivered by the AFLD on July 4, 2007, to use the product for therapeutic purposes. It mentioned the method of administration and the inhalation dosage: two puffs before exercise or when needed, which seems consistent, given the statements of the respondent and the salbutamol concentration detected in the urine.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision (warning) of the disciplinary committee dated September 4, 2007, is cancelled.
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 for Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo and Associated Disciplines (Fédération Française de Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo et Disciplines Associées FFJDA) charges respondent M58 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a judo tournament on June 3, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of furosemide which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent had used a pharmaceutical product containing furosemide to treat a swollen ankle. He didn't mention the use of this product on the doping control form, although he as a prescription from a general practitioner. However the medical prescription (used for arterial hypertension and renal cedemes of cardiac or liver) doesn't match the treatment for a swollen ankle.

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

The case involved an athlete who ran away from an anti-doping test by refusing to meet the Doping Control Officer. His federation failed to sanction him and an appeal was made to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF).

In order to be able to issue a decision before the Olympic Games in London and with the agreement of the parties, the CAS resorted to expedited proceedings. The CAS Panel held a hearing and issued its decision on 25 July 2012.

That decision contained only the operative part of the award, which upheld the appeal and banned the athlete for two years.
On 18 October 2012, the reasoned award was notified to the parties, and the operative part mentioned that credit should be given to the athlete for any period of suspension served prior to the notification of the award.

An appeal was made by the Athlete to the Swiss Federal Court and rejected on 29 April 2012.

The Swiss Federal Court’s opinion in this case:

1.) While there is no right to a reasoned award flowing directly from Art. 190(2)(d) PILA, there is a minimal duty for the arbitrators to review and handle the pertinent issues. This is a bit of a contradiction in terms because, by definition, if there are no reasons it will be quite difficult to determine whether or not the pertinent issues were addressed at all but this view has been consistently expressed by the Court.

2.) An argument not specifically addressed by the arbitrators does not necessarily create a violation of the right to be heard if it can be shown that the argument was rejected implicitly.

3.) Slightly amending the dispositive part of the award between its notification in expedited proceedings and the notification of a fully reasoned award does not violate public procedural policy, at least when the slight change made is in the Appellant’s favor.

Related case:
CAS 2009/A/1817 & CAS 2009/A/1844 WADA & FIFA vs Cyprus Football Association (CFA), Carlos Marques, Leonel Medeiros, Angelos Efthymiou, Yiannis Sfakianakis, Dmytro Mykhailenko, Samir Bengeloun, Bernardo Vasconcelos & Edward Eranosian
October 26, 2010

In November 2008 the Cyprus Football Association (CFA) has reported two separate anti-doping rule violations against two football players of the Cyprian APOP Kinyras football team after their A and B samples, provided in October and November 2008, tested positive for the prohibited substance oxymesterone.

After an investigation the CFA Judicial Committee decided on 2 April 2009 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the two Cyprian football players.
The CFA investigation showed that the Bulgarian football trainer Mr. Edward Eranosian of APOP Kinyras provided the pills to the football players. Due to his substantial assistance in the investigation a 2 year period of ineligibility was imposed on him instead of a 4 year period.

WADA appealed the CFA decision of 2 April 2009 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
On 26 October 2010, the CAS Panel decided to uphold the WADA appeal and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the trainer Mr. Edward Eranosian (CAS 2009/A/1817 & CAS 2009/A/1844) .

Hereafter the Mr. Eranosian appealed the CAS decision of 26 October 2010 to the Swiss Federal Court.
The Swiss Federal Court decides to reject the appeal on 18 April 2011 to the extent that matter is capable of appeal.

The Swiss Federal Court’s opinion in this case:

The issue was that, as a professional trainer registered with the Cyprus Football Association, the trainer had undertaken to comply with the anti-doping provisions of the Cyprus Football Association as well as with the FIFA Statutes because the Cyprus federation statutes contained an undertaking to ensure that the members comply with FIFA regulations and statutes, which require compliance with anti-doping rules. It thus created the basis for CAS’ exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to articles 62 and 63 of the FIFA Statutes.

Despite a well-reasoned argument that the reference to the Cyprus federation statutes was merely with regard to the substantive anti-doping rules of FIFA and was not intended to create CAS jurisdiction by reference to articles 62 and 63 of the FIFA Statutes, the Court rejected it. Instead, it emphasized the importance of CAS jurisdiction, albeit by what were at times somewhat thin references, because of the importance of ensuring that doping is not tolerated.

As will be clear from the foregoing, the opinion will be of interest to readers who practice sports arbitration. The decision also shows that the Swiss Supreme Court is ready to broadly interpret CAS jurisdiction when there are public interest issues involved.

Related cases:

• CAS 2010_A_2268 Igor Walilko vs FIA
  September 15, 2011
• FIA 2010 FIA vs Igor Walilko
  October 11, 2010
• FIA 2011 FIA vs Igor Walilko – CAS decision
  September 15, 2011
  
  

The International Automobile Federation (FIA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Polish Karting Driver Igor Walilko (12) after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Nikethamide.
On 11 October 2010 the FIA Anti-Doping Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Driver starting on 18 July 2010.

In November 2010 the Driver appealed the FIA decision of 11 October 2010 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
The CAS Panel finds that it must apply the principle of proportionality in order to assess a sanction which could be appropriate to the case at stake. As a result, the Panel finds the suspension of two years decided by the FIA to be excessive and disproportionate.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled on 15 September 2011:

1.) The Appeal filed by the Athlete is partially upheld.

2.) The decision of 11 October 2010 by the Anti-Doping Committee-FIA Medical Commission of the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) is set aside.

3.) The Athlete is declared ineligible for a period of 18, starting from 18 July 2010.

4.) The Athlete is disqualified from the individual results obtained in the karting event held in Ampfing, Germany on 18 July 2010, as well as from any competitive results obtained thereafter, with all resulting consequences including forfeiture of any trophies, points and prizes.

5.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) already paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS.

6.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

7.) All other requests, motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Hereafter the Athlete made a Civil law appeal to the Swiss Federal Court, which was dismissed on 18 June 2012, due to the appeal became moot.

The Swiss Federal Court’s deemed in this case:

1.) The Court repeated that, with few exceptions, a ban that has already expired by the time the matter is adjudicated by the Federal Court renders the case incapable of appeal as to the expired ban.

2.) The Court also emphasized that should arguments be brought forward in the appeal brief only as to an issue where the appellant no longer has standing to appeal, but not as to other issues for which he retains an interest in obtaining a decision from the Swiss Federal Court, the matter becomes incapable of appeal for lack of submission of proper arguments.

On 7 December 2008 a Romanian Appeal Commission confirmed the decision of 3 October 2008 of a Romanian Disciplinary Commission to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Romanian Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation. The Athlete appealed with het Swiss Federal Court in November 2009 after the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) dismissed the Athlete’s appeal on 9 October 2009.

The Swiss Federal Court also dismissed the Athlete’s appeal on 17 February 2010 due it was filed late and insufficiently argued in any event.