CAS 2012/A/2979 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Nirupama Devi Laishram & National Anti-Doping Agency of India (NADA)

• Judo
• Doping (methylexaneamine)
• Elimination or reduction of the period of ineligibility
• Starting point of ineligibility

1. From the strict liability principle follows that, once WADA has established that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred, it is up to the athlete to demonstrate that the requirements foreseen for an elimination or a reduction of the period of ineligibility are met.

2. According to article 10.9.3 of the NADA ADR, the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel may start the period of ineligibility at an earlier date commencing as early as the date of sample collection or the date on which another anti-doping rule violation last occurred where there have been substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of doping control not attributable to the athlete. Moreover, the two-year period of ineligibility shall start with a deduction for the period of voluntarily served period of ineligibility.

In April 2012 the National Anti-Doping Agency of India (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Nirupama Devi Laishram after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification by INADA the Athlete accepted a provisional suspension and she was heard for the Anti-Doping Panel of India (ADDPI).

On July 2012 the ADDPI decided to impose a warning on the Athlete. Hereafter INADA appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI), which confirmed the ADDPI decision and dismissed INADA’s appeal.

On 12 November 2012 WADA appealed the ADAPI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
WADA requested to set aside the ADAPI decision, to sanction the Athlete with a 2 year period of ineligibility and to disqualify her results.

The Athlete submitted that the geranium oil was a natural source of methylhexaneamine; the methylhexaneamine must have been caused due to the use of beauty products; and the substance found in her system can in no way improve her performance.
Both WADA and the Athlete referred in this case to scientific articles in their submissions.

The CAS Panel concludes that the presence of the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine in the Athlete’s samples was established and that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.
The Panel finds that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the prohibited substance entered her system and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 8 November 2013 that:

1.) The appeal filed by WADA on 12 November 2012 is upheld.
2.) The decision of the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India is set aside.
3.) Nirupama Devi Laishram is sanctioned by a two year period of ineligibility, which shall commence on 1 May 2013. The period of voluntarily served provisional suspension of 89 days shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.
4.) All competitive results obtained by Nirupama Devi Laishram from 11 January 2012, including the results in the Senior Judo Championships in Kolkata, shall be disqualified with all the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
5.) The costs of arbitration, to be determined and notified by the CAS Court office, shall be borne entirely by Nirupama Devi Laishram.
6.) Each party shall bear its own legal costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.
7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Facts
The French Football Federation (Fédération Française de Football, FFF) charges respondent M16 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the match "la Coupe de France de football" between Lyon and Quevilly, on April 28, 2012, the respondent provided a sample for doping control. His sample tested positive on prednisolone, which is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent was treated by his team physician for an injury for which a massage cream was used, this cream was the cause of the positive result of the doping test.

Decision
1. The period of ineligibility imposed is 2 months in which the respondent can't participate in competition and sport manifestations organized by the FFF.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced with the period of voluntary suspension.
3. The earlier decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the FFF will be adapted.
4. The decision will be imposed on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

CAS 2012/A/3055 Riis Cycling A/S v. the Licence Commission of the UCI

Related case:
CAS 2011/A/2384 UCI vs Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC
CAS 2011/A/2386 WADA vs Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC
February 6, 2012

On 17 March 2011, at the meeting of the UCI Professional Cycling Council (PCC) in Milan, the point scale used to measure the 2012 sporting value was approved and a proposal for a so-called Neutralisation Rule with respect to the sporting value of riders returning from a two-year ban for doping violations was presented.
At the seminar for teams in Brussels in April 2011, participants were informed that there could be a modification of the 2012 sporting criteria, should the Neutralisation Rule be adopted. In a letter dated 29 June 2011, the UCI informed the teams of the above modification and advised them that the modification was “effective immediately”.

On 12 August 2011, the Riis Cycling applied for a WorldTour Licence for the year 2012. This licence was granted on 18 November 2011 by the UCI Licence Commission.
On 6 February 2012, the CAS imposed a two-year period of ineligibility on the Cyclist Alberto Contador, ending on 5 August 2012. In addition, Alberto Contador was disqualified from all competitions he participated in as from 25 January 2011.

On 14 August 2012, Riis Cycling applied for a WorldTour licence for the Team Saxo-Tinkoff beginning in January 2013. Among the documents considered by the UCI Licence Commission was the “UCI Team Evaluation Report 2013”. The report notes the team’s position as 20th in the sporting hierarchy on 21 October 2012.
The detailed report includes a comparison of the riders’ performances in 2011 and 2012, an analysis of which riders accounted for what percentage of the earned points and an analysis of the points earned.
In particular, the case of Alberto Contador is mentioned in the report. Alberto Contador’s point were neutralised during two years. His points were accounted for more than 65% of the team’s points.

In January 2013 Riis Cycling appealed the decision of the UCI Licence Commission with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Riis Cycling requested CAS:
1.) “To set aside the argument of the License Commission in its reasons from 21 December 2012 that Team Saxo-Tinkoff is ranked 20th in the sports evaluation as part of calculating teams Sporting Value according to Art. 2.15.11a of the UCI rules and confirms that Team Saxo-Tinkoff is rightfully ranked 19th in the sports evaluation.
2.) To ask the License Commission to set aside the practice of the License Commission (based on the request of the UCI World Tour) to use the Neutralisation Rule in connection with riders, who have committed their doping offense on or before June 29, 2011.
3.) To condemn the License Commission of the UCI to pay all the arbitration costs, if any, and to pay a substantial contribution towards the legal fees of Riis Cycling.”

The CAS Panel concludes that Riis Cycling has not suffered any harm as the result of having been ranked 20th instead of 19th.
The Panel also concludes that Riis Cycling has standing to appeal in relation to its request to set aside the practice of the UCI Licence Commission of applying the Neutralisation Rule in connection with riders who have committed a doping offense on or before 29 June 2011. The Panel finds that the Neutralisation Rule is to be qualified as a sanction. The effect of the Neutralisation Rule is similar to a boycott, that it is clearly a sanctioning device directed against the athlete and that it impact the team’s freedom to contract and choose the riders it want. The Panel finds that the Neutralisation Rule should not be applied and Riis Cycling’s second appeal is therefore be granted.

On these grounds the Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel rules:
1.) The requests to set aside the argument of the Licence Commission in its reasons from 21 December 2012 that the team is ranked 20th in the sports evaluation and to confirm that Team Saxo-Tinkoff is rightfully ranked 19th in the sports evaluation are dismissed.
2.) The request to set aside the practice of the License Commission (based on the request of the UCI World Tour) of using the Neutralisation Rule in connection with riders who have committed their doping offense on or before June 29, 2011 is granted.
3.) (...)
4.) (...)
5.) All further and other claims for relief are dismissed.

Facts
The French Motor Sports Federation (Fédération Française du Sport Automobile, FFSA) charges respondent M15 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an "course de côte de sport automobile", on September 9, 2012, a sample for doping control purposes was taken from the respondent. His sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent claimed to have used the cannabis at a festivity two days before the testing.

Decision
1. The sanction will be a period of ineligibility of 9 months, in which respondent can't play competition or take part in manifestations in his sport.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced with the period of voluntary suspension.
3. The decision taken on November 6 , 2012 by the disciplinary committee of the French Motor Sports Federation should be modified.
4. The present decision shall take effect from the date of notification
the respondent.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Motor Sport Federation (Fédération Française du Sport Automobile, FFSA) charges Respondent M14 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the manche du championnat de France « Grand Tourisme », on July 15, 2012, the respondent provided a sample for a doping test. His sample tested positive on a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent uses cannabis to ease the pain for his spondylitis ankyiosante.

Decision
1. The appropriate sanction is a period of ineligibility of 6 months, in which respondent can't take part in competions or manifestations organized by his sport.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced with the period of voluntary suspension.
3. The decision of the October 5, 2012, of the disciplinary committee of the French Motor Sports Federation is adapted (which was a 4 months period of ineligibility).
4. The present decision shall take effect from the date of notification to the respondent.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The Fédération Française de Cyclisme (FFC) charges respondent M11 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the test time trial "championnat de France, categorie veterans, de cyclisme", on May 26, 2012, a sample for doping purpose was taken from the respondent. His sample tested positive on the presence of triamcinolone acetonide, N-ethylnicotinamide a metabolite of nikethamide, trenbolone and its metabolite a-trenbolone, a report of a spectrometric analysis indicating an external origin of metabolites from testosterone.

History
The respondent claims that the prohibited substances came from medication he used for bronchites and supplements he took.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 4 years, in which he will be excluded for competition and sport related manifestations.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced with his time of voluntary suspension.
3. The decision will be taken into effect on the date of the notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Respondent Alexandra Klineman is 23 year old volleyball player and member of USA Volleyball.

The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against Respondent after her three out-of-competition samples (provided on 22 May, 19 June and 26 June 2013) tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydroepiandrosteron (DHEA).
USADA notified Respondent of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel on 13 November 2013.

Respondent stated that her positive results were from the inadvertent ingestion of her mother’s DHEA supplement and she had no intention to enhance her sport performance.
The Panel concludes that the Respondent is an innocent athlete who tested positive by accident and did everything humanly possible to provide USADA with all the information required regarding her positive test.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport (NACAS) l therefore decides:
1.) Respondent has committed her first doping violation under the 2009 version of the WADA Code.
2.) Respondent has sustained her burden of proof under the WADA Code. Therefore the Panel imposes a period of ineligibility starting from the date of the sample collection of her first positive test on 22 May 2013 and continuing through 9 June 2014, a period spanning thirteen months.
3.) The parties shall bear their own attorney's fees and costs associated with this arbitration.
4.) The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association, and the compensation and expenses of the arbitrators and the Panel, shall be borne entirely by USADA and the United States Olympic Committee.

Facts
The Fédération Sportive et Gymnastique du Travail (FSGT) charges the respondent M10 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the "championnat federal omniforces d'halterophilie" on May 26, 2012 a sample for doping test was provided by the respondent. His sample tested positive on a metabolite of cannabis with an amount above the threshold value. Cannabis is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and regarded as a specified substance.

Decision
1. The respondent is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 6 months, in which he can't take part in competition and manifestations of the "Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme" and the "Fédération Sportive et Gymnique du Travail".
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period of voluntary suspension.
3. The decision of the Fédération Sportive et Gymnique du Travail, dated August 28, 2012, will be modified to the current decision.
4. The decision will be taken in effect on the day of the notifcation of the respondent.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

In April 2012 the Polish Athletic Federation has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Anna Wloka after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine.
The Athlete stated she had used a dietary supplement provided by her trainer.

Considering the circumstances the Commission for Distinctions, Discipline and against Doping of the Polish Athletic Federation decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of sample collection, i.e. on 28 January 2012.
On 19 June 2012 the Commission for Distinctions, Discipline and against Doping of the Polish Athletic Federation reviewed the case and decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 28 January 2012 to 28 July 2012.

Hereafter WADA appealed the decision of the Polish Athletic 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 a longer period of ineligibility should be imposed on the Athlete but also submitted that the period of ineligibility could be reduced from 2 years to 12 months because of the circumstances.

The Tribunal concludes that the Athlete had no intention to enhance her performance and she trusted her trainer who supplied the supplement with the prohibited substance. For the administration of the supplement a 4 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete’s trainer.
The Tribunal finds that the WADA appeal should be granted in part and changes the decision of the Polish Athletic Federation. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sports at the Polish Olympic Committee decides to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In August 2011 the Polish Rugby Union has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Krzystof Hotowski after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance oxilofrine.
The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and admitted he had used supplements and fatburners to lose weight.
He stated he didn’t know the supplements contained prohibited substances and paid less research of the ingredients of the supplements until he was notified of the positive test.
On 5 October 2011 the Games and Discipline Commission of the Polish Rugby Union decided to impose a reprimand on the Athlete.

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 rules that WADA’s appeal is granted in part due to the fact that the violation occurred before 1 September 2011, i.e. before the Model Anti-Doping rules came into effect in Poland.
Here the principle of lex mitior appropriately applies under the circumstances of the case. The Polish Rugby Union Disciplinary Rules, in force before 1 September 2011, were more lenient for the Athlete.
Considering the circumstances the Court of Arbitration for Sports at the Polish Olympic Committee decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.