The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the Disciplinary Committee. The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 13 June 2012.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Jasdeep Toor (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program.
On October 10, 2011, the CCES conducted an after-competition doping control in Brossard, Quebec. A sample collection was provided by the athlete and showed the presence of methylhexaneamine.

History
The athlete has not challenged the finding nor has he required that the B sample to be tested. The cause for the contamination was a commercially sold supplement “Jack 3D”, which he purchased at a drug store over the counter. He was unaware the supplement product contained the prohibited substance and that he did not intend to enhance his performance by using it. The athlete is not a professional player and didn't receive proper doping education.

Decision
I have determined that a two month suspension from eligibility, commencing December 17, 2011 and ending at midnight, February 17, 2012 is an appropriate response to these circumstances. It is so ordered.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Isaac Haack (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Drugs Program following a report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) that the athlete had been criminally charged and pleaded guilty to the charge of Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking. Possession and trafficking or attempted trafficking of anabolic steroids is prohibited at all times by athletes subject to the CADP.

History
The records of the Nanaimo Court Services, Criminal Registry establish that on December 9, 2011, the athlete was convicted, following a guilty plea, of possession of a controlled Drug/Substance, specifically anabolic steroids, for the purposes of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. There has been no appeal of the conviction. Pursuant to CADP Rule 7.84, this evidence constitutes irrefutable proof that the athlete both possessed and trafficked or attempted to traffic anabolic steroids. Anabolic steroids are banned substances according to the 2011 WADA prohibited list.

Decision
In the absence of any submissions from the Athlete, and in consideration of all of the evidence, I impose a sanction of four years. The period of ineligibility commences on the date of this decision.

Costs
No submission was made on costs and I make no order.

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine. After the notification the Athlete was provisional suspended and heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Committee accepts that the Athlete ingested the banned stimulant without knowing that it was in violation of the SAIDS Anti-Doping Code. It would appear that he was simply acting on the advice of a person who recommended the supplement concerned. Of course, ignorance of the law is no defence, and as a high-performance Athlete, the Athlete should have and must have known that he should be more cautious and to first check that he would not fall foul of the SAIDS Anti-Doping Regulations.

The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 30 august 2011.

The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jake Glass after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Cocaine and Cannabis.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete failed to respond to the CCES communication. As a result the SDRCC rendered a decision based on the written submissions.

The Arbitrator holds that the Athlete was given every opportunity to participate in a hearing. The Arbitrator finds that the Athlete has not provided any evidence to support the finding of an exceptional circumstance.
Therefore the SDRCC decides on 20 January 2011 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 15 October 2010.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Zach White (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. On September 12, 2009, the CCES conducted an in-competition doping control in Ottawa involving the athlete. He was notified for doping control on that date and provided an urine sample. Analysis indicated an adverse analytical finding for the presence of cannabis above the threshold of 15 ng/ml. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according to the 2009 WADA Prohibited List, which states that all prohibited substances shall be considered as 'Specified Substances'.

History
Based upon a psychiatric interview it is indicated that the athlete got into the use of cannabis purely for recreational reasons in the context of peer relationships. There is no indication in my assessment that the use of cannabis is motivated by the desire to improve his performance in sports or any other skills. His frequency of use had been very variable, dependent on the social circumstance and did not appear to be related to periods that he was involved in sports. There appeared to be no temporal relationship between his drug use and involvement in sport practices or participation in competitive sports activities.
The athlete declares that he was consuming about 2 grams per session per day. He had a psychological need to consume the drug and probably a physical desire as well, without realizing any addiction going on within his body.

Decision
The sanction for the anti-doping rule violation committed by the athlete be seven (7) months of ineligibility. This period of inelligibility is to be served commencing on November 18, 2009, the date the athlete accepted a voluntary provisional suspension. It will end on June 18, 2010.

Facts
Claimant Taylor Shadgett and respondent Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) and the interveners Arcadia university and the Canadian Interuniversity Sport took part in a resolution hearing conducted by telephone conference on July 15, 2010.
The claimant was called to give an urine sample through the normal testing process on June 7, 2010. His sample tested positive on Stanozolol which is a prohibited substance.

History
When tested the claimant had admitted the ingestion of the steroid Winstrol in the previous ten days.

Decision
The claimant did commit an anti-doping violation by the presence in his body and use of Winstrol, a prohibited substance, contrary to the Doping Violations and Consequences Rules of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. The Tribunal therefore imposes a two year period of ineligibility to be calculated from June 7, 2010.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Christiano Paes for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. On November 25, 2006, the Athlete underwent a doping control. It was a notified, Out-of-Competition sample collection session. The Athlete provided a urine sample which, following analysis, is alleged to have contained an elevated testosterone-epitestosterone (TIE) ratio greater than four (4) to one (1), and an IRMS results consistent with exogenous origin.

History
The Athlete admitted that he used a wide variety of nutritional supplements.

Decision
The required sanction for a first anti-doping rule violation is a two year period of ineligibility from sports as well as a permanent ineligibility from direct Government of Canada funding this sanction is reasonable in these circumstances.
The CADP states that the period of ineligibility shall start on the date of the hearing decision providing for ineligibility.
In the circumstances, the period of ineligibility should start on the date of the hearing decision namely, March 5, 2007.

Costs
Unless applied for, there shall be no award of costs in this matter.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Spencer Zimmerman-Cryer (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP) for the use or attempted use of a prohibited substance.

History
The athlete's admission occurred before any notice of a sample collection and, of course, before he received any notice of the violation. His admission was the only evidence of the violation when he made it. He testified and signed the admission document, this was three days before the entire University of Waterloo football team was tested.

Decision
it is hereby ordered that the sanction for the anti-doping rule violation of use of a prohibited substance admitted by the Athlete be one (1) year of ineligibility, to be served commencing on March 30, 2010 and ending on March 30, 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 substances 1-phenylbutan-2-amine (PBA., metabolite of DEBEA) and N,α-diethyl-benzeneethanamine (DEBEA). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and Respondent was heard fort the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation and stated he had been using a dietary supplement in order to lose weight and had taken two capsules five days before being tested. The supplement didn’t list any prohibited substances on its label. After testing positive, Respondent engaged a forensic analyst to test the product. She gave evidence that her analysis confirmed the presence of prohibited substances in the product and the analytical findings were consistent with his evidence of when he took the capsules. The Tribunal was satisfied that the source of Respondent’s positive test was the supplement. The Tribunal accepted the evidence that Respondent took the supplement in order to lose weight. The Tribunal was satisfied that his taking of the two capsules five days before the cricket game was without any intent at all to enhance his sports performance in the game.

When he received the product he noticed it contained a warning on its label stating it may contain ingredients banned by certain organisations. He made internet searches on two of the ingredients but didn’t contact Drug Free Sport to check about the product even though the product contained a warning. The Tribunal concludes that the failure to contact Drug Free Sport, having seen the warning on the label, is the most substantial factor of fault on the part of Respondent.

Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 April 2013.