Related case:
SDRCC 2007 CCES vs Shari Boyle
May 31, 2007

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Shari Boyle after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Ephedrine in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

History
The Athlete accepted the test result and denied that the violation was intentional. Having ruled out some nutritional supplements the Athlete assumed that the source of her positive test was her use of Yogi Tea. She did not consider the tea to be either a supplement or performance enhancing. She has no other explanation for the positive result. She made effort to find out where the Yogi Tea was purchased, but it was a gift together with other treas out of the package. Research on the ingredients showed that from two sources one mentioned the ingredient ephedrine.

Submission arbitrator
Although the Athlete claimed that she carefully checked the supplements she used and purchased them from reputable sources, the Yogi Tea theory is suggestive of conduct that fell well short of her personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance entered her body. The conclusion is that the circumstances warrant imposing the high end of the scale of sanctions for use of Specified Substances.

Decision
The Athlete will be Ineligible for a period of 1 year from 3 September 2006 (being the date of the decision) and concluding on (and including) 3 September 2007.

The Athlete competed in the Athletics Women’s 800m event at 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 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance CERA.

The IOC notified the Athlete and the IAAF ordered a provisional suspension. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence but did not appear at the hearing of the IOC Disciplinary Commission.
The Athlete alleged in her defence that the burden of proof has not been met. The IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that no departure from the ISL occurred in this case and concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides that:
1.) The Athlete Vanja Perisic, Croatia, Athletics, is disqualified from the Athletics Women’s 800m event (Round 1, Heat 3) of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, where she had placed 6th;
2.) The International Association of Athletics Federations is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
3.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

Facts
Eric Lamaze (the athlete) applies for reinstatement concerning his period of ineligibility of 4 years due to his positive doping test showing the use of cocaine.

History
The athlete has a remarkable background story about how he achieved to become part of the Canadian Equestrian Team. Meeting a friend from his earlier neighborhood encouraged him to use cocaine before his matches. He doesn't blame his friend for this or his background with a mother who was an addict.

The following points are taken into consideration:
(a) Age
(b) Remorse
(c) Circumstances Surrounding the Infraction, Including Any Factors That May Have Caused or Contributed to the Applicant's Diminished Capacity
(d) The Applicant's Experience in Sport
(e) The Applicant's Favorable Prospects for Rehabilitation
(f) The Applicant's Prior and Post-Infraction Conduct
(g) The Applicant's Contribution to (the) Sport
(h) Co-Operation with Investigating Bodies
(i) Length of Suspension Served at Time of Hearing
(j) Additional Factors

Submission arbitrator
There can be no doubt that the athlete has satisfied the necessity of establishing highly exceptional circumstances which warrant reinstatement. In these unusual circumstances, the minimum four-year penalty prescribed by the policy is clearly excessive. Moreover, I see no purpose in delaying reinstatement to February 24, as proposed by the CEF and agreed to by the Applicant. The circumstances in this case are so extraordinary that immediate reinstatement cannot be perceived as detracting from the basic objective of the doping control policy.

Decision
The application of Eric Lamaze for reinstatement is granted effective the date of this decision subject to the following conditions:
(a) For a period of three years commencing on June 24, 1997, Eric Lamaze will devote himself publicly as an advocate to promote drug-free sport and drug-free lifestyle;
(b) He will contribute an average of one day per month for this purpose;
(c) Prior to March 24, 1997, and the next two anniversaries of that date, the CEF will provide Eric Lamaze with a program of activities for the year commencing on the next June 24;
(d) Such programs shall be developed by the CEF in consultation with the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) and Eric Lamaze: Both the CEF and the CCES shall designate a specific individual for this purpose and they shall deal directly with each other and with Eric; The CEF representative will be responsible for documenting all arrangements and activities. Shortly after June 24, each year, the CEF representative will provide the Adjudicator with a copy of the program for the forthcoming year and a report of the activities of the previous year;
(e) The programs shall be flexible in permitting variation by mutual agreement;
(f) I will remain seized of this matter and will be available by telephone conference call to Eric Lamaze and to both representatives in the event of any difficulty in implementing this order.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) charges Eric Lamaze (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping program (CADP). His doping test on July 22, 2000, revealed the prohibited substances ephedrine and pseudoephedrine.

History
The athlete had been banned in the past for a period of ineligibility of 4 years for the use of cocaine, he was succesfully reinstated in January 31, 1997. In this new case he had taken Advil Cold and Sinus in completely innocent circumstances. He also had been taking a nutritional diet supplement known as “Ultra Diet Pep” for approximately five years. It did not contain ephedrine and this substance had never appeared in Mr. Lamaze’s samples. However, the manufacturer subsequently began to distribute the same product with the addition of ephedrine. The name, print size, style of the product name and color of the label are identical for both categories of the product. Again the ingestion of ephedrine was completely innocent. His triumph over the previous doping infraction was inspiring. His notification by Dr. Pipe of a lifetime ban for a doping infraction he did not commit was a cruel twist of fate. Moreover, equestrian athletes do not merely complete for a short period of time and move on to other things. In the case of Mr. Lamaze, his competition is integrated with his other commercial activities such as operating his stables, teaching and coaching. The lifetime ban could have disastrous economic consequences for him.

Decision
Pursuant to my Summary of Decision issued on Monday, September 18, the application of Mr. Eric Lamaze is granted effective that date. Mr. Lamaze will bear the costs of the oral hearing facilities but no other costs are ordered. As pointed out in the Summary of Decision, this order does not resolve the Applicant’s eligibility to participate in the Sydney Olympics which falls within the authority of the Canadian Olympic Association to determine.
As a final observation, the evidence before me did not disclose in any way that Mr. Lamaze is a drug addict or that his positive test was an attempt to cheat. The evidence did disclose that his personal history has left him vulnerable in some respects. While he has shown incredible strength in many ways over the past four years and takes personal responsibility for his actions, it appears he would benefit from ongoing professional support. In particular, a professional support mechanism should be put in place in the event another catastrophic event, in the words of Dr. Harnick, should present itself. I considered imposing conditions along these lines but concluded it would be better to trust him to work out such arrangements with personal and professional assistance.

Related cases:

• CAS 2009_A_1752 Vadim Devyatovskiy & Ivan Tsikhan v IOC
  June 10, 2010
• CAS 2015_A_3977 WADA vs Belarus Athletic Federation & Vadim Devyatovskiy
  March 31, 2016
• IOC 2008 IOC vs Ivan Tsikhan
  December 11, 2008
  
  

The Athlete competed in the Men’s Hammer Throw Final at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.

After notification by the IOC the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

The Athlete declared he was innocent and that he won his medal honestly. He stated he had always been vigilant with respect to the substances he took, in order to avoid any mistakes. He always had taken medication in accordance with the recommendations of the team’s doctor.

After the hearing the Athlete filed a second statement in his defence in October 2008 and challenged the validity of the analysis conducted by the WADA Accredited Laboratory in Beijing.

Hereafter the IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that there is no departure from the WADA International Standards and concludes that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation in that there was the presence of the prohibited substance Testosterone in his body, at a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold. Furthermore it was noted that this was the second violation of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules.

Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides that the athlete Vadim Devyatovskiy, Belarus, Athletics:

1.) is disqualified from the Men’s Hammer Throw event, where he had placed second;

2.) shall have his medal and his diploma in the above-noted event withdrawn;

3.) subject to ratification by the IOC Executive Board, is permanently ineligible for all future Olympic Games in any capacity.

5.) The IAAF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.

6.) The NOC of Belarus is ordered to return to the IOC, as soon as possible, the diploma and the medal awarded to the Athlete in relation to the above-noted event.

7.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

The Athlete competed in the Women All-Around qualification for Artistic Gymnastics at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.
The IOC notified the Athlete and she was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.
The Athlete stated she had used pills to lose weight to look slim and lean. not to enhance her performance. She did not consult a doctor prior purchasing the pills.

The Committee concludes that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and there was the presence of the prohibited substance Furosemide in her body.
Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides that the athlete Thi Ngan Thuong Do, Vietnam, Artistic Gymnastics:
1.) is disqualified from the Women All-Around qualification for Artistic Gymnastics, where she had placed 59th;
2.) is excluded from the Games of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games;
3.) shall have her Olympic identity and accreditation card immediately cancelled and withdrawn.
4.) The International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) is requested to modify the results of the abovementioned event accordingly. The Athlete’s file shall be transmitted to such International Federation, which is requested to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The NOC of Vietnam and BOCOG shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
6.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

Facts
The Canandian Centre for Ethics in Sports charges Jimmy Gariépy for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. He administrated diuretics (triamterene and hydrochlorothiazide) to a minor.

History
Ms. Caroline Pyzik, a taekwondo athlete aged 16 at the time, met with Gariépy, in his role as trainer, from September 2010 to prepare for the Canadian Championships to be held in January 2011. Pyzik and Gariépy established a relationship of trust. Championships, Pyzik enquired with Gariépy about over the counter products that could help her safely manage her weight within her target category, while specifying she did not want a doping product. Gariépy was an athlete support personnel and had, as a trainer, the benefit of additional credibility with the athlete. She was suspended for a period of two (2) years. Gariépy demonstrated strong disregard in caring for the 16-year old athlete.

submissions
Accordingly, the decision in this case must be a clear expression of denunciation and deterrence. A minimal sanction would not fulfil these objectives.

Decision
There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has demonstrated that Gariépy violated the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). Accordingly, Mr. Jimmy Gariépy is hereby subject to an ineligibility period of five (5) years as of January 19, 2012.

Costs
No costs in this matter are awarded.

Facts
Amanda Gerhart (claiment) appeal's against the decision of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre Of Canada (SDRCC) dated April 18, 2013. In this decision the athlete had received an award of two years of ineligibility for not attending an out of competition doping control.

Submission
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) opposes that the appeal was brought out of time.
The Canadian Amateur Wrestling Association (CAWA) doesn't oppose of the late appeal.
Only "justified grounds" are needed to extend or reduce time limits generally in an SDRCC arbitration proceeding, while "exceptional circumstances" are needed to file a Request (including a notice of appeal in a Doping Appeal) late when all parties do not agree to the late filing.

AWARD
(1) The Claimant's Notice of Appeal to commence her Doping Appeal was filed approximately two months late;
(2) Article 3.4 of the SDRCC Code applies to Doping Appeals under the SDRCC Code and thus Article 3.4(e) of the SDRCC Code applies to notices of appeal to commence Doping Appeals that are filed late;
(3) In the present case there are no exceptional circumstances and there is no agreement of all of the Parties within the meaning of Article 3.4(e) of the SDRCC Code that would allow the late filing of the Claimant's Notice of Appeal.
(4) Accordingly, the SDRCC does not have jurisdiction to proceed with the Claimant's Doping Appeal, and the Claimant's Doping Appeal is dismissed.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges that on January 30, 2013, Amanda Gerhart (the Athlete) committed an anti-doping rule violation by refusing to submit to Doping Control Sample collection after she was notified that she had been selected for Out-of-Competition testing.

History
The CCES submits the Athlete was clearly notified that she had been selected for Sample collection. Further, the Chaperone and the Doping Control Officer (DCO) advised her that she had been selected but she left the premises without providing a sample and without the DCO' s permission or approval. The Athlete acknowledges that she failed to submit to Sample collection but alleges there was compelling justification for her actions, namely her fear of losing her employment. Alternatively, the Athlete asserts there were “exceptional circumstances” warranting a reduction or elimination of the proposed period of Ineligibility from Competition.
The chaperone testified she informed her, the athlete spoke shortly to the DCO but didn't return.
The coach advised her to stay, but the athlete went to her job.
The Athlete’s employer was called as a witness. He confirmed that the Athlete’s starting time at work on the date of the doping control. He said her employment status was as a probationary employee and lateness could have cost her her job. He also stated she is a good employee. He was aware of her status as an athlete. He said she did not call or contact him about her issue with the testing and that “she just came to work”.

Decision
a. There was no compelling justification for the Athlete’s failure to submit to Sample collection and to leave the training facility without explanation and against the express advice of her coach and the Chaperone;
b. The Athlete did not accept her responsibility to discuss the situation in an appropriate manner after notification by the Doping Control Officer (DCO) that she had been selected for Sample collection or even to advise the DCO that she was leaving the premises;
c. The Athlete has not established that she bears No Fault or Negligence or alternatively, that she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary on both headings;
d. On the basis of the evidence, I find the appropriate sanction is a two year period of Ineligibility of the Athlete from Competition. The Athlete shall be credited with the time spent since the Provisional Suspension was imposed and accordingly, the period of Ineligibility shall commence March 13, 2013.

Related case:
CAS 2007/A/1290 Roland Diethart vs IOC
January 4, 2008

In February 2006 the Athlete competed in the Austrian Men’s Men’s 4x10 km Relay at 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 a beauty case contained in his travel bag:
- Saline solution;
- 4 jars with 50 devices for haemoglobin testing;
- 13 unopened packs of syringes,
- 5 unopened infusion device packs,
- 1 pack of epicranial needles,
- 1 sterile-packed microperfuser and
- 1 unopened single-use needle pack.
The police also reported having found one box labelled Anabol Loges, containing approximately 15 black pills.

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 the IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that it is apparent that the Athlete possessed materials for the carrying out of blood transfusions and the artificial manipulation of blood haemoglobin levels.
The Disciplinary Commission concludes that the Athlete has violated the IOC Anti-Doping Rules in that he assisted encouraged, aided and abetted, and covered up violations committed by his fellow athletes

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 4x10 km Relay;
2.) be permanently ineligible for all future Olympic Games in any capacity.
3.) The Austrian Men’s 4x10 km Relay team be disqualified.
4.) The Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS) be requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly.
5.) The file be referred to the Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS) 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.

Hereafter the Athlete appeals the IOC decision with CAS.
On 4 January 2008 the Court of Arbitration for Sport rules to set aside the IOC decision as far as the period of ineligibility is concerned. Therefore the Athlete’s shall be ineligible to participate in any capacity in all Olympic Games up to and including the 2010 Olympic Games.