The Athlete was scheduled to compete in the Men’s 400m event at the London 2012 Olympic Games.
In July 2012 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his pre-competition A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone.
The IOC notified the Athlete and a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.
The Athlete stated he suffered from an injury and had used a homeopathic medicine to accelerate his recovery. This medicine was injected to the Athlete by his personal coach. The Athlete stated he had no intention to enhance his performance and he believed the homeopathic medicine may be contain the prohibited substance.
However a scientific expert concluded that the homeopathic medicine is unlikely to have caused the adverse analytical finding.

De IOC Disciplinary Commission concludes that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides on 12 August 2012 that the Athlete, Mr. Diego Palomeque Echavarria, Colombia, Athletics:
1.) is excluded from the Games of the London 2012 Olympic Games;
2.) shall have his Olympic identity and accreditation card immediately cancelled and withdrawn.
3.) The NOC of Colombia is requested to investigate the matter of the injections administered to the Athlete by his coach and to take any appropriate sanctions or measures within its own competence. The NOC is further requested to inform the IOC of the results of such investigation, and any sanctions or measures taken, at the latest by 31 October 2012. The IOC reserves its rights to consider possible further sanctions or measures in relation to this matter.
4.) The Athlete’s file shall be transmitted to the International Association of Athletics Federations, which is requested to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The NOC of Colombia and LOCOG shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
6.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

Related case:
CAS 2016_A_4707 Alex Schwazer vs IAAF, NADO Italia, FIDAL & WADA
January 30, 2017

The Italian Athlete Alex Schwazer was scheduled to compete in the Men’s 50km Walk Race at the London 2012 Olympic Games.
In August 2012 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his pre-competition sample tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). After notification by the IOC the Athlete admitted he had purchased and used EPO.
Hereafter the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) decided to exclude the Athlete from the Italian Olympic Team and the CONI/NADO Anti-doping court suspended the Athlete.
Based on the test result and the Athlete’s admission the IOC Disciplinary Commission concludes that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

On 10 August 2012 the IOC Executive Board decides, as recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, that:

1.) The IOC has taken note of the decision of CONI to suspend the athlete Alex Schwazer.

The athlete Alex Schwazer, Italy, Athletics:
2.) is declared ineligible to participate in London 2012 Olympic Games;
3.) shall have his Olympic identity and accreditation card immediately cancelled and withdrawn.
4.) The Athlete’s file shall be transmitted to the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), which is requested to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The NOC of Italy and LOCOG shall ensure full implementation of the Executive Board decision.
6.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

Related cases:

• CAS 2007_A_1312 Jeffrey Adams vs CCES
  May 16, 2008
• SDRCC 2010 CCES vs Jeffrey Adams
  December 21, 2010

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Jeffrey Adams for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. On 28 May 2006, in accordance with the Doping Control Rules of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (the "CADP Rules" or the "CADP Rule"), the Athlete submitted to an in-competition doping control test administered by the CCES. the presence of cocaine metabolites caused an adverse analytical finding (the "AAF") in the Athlete’s "A" sample. Cocaine is a prohibited substance in-competition as provided for by the 2006 WADA List of Prohibited Substances.

History
The Athlete provided a written response to the AAF, that response included an allegation that errors were made in the doping control
procedure by the CCES and that the Athlete had used a contaminated catheter to provide the urine sample. The other possible source of contamination was on 21 May 2006, the Athlete and Karir visited the Vatican bar at Queen St. West in Toronto. Around eleven o'clock in the evening, the Athlete alleges that an unknown woman inserted cocaine into his mouth with her fingers while seated beside him on a sofa in the bar. He claims this was done against his consent. The witness Karir testifies that following the alleged assault she verbally confronted the woman, whom she believed was on drugs. Karir states she observed that the woman was carrying a plastic pouch, which the woman confirmed to her contained cocaine. In the following doping test he used an unclean catheter which was possibly contaminated with cocaine. The chaperon didn't made any remarks using an unclean catheter.
The only disagreement is whether the catheter used by the Athlete was contaminated, and which party is responsible for any contamination. The Athlete alleges that he used the Vatikan Catheter to provide a sample of urine because it was the only catheter he had brought to the Competition.

Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation is found to have occurred under CADP Rule. This being a first violation the period of Ineligibility prescribed by CADP Rule is two years.
2. The period of Ineligibility prescribed by this Award is to commence on 18 August 2006 in accordance with CADP Rule being the date on which the Athlete voluntarily elected not to compete and filed a letter to that effect with the Arbitrator. In accordance with this award and the CADP Rules the period of Ineligibility will terminate on 17 August 2008.
3. The competition result achieved by the Athlete at the ING Ottawa Marathon held at Ottawa, Ontario on 28 May 2006 is disqualified by virtue of CADP Rule and he is to forfeit any medals, points or prizes in accordance with the CADP.
4. In accordance with CADP Rule 7.37 the Athlete is permanently ineligible to receive any direct financial support provided by the Government of Canada.
5. Under Rule 7.69 of the CADP, the Doping Tribunal may award costs to any party payable at its discretion. Unless applied for, there shall be no award of costs in this matter.

Costs
Any application for costs is to be in written form addressed to the SDRCC and received not later than 10 days following the receipt of this Award.

Related case:
CAS 2007_A_1312 Jeffrey Adams vs CCES
May 16, 2008
SDRCC 2006 CCES vs Jeffrey Adams
June 11, 2007

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jeffrey Adams for his refusal or failure to provide sample without compelling justification.
Hearings were held on October 21, 22, 24 and 25, 2010 Toronto, Ontario.

History
The Athlete was previously the subject of a 2007 Doping Tribunal. That decision became the subject matter of a 2008 Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) arbitral award (“DT/CAS Determination”). In May, 2009, the Athlete commenced proceedings in respect of the DT/CAS Determination by Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and for Judicial Review in the Divisional Court.
On September 30, 2009, the Athlete was selected for doping control by the CCES. However, that session was terminated by the CCES before a sample was given. On November 24, 2009, as a follow up for the terminated session, the Athlete was again selected for doping control to take place on November 28, 2009. This session also did not result in the Athlete providing a sample. The CCES alleges the session ended because the Athlete refused to participate. The Athlete states that the CCES terminated the session and there was no refusal.

Decision
The conclusion is that the Athlete did not provide a sample at the November 28th Session because the CCES failed to clarify who was responsible for ensuring that the CCES supplied catheter was contamination free. This is an assurance that the CCES could readily have given in respect of other Sample Collection equipment which must be provided by the CCES.
1. The requirement is consistent with the mutuality concept of contract compliance which is the framework for the relationship between the parties. How can one be said to be in default or in breach of a contract when a requirement is questioned without a response being given or the parties have not reached an agreement on a critical term; such as, “Who is responsible to ensure that a CCES-supplied catheter is contamination free?”
2. The Athlete is contractually entitled to the procedural and substantive rights established by the CADP and applicable jurisprudence which includes the DT/CAS Determination.
3. The DT/CAS Determination arose at a point in time when the guidelines applicable to disabled athletes were evolving. This evolution is reflected in Annex 6B to the CADP which establish the CCES’s obligations to disabled athletes. In the circumstances of the November 28th Session, these obligations were not respected.
4. Unable to conclude on the evidence before me that the Athlete refused to continue with the test because he was retired, as urged by the CCES.
5. The responsibility for the unsatisfactory evidentiary record rests with the CCES, which had refused the request of Mr. Bagg that the session be recorded on videotape. Further, it did not at the time review, challenge or clarify the Athlete’s position that was clearly
spelled out in his written Supplementary Report. Had the CCES chosen an alternate approach at the November 28th Session, it may have succeeded in meeting its burden of proof by avoiding the existing, contradictory, evidentiary record.
6. In determining the outcome, governed by the burden of proof and standard of proof set out in CADP Rule 7.81. It is comfortably satisfied that on the evidence before me, the CCES has failed to discharge its burden that any anti-doping rule violation occurred on November 28, 2009. That is because of its failure to adduce sufficient evidence of a refusal to satisfy even the lower standard of proof in civil cases of a mere balance of probability. Concluded above that the strict liability nature of CADP Rule offences is not engaged in these circumstances. CCES can thus not succeed in this hearing.
7. I am quite able to reach this conclusion on a “comfortable satisfaction”level bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. I am not persuaded that in these circumstances, the Athlete refused to provide a test sample as alleged. This is not a case requiring examination of whether “compelling justification”existed for the Athlete’s refusal as I have concluded that no refusal occurred. However, had I found the Athlete failed to submit to Sample Collection, I would have concluded there was “compelling justification” for the Athlete’s action as the CCES failed to comply with its CADP Rule obligations.
8. The CCES has not established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Doping Tribunal that an anti-doping rule violation occurred on November 28, 2009.

The Athlete competed in the Men’s Shot Put event at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games.

In 2012, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the Athens 2004 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2004.

In July 2012 the IOC reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2004 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxandrolone.
After notification by the IOC the Athlete was invited to attend the testing of the B sample but the Athlete claimed he could not be available at the proposed dates and had finally not even made any proposal of his own.
Hereafter the Athlete submitted no statement in his defence nor did he attend to be heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

On 5 December 20012 the IOC Executive Board decides, as recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, that the Athlete:
1.) is found to have to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the Athens 2004 Olympic Games (presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen);
2.) is disqualified from the Men’s Shot Put event where he had placed 1st at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games; and
3.) shall have his medal and diploma in the above-mentioned event withdrawn.
4.) The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The NOC of Ukraine is ordered to return to the IOC, as soon as possible, the medal and diploma awarded to the Athlete in relation to the above-mentioned event.
6.) The NOC of Ukraine shall ensure full implementation of this decision.

Facts
Karen Wilkenson (the Athlete) applies for Category II Reinstatement. She was suspended from competition for four years for a violation of the Anti-Doping rules. On acquisition of her husband about tampering her doping controls she underwent an doping test under the condition: "ensure that the athlete provides a witnessed urine sample wearing a short-sleeve shirt. It is our understanding that she may be manipulating the process by substituting urine from a stored reservoir". The test took place in her office on July 7, 1995. Her sample tested positive on metabolites of the prohibited substance nandrolone.

History
The athlete denied any personal knowledge as to how the banned substance entered her body. Her "defence" is that her estranged husband, Mr. Brantley, had secretly put the drug in her soft drink and she unknowingly drank it. She relies entirely on Mr. Brantley to explain the circumstances of how the drug was administered to her. Experts proved that parts of the testimony can't be true.

Decision
Dr. Wilkinson's application for Category II Reinstatement has been denied.

The Athlete competed in the Women’s 53 kg weightlifting event of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

In January 2009 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to perform further testing on the Athlete’s samples collected during the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, due to a fully validated test to detect CERA became available. In April 2009 The IOC reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2008 sample tested positive for the prohibited substance CERA.

After notification by the IOC the Athlete requested the analysis of the B sample. Hereafter the analysis report indicated that the presence of the substance CERA could not be detected in the B sample of the Athlete.
Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission concludes that there is not enough proof to pronounce a sanction against the Athlete for a violation of the Rules.

The IOC Disciplinary Commission decides:

1.) On the basis of the proof currently available in the present case, no sanction shall be imposed the Athlete Yudelquis Maridalin Contreras.
2.) The IOC’s right to re-open a disciplinary procedure is reserved in the event that new evidence comes to light.
3.) The International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) and the NOC of the Dominican Republic shall be informed of the decision.
4.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

In February 2006 the Athlete competed in the Austrian Men’s 10 km Sprint and the Men’s 12,5 km Pursuit during the Torino 2006 Olympic Winter Games.
On 18 February 2006 the Italian police searched the premises in which the Athlete resided of pursuant to a search and confiscation warrant. The Italian police found a number of items within the accommodation of the Austrian cross-country and biathlon teams, and their coaches and trainers, including numerous syringes (some used), blood bags (some used), butterfly valves for intravenous infusion, injection needles, bottles of saline and a device for measuring a person’s haemoglobin levels as well as a device for determining the blood group of a blood sample.

Specifically, in relation to the Athlete, the Italian police found, among other things, the following materials in his room as well as in a plastic bag that the Italian police saw him throw out of the window:
- 1 small case containing “Biotest” equipment;
- Various boxes of butterfly valves for intravenous infusion;
- Several unused needles for intravenous infusion;
- 1 Medical specialty “Nasivin”;
- 2 plastic bottles probably containing saline solution;
- 1 x 100g partially full bottle labelled in German, called “Spirozink”;
- 1x100g bottle called “Spirogram”;
- 2 x 500ml sealed bottles labelled in German;
- Plastic bottle containing unidentified plastic material;
- 1 x 100g used bottle, labelled “Isozid H”;
- 1 cardboard box labelled “Matricell” containing 8 used and one full phials;
- 1 article containing 5 empty phials of Matricell found in the rubbish bin; and
- 3 used paper tissues found in the rubbish bin and stained with traces of red.

The Austrian Olympic Committee (AOC) subsequently established an Inquiry Commission to investigate the conduct of the Austrian cross-country and biathlon teams at the Torino 2006 Olympic Winter Games. In addition the Austrian Ski Federation (ASF) Disciplinary Board also conducted a general investigation into the conduct of the teams.
Hereafter the IOC informed the Athlete by letter dated 1 March 2007 that the IOC was establishing a Disciplinary Commission to investigate the appropriateness of sanctions in connection with the seizure of evidence from his accommodation which appeared to demonstrate the possession, administration and use of prohibited substances and prohibited methods, or complicity in violations of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and declined the opportunity to attend to be heard for the Committee.

The Disciplinary Commission finds that the Athlete has violated the IOC Anti-Doping Rules by possession of prohibited methods and substances. In particular, it is apparent that he possessed materials for the carrying out of blood transfusions and the artificial manipulation of blood haemoglobin levels. Furthermore, the Athlete possessed hCG and albumin.

Therefore on 24 April 2007 the IOC Disciplinary Commission recommends to the IOC Executive Board that the Athlete:

1.) be disqualified from the Men’s 10 km Sprint, in which he placed 27th;
2.) be disqualified from the Men’s 12.5 km Pursuit, in which he placed 21st; and
3.) be permanently ineligible for all future Olympic Games in any capacity.
4.) The International Biathlon Union be requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly.
5.) The file be referred to the International Biathlon Union to consider any further action within its own competence.

On 25 April 2007 the IOC Executive Board decides unanimously, as recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, to declare permanent ineligible the Athlete and to exclude him from taking part in any future Olympic Games in any accredited capacity.

Related case:
SDRCC 2006 CCES vs Shari Boyle
September 8, 2006

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported a second anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Shari Boyle for her failure to submit to sample collection. During the athlete's period of ineligibility she was allowed to train and there she was requested to provide a sample during an out-of-competition coping control. However the Athlete left the training facility and did arrive at the doping control station.

History
The athlete asked to finish her training round after being asked to attend the doping test. During her training she felt ill. Unable to comply she left the training facility with a friend, she did mention she felt ill to the chaperone of the Doping Control Officer (DCO).

Decision
As a result of her second anti-doping rule violation, the Athlete should serve a further period of Ineligibility of 2 years in addition to the 1 year suspension that she is presently serving for her first violation. Her current period of ineligibility runs until 3 September 2007. Taking a purposive approach to interpretation of the CADP, in the view that the second period of Ineligibility would not start to run until the existing period of Ineligibility has been completed. However, if wrong, a period of Ineligibility of approximately two years and three months is imposed, which falls within the discretion provided by rule 7.10. Either way, the result is that the sanction imposed for this anti-doping rule violation is a further period of Ineligibility of two years in addition to the period of Ineligibility presently being served by the Athlete, with the result that the Athlete’s period of Ineligibility shall continue up to, and including, 3 September 2009.
Pursuant to Rule 7.37 of the CADP, the Athlete shall be permanently ineligible to receive any direct financial support provided by the Government of Canada

Costs
If any party wishes to exercise that discretion in its favour, it should make a written request by no later than 8 June 2007. I will then provide such directions as may be appropriate concerning submissions on costs.

In February 2006 the Athlete competed in the Austrian Men’s 20 km Individual, the Men’s 10 km Sprint and the Men’s 12,5 km Pursuit during the Torino 2006 Olympic Winter Games.
On 18 February 2006 the Italian police searched the premises in which the Athlete resided of pursuant to a search and confiscation warrant. The Italian police found a number of items within the accommodation of the Austrian cross-country and biathlon teams, and their coaches and trainers, including numerous syringes (some used), blood bags (some used), butterfly valves for intravenous infusion, injection needles, bottles of saline and a device for measuring a person’s haemoglobin levels as well as a device for determining the blood group of a blood sample.

Specifically, in relation to the Athlete, the Italian police found, among other things, the following materials in his room:
- 2 bottles that were unlabelled as well as numerous labelled bottles;
- 4 application sets;
- 2 butterfly valves for intravenous infusions;
- 7 injection needles;
- 1 used 24 ml syringe;
- 2x5 ml syringes;
- 1 used application set;
- 1 piece of toilet paper containing several used needles for syringes;
- 1 apple juice carton containing used syringes and phial; and
- 3x500 ml bottles of saline.

The Austrian Olympic Committee (AOC) subsequently established an Inquiry Commission to investigate the conduct of the Austrian cross-country and biathlon teams at the Torino 2006 Olympic Winter Games. In addition the Austrian Ski Federation (ASF) Disciplinary Board also conducted a general investigation into the conduct of the teams.
Hereafter the IOC informed the Athlete by letter dated 1 March 2007 that the IOC was establishing a Disciplinary Commission to investigate the appropriateness of sanctions in connection with the seizure of evidence from his accommodation which appeared to demonstrate the possession, administration and use of prohibited substances and prohibited methods, or complicity in violations of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and declined the opportunity to attend to be heard for the Committee.

Having considered the evidence before it, the Disciplinary Commission concludes that the Athlete has violated the IOC Anti-Doping Rules by possession of prohibited methods and substances. In particular, it is apparent that he possessed materials for the carrying out of blood transfusions and the artificial manipulation of blood haemoglobin levels. Furthermore, the Athlete possessed hCG and albumin.
The Disciplinary Commission notes that the Athlete’s violations of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules were facilitated and supported by significant collusive collaboration, the full parameters of which will be explored by the Disciplinary Commission in due course.
Therefore on 24 April 2007 the IOC Disciplinary Commission recommends to the IOC Executive Board that the Athlete:
1.) be disqualified from the Men’s 20 km Individual, in which he placed 60th;
2.) be disqualified from the Men’s 10 km Sprint, in which he placed 4th, and his diploma be withdrawn;
3.) be disqualified from the Men’s 12.5 km Pursuit, in which he placed 25th; and
4.) be permanently ineligible for all future Olympic Games in any capacity.
5.) The International Biathlon Union be requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly.
6.) The file be referred to the International Biathlon Union to consider any further action within its own competence.
7.) The Austrian Olympic Committee be ordered to return to the IOC, as soon as possible, the diploma awarded to the athlete in the Men’s 10 km Sprint.

On 25 April 2007 the IOC Executive Board decides unanimously, as recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, to declare permanent ineligible the Athlete and to exclude him from taking part in any future Olympic Games in any accredited capacity.

Hereafter on 17 July 2007 Ski Austria decides to impose ineligibility for life on the Athlete.