In October 2011 the United Arab Emirates National Anti-Doping Committee (UAE-NADO) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swimmer Mohammed Abdullah Mubarak Al-Ghaferi after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine.
The Swimmer is low level educated and can’t read English, therefore he could not research the ingredients of the supplement he used. Also a team doctor was not available to consult about the use of supplements.
On 23 January 2012 the UAE-NADO Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Swimmer, starting on 29 November 2011.

Hereafter WADA appealed the decision of the Disciplinary Committee with the UAE-NADO Appeal Committee.
The Appeal Committee rules that the WADA appeal is allowed and to set aside the decision of the UAE-NADO Disciplinary Committee.
The UAE-NADO Appeal Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Swimmer, starting on 29 November 2011.

Facts
The French Rugby Federation (Fédération Française de Rugby, FFR) charges respondent M40 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a sport meeting on September 30, 2012, a sample was taken for doping control. The sample tested positive on tuaminoheptane which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Tuaminoheptane is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent used medication for a cold, this medication was the cause of the positive test.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of 6 months of ineligibility in which the respondent can't play competition or take part in a manifestation organized by the FFR.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced with the period all-ready served in voluntary suspension.
3. The earlier decision of the of the disciplinary committee of the FFR dated November 27, 2012, will be modified.
4. The decision will start on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be modified and sent to the parties involved.

In January 2013 the Bulgarian Anti-Doping Centre has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Adem Sunay Ramis after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide. The Athlete admitted he had used the substance as tablets with the intention to lose weight.
On 11 March 2013 the Disciplinary Commission of the Bulgarian Olympic Committee decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter WADA appealed the decision of the Disciplinary Commission with the Bulgarian Sport Arbitration (BSA) of the Bulgarian Olympic Committee. WADA requested BSA to set aside the decision of the Disciplinary Commission and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. WADA argued there were no grounds to impose a less severe sanction on the Athlete.

The BSA concludes that the Athlete took the prohibited substance precisely for the purpose of reducing his weight. This gave the Athlete the impermissible advantage to lose weight with the help of the substance instead of the conventional way. There are no grounds to reduce the period of ineligibility and therefore the decision of the Disciplinary Commission of the Bulgarian Olympic Committee is set aside.
The Bulgarian Sport Arbitration of the Bulgarian Olympic Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 27 January 2013.

Facts
The French Federation of Bullfighting (Federation Française de course camarguaise, FFCC) charges respondent M39 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an bullfight event on September 15, 2012, a sample for doping test was provided. The sample tested positive on methylhexaneamine which is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Methylhexaneamine is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent claims that the positive test result could be from food intake of a supplement , referred to as " Jack 3D," provided on the Internet, on the advice of an acquaintance. He didn't check the ingredients. There was no intention to enhance sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 9 months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFCC.
2. All his results gained at the event on September 15, 2012, are canceled and consequently medals, points and prices are withdrawn.
3. The decision made by the disciplinary committee of the FFCC, dated November 19, 2012, will be canceled.
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 M38 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the cycling event "Mégavalanche" November 24, 2012, a sample was taken for a doping test.

History
The respondent was unable to produce enough urine for a doping test.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 2 years in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized by the FFC and associated federations.
2. The results of the event on November 24, 2012, are disqualified. Medals, points and prices gained are withdrawn.
3. The present decision will start on the day of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

In November 2010 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Kamil Mihail Sobota after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
The Athlete admitted he had used a prescribed medication Winstrol to treat his relapsed foot injury.
On 11 January 2011 considering the circumstances the Romanian Hearing Commission for Athletes and Athletes Support Personnel decided to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter WADA appealed the decision of the Hearing Commission for Athletes and Athletes Support Personnel with the Romanian Appeal Commission.
WADA requested the Romanian Appeal Commission to set aside the decision of the Hearing Commission and to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete between 18 and 24 months. WADA argued that the Athlete had to research the ingredients of the medication before using and he had not applied for a TUE. Also Athlete’s sanction cannot be reduced on the basis of no fault or negligence when the administration of a prohibited substance has been done by the Athlete’s physician or trainer without informing the Athlete.

The Romanian Appeal Commission concludes that there was no intention to enhance sport performance due to the fact that when the medication was prescribed and used the Athlete served a disciplinary suspension for 6 months (24 April-23 October 2010) imposed by the International Federation of Rugby Amateur – European Rugby Association (FIRA-AER). Also after using the medication could stay in the system for two-three months when tested hereafter (10 November 2010). However the Appeal Commission finds that the Athlete acted negligently due to the principle of strict liability. The Appeal Commission rules that the WADA appeal is partly allowed and to set aside the decision of the Hearing Commission for Athletes and Athletes Support Personnel.
Therefore Romanian Appeal Commission decides to impose a 14 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision. Athlete’s previous 12 month period of ineligibility shall be counted to the total period of ineligibility.

Facts
The French Football Federation (Fédération Française de Football, FFF) charges respondent M37 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a footballmatch on October 6, 2012, a sample was taken for a doping test. The sample tested positive on a metabolite of cannabis which is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Cannabis is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent claims that he didn't use the prohibited substance for enhancing his sport performance, the use was during a festivity.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 6 months in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized by the FFF.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period all-ready served in voluntary suspension.
3. The decision of the disciplinary committee of the FFF, dated December 19, 2012, will be modified.
4. The decision will start on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Related case:

ANAD Comisia de Audiere 2010_29 ANAD vs Miruna Elena Trifan & Xenofonte Bobob
August 12, 2010

In June 2009 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Athlete Miruna Elena Trifan after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance metandienone.

The Athlete stated she had used pills provided by her coach. The coach admitted he gave the Athlete Naposim (metandienone) without the medical staff’s notice and without knowledge of the Athlete or members of her family.

Due to the coach's guilt and the Athlete’s no fault, the Romanian Hearing Commission of Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel decided not to sanction the Athlete on 12 August 2010. The Athlete’s coach however was sanctioned with a lifetime period of ineligibility.

Hereafter in September 2010 WADA appealed the decision of the Hearing Commission with the Romanian Appeal Commission. WADA requested the Appeal Commission to set aside the decision of the Hearing Commission and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. WADA argued that the Athlete failed to exercise utmost caution in using the pills.
Considering the circumstances the Romanian Appeal Commission concludes that the Athlete did not show a significant fault or negligence regarding the way the prohibited substance got into her body.
However the Appeal Commission notes that it is not necessary to prove the intention or the Athlete’s fault to establish the anti-doping rule violation due to the strict responsibility principle of the Athlete for finding the prohibited substances in her body.

The Commission rules that the WADA appeal is allowed and to set aside the decision of the Romanian Hearing Commission of Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel.
Therefore Romanian Appeal Commission decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 8 July 2010.

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M36 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the athletic event "de la coupe de France d'athletisme", on October 14, 2012, a sample was taken for a doping test. The sample tested positive on a metabolite of cannabis which is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Cannabis is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent used cannabis two weeks before the doping test, he used it in a recreational setting and had no intention to enhance his performance.

Decision
1. The respondent is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 6 months in which he can't play competition or take part in a manifestation organized by the FFA.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period of voluntary suspension.
3. The decision of the disciplinary committee of the FFA, dated December 20, 2012, will be modified.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the involved parties.

In June 2009 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Mǎdǎlina Veronica Mureşan after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance sibutramine.
Due to the Athlete had used a supplement in order to lose weight the Romanian Hearing Commission of Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel decided to impose a reprimand and a warning on the Athlete.

Hereafter in August 2009 WADA appealed the decision of the Hearing Commission with the Romanian Appeal Commission. WADA requested the Appeal Commission to set aside the decision of the Hearing Commission and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. WADA argued that the Athlete failed to exercise utmost caution in using the supplement.

The Romanian Appeal Commission finds that the Athlete had not intention to enhance sport performance and that the ingredients on the label of the supplement did not mention any prohibited substances. The Appeal Commission concludes however that the Athlete could have taken more caution before she purchased and used the supplement.
Considering the circumstances the Romanian Appeal Commission rules that the WADA appeal is partly allowed and to set aside the decision of the Romanian Hearing Commission of Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel.
Therefore the Romanian Appeal Commission decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 6 June 2009.