AFLD 2013 FFH vs Respondent M07

10 Jan 2013

Facts
The Fédération Française Handisport (FFH) charges Respondent M07 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the French Championship Para Swimming (Championnat de France handisport de natation), on June 23, 2012, the respondent provided a sample for doping tests. His sample tested positive on Hydrochlorothiazide, which is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent has indicated that he had consumed a dietary supplement referred to as " Herbalife ", which turned out to contain traces of hydrochiorothiazide despite it stated otherwise indicated on its label.

Decision
1. The respondent received a reprimand.
2. All the results obtained at the French Championship Para Swimming (Championnat de France handisport de natation), on June 23, 2012, are canceled, with all resulting consequences including forfeiture of medals , points and prizes.
3. The decision will take effect on the date of notification of the respondent.
4. The desion will be published and sent to the Ministry of Sports, the FFH the WADA and the International Paralympic Committee.
5. An appeal can be made within 2 months.

TASS 5/S/2012 WADA vs Polish Ice Hockey Federation & Michal Radwański

21 Feb 2013

In September 2011 the Polish Ice Hockey Federation has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Michal Radwański after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine.
At the hearing the Athlete stated that he had used a supplement for accelerated fat burning. He had no intention to enhance his sports performance but admits the intention to reduce his weight. He consulted the supplementation with his physician who stated she acquainted with the composition and description of the preparation and had found no negative effects on the Athlete’s health or substances known to the physician as prohibited by anti-doping regulation.
On 19 October 2011 the Games and Discipline Department of the Polish Ice Hockey Federation decided to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 18 October 2011.

In July 2012, due to the late delivery of the complete case file, WADA appealed the decision of the Polish Ice Hockey Federation with the Court of Arbitration for Sports at the Polish Olympic Committee (Trybunał Arbitrażowy do Spraw Sportu przy Polskim Komitecie Olimpijskim). WADA argued that the Athlete should be sanctioned with ineligibility for a period of 2 years and that there are no grounds for waiving or shortening the sanction.

The Tribunal concludes that the Athlete used the supplement to improve his competitive result due to the high content of the prohibited substance found in Athlete’s body on the day of the competition. The Tribunal finds that the experienced Athlete acted negligently because he used the supplement upon recommendation of a supplement store salesman and failed to research the ingredients of the supplement before using it. He consulted a physician but not a specialist in sports medicine.

The Tribunal rules to that WADA's appeal fully deserves being granted and amends the decision of the Games and Discipline Department of the Polish Ice Hockey Federation.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sports at the Polish Olympic Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. This period of ineligibility is included until the date of giving this decision in the overall period of ineligibility. All competitive results obtained by the Athlete during competitions in the period specified in the conclusion hereof are invalidated.

TASS 1/S/2012 WADA vs Polish Swimming Federation & Mirela Olczak

21 Jan 2013

In November 2011 Polski Związek Pływacki, the Polish Swimming Federation, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Mirela Olczak after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine.
At the hearing the Athlete stated she had used a supplement to lose some weight in a short time. She found out about the supplement from her colleagues and she took the substance without informing her coach or sports doctor.
On 24 January 2012 the Disciplinary Commission of the Polish Swimming Federation decided to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility starting from 7 December 2011. Following an intervention on the part of the International Swimming Federation (FINA), the Polish Swimming Federation Board increased the Athlete’s sanction to 6 months on 27 March 2012.

Hereafter in April 2012 WADA appealed this decision of the Polish Swimming Federation with the Court of Arbitration for Sports at the Polish Olympic Committee (Trybunał Arbitrażowy do Spraw Sportu przy Polskim Komitecie Olimpijskim). WADA argued that there are no grounds to eliminate or reduce the period of ineligibility in this case.

The Tribunal concludes that the Athlete acted carelessly and 'no significant fault or negligence' have been established on the part of the Athlete. The Tribunal rules that WADA’s appeal should partially be allowed and changes the decision of the Polish Swimming Federation. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sports at the Polish Olympic Committee decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The period of ineligibility is included until the date of giving this decision in the total period of ineligibility of the Athlete.

NZRU 2011 NZRU vs Wade Pereira

29 Sep 2011

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against Respondent after he refused or failed to provide a sample for drug testing, or otherwise evade sample collection.

After notification on 27 July 2011 that he was selected for drug testing at an indoor training session the Respondent turned and started to walk away and said that his partner was waiting for him outside in her car and he had to tell her that he had to be drug tested. However Respondent steped into the car and drove off.
Respondent provided a sample when requested on a subsequent occasion, which showed no prohibited substances after it was tested.

The New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) notified the Respondent and ordered a provisional suspension. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the New Zealand Rugby Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Respondent admitted the violation and explained his refusal. Due to he didn’t have a drivers licence therefore his partner had to drive him to the training. Also his son was in day care and had to be uplifted on time. Collection of their son was considered of greater importance as to provide a sample for drug testing. Respondent stated he was not aware of his obligation to undergo drug testing and wasn't aware of the implications of his refusal.

The Tribunal concludes that the Respondent failed to establish that he bore no significant fault or negligence. Therefore the New Zealand Rugby Anti-Doping Tribunal decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 28 July 2011.

AFLD 2013 FFM vs Respondent M06

10 Jan 2013

Facts
The French Federation of Powerboat Racing (Fédération Française de Motonautique, FFM) charges Respondent M06 with a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the French championship of Powerboat Racing <<offshore>> on July 1, 2012, de respondent underwent a doping test. His sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cocaine. Cocaine is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Cocaine is not regarded as a specified substance.

Decision
1. The decision, dated September 22, 2012, of the FFM is nullified because of incompetence.
2. The sanction is a 2 years period of ineligibility in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFM.
3. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period of voluntary suspension.
4. All the results of the respondent obtained at the race of July 1, 2012, will be cancelled. Medals, points and price money will be withdrawn.
5. The decision will start on the date of notification.
6. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

NZRU 2011 DFSNZ vs Tristan Moran

25 Aug 2011

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Probenecid.
After notification the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) ordered a provisional suspension. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and he was heard fort the New Zealand Rugby Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Player admitted the violation and stated he suffered a swollen leg due to an abcess and associated cellulitis in July 2011. His team doctor performed a surgical procedure and administered antibiotics (Probenecid). The substance Probenecid was not mentioned to the Respondent and the team doctor testified he simply forgot to complete the necessary paperwork for the TUE application.

The Tribunal concludes that Respondent had not intention to enhance his sport performance or mask the use of a performance enhancing substance.
Considering the circumstances the New Zealand Rugby Anti-Doping Tribunal decides to impose a 1 week period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 August 2011 up to and including 26 August 2011.

AFLD 2013 FFA vs Respondent M05

10 Jan 2013

Facts
The - French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M05 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On July 7, 2012, at an Athletics event a sample for doping tests was taken from the respondent. His sample tested positive on Methylhexaneamine. Methyhexaneamine is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and regarded as a specified substance.

History
The athlete explained that the cause of his positive test must be the supplement: "readline energy drink". He hadn't checked the ingredients.

Decision
1. The respondent is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 9 months in which he can't play competion or take part in sports manifestations related to his sport.
2. An earlier sanction the respondent received on August 28, 2012, by the Fédération française d'athlétisme (FFA) is cancelled.
3. The start of the decision is the date of notification sent to the respondent.
4. The desicion will be published and sent to the involved parties.

ST 2013_07 DFSNZ vs Rocky Masoe

20 Dec 2013

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after he refused to provide a sample for drug testing. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation. He stated that he could not urinate straight away to provide a sample. Therefore he drank enough water and waited in the testing room. While waiting in the testing room people were coming and going. He felt tired, cold and hungry and got anxious and frustrated because he wasn’t able to urinate. At that point he left the testing station despite the officials warning to him of the consequences of leaving the area before providing a sample.

Without mitigating circumstances the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 24 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 2 December 2013.

AFLD 2013 FFA vs respondent M04

10 Jan 2013

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges the respondent M04 with a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Respondent underwent a doping control on July 7, 2012, during a meeting of Athletics performing in Mulhouse (Haut-Rhin). His sample showed the presence of 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 to have used an energy-drink on the eve of the match which contained the prohibited substance. He didn't use it to enhance his sport perforamance, but only a fight against
the inherent fatigue pace of life.

Decision
1. The respondent is awarded with period of ineligibility of six months, competitions and sporting events organized or
authorized by the French Federation of Athletics.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced with the period of voluntary suspension.
3. The decision, dated August 28, 2012, of the disciplinary committee of the FFA will be modified.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2013 UFOLEP vs Respondent M03

10 Jan 2013

Facts
The L'Union Française des Œuvres Laïques d'Education Physique (UFOLEP) charges respondent M03 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the "prix de Lamarche-sur-Saone" on June 24, 2012, a sample for a doping test was taken from the respondent. The sample showed the presence of benzoylecgonine (metabolite of cocaine), nikethamide (and it's metabolite), prednisone and prednisolone, and a report testosterone on epitestosterone abnormally high which indicates an exogenous origin from metabolites of testosterone. These substances are enlisted on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

Decision
The sanction for the anti-doping violation is a period of ineligibility for three years in competitions and sporting events organized or
authorized by the French sports federations.
The period of ineligibility will be reduced with the period of voluntary suspension.
The present decision shall take effect from the date of notification
sent to respondent.
A summary of this decision will be published.
The decision will be 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