Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M22 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on July 22, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of budesonide, which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Budesonide is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent had applied for a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) but his medical file was incomplete. In this file was indicated he suffered from asthma.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision (a warning) dated October 30, 2007, by the disciplinary committee of the FFC should be modified.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Federation of Workers and Amateurs in sports (Fédération Sportive et Gymnique du Travail (FSGT) charges respondent M21 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a power lifting contest on June 2, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis showed the presence of hydrochlorothiazide. Hydrochlorothiazide is a prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substances.

History
The respondent used a pharmaceutical product containing the prohibited substance, the use was mentioned on the doping control form. The panel regards the prescription of the pharmaceutical product in accordance with the medical use of the pharmaceutical product.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision (acquittal) dated November 20, 2007, by the appeal committee of the FSGT doesn't need to bo modified.
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 of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M20 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 canrenone, althiazide, bumetanide, metenolone and it's metabolites, clenbuterol and a metabolite of stanozolol which are prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

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

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by all French sport federations.
2. The decision will apply till the end of the sanction as pronounced by the disciplinary committee of the FFHMFAC on September 25, 2007.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Federation of Workers and Amateurs in sports (Fédération Sportive et Gymnique du Travail (FSGT) charges respondent M19 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a power lifting contest on June 2, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis showed the presence of prednisone and prednisolone. Prednisone and prednisolone are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and are regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent used medication to treat his asthma, from which he suffers since childhood. He has proof of his medical condition. His medication however is only needed when his condition is in a crisis. There still is a medical justification necessary to use this kind of 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 French sport federations organized or authorized by the FSGT or the French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (FFHMFAC).
2. The decision dated November 20, 2007, by the disciplinary committee of the FSGT should be modified.
3. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the time already served in voluntary suspension and under the decision dated November 20, 2007, by the disciplinary committee of the FSGT.
4. The present decision will start on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Related case:
SAIDS 2014_05 SAIDS vs Brandon Stewart
August 8, 2014

On 8 August 2014 the South African Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the rider Brandon Stewart after his sample tested positive for the prohibited Testosterone. Here the Panel deemed that the Athlete acted with significant departure form the required duty of utmost care due to he used the substance as medication for his condition before a TUE was granted. In addition the Athlete violated his provisional suspension.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the decision of 8 August 2014 with the Appeal Board of the Anti-Doping Tribunal of South Africa.

The Athlete admitted the violation and accepted the test result. He argued, substantiated with evidence, that the Testosterone was used not intentional as treatment for his medical condition, that he applied for a TUE and that he mentioned the use of the substance on the Doping Control Forms. The Athlete requested for a reduced sanction and asserted that the appealed decision was personally influenced and prejudiced. He explained that his previous public disclosure to the media was made to protect his own rights and reputation and not to bring SAIDS into disrepute.

SAIDS requested to dismiss the appeal and contended that it was undisputed that the Athlete had used a prohibited substance while the Athlete was an experienced professional rider who underwent numerous doping tests with knowledge of the anti-doping rules.

The Appeal Board deems that the Athlete failed to establish grounds for a reduced sanction, and neither that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence in this case. Therefore the Appeal Board decides on 17 November 2014 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal and to uphold the decision of 8 August 2014.

Related case:
SAIDS 2014_05 Brandon Stewart vs SAIDS - Appeal
November 11, 2014

In October 2013 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Brandon Stewart after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with at a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. While the Athlete was suspended SAIDS also reported that the Athlete had assisted riders in his team in March 2014.

Previously in April 2013 the Athlete's TUE application for the use of Testosterone was rejected by SAIDS. The Athlete did not accept this rejection and appealed while he already underwent medical treatment and was tested in that period. The Athlete’s sample provided on 7 July 2013 tested positive for Testosterone at the same time that his TUE application was finally rejected on 9 July 2013.

The Athlete accepted the test results, admitted the use of the Testosterone and denied that he used this to enhance his sport performance. He argued that he underwent medical treatment for his condition and that the Testosterone was used as prescribed and recommended medication. He asserted that he had the right to continue the use of the medication and took all the necessary steps to obtain the TUE. He mentioned the use of the medication on his Doping Control Form and he ceased using this medication when his first TUE application was rejected in April 2013. The Athlete confirmed that he had assisted riders in his team on 27 March 2014 and that the UCI investigated his role at the race.

SAIDS argued that the Athlete was in the registered testing pool, and was therefore subject to have a valid TUE under the Rules. It was conceded that the Athlete had disclosed his Testosterone use in subsequent races, but the evidence of his medical practitioners contradicted his evidence. There was no basis to argue a reduction in sanction, and as such the two year sanction should be imposed.

The Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel finds that it was undisputed that the Athlete had used the medication Nebido as the source of the Testosterone and mentioned the use of the medication on the Doping Control Forms. The Panel holds that the Athlete had accepted the test results, admitted the use of the prohibited substance and established how the substance entered his system.
The Panel regards that the Athlete gave significant weight in argument to the fact that the SAIDS employee advised him that treatment cannot be withheld and he could continue using the Nebido. This was disputed by SAIDS while the employee in question also didn’t have the authority to grant the TUE.

Considering the evidence and the Athlete’s conduct in this case the Panel deems that the Athlete was aware that the TUE Committee could approve the TUE, that he started using the medication Nebido simultaneously when he applied for a TUE and proceeded to use the medication before a TUE was granted. The Panel concludes that the Athlete, as a senior professional rider and member of the national testing pool, acted with significant departure from the required duty of utmost care and consequently failed to establish No Significant Fault or Negligence. Further the Panel considers that the Athlete violated the imposed provisional suspension on 27 March 2014 and as a result shall not receive credit for it.

Therefore the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 8 August 2014 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 27 March 2014.

Fytopreparaten in de sport : tussen supplementen en doping / Willem Koert. - (Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Fytotherapie 24 (2011) 1 (Januari); p. 3-6)

Tot zo'n twintig jaar geleden bevatten sportsupplementen eiwitconcentraten, aminozuren, vitamines en mineralen, maar nu kijken supplementenmakers steeds nadrukkelijker naar plantaardige extracten die de prestaties van sporters op een hoger plan moeten tillen. Voor liefhebbers van sportsupplementen wordt het aanbod steeds interessanter maar de grens tussen voedingssupplementen en doping vervaagt.

In November 2012 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete David George after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance erythropoetin (EPO).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete admitted the violation and failed to attend the hearing of the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee.
The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the notification, i.e. on 5 November 2012.

SAIDS 2012_53 SAIDS vs Nicholas Potts
October 29, 2012

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Nicholas Potts after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.
After notification the Athlete admitted the violation without intention to enhance his sport performance and waived his right to a hearing.
The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the notification, i.e. 22 August 2012.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M18 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on May 18, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisone and prednisolone, which are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. These are regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent uses medication to treat asthma, this medication is the cause of the positive test. The respondent has reports to prove his medical state. However the panel doesn't recognize that the medication subscribed treated what he was suffering from on behalf of the documents he presented.

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 all French sport federations.
2. The decision at first instance (6 months period of ineligibility) dated October 4, 2007, by the disciplinary committee of the FFC should be modified.
3. The period of ineligibility should be reduced by the time already served by the earlier decision from the disciplinary committee of the FFC.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.