Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) charges Steve Molnar (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). An earlier violation happen in August 1988, for the presence of stanozolol in his sample he had received a period of ineligibility of four years. The second violation occurred during an in-competition doping control conducted at the 2005 Canadian National Championships in Calgary, Alberta on October 21, 2005. His urine sample returned an adverse analytical finding for cannabis, methandienone and oxymetholone, all prohibited substances on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List.

Decision
Pursuant to Rules 7.20 and 7.9, Steve Molnar's penalty is lifetime
ineligibility, effective immediately.

The New Zealand Sports Drug Agency (NZSD) and the New Zealand Federation of Body Builders (NZFBB) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

After notification by the NZFBB the Respondent filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand.
The athlete explained to the Tribunal that she was not aware that the diuretic was on the list and she had not used it for any enhancement purposes but rather to manage a fluid retention problem from which she was suffering prior to the championships. She had apologised to the sport and its administrators and she accepted her transgression. She made an early decision not to compete in the National Championships nor in any other event pending the outcome of the Tribunal’s deliberations.

The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand finds that the Respondent had committed an anti-doping rule violation in relation to the presence of the substance Furosemide in her sample.
The Tribunal decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting from 10 july 2004. Medals or trophies collected by the Respondent during the competition on 10 July 2004 shall be returned immediately to the NZFBB. The Respondent is prohibited from competing or officiating at any NZFBB or IFBB events during the period of the ineligibility.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Limited charged Jami Mirwaise (the Athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 16 June 2013, he competed in the 96 kilogram Greco-Roman category at the BWA British Senior Championships (the “Event”). Following the competition, he provided an In-Competition sample for doping control purposes, pursuant to the Anti-Doping Rules (the “Sample”). The Laboratory reported that an Adverse Analytical Finding in respect of oxandrolone had been made in respect of the Sample. The athlete admits the doping offence, no B-sample analysis is requested and no hearing is demanded.

The two doping violations: presence of a prohibited substance in the sample and the use of a prohibted substance will be considered as one violation.

Decision
1 An Anti-Doping Rule Violations pursuant to ADR Articles 2.1 and 2.2 have been committed;
2 A period of Ineligibility of two years shall be the Consequences imposed pursuant to ADR Article 10.2. That period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced as from 2 July 2013, and will end at midnight on 1 July 2015;
3. The Athlete’s status during this period of Ineligibility shall be as set out in ADR Article 10.10;
4. The Athlete’s results at the Event are Disqualified, along with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, points and prizes; and
5. Pursuant to ADR Article 10.10.4, during the period of Ineligibility the Athlete shall remain subject to the Anti-Doping Rules.

Appeal
This Decision may be appealed by the Athlete, the BWA, the Fédération International de Lutes Associées and WADA.

The New Zealand Sports Drug Agency (NZSD) and the New Zealand Olympic Wrestling Union (WNZ) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Terbutaline.

The Tribunal noted that the Respondent has been an asthmatic from childhood, and used Terbutaline for legitimate medical purposes (rather than to enhance performance). There is no suggestion that Respondent is a drug cheat, but the Tribunal considered that an athlete must take responsibility for his actions in using a substance banned under the World Anti Doping Code 2004 Prohibited List.
The use of Terbutaline is permitted provided a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) has been granted by the NZSDA. After he tested positive the Respondent obtained a TUE. NZSDA acknowledged through its Counsel that “the violation was more a technical breach of the rules rather than any deliberate flouting of them”. It ruled that it had no jurisdiction to consider a retroactive approval which NZSDA sought as a first line of defence.
Under its anti-Doping policy WNZ referred the case to the Tribunal for the imposition of a penalty, and initially asked for sanctions which included a ban from competition. It altered its stance when the athlete’s medical background was clarified. WNZ acknowledged that it could have done more to inform the Respondent of his obligations and rights to a TUE under the new anti-Doping regime which applied from 1 January 2004.

The New Zealand Sports Disputes Tribunal decides to issue a reprimand, and rules that the Respondent should pay costs, after he tested positive to the use of Terbutaline.
Respondent will be required to remain on the Drug Register for Out of Competition testing for a period of two years.

Facts
The French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M20 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an bodybuilding event on May 7 2011 a sample was taken for doping test 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 specified substances.

History
The respondent didn't provide any explanation about how the prohibited substance has entered the body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 6 months in which the athlete can't take part in competition or manifestation organized by de or related sports federations .
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced with the period of voluntary suspension.
3. The decision (ineligibility of three months), dated August 31, 2011, of the disciplinary committee of the FFHMFAC will be modified.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

The New Zealand Sports Drug Agency (NZSDA) and the New Zealand Powerlifting Federation (NZPF) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent for his refusal to provide a sample.

Hereafter the NZPF applied for the imposition of a sanction against the Respondent with the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand.
At the Pre-hearing Conference the president of the Tribunal raised the question whether the Tribunal was properly constituted to be the Tribunal appointed, pursuant to the NZPF Anti-Doping Code to determine the application.
The Tribunal rules that it is not properly constituted to deal with this matter as a Tribunal under the NZPF’s Anti-Doping Code. Accordingly, it declines to hear the application.

In June 2004 the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency (NZSDA) and Cycling New Zealand Federation (Cycling NZ) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Stephen Collins after he refused to provide a sample to NZSDA.

After the notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and a decision was rendered by the Tribunal based on the parties submissions.
The Athlete explained that he was disillusioned with cycling in April 2004 and had informed Cycling NZ about his retirement. He expected that Cycling NZ would request NZSDA to remove him from the Sports Drug Testing Register. He also complained about the failure of Cycling NZ to comply with the two day time limit under the Rules.

Cycling NZ established that the Athlete was still registered as a member. It acknowledged that it had not forwarded the NZSDA’s notice of the determination of a drug infraction timely as required.
Cycling NZ accepted that the Athlete may have been upset and angry when he refused to provide a sample to NZSDA. Cycling NZ also recognises that whether the Athlete was full aware of the consequences of his refusal he might have been more co-operative to the doping control and he might have provided a sample.

The Tribunal considered whether Cycling NZ’s failure to provide the Athlete's with timely notice of the determination of the Board of the NZSDA has deprived him of an effective right of appeal or challenge to the NZSDA Board’s determination. The matters relied upon by the Athlete may be relevant, however, in mitigation of penalty, to the extent that the Tribunal has any discretion in that regard.

On 17 August 2004 the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the notification, i.e. on 11 June 2004.

In addition the Tribunal made some recommendations that might encourage national sports organisations and athletes who are covered by the Anti-Doping Rules to look closely at, and adhere to, their respective responsibilities under the anti-doping rules.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Chris Korol (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Porgram. The substance was detected in a urine sample collected during in-competition doping control on October 21, 2012, at the Canadian bobsled championships in Calgary. The sample was found to contain SARM S-22, which the CCES classifies as a new drug with presumed anabolic properties.

History
There is a connection with an earlier case with Derek Plug, who was ordered to serve a period of ineligibility of two years. Derek Plug was a member of the same team as the athlete. They were using the same supplements while sharing accommodations. The athlete makes acquisitions that Derek Plug had deliberately switched vitamine D3 bottles with a tainted bottle, but these are speculative theories. But the arbitrator accepts that the probable source of contamination was tainted Vitamin D3 drops.

Decision
1. The Athlete has voluntarily, and promptly, admitted to an anti-doping rule violation in connection with the presence in his bodily Sample of SARM S-22, an anabolic agent, which is a Prohibited Substance according to the 2012 Prohibited List forming part of the World Anti-Doping Code.
2. The presumptive sanction for a first anti-doping rule violation for the Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete's bodily Sample is a period of Ineligibility of two (2) years.
3. In this case, the Athlete has met the burden of establishing exceptional circumstances pursuant to CADP Rule 7.45 ("No Significant Fault or Negligence"), thereby warranting reduction of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility.
4. In the circumstances, a period of Ineligibility of 15 months shall apply, to run from 21 October 2012.

Costs
The Doping Tribunal may award costs to any party payable as it directs. If either party wishes to apply for costs, an application should be made within the time limit.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport ("CCES") alleges an anti-doping violation by Amanda Galle (the Athlete).On January 24, 2009, Ms. Galle tested positive for the presence of Nandrolone during an in-competition doping control . The cause of the positive was a wrong injection by her nutritious coach.

History
After being notified of the test result, Galle exercised her right to a hearing under the rules of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program, where she sought to have the customary two-year ban for an athlete testing positive reduced to one year. At the hearing, she testified that her conditioning coach had "mistakenly injected her with deca-durabolin" instead of her usual vitamins B6 and B12.

Decision
The arbitrator found that Galle "failed to demonstrate that she bears no significant fault or negligence in relation to the violation," and upheld the two-year ban. The date of the first sample collection, January 24, starts the period of ineligibility.

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DNSNZ) has reporter an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after he refused or failed without compelling justification to provide a sample.
DNSNZ notified the Respondent and ordered a provisional suspension. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Panel.

Respondent stated he was not willing to wait anymore at the Doping Control Station and decided to walk away and not to complete the doping control. Previously he had used cannabis and thought he would be suspended only for three or six months.

The Tribunal deems that the fact that Respondent may have smoked Cannabis has no relevance to the sanction applied when Respondent refuses to complete a test.
Therefore the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 October 2010.