Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M49 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on April 27, 2008, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cocaine. Cocaine is a prohibited substance 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 is period of ineligibility of four years in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by French sport federations. This was the same sanction as pronounced by the disciplinary committee of the FFC on July 28, 2008.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Triathlon Federation (Fédération Française de Triathlon, FFTri) charges respondent M60 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on June 22, 2008, a sample was collected for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of methylprednisolone which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. It is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent admits the use of a pharmaceutical product containing the prohibited substance, it was used in the morning of the athletic event and the whole week before to treat an injury. There was no intention to enhance sport performance. She has a prescription from her physician but this indicates neither the name nor the dosage of the drug present, including the frequency and route of administration are also not indicated.

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

Related cases:

• ITF 2005 ATP vs Guillermo Cañas
  August 7, 2005
• Swiss Federal Court 4P.172_2006 Guillermo Cañas vs ATP Tour & CAS
  March 22, 2007
• CAS 2005/A/951 Guillermo Cañas vs ATP - Revision
  May 23, 2011 & May 23, 2012
• European Court of Justice T-508_09 Guillermo Cañas vs European Commission
  March 26, 2012

In March 2005, the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Guillermo Cañas after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide (HCT).

After notification the Athlete was heard and thereupon the ATP Anti-Doping Tribunal decided on 7 August 2005 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 11 June 2005.

Thereupon in August 2005 the Athlete appealed the ATP decision of 7 August 2005 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Panel considered the Appellant’s arguments on EU law and the majority of the Panel rejected them.

Assuming that EU law would be applicable to the present case, as alleged by the Appellant, although such application has not been specifically agreed by the parties, the Panel is of the view that the present decision does not violate EU law.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling de novo decides:

1.) The appeal filed by the Athlete Mr Guillermo Cañas on 29 August 2005 is partially upheld.

2.) Mr Guillermo Cañas has committed a Doping Offense during the “Abierto Mexicano de Tenis” held in Acapulco, Mexico on 21 February 2005 and his results from the competition shall be disqualified. Any prize money collected at such Tournament not previously returned to ATP Tour shall be returned to ATP Tour within 7 days of the date of this award.

3.) Mr Cañas shall be ineligible to compete on the ATP Tour for the fifteen months period beginning from 11 June 2005.

4.) To the extent that ATP Tour has collected prize money for competitions in which Appellant competed after the Tournament, those amounts shall be returned to Appellant by ATP Tour within 7 days of the date of this award.

5.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500.- already paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS.

6.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS decision of 23 May 2006 (CAS 2005/A/951) with the Swiss Federal Court. The Athlete argued that his right to be heard was violated by the CAS Panel.
On 22 March 2007, the Swiss Federal Court ruled that the Appellant’s right to be heard was disregarded by the CAS Panel and on that basis, the Swiss Federal Court annulled the CAS Panel’s award (Swiss Federal Court 4P.172_2006).

In the light of the judgment of the Swiss Federal Tribunal, the CAS Panel has reviewed the submissions and evidence originally submitted by the parties and issues a new revised award (23 May 2007) in substitution of the award rendered on 23 May 2006.

The Athlete Guillermo Cañas submitted a complaint to the European Commission on grounds of alleged violations of EU antitrust law, committed by WADA, ATP and ICAS, related to his anti-doping rule violation case and the imposed sanction. The European Commission decided on 12 October 2009 to dismiss the Athlete’s complaint (decision C(2009)7809).

The Athlete then challenged the European Commission's rejection with the European Court of Justice (case T-508/09) who decided on 26 March 2012 there was no need to adjudicate.

Finally on 20 June 2013 the European Court of Justice dismissed the Athlete’s next appeal (case C-269/12 P) against the previous ECJ decision of 26 March 2012 (case T-508/09).

Related cases:

• ITF 2005 ATP vs Guillermo Cañas
  August 7, 2005
• Swiss Federal Court 4P.172_2006 Guillermo Cañas vs ATP Tour & CAS
  March 22, 2007
• CAS 2005/A/951 Guillermo Cañas vs ATP - Revision
  May 23, 2011 & May 23, 2012
• European Court of Justice C-269_12 P Guillermo Cañas vs European Commission
  June 20, 2013

In March 2005, the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Guillermo Cañas after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide (HCT). Consequently the ATP Anti-Doping Tribunal decided on 7 August 2005 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 11 June 2005.

Thereupon in August 2005 the Athlete appealed the ATP decision of 7 August 2005 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Panel considered the Appellant’s arguments on EU law and the majority of the Panel rejected them.

Assuming that EU law would be applicable to the present case, as alleged by the Appellant, although such application has not been specifically agreed by the parties, the Panel is of the view that the present decision does not violate EU law.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling de novo decides:

1.) The appeal filed by the Athlete Mr Guillermo Cañas on 29 August 2005 is partially upheld.

2.) Mr Guillermo Cañas has committed a Doping Offense during the “Abierto Mexicano de Tenis” held in Acapulco, Mexico on 21 February 2005 and his results from the competition shall be disqualified. Any prize money collected at such Tournament not previously returned to ATP Tour shall be returned to ATP Tour within 7 days of the date of this award.

3.) Mr Cañas shall be ineligible to compete on the ATP Tour for the fifteen months period beginning from 11 June 2005.

4.) To the extent that ATP Tour has collected prize money for competitions in which Appellant competed after the Tournament, those amounts shall be returned to Appellant by ATP Tour within 7 days of the date of this award.

5.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500.- already paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS.

6.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS decision of 23 May 2006 (CAS 2005/A/951) with the Swiss Federal Court. The Athlete argued that his right to be heard was violated by the CAS Panel.

On 22 March 2007, the Swiss Federal Court ruled that the Appellant’s right to be heard was disregarded by the CAS Panel and on that basis, the Swiss Federal Court annulled the CAS Panel’s award (Swiss Federal Court 4P.172_2006).

In the light of the judgment of the Swiss Federal Tribunal, the CAS Panel has reviewed the submissions and evidence originally submitted by the parties and issues a new revised award (23 May 2007) in substitution of the award rendered on 23 May 2006.

Next the Athlete Guillermo Cañas submitted a complaint to the European Commission on grounds of alleged violations of EU antitrust law, committed by WADA, ATP and ICAS, related to his anti-doping rule violation case and the imposed sanction. The European Commission decided on 12 October 2009 to dismiss the Athlete’s complaint (decision C(2009)7809).

The Athlete then challenged the European Commission's rejection with the European Court of Justice (case T-508/09) who decided on 26 March 2012 there was no need to adjudicate.

Related cases:

• ITF 2005 ATP vs Guillermo Cañas
  August 7, 2005
• CAS 2005/A/951 Guillermo Cañas vs ATP – Revision
  May 23, 2006 & May 23, 2007
• European Court of Justice T-508_09 Guillermo Cañas vs European Commission
  March 26, 2012
• European Court of Justice C-269_12 P Guillermo Cañas vs European Commission
  June 20, 2013

In March 2005, the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Guillermo Cañas after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide (HCT). Consequently the ATP Anti-Doping Tribunal decided on 7 August 2005 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 11 June 2005.

On 29 August 2005 the Athlete appealed the ATP decision of 7 August 2005 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the CAS Panel for a reopening of the case based on new facts and on new evidence pursuant to the exceptional circumstances provision of the rules.

Considering the evidence and statements, the CAS Panel finds that the Athlete has established that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence in this exceptional case, allowing to be reduced the period of ineligibility, nevertheless he acted negligence in ingesting a banned substance.

Thefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling de novo decides:

1.) The appeal filed by the Athlete Mr Guillermo Cañas on 29 August 2005 is partially upheld.

2.) Mr Guillermo Cañas has committed a Doping Offense during the “Abierto Mexicano de Tenis” held in Acapulco, Mexico on 21 February 2005 and his results from the competition shall be disqualified. Any prize money collected at such Tournament not previously returned to ATP Tour shall be returned to ATP Tour within 7 days of the date of this award.

3.) Mr Cañas shall be ineligible to compete on the ATP Tour for the fifteen months period beginning from 11 June 2005.

4.) To the extent that ATP Tour has collected prize money for competitions in which Appellant competed after the Tournament, those amounts shall be returned to Appellant by ATP Tour within 7 days of the date of this award.

5.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500.- already paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS.

6.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS decision of 23 May 2006 (CAS 2005/A/951) with the Swiss Federal Court. The Athlete argued that his right to be heard was violated by the CAS Panel.

On 22 March 2007, the Swiss Federal Court ruled that the Appellant’s right to be heard was disregarded by the CAS Panel and on that basis, the Swiss Federal Court annulled the CAS Panel’s award (Swiss Federal Court 4P.172_2006 Guillermo Cañas vs ATP Tour & CAS).

In the light of the judgment of the Swiss Federal Tribunal, the CAS Panel has reviewed the submissions and evidence originally submitted by the parties and issues a new revised award (23 May 2007) in substitution of the award rendered on 23 May 2006.

Swiss Federal Court 4P.148_2006 Danilo Hondo vs WADA, UCI, Swiss Cycling & Swiss Olympic
January 10, 2007

Related cases:
CAS 2005/A/922 Danilo Hondo vs Swiss Cycling & Swiss Olympics
CAS 2005/A/923 WADA vs Danilo Hondo & Swiss Olympics
CAS 2005/A/926 UCI vs Danilo Hondo & Swiss Olympics
January 10, 2006

In March 2005 the International Cycling Federation (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Danilo Hondo after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance carphedon. After notification by Swiss Cycling the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Chamber for Dopingcases of Swiss Olympic. On 2 June 2005 the Disciplinary Chamber decided to impose 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, with 1 year suspended for a 5 year period. Also the Disciplinary Chamber sanctioned the Athlete with a CHF 50,000 fine and ordered to pay CHF 5,000 for the procedural costs.

Hereafter in July 2005 the Athlete, UCI and WADA appealed the Swiss Olympic Decision of 2 June 2005 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Considering the Athlete’s arguments the CAS finds that no departure from the ISL occurred in this case; the Athlete failed to establish how the substance entered his system and without grounds for reduction of the sanction.
Considering the arguments of UCI and WADA, the CAS Panel concludes that the UCI Anti-Doping Rules doesn’t allow the imposition by Swiss Olympics of a suspended period of ineligibility, nor the possibility to fine an Athlete guilty of an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides:
1.) to allow the WADA appeal;
2.) to allow the UCI appeal;
3.) to dismiss the appeal of the Athlete Danilo Hondo;
4.) to set aside the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber for Dopingcase of Swiss Olympic of 2 June 2005;
5.) to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 1 April 2005 until 31 March 2007.

In July 2006 the Athlete appealed the CAS Decision of 10 January 2006 with the Swiss Federal Court after his previous appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal Cantonal de Vaud on 16 May 2006.
The Swiss Federal Court considers the Athlete’s arguments and decides on 10 January 2007 to dismiss his appeal.

Related case:
CAS 2010/A/2308 Franco Pellizotti vs CONI & UCI
June 14, 2011

In March 2010, a panel of experts concluded that the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP) of the Italian Athlete Franco Pellizotti showed the use of a prohibited substance of method without adequate explanation from the Athlete for these anomalies in his ABP.
Therefore the International Cycling Federation (UCI) and the CONI Anti-Doping Prosecution Office (UPA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete in May 2010.

After notification bij the Federazione Ciclistica Italiana (FCI), the Italian Cycling Federation, a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Italian National Anti-Doping Tribunal. On 31 October 2010 the Tribunale Nazionale Antidoping del CONI (TNA), the CONI National Anti-Doping Tribunal, decided that an anti-doping rule violation has not been establische due to insufficient evidence.

Hereafter the UCI and the Athlete appealed the CONI TNA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Based on the evidence in the Athlete’s Biological Passport and after the testimonies of experts, the CAS Panel concluded that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decided:

1.) To dismiss the Athlete’s appeal;
2.) to set aside the decision of Tribunale Nazionale Antidoping del CONI of 21 October 2010;
3.) to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Franco Pellizotti;
4.) disqualification of all results obtained by the Athlete from 7 May 2009;
5.) to order the Athlete to pay 115,000 euro to the UCI as financial sanction;

On 19 August 2001 The Athlete appealed the CAS decision of 8 March 2011 with the Swiss Federal Court. The Athlete filed several arguments in his defence and requested the court for annulment of the decision. The Swiss Federal Court considers the Athlete’s arguments and concludes that they are not justified and therefore decides on 18 June 2012 to dismiss the Athlete’s Appeal.

Related cases:
CAS 2008/O/1643 Vladimir Gusev vs Olympus Sarl
June 15, 2009
Swiss Federal Court 4A_352/2009
October 13, 2009

The case involved a Russian racing cyclist, Vladimir Gusev and a Belgian Company Olympus Sarl. Olympus hired Gusev for two years on November 15, 2007 and the contract was governed by Swiss law. On July 23rd, 2008, Olympus Sarl terminated the contract, alleging that a medical report seriously suggested that the cyclist had taken exogenous EPO.
The Athlete Gusev started arbitration proceedings in front of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and on 15 June 2009 the CAS Panel found for Gusev and ordered Olympus to pay damages.
Olympus Sarl appealed to the CAS decision of 15 June 2009 with the Federal Court and hereafter also sought the revision of the award.

The Swiss Federal Court rejected the appeal of Olympus Sarl (4A_352/2009) and the petition seeking revision of Olympus Sarl (4A_368/2009) on 13 October 2009.

The court’s opinion in this case:
1.) In the appeal (4A_352/2009), Olympus Sarl claimed a violation of the “right to be heard” (due process). The Federal Court recalled what it has already said many times as to the Arbitral Tribunal’s duty to ensure that each party be heard on all essential facts and enabled to present its arguments. Yet the allegedly aggrieved party must prove that the Arbitral Tribunal failed to do so and this was clearly not the case here.
2.) As to revision (4A_368/2009), the Federal Court recalled that new facts or evidence may justify revision only to the extent that they existed at the time, were unknown to the petitioner although he acted with due diligence and would have been likely to have an influence on the outcome of the proceedings. The requirements established by case law in this respect were not met in this case.

Related case:
CAS 2002/A/431 UCI vs R & FFC
May 23, 2003

In May 2002 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French Athlete R after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances methylamphetamine, parahydroxyamphetamine, d'amphetamine and betamethasone. The Athlete had a TUE for betamethasone.
The Fédération Française de Cyclisme (FFC), the French Cycling Federation decided on 8 October 2002 not to sanction the Athlete due the circumstances of the sample collection were an infringement of the French public order.

In November 2002 the UCI appealed the FFC decision of 8 October 2002 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS Panel rejected the Athlete’s argument that after signing the FFC sport licence he did not accept the CAS jurisdiction to appeal a case. The Panel also ruled that the circumstances related to the Athlete’s sample collection were not a breach of the French public order. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport sanctioned the Athlete on 23 May 2003, as second violation with a 4 year period of ineligibility and a fine of CHF 4000, -. (TAS / CAS 2002/A/431)

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS Decision of 23 May 2003 with the Swiss Federal Court.
The Athlete disputed the CAS’ jurisdiction and claimed that his right to be heard was violated.
The Swiss Federal court considers the Athlete’s arguments and decides on 31 October 2003 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal.

TAS 2002/A/431 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) c. R. & Fédération Française de Cyclisme (FFC)

Related case:

Swiss Federal Court 4P.149_2003 R vs UCI, FFC & CAS
October 31, 2003

In May 2002 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete R. after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances methylamphetamine, parahydroxyamphetamine, d'amphetamine and bétamethasone.

The French Cycling Federation (FFC), notified the Athlete and ruled on 8 October 2002 that the presence of a prohibited substance was established. However it decided not to sanction the Athlete due to the FFC ruled that the circumstances of the sample collection were an infringement of the French public order.

Hereafter in November 2002 the UCI appealed the FFC decision of 8 October 2002 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel rejected the Athlete’s argument that after signing the FFC sport licence he did not accept the CAS jurisdiction to appeal a case. The Panel also ruled that the circumstances related to the Athlete’s sample collection were not a breach of the French public order.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that:

1.) the UCI appeal of 22 November 2002 is upheld;

2.) the Decision of the French Cycling Federation of 8 October 2002 is set aside;

3.) Due to this is Athlete’s second violation, he is sanctioned with a 4 year period of ineligibility and a fine of CHF 4000, -

4.) The suspension starts on the date of notification of this decision.