AFLD 2007 FSGT vs Respondent M11

25 Jan 2007

Facts
The French Federation of Workers and Amateurs in sports (Fédération Sportive et Gymnique du Travail (FSGT) charges respondent M11 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling contest on July 12, 2006, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis showed the presence of a metabolite of budesonide. Budesonide is prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent used medication for problems with breathing, this medication contained the prohibited substance. He has transmitted the results of tests realized by a pulmonologist. However he had failed to mention the used product on the doping control form.

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 sport federations.
2. The present decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

IBU 2014 IBU vs Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle

14 Jul 2014

Related cases:
IOC 2014 IOC vs Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle
February 21, 2014
CAS OG_06_04 Deutscher Skiverband & Evi Sachenbacher vs FIS
February 12, 2006
CAS 2014_A_3685 Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle vs IBU
November 14, 2014

Ms. Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle is a German Athlete competing in Women’s Biathlon events at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games.

On 20 February 2014 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

Therefore on 21 February 2014 the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides that the Athlete is disqualified from the biathlon events and excluded from the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games.

Due to the IOC sanction the International Biathlon Union (IBU) started proceedings against the Athlete. After notification by IBU the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the IBU Anti-Doping Hearing Panel (ADHP)

The Athlete stated she used the product Shisandrea, as recommended by her nutritional advisor, and didn’t know it contained a prohibited substance. She and her advisor researched the product before using and she had no intention to enhance her performance.

Without mitigating circumstances the ADHP decides on 14 July 2014 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 17 February 2014.

IBU 2014 IBU vs Irina Starykh

14 Jul 2014

Related case:
IBU 2015 IBU vs Irina Starykh
June 30, 2015

In January 2014 the International Biathlon Union (IBU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Irina Starykh after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoetin (rhEPO). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission, denied the intentional use and waived het right to be heard for the IBU Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.
She submitted that the probable source of the positive test is the drug Laennec used to improve her cosmetic appearance and not for the purpose to enhance her sports performance.

Without exceptional circumstances the IBU Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 14 July 2014 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 23 December 2013.

AFLD 2007 FFESSM vs Respondent M10

25 Jan 2007

Facts
The French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports (Fédération Française d'Etudes et de Sports Sous Marins, FFESSM) charges respondent M10 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an event on March 11, 2006, respondent didn't attend the doping control.

History
Respondent was summoned to attend the doping control but he
made an agreement not to attend the control. He had just beaten a record. He didn't provide any explanation for not attending the doping control.

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

AFLD 2007 FFVL vs Respondent M09

25 Jan 2007

Facts
The French Free Flight Federation (Fédération Française de Vol Libre, FFVL) charges respondent M09 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an Free Flight event on May 27, 2006, respondent didn't attend a doping control.

History
Respondent admits in writing the use of cannabis.

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

AFLD 2007 FFHMFAC vs Respondent M08

25 Jan 2007

Facts
The French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M08 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on May 20, 2006, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The samples showed the presence of a metabolite of stanozolol and a metabolite of nandrolone. These substance are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent was surprised about the detection of the prohibited substances, he thinks it came from the use of food supplements, ordered by the internet, but there was no mentioning of prohibited substances on the label. He had no intention to enhance his sport performance.

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

AFLD 2007 FFHMFAC vs Respondent M07

25 Jan 2007

Facts
The French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M07 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on April 28, 2007, samples were taken for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of a metabolite of stanozolol, a metabolite of exemestane, a metabolite of nandrolone, canrenone and ephedrine. All of these substances are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent didn't provide any information about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction, as pronounced by the disciplinary committee of the FFHMFAC on October 3, 2006, is a period of ineligibility of three years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by all French sport federations.
2. The period of ineligibility should be reduced by the period already served under the sanction of October 3, 2006.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2007 FFFA vs Respondent M06

11 Jan 2007

Facts
The French Federation of American Football (Fédération Française de Football Américain, FFFA) charges respondent M06 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on May 14, 2006, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent used cannabis several times a week before the match. He used it because he was depressed. There was no intention to enhance his sport performance.

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

AFLD 2007 FFE vs Respondent M05

11 Jan 2007

Facts
The French Fencing Federation (Fédération Française d'Escrime, FFE) charges respondent M05 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a Match on June 4, 206, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list, it is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent had used cannabis in a social setting preceding the match, he was under the influence of alcohol when he used it. There was no intention to enhance sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one year in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized or authorized by the FFE as pronounced by the disciplinary committee of the FFE on October 11, 2006.
2. The present decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will apply until the end of the execution of the sanction imposed on October 11, 2006, by the Disciplinary Committee of the FFE which started on the date of voluntary suspension since October 26, 2006, the date of referral of the Agency.
4. The decision will be sent to the parties involved.

MLB Arbitration Panel 2014-131 Alexander Rodriguez (A-Rod) vs MLB

11 Jan 2014

On 25 January 2013 the Major League Baseball (MLB) received copies of letters from the Miami News Times to various MLB Clubs advising that an article was being prepared asserting that a Player or Players on those teams were involved in the use op Performing Enhancing Substances (PES). On 29 January 2013 the newspaper published the story identifying Anthony Bosch and his Biogenesis practice as having supplied PES to several Major League Players. MLB Player Alex Rodriguez (A-Rod) was mentioned prominently as one of the PES users. The publication of this article captured national attention and set the stage for a public battle between MLB and Rodruquez over the veracity and consequences of those allegations.

On June 3, 2013, MLB and Antony Bosch entered into a mutual cooperation agreement. Bosch promised to proffer truthful information to MLB and testify if necessary regarding any Major League Player or individuals acting on their behalf regarding the acquisition, possession, or use by them of any PES. In exchange, MLB promised to dismiss Bosch and his brother from MLB's civil suit, to not seek testimony or discovery from Bosch family members, and to inform law enforcement agencies of his cooperation.

MLB convened an investigatory interview with Rodriguez on 12 July 2013. At that session, Rodriguez declined to answer any questions about his involvement, if any, with Bosch or Biogenesis on Fifth Amendment grounds. There were no positive tests conducted under the JDA for Rodriguez during the period of October 2010 and August 2013.

Based on the evidence and statements the MLB reported on 5 August 2013 several anti-doping rule violations against the Player Alex Rodriques for the attempted cover-up, possession and use of the prohibited substances: testosterone, human growth hormone (hGH) and IGF-1 (Insulin-like Growth Factor-1). Therefore the MLB suspended the Player for 211 regular-season games, starting on 8 August 2013.
The MLB suspended a total of 13 Mayor League Players in 2013 for violations of the JDA in connection with the Biogenesis baseball scandal. The Player Alex Rodriques appealed the MLB suspension of 5 August 2011 with the MLB Arbitration Panel. He filed documents, arguments and statements in his defence and was heard for the Panel.

Before the Panel, MLB contends that Rodriguez was disciplined for just cause. MLB maintains Rodriguez committed multiple violations of the JDA over the course of three seasons by the continuous use and possession of a variety of PES. MLB asserts the multiple efforts by Rodriguez to obstruct MLB's investigation of his violations of the JDA violated the Basic Agreement. MLB argues adverse inferences be drawn from Rodriguez's failure to testify under oath in this proceeding or present other witnesses to refute the evidence of his misconduct. MLB contends the penalty in this case is appropriate and justified in light of the scope and gravity of the misconduct by Rodriguez, and that the settlements reached with other Players involved in Biogenesis cannot be considered by agreement of the bargaining parties as previously ruled upon by this Panel. Accordingly, MLB urges the grievance be denied.

The Player Alex Rodriguez contends MLB has failed to meet its burden of proving the alleged misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. Rodriguez argues MLB did not show he possessed and used PES and that the testimony by Bosch, his evidence, and digital evidence are inherently unreliable, must be stricken, and can be afforded no weight. Rodriguez contends that science establish he did not use PES. Rodriguez also asserts MLB failed to establish he obstructed MLB's investigation of Biogenesis and Bosch. Rodriguez further maintains that all of the evidence presented by MLB is irrevocably tainted by investigatory misconduct and coercion of witnesses, including Bosch. Finally, Rodriguez claims the suspension is wholly inappropriate when compared to those given other Players with alleged ties to Biogenesis and Bosch. Thus, Rodriguez asks the suspension not be upheld.

The MLB Arbitration Panel concluded, based on the entire record from the arbitration, that MLB has demonstrated with clear and convincing evidence there is just cause to suspend Rodriguez for the 2014 season and 2014 postseason for having violated the JDA by the use and/or possession of testosterone, IGF-1, and hGH over the course of three years, and for the two attempts to obstruct MLB's investigation, which violated Article XII(B) of the Basic Agreement. While this length of suspension may be unprecedented for a MLB Player, so is the misconduct he committed. The suspension imposed by MLB as modified herein is hereby sustained.
Due to Rodriguez was allowed to play during the appeal process, this effectively reduced the suspension from 211 to 162 games - the entirety of the 2014 regular-season schedule. He also shall lose 162 days of pay for the 2014 season.

On 11 January the Major League Baseball Arbitration Panel decided that the Player's grievance is sustained in part and denied in part. The Panel ruled that MLB has just cause to suspend Alexander Rodriguez for the 2014 season and 2014 postseason.

Hereafter the Player challenged the decision in federal court. However on 7 February 2014 Rodriguez announced that he was dropping his lawsuit and accepting his suspension for the 2014 season.

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