Facts
The Canadian Center for Ethics in Sport (CCES) charges Yvan Darsigny (the athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The athlete Yvan Darsigny committed a violation by refusing or avoiding the sample collection on January 23, 2005.

History
Due to family matters the applicant didn't treat the Doping Control Officer in a kind way and refused to comply when they came for an unannounced doping test. According to his testimony, the technique of no advance notice testing was unknown to the athlete. The DCO indentified herself correctly and the athlete understood the reason for her visit.

Decision
The period of Ineligibility imposed for this anti-doping rule violation shall be: Two (2) years Ineligibility

Related cases:
CAS 2007/A/1289 Jürgen Pinter vs International Olympic Committee
CAS 2007/A/1434 IOC vs FIS & Jürgen Pinter
CAS 2007/A/1435 WADA vs FIS & Jürgen Pinter

In February 2006 the Athlete competed in the Austrian Men’s Team Sprint and the 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 reported that the Athlete handed over a bag containing four used single-use syringes with traces of blood and five unopened boxes of single-use 20 ml and 10 ml syringes, which had been kept in the wardrobe.
Subsequently, the Torino Prosecutor’s Office analysed the materials seized by the police. The resulting report noted that many of the materials indicated the use of blood transfusions by members of the Austrian cross-country and biathlon teams, which is a prohibited method in accordance with the IOC Anti-Doping Rules, and the use of prohibited substances such as hCG and albumin.

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 Disciplinary Commission concludes that the Athlete has violated the IOC Anti-Doping Rules in that he used, possessed, and aided and abetted other athletes to use or possess, prohibited substances and methods.
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 Team Sprint;
2.) be disqualified from the Men’s 4x10 km Relay;
3.) be permanently ineligible for all future Olympic Games in any capacity.
4.) The Austrian Men’s Team Sprint and Men’s 4x10 km Relay teams be disqualified.
5.) The Fédération Internationale de Ski be requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly.
6.) 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 without success against the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS):
CAS 2007/A/1289 Jürgen Pinter vs International Olympic Committee.

On 20 November 2008 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 1 March 2006.

Related case:
CAS 2008_A_1489 Serge Despres vs CCES
September 30, 2008

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) charges Serge Despres (the athlete) with a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Policy (CADP). On August 9, 2007, the CCES conducted out-of-competition doping control in Calgary, Alberta. A sample collection took place which included the athlete. The sample contained nandrolone or precursors-norandrosterone which is a prohibited substance.

History
The athlete does not dispute that an anti-doping rule violation occurred in the circumstances of this case. However, the athlete claims there are "exceptional circumstances" that justify a reduction in the two-year period of suspension. The athlete has established that the taking of the Kaizen HMB supplements containing the prohibited substance caused the adverse analytical finding. After an accident he used the supplement for fast recovery, he did some examination to see if the product was safe to use.

Submissions CCES
The CCES claims there are "no exceptional circumstances" in this case and that the athlete is significantly at fault or negligent for the violation that occurred.

Decision
1. The evidence, together with the admissions and stated positions of the parties, establish that an anti-doping violation occurred involving the presence of nandrolone or precursors over the 2 ng/mL threshold set out in CADP Rules 7.16-7.20 and 7.37 in the athlete's collected sample.
2. The evidence, together with the admissions and stated positions of the parties establish there was fault or negligence by the athlete in ingesting this material. The source was found to be Kaizen HMB supplements, purchased by the athlete.
3. The issue before me is whether the two-year provisional suspension issued November 8, 2007 should be reduced, having
regard to the totality of the evidence and the conduct of the athlete. More specifically, the question is whether the athlete
bears "no significant fault or negligence" and if so, what is the appropriate reduction, if any, to the two-year period of
ineligibility of the athlete from competition.
4. In the unusual and particular circumstances of this case, after a careful review of the evidence, the arbitrator determines:
a. While the athlete bears fault or negligence, his conduct does not quite rise to the level of significant fault or negligence.
b. While there are grounds established by the evidence for a reduction in the imposed sanction, such reduction must be
proportional to the totality of the evidence and the underlying principles of the Rules.
c. Accordingly, the period of ineligibility is hereby reduced to twenty months, to July 8, 2009. The period of ineligibility shall commence November 8, 2007, the date of the provisional suspension, in accordance with CADP Rule 7.12.

The Athlete competed in the Men’s 10m Air Pistol Final during the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.
The IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Propranolol.
After notification by the IOC the NOC of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea filed a statement in the Athlete’s defence and he was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.
The Athlete stated he suffered cardiac pain and had used prescribed medication and a Korean medicine. The medication was used to diminish his chest pain and not to enhance performance. None of the medication mentioned by the Athlete could have caused the presence of Propranolol in the Athlete’s body.

The IOC Disciplinary Commission concluded that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and that the Athlete should lose the benefit of the ranking he obtained in the 50m Pistol Final on 12 August 2008 due to the anti-doping rule violation he committed on 9 August 2008.

On 15 August 2008 the IOC Executive Board, as recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, decides that the athlete Jong Su Kim, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, shooting:
1.) is disqualified from the Men’s 10m Air Pistol, where he had placed third;
2.) is disqualified from the Men’s 50m Air Pistol, where he placed second;
3.) is excluded from the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games;
4.) shall have his medals and diplomas in the above-noted events withdrawn;
5.) shall have his Olympic identity and accreditation card immediately withdrawn and cancelled.
6.) The International Shooting Sport Federation is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
7.) The NOC of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is ordered to return to the IOC, as soon as possible, the medals and diplomas awarded to the Athlete in relation to the above-noted events.
8.) The NOC of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and BOCOG shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
9.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

CCES 2005 Yvan Darsigny vs
- Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES)
- Canadian Weightlifting Federation (CWF)
- International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)
- Governement of Canada
- World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)

Facts
Yvan Darsigny (applicant) appeals against the decision of the Doping Appeal Tribunal of 17 April 2005. In this decision the applicant received an award of 2 years ineligibility for evading sample collection. Respondents in this case are: Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES), the Canadian Weightlifting Federation (CWF), the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF), the Government of Canada, and the World Anti-Doping Agency WADA).

History
The Athlete consistently argued that he would be astonished to discover that he is still considered an international-level athlete given that his last international-level competition took place in 1994. The CWF declared: that it had never provided the IWF with a list of Canadian athletes who were to be designated international-level athletes.
Due to family matters the applicant didn't treat the Doping Control Officers in a kind way and refused to comply when they came for an unannounced doping test.
The athlete claims that the notification of the doping control was not handled correctly, the position of the Athlete in this respect rests on a misunderstanding of the anti-doping rule in question.
The Appeal Tribunal rejects the Appellant's arguments for exceptional circumstances.

Decision
(1) The appeal is rejected, in part;
(2) The Decision rendered on 7 April 2005 by the Doping Tribunal is maintained;
(3) The Athlete committed the anti-doping rule violation set out in Rule 7.24 of the CADP, specifically, evading sample collection;
(4) The Athlete is ineligible for a period of two years commencing on 23 January 2005;
(5) Each party shall bear its own costs and expenses incurred in the appeal.

Related cases:

• CAS 2006/A/1102 Johannes Eder vs Ski Austria
• CAS 2006/A/1146 WADA vs Johannes Eder & Ski Austria
• CAS 2007/A/1286 Johannes Eder vs international Olympic Committee
  
  

In February 2006 the Athlete competed in the Austrian Men’s Team Sprint and the Men’s 4x10 km Relay 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 under his bed one intravenous drip with needle containing a small quantity of transparent liquid. The Torino Prosecutor’s Office determined that the liquid within the infusion equipment seized from the Athlete was saline, which indicated that he had attempted to manipulate his “physiological parameters”.

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. The AOC Inquiry Commission noted the that the Athlete had given himself an infusion.

In addition, the Austrian Ski Federation (ASF) investigated the conduct of the Athlete and they also concluded that he had self-injected saline during the Torino 2006 Olympic Winter Games. Hereafter the Athlete was suspended for one year, effective 12 May 2006.

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 be heard for the Committee.

Having considered the evidence hereafter 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 used, possessed, and aided and abetted other athletes to use or possess, prohibited substances and methods.

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 Team Sprint;
2.) be disqualified from the Men’s 4x10 km Relay;
3.) be permanently ineligible for all future Olympic Games in any capacity.
4.) The Austrian Men’s Team Sprint and Men’s 4x10 km Relay teams be disqualified.
5.) The Fédération Internationale de Ski be requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly.
6.) 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.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her pre-competition A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methyltrienolone.

After notification by the IOC in August 2008 the Athlete was suspended by the Greece NOC and asked to leave the Olympic Village in Beijing. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission. The Athlete stated she never used Methyltrienolone or any other prohibited substance and she suspected acts of tampering by third parties.

The Committee notes that Methyltrienolone has been found in the tests relating to 12 other Greek athletes. Also the Athlete’s personal coach was recently tested positive to the same substance Mythyltrienolone.

Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides that the Athlete:

1.) is excluded from the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games;
2.) shall have her Olympic identity and accreditation card immediately cancelled.
3.) 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.
4.) The NOC of Greece and BOCOG shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
5.) The IOC Disciplinary Commission will report the matter to the competent Greek authorities, with a request to investigate possible violations of Greek law, in particular by the Athlete’s coach.
6.) The IOC reserves its right to take sanctions or measures in relation to the Athlete’s.
7.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

In the opinion of the IOC Disciplinary Commission the Athlete was involved in unacceptable behaviour on the occasion of the 2004 Athens Olympic Games, even if she did not finally participate therein, she caused a very serious prejudice to the Olympic Movement by being the cause of a major scandal which was widely covered and reported in the world media. She put the Olympic Movement into disrepute.

Some of the acts which the Athlete committed at the time in 2004 are the following, apart from escaping doping controls:
- repeatedly pretending she had a traffic accident;
- giving false testimony to the authorities under oath in relation to such non-existent traffic accident;
- causing 3 medical doctors to issue false medical certificates;
- causing six medical doctors to hospitalise her for five days in order to avoid IOC controls;
- postponing her appearance in front of the IOC Disciplinary Commission, thus seeking to avoid a sanction of disqualification from the 2004 Athens Olympic Games and possible exclusion from future Olympic Games.
Hereafter the Athlete declared on 18 August 2004 her withdrawal from the Athens Olympic Games and surrendered her Olympic identity and accreditation cards.

In August 2004, the IOC did not take a decision as to the Athlete’s participation in any future Olympic Games. She did not participate in the 2004 Games. This is why the IOC Executive Board resolved to leave the matter open.
Subsequently, following her procedure for violation of anti-doping rules conducted by the IAAF and which reached the CAS, the Athlete signed on 28 June 2006 a settlement agreement in which, in particular, she finally acknowledged what she had persistently denied. She accepted that she had breached the IAAF rules in Athens. She agreed to a period of ineligibility of two years which was to end on 22 December 2006.

In 2008 the Athlete applied for participation at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. She was entered on 23 July 2008 by the Hellenic Olympic Committee as an Athlete.
The IOC Disciplinary Commission concludes that the fact remains that the previous charges against the Athlete constitute more than serious indications of a pattern of gross misconduct incompatible with the Olympic Charter and the spirit of Olympism.
The Disciplinary Commission considers that the Athlete’s attitude is unacceptable. In 2004, she never acknowledged or admitted any breach of any anti-doping rules. On the contrary, she tried by all means to avoid any testing as well as escaping her responsibilities, accepting even to position herself as a victim in a highly doubtful motorcycle accident, thus escaping once more an occasion of being tested. After persistently denying any wrongdoing, she chose the most suitable time (June 2006), six months before the end of her suspension, to enter into a settlement with the IAAF.

On 10 August 2008 the IOC Executive Board, as recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, decides that:
1.) the athlete Ms Ekaterini Thanou is declared ineligible to participate in the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games in the sport of athletics and in any other capacity;
2.) the Athlete’s entry in the 2008 Olympic Games is refused;
3.) her accreditation is cancelled and withdrawn;
4.) the Hellenic Olympic Committee and BOCOG ensure full implementation of the IOC Executive Board decision.

Related case:

CAS 2009_A_2018 Davide Rebellin vs IOC
June 30, 2010

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 his 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance CERA.

After notification by the IOC in April 2009 the Athlete file a statement in his defence and was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

The Cyclist stated he had used medication, supplements and vitamins prior to the Olympic Games and alleged in his 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.
On 17 November 2009 the IOC Executive Board, recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, decides that:

1.) the Athlete be disqualified from the Men’s Cycling Road event of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, where he had placed 2nd.;

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

3.) The Union Cycliste International (UCI) is requested to modify the results of the abovementioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.

4.) The National Olympic Committee of Italy (CONI) is ordered to return to the IOC, as soon as possible, the medal and diploma awarded to the Athlete in relation to the abovementioned event.

5.) The NOC of Italy shall ensure full implementation of this decision.

6.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

Facts
Cecil Russell has applied for reinstatement of his eligibility to participate in organised sport.

History
Cecil Russell a successful swimmer in the past was in various ways a swimming coach, because of possession and trafficking anabolic steroids he was sanctioned for period of ineligibility for life. The sanction was lifted, but imposed again because of violation of the ban.

The criteria for category II reinstatement are:
A. Exceptional circumstances:
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 favourable prospects for rehabilitation.
f) The Applicant’s prior, and post-infraction, conduct.
g) The Applicant’s contribution to (the) sport.
h) The Applicant’s cooperation with investigating bodies.
i) The length of suspension served by the Applicant at the time of hearing.
j) Additional factors advanced by or on behalf of the Applicant and determined by the adjudicator to be relevant.
B. The adjudicator may give such weight as he/she decides appropriate.

Decision
When all of the criteria are considered and the evidence is weighed, the arbitrator has to come to a different conclusion than the arbitrator did in 2005. In addition to the evidence that was already before the arbitrator about the convictions that led to to the imposition of Mr. Russell’s lifetime ban and his subsequent brushes with the law, there is now evidence that Mr. Russell has been criminally convicted in the United States for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ecstasy; there is evidence that he was involved in a murder and helped to dispose of a body; there is evidence that he asked someone to commit perjury to help him escape conviction; and there is a finding by a judge of the Superior Court that his failure to disclose the Arizona conviction at the 2005 hearing was calculated to deceive.
1. In the circumstances, the arbitrator is not now prepared to reinstate Mr. Russell.
2. As a practical matter, the arbitrator suspect that Mr. Russell will have difficulty persuading any adjudicator that he should be reinstated so long as he continues to skirt around the edges of his ban in the manner described in this decision. Even if he cannot be prevented from continuing with the pattern of coaching-like activities in which he has engaged to date (in respect of which the arbitrator makes no finding) he would be well advised to refrain from such activities because, in my view, they have had, and will continue to have, a significant impact on the overall presentation of his circumstances in a way which has a very negative impact on his objective of being reinstated.
3. This is not a decision about whether or not Mr. Russell is a good coach. Rather, the arbitrator has to decide whether there are “exceptional circumstances” which warrant his reinstatement. In my opinion, the sands having shifted since more evidence has emerged, Mr. Russell has failed, on a balance of probabilities, to discharge his onus of establishing that the conditions for reinstatement are met at this time.
4. While the arbitrator realizes that there will be many parents and athletes who are disappointed with this decision, they will hopefully appreciate that anti-doping rules exist to protect athletes and maintain integrity and fairness in sport. Until Mr. Russell can bring himself more squarely within the criteria which would support his claim for reinstatement, he must continue to be ineligible.

Costs
126. Section 11.2.4 (iv) of the SOP expressly provides that an adjudicator on a Category II reinstatement application does not have the authority to determine or make recommendations for the payment in part or all of the applicant’s legal and other costs incurred for a review. If any party is of the view that the arbitrator has authority to award costs to a party other than the applicant, and the amount of such costs, to whom and/or by whom they should be paid cannot be agreed, the arbitrator will entertain written submissions on (a) the basis for asserting that the arbitrary seeking costs should deliver submissions by 5:00 p.m. EDT on 17 August 2009. Any party against whom costs are sought will until 5:00 p.m. EDT on 24 August 2009 to deliver responding submissions.