AFLD 2010 FFA vs Respondent M49

7 Oct 2010

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M49 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on May 9, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample tested positive on prednisolone and prednisone which are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. They are regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent had used a pharmaceutical to cure angina, which was the cause of the positive test. There was no consultation of a phycisian.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months in which respondent can't take part in competition or sport manifestations organized by the FFA.
2. All the results obtained at the event of May 9, 2010, will be cancelled. Medals, points and prizes are withdrawn.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2010 FFM vs Respondent M48

7 Oct 2010

Facts
The French Motorcycling Federation (Fédération Française de motocyclisme, FFM) charges respondent M48 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a motorcycling event on February 7, 2010, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisone and prednisolone. Prednisone and prednisolone are prohibited substances on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and are regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent used medication to treat sinusitis with otitis, there was a prescription from the physician.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted
2. The earlier decision (three months period of ineligibility), dated April 16, 2010, of the disciplinary committee of the FFM should be modified.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2010 FFBT vs Respondent M47

2 Sep 2010

Facts
The French Federation of Ball-Trap and Ball Shooting (Fédération Française de Ball-Trap et de Tir a Balle, FFBT) charges respondent M47 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on June 28, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of hydrochlorothiazide. Hydrochlorothiazide is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent admits in writing the use of the prohibited substance, but denies that there was intention to enhance athletic performance.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2010 FFBB vs Respondent M46

2 Sep 2010

Facts
The French Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M46 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on October 24, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisolone. Prednisolone is prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent used medication against mite allergy and chronic rhinitis, which was the cause of the positive test. He has two medical certificates for this and the results of an allergy test to prove his condition.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision (a warning), dated January 6, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFBB should be modified.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2010 FFSCDA vs Respondent M45

2 Sep 2010

Facts
The French federation of Full Contact and associated sports (Fédération Française de Sports de Contact et Disciplines Associées, FFSCDA) charges respondent M45 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a full contact match on March 21, 2009, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and regarded as a specified substance.

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

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

AFLD 2010 FFHB vs Respondent M44

2 Sep 2010

Facts
The French Handball Federation (Fédération Française de Handball, FFHB) charges respondent M44 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on December 5, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis above the threshold value. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Cannabis is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The initial decision, dated March 23, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFHB is a period of ineligibility of three months. Respondent admits using the prohibited substance occasionally but there was no intention to enhance sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized or authorized by the FFHB.
2. The decision, dated March 23, 2010, of the disciplinary committee of the FFHB should be modified.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

CAS 2013_A_3395 Anderson Luís De Souza ("Deco") vs CBF & FIFA - Settlement

26 May 2014

CAS 2013/A/3395 Anderson Luis de Souza v. Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), consent award of 26 May 2014

Football
Doping
Authority of an arbitral tribunal to issue a consent award under Swiss law
Control of the bona fide nature of the settlement agreement by the arbitral tribunal in a consent award
Legal nature of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD)

1. Under Swiss Law, an arbitration tribunal has authority to issue an award embodying the terms of the parties’ settlement, if the contesting parties agree to a termination of their dispute in this manner. The panel’s ratification of their settlement and its incorporation into a consent award serves the purpose of enabling the enforcement of their agreement.

2. It is the task of the arbitrator to verify the bona fide nature of the settlement agreement, to ensure that the will of the parties has not been manipulated by them to commit fraud and to confirm that the terms of the settlement agreement are not contrary to public policy principles or mandatory rules of the law applicable to the dispute.

3. The STJD is a justice body which is an integral part of the organizational structure of the CBF, with no legal personality of its own and (at least) for international purposes the decisions of the STJD, although independently reached, must be considered to be the decisions of the CBF. As a result, the STJD has no autonomous legal personality and may not be considered as respondent on its own in a CAS appeal arbitration concerning one of its rulings; consequently, the procedural position of the STJD before the CAS must be encompassed within that of the CBF. Against this background, the fact that the STJD was not called as a party to the proceedings does not affect the validity nor the enforceability of a subsequent settlement agreement and of a consent award.


In April 2013 the Confederaçãoo Brasileira de Futebol (CBF), the Brazilian Football Confederation, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Portuguese football player Anderson Luís De Souza after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances hydrochlorothiazide and tamoxifen.
On 14 June 2013 the Regional Commission of the Brazilian Sports Court of Football in Rio de Janeiro (TJD/RJ) decided to impose a 30 day period of ineligibility on the Player, starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

Hereafter both the Player and the TJD/RJ Procecutor appealed this decision with the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJC), the Brazilian High Sports Court of Football.
On 26 September the STJC decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Player.

After rejection of the Player’s objections against the STJC decision, the Player appealed this decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in november 2013.

The Player submitted that the decision issued by the STJD was based on an adverse analytical finding indicating the presence of the substances in his samples, analyzed by the (former) WADA-accredited laboratory LADETEC, but that there were serious doubts concerning the validity and accuracy of the test itself, as well as with regard to the International Standard of Laboratories (ISL), issued by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).
In particular, the Player stated that the LADETEC had its accreditation revoked by WADA in August 2013 and that consequently, there was no certainty as to whether the test conducted on the Player’s sample was accurate and in respect of the ISL.
In addition, the Player argued that FIFA had decided, together with WADA, to use the WADA-accredited laboratory in Lausanne, Switzerland, to analyze blood and urine samples, to be taken on the occasion of the upcoming 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil, which, according to the Appellant, demonstrated that an analysis conducted by LADETEC may not be considered reliable.

Accordingly the Player argued that as serious doubts existed as to the accuracy of the adverse analytical finding reported by LADETEC on his samples, the Player requested to ask FIFA to submit the documentation packages related to both his A and B samples to the attention of an expert of its choice, possibly Mr. Martial Saugy, Director of the WADA-accredited laboratory in Lausanne, and to request another laboratory of its choice, possibly the WADA-accredited laboratory in Lausanne, for additional sample analysis regarding his A and B samples.

On 2 December 2013 FIFA informed the CAS that, based on the recent suspension of the laboratory in Rio de Janeiro, it had asked Mr. Martial Saugy, Director of the WADA-accredited laboratory in Lausanne, to analyse the documentation package related to the Player’s A and B-sample. The results of the analyses made by Mr. Saugy led him to inform FIFA, on the 18 October 2013 that "Because of the non-proved identification of Tamoxifen, we suggest to FIFA Medical Office to be very careful with this adverse analytical finding made by the Rio laboratory."
On the 03 December 2013 all the Parties finally agreed to the suspension of the proceedings pending a retesting of the Player's A and B samples.

On 6 March 2014, FIFA addressed a letter to the CAS informing that the results of such a retesting conducted by the laboratory in Lausanne, according to which "No Prohibited Substance(s) or Metabolite(s) or Marker(s) of a Prohibited Method(s) on the test menu were detected."
In addition, the Doping Control Report, signed by Mr. Saugy, further affirmed that "After further investigation, traces of hydrochlorothiazide were found at level below the limit of detection of the initial testing procedure. The sample was received in unusual container. The chain of custody can not be guaranteed".

Finally, and particularly in view of said results, all of the Parties have agreed, in the context of the afore-mentioned CAS proceedings, to sign an agreement which shall be incorporated within a Consent Award; and thus it is agreed between the parties with their consent:

1.) The Appeal filed by Mr. Anderson Luís de Souza is upheld.
2.) The Appealed Decision is set aside.
3.) It could not be established that Mr. Anderson Luís de Souza has committed an anti-doping rule violation.
4.) The arbitration costs, to be determined and served by the CAS Court Office in due course, shall be borne by the Appellant Mr. Anderson Luís de Souza.
5.) Each party shall bear their own legal and other costs incurred in connection with the present proceedings.
6.) The parties request the panel to issue a Consent Award reflecting the terms of this agreement.
7.) The Consent Award and a press release setting forth the results of the proceedings shall be made public by CAS.
8.) With the execution of the present agreement the parties declare themselves reciprocally settled and with no right whatsoever to claim anything against the other party.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sports rules:

1.) The Settlement Agreement executed by the Player Mr Anderson Luís De Souza, the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) on 20 March 2014 is hereby ratified by the CAS with the consent of the Parties, and its terms are incorporated into this arbitral award.
2.) The terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 20 March 2014 replace the decision of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva de Futebol of 26 September 2013.
3.) The costs of the present arbitration, which shall be determined and separately communicated to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Appellant.
4.) Each party shall bear all of its respective legal and other costs incurred in connection with this arbitration.
5.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

AFLD 2010 FFBB vs Respondent M43

2 Sep 2010

Facts
The French Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M43 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on October 24, 2009, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The sanction, dated January 6, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the committee is disqualification from participation for four meetings at competitions and events organized sports or authorized by FFBB. However the respondent didn't give any information about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent is excluded from competition for four times.
2. The decision, dated January 6, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFBB should be modified.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2010 FFTir vs Respondent M42

18 Feb 2010

Facts
The French Shooting Federation (Fédération Française de Tir, FFTir) charges respondent M42 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a shooting contest, on November 28, 2009, a sample for doping test purposes was taken. The sample tested positive on hydrochlorothiazide and bisoprolol which is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Hydrochlorothiazide and bisoprolol are regarded as a specified substances.

History
The respondent used the prohibited to treat arterial hypertension and Ankylosing spondylitis (Bechterew's desease) he has certificates to prove his medication and his cardiology.

Decision
1. The respondents is acquitted.
2. The decision (two months of ineligibility), dated March 6, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFTir should be modified.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2010 FFR vs Respondent M41

24 Jun 2010

Facts
The French Rugby Federation (Fédération Française de Rugby, FFR) charges respondent M41 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Respondent didn't comply for a doping control.

History
The disciplinary committee of the FFR had decided on February 18, 2010, that the respondent was acquitted. The sampler collector hadn't used all his available means to perform the doping control.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision, dated February 18, 2010, of the disciplinary committee of the FFR is upheld.
3. The decision will start on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

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