Gerhard P. Baumann
Endocrine Reviews, April 2012, vol. 33, iss. 2: pp. 155–186

GH is believed to be widely employed in sports as a performance-enhancing substance. It's use in athletic competition is banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency, and athletes are required to submit to testing for GH exposure. Detection of GH doping is challenging for several reasons including identity/similarity of exogenous to endogenous GH, short half-life, complex and fluctuating secretory dynamics of GH, and a very low urinary excretion rate. The detection test currently in use (GH isoform test) exploits the difference between recombinant GH (pure 22K-GH) and the heterogeneous nature of endogenous GH (several isoforms). Its main limitation is the short window of opportunity for detection (12–24 h after the last GH dose). A second test to be implemented soon (the biomarker test) is based on stimulation of IGF-I and collagen III synthesis by GH. It has a longer window of opportunity (1–2 wk) but is less specific and presents a variety of technical challenges. GH doping in a larger sense also includes doping with GH secretagogues and IGF-I and its analogs. The scientific evidence for the ergogenicity of GH is weak, a fact that is not widely appreciated in athletic circles or by the general public. Also insufficiently appreciated is the risk of serious health consequences associated with high-dose, prolonged GH use. This review discusses the GH biology relevant to GH doping; the virtues and limitations of detection tests in blood, urine, and saliva; secretagogue efficacy; IGF-I doping; and information about the effectiveness of GH as a performance-enhancing agent.

CAS 2012/A/2986 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Riley Salmon & Fédération Internationale de Volleyball (FIVB)

Volleyball
Doping (methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine))
CAS jurisdiction (notion of appealable decision)
Condition to benefit from a reduced sanction for the presence of a Specified Substance
Sanction for a second anti-doping rule violation
Absence of reduction of the sanction in case of retirement of an athlete

1. CAS has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a doping-related decision where the rules of a federation clearly provide for the jurisdiction of the CAS against decisions rendered by a federation with regards to anti-doping issues. In this regard, a document called “Acceptance of Sanction”, although not signed by the federation but prepared according to the provisions of the federation’s medical regulations which can be considered to contain a unilateral ruling tending to affect the legal situation of an athlete therefore constitutes a “reasoned decision” appealable before the CAS.

2. Based on the applicable regulations, an athlete failing to give any explanation on how a prohibited substance came to be present in his body and to prove that his level of negligence was not significant will not be able to benefit from a reduced sanction.

3. Based on the applicable regulations, a second anti-doping rule violation committed by an athlete shall be sanctioned by a period of ineligibility between 4 to 6 years.

4. The purpose and intention of WADA is, inter alia , to make the fight against doping more effective by harmonising the legal framework and to provide uniform sanctions to be applied in all sports. These rules, for instance, do not distinguish between amateur or professional athletes, old or young athletes or individual sport or team sport. Considering the scope of the applicable rules, being active or retired should not allow an athlete to claim a different treatment and therefore justify a reduction of a sanction.

In 2009 the Fédération Internationale de Volleyball (FIVB), the International Federation of Volleyball, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against Ridley Salmon (the Player) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide. The Player was taking an approved medication by the FIVB for hypertension, however the drug’s replacement medication contained the banned substance hydrochlorothiazide. The FIVB decided to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Player, starting on 27 May 2009.

In August 2012 the FIVB has reported again an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
On 27 September 2012 the Player signed a retirement form from the FIVB and accepted a 1 year period of ineligibility for his second anti-doping rule violation.

In November WADA appealed the FIVB sanction with CAS.
Without Player’s reply the CAS Panel has no explanation on how the prohibited substance came to be present in Player’s body, neither did he prove that his level of negligence was not significant.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 May 2013 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the International Volleyball Federation dated 27 September 2012 is upheld.
2.) The decision rendered on 27 September 2012 by the FIVB is overturned.
3.) Riley Salmon is ineligible to compete for a period of 4 years starting from 27 September 2012. Any period of ineligibility already served by Mr Riley Salmon shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility imposed.
4.) The arbitration costs of the present procedure, to be determined and served by the CAS Court Office, shall be supported by the International Volleyball Federation.
5.) The International Volleyball Federation is ordered to pay CHF 2,000.- (two thousand Swiss Francs) to the World Anti-Doping Agency as a contribution towards the latter’s legal costs and all other expenses incurred in this arbitration.
6.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

CAS 2012/A/2959 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Ali Nilforushan & Fédéderation Equestre Internationale (FEI)

Equestrian
Doping (phentermine; hydrochlorothiazide; carboxy-THC)
Admissibility of submissions by a body that did not exercise its right to appeal
CAS power of review
Lack of anti-doping education as a mitigating factor?
Reliance on a doctor as a mitigating factor?
Legitimate therapeutic use as a mitigating factor?
Effect on the sporting career as a mitigating factor?
Lack of intention as a mitigating factor?
Commencement of the period of ineligibility

1. Even if an international federation that has the right to appeal the decision from the first instance tribunal did not exercise that right, it is allowed in an answer to make submissions that the first instance tribunal ruled in error. If such answer does not seek any further relief than that claimed in WADA’s appeal, it does not constitute a counterclaim no longer allowed by the CAS Code.

2. As is the case with Article R57 of the Code, where rules or legislation confer on an appellate body full power to review the facts and the law, no deference to the tribunal below is required beyond the customary caution appropriate where the tribunal had a particular advantage, such as technical expertise or the opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses. This is not, of course to say that the independence, expertise and quality of the first instance tribunal or the quality of its decision will be irrelevant to the CAS panel. The more cogent and well-reasoned the decision itself, the less likely a CAS panel would be to overrule it; nor will a CAS panel concern itself in its appellate capacity with the periphery rather than the core of such a decision. However, the fact that a CAS panel might not lightly interfere with such a tribunal’s decision, would not mean that there is in principle any inhibition on its power to do so.

3. In the absence of other mitigating factors such as exceptional youth or inexperience which in given circumstances may have a bearing, the lack of anti-doping education alone is not sufficiently exceptional to justify a reduction of the ineligibility period.

4. There must be more than simply reliance on a doctor for a reduction based on no significant fault or negligence. An athlete must cross check assurances given by a doctor, even where such a doctor is a sports specialist.

5. It is irrelevant to the determination of fault that the consumption of the prohibited substance was allegedly for a legitimate therapeutic use. This among others ensures a level playing field and is why the possibility, and the process, of applying for a TUE exists.

6. The effect that any ban could have on the athlete’s sporting career is not a relevant factor on the evaluation of an athlete’s degree of negligence.

7. Combined with a number of truly exceptional circumstances (the assessment requires viewing the “totality of the circumstances”), the absence of intention may form part of a matrix of facts which are sufficient to justify a reduction of the ineligibility period. However, lack of intention is a necessary but by no means sufficient condition alone for justifying a reduction of the ineligibility period.

8. A tribunal has discretion to back-date the commencement of the ineligibility period to the date of sample collection in case of early admission by the athlete of the charge of a doping offence. The request of documentation relating to the testing of the sample does not negate early admission, as it is a necessary aspect of an athlete’s rights of defence. Also, it is not required that no positive case in mitigation is advanced. Moreover, the athlete’s candour (or lack thereof) is not necessarily a relevant consideration.

In April 2012 the Equestrian Federation of Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States Equestrian Federation have reported an anti-doping rule violation against Mr. Nilfomshan (the Rider) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Phenermine, Hydrocholorothiazide and Carboxy-THC (Cannabis). After the notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Rider filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the FEI Tribunal in June 2012.

The Rider explained he suffered from depression and insomnia and had gained a lot of weight for which he used prescribed medication.
On 3 September the FEI Tribunal decided to impose a 1000 CHF fine and a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Rider starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 3 March 2012.

In October 2012 WADA appealed the FEI Tribunal decision with CAS. Considering the case the CAS Panel finds that the Rider was highly negligent, he did not exercise utmost caution and had no intention to enhance performance.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides on 30 April 2013 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Association on 19 October 2012 is partially upheld.
2.) The sanction imposed at paragraph 8.1.1 of the decision of the Federation Equestre Internationale dated 3 September 2012 (namely that Mr. Nilfomshan be suspended for a period of 12 months commencing on 3 March 2012) is amended as follows:
Mr. Nilfomshan is suspended for a period of 2 years, commencing 3 March 2012.
3.) All competitive individual results obtained by Mr. Nilfomshan from 3 March 2012 through the period of ineligibility shall he annulled.
4.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of 1.000 CHF paid by the World Anti-Doping Association, which shall be retained by CAS.
5.) Each party shall bear its costs incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
6.) All further and other claims for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2012/A/2791 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Norjannah Hafiszah Jamaludin, Nurul Sarah Abdul Kadir, Mohamad Noor Imran Hadi, Siti Zubaidah Adabi, Siti Fatimah Mohamad, Yee Yi Ling, Harun Rasheed & Malaysia Athletic Federation (MAF)

CAS 2012/A/2791 WADA vs
- Norjannah Hafiszah Jamaludin (Athlete 1)
- Nurul Sarah Abdul Kadir (Athlete 2)
- Mohamad Noor Imran Hadi (Athlete 3)
- Siti Zubaidah Adabi (Athlete 4)
- Siti Fatimah Mohamad (Athlete 5)
- Yee Yi Ling (Athlete 6)
- Harun Rasheed (The Coach)
- Malaysia Athletic Federation (MAF)

Athletics
Doping (refusing to submit to sample collection)
Obedience to a higher authority as compelling justification
Personal responsibility of an athlete or a coach
Cultural differences in attitude towards authority
Anti-doping violation by a member of the athlete’s entourage (coach)
Substantial assistance
Aggravating circumstances

1. The fact of an athlete feeling obliged to avoid an anti-doping test due to having received instructions to do so from a coach and/or a manager and/or another member of his/her entourage and/or an official whose authority he/she must normally respect – under the threat that any disobedience would lead to reprisals affecting the athlete’s rights to train and compete in a normal manner – cannot, in principle, be deemed a compelling justification, since an athlete will normally be able to and should take the responsibility of denouncing any such threats to a superior authority at national and/or international level.

2. The anti-doping system codified by the World Anti-Doping Code is predicated on the personal responsibility of individual athletes, which encompasses the responsibility of understanding anti-doping rules and resisting any undue pressures to violate them in any manner. The same is also applicable, mutatis mutandis, for a coach.

3. Differences in attitude towards authority stemming from cultural diversity may not stand in the way of a uniform application of anti-doping rules, since the rules represent a world-wide international system for regulating and fighting doping in sport that cannot afford to account for national or regional particularities. Allowing the contrary would lead to differences of treatment between sports and/or athletes that would undermine the level playing field, which is one of the fundaments of fairness in sporting competitions.

4. Whether or not submitting to the orders of a higher authority, a coach clearly commits an anti-doping violation by first instructing athletes to bring samples of urine of other persons and then participating in instructing them not to take part in an anti-doping control.

5. The assistance in discovering or establishing an anti-doping violation is substantial if it represents an early piece of evidence that partakes in enabling the national association to establish an anti-doping violation by one of its officials and allows to uncover a very serious doping scheme that had developed within the national association.

6. Deceptive and obstructive actions by athletes or members of athletes’ entourage aimed at covering up systematic and widespread doping practices of a serious nature (because of the type of products involved) are aggravating circumstances that may lead to the highest possible sanction, i.e. to a life ban.

In October 2012 Karim Ibrahim, the Malaysian Athletic Federation (MAF) deputy president, was suspended for 6 years by the MAF after being found guilty of doping offences. In addition he was forced out of his roles as vice president of the Malacca Athletic Association and as council member of the Asian Athletic Association.

Karim Ibrahim told athlete Mohd Yunus Lasaleh to take pills from a Bulgarian doctor which the official claimed were vitamins, only for the athlete to test positive for metandienone at the South East Asian Games in November 2011. As sanction athlete Yunus and his team mates were then stripped of the their gold medal they won in Indonesia. In this case, the national head coach Harun Rasheed, as instructed by Karim, told six sprinters not to give urine samples when requested by the National Sports Institute of Maylasia (NSIM) in May 2011.

Previously in June 2011 the Anti-Doping Agency of Maylasia (ADAMAS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the 6 Athletes for having refused or failed without compelling justification to submit to sample collection after notification.
Hereafter the Malaysian Athletics Union (MAF) made no further action for a period of 4 months.
After deliberations the MAF decided on 2 February 2012 to sanction the Athletes with a warning and to suspend the Coach for a period of 1 year starting on 12 September 2011.

On 8 February 2012, two petitions were filed, one signed by 42 athletes, the other by 6 coaches, to request an independent enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the doping issue that had arisen and in particular the role played by the Deputy President of MAF and Coaching Chairman Karim Ibrahim.
As a result of the report, issued by the Independent Committee, Karim Ibrahim was suspended for six years after being found guilty of doping offences.

In May 2012 WADA appealed the MAF decision with CAS.

The six athletes admitted that the intentionally refused to submit to doping test of 24 May 2011. They were notified of the doping test at the NSIM, while the medical examination was being conducted. They all decide, after having received instruction to that effect from the Coach and/or Karim Ibrahim, not to submit to the doping test of that day.
The Panel notes that before the Deputy President Karim Ibrahim of the MAF got directly involved, the six athletes were prepared to go very far to conceal the possible presence of prohibited substances in their bodily system, since all of them have admitted that they were prepared to bring another person’s urine to the medical examination, upon the mere request of their Coach.

The Panel finds that Site Fatimah Mohamad (Athlete 5) has provided substantial assistance to the MAF with facts concerning a cover-up of the doping practices in which the Deputy President Ibrahim was deeply involved. Athlete 5 made a recording during the meeting between the Athletes the Coach and Karim Ibrahim on 24 May 2011. This recording was handed over to the MAF and it was one element in the further investigation regarding the doping practices within MAF and Deputy President Karim Ibrahim.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides on 24 May 2013 that:

1.) The appeal of the World Anti-Doping Agency filed on 7 May 2012 is upheld.
2.) The decision of the Malaysia Athletic Federation rendered on 2 February 2012 is set aside.
3.) Norjannah Hafiszah Jamaludin, Nurul Sarah Abdul Kadir, Mohamad Noor Imran Hadi, Siti Zubaidah Adabi and Yee Yi Ling are sanctioned with a 2 year period of ineligibility, which shall commence on the date of this award.
4.) Siti Fatirnah Mohamad (Athlete 5) is sanctioned with an 18 month period of ineligibility, which shall commence on the date of this award.
5.) The Coach Harun Rasheed is sanctioned with a 10 year period of ineligibility, which commenced on 12 September 2011.
6.) All competitive results obtained by Norjannah Hafiszah Jamaludin, Nurul Sarah Abdul Kadir, Mohamad Noor Imran Hadi, Siti Zubaidah Adabi, Siti Fatirnah Mohamad and Yee Yi Ling from 24 May 2011 until the date of this award shall be disqualified, with all the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points, prizes and appearance money.
7.) The costs of arbitration, to be calculated by the CAS Court Office and communicated separately to the parties, shall be borne entirely by the Malaysia Athletic Federation.
8.) The Malaysia Athletic Federation is ordered to pay to the World Anti-Doping Agency a contribution towards its legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with the present arbitration procedure in an amount of CHF 5,000 (five thousand Swiss Francs). The other parties shall bear their own legal fees and other expenses.
9.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

The Féderation Internationale de Natation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swimmer after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances bisdesmethylsibutramine and desmethylsibutramine (metabolites of Sibutramine).
The FINA notified the Swimmer in July 2013 and she was heard for the FINA Doping Panel.
The Swimmer stated she had used products to lose weight and relieve chronic constipation, purchased online and trusted the seller. She did not know it contained a prohibited substance and had no intention to enhance performance.

The Panel concludes the Swimmer acted careless and finds she did not research the ingredients of the products before using it. She did not mention the products on the doping control form and neither consulted her team coach or physician about these products.
Considering Swimmer’s statement and the circumstances the FINA Doping Panel decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Swimmer starting on the day of the hearing, i.e. on 22 July 2013.

The Féderation Internationale de Natation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swimmer after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances prednisone and prednisolone.
After notification by FINA the Swimmer filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the FINA Doping Panel in April 2013.
The Swimmer stated he had used a prescribed medication Prelone because of respiratory difficulties as an emergency treatment which contained the prohibited substances. His medical specialist assured the Swimmer that the medication contained no prohibited substance. The Swimmer also checked the WADA Prohibited List. These facts were confirmed in a written statement by his medical specialist.
The Panel consideres Swimmer’s statement and the circumstances and concludes he had no intention to enhance performance. Therefore the FINA Doping Panel decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Swimmer starting on the date of the decision, i.e. 14 June 2013.

Related case:
CAS 2013_A_3274 Mads Glaesner vs FINA
January 31, 2014

The Féderation Internationale de Natation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swimmer after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance levmetamfetamine.
The FINA notified the Swimmer in February 2013 and ordered a provisional suspension. The Player filed a statement with evidence in his defence and was heard for the FINA Doping Panel.
The Swimmer stated he had used his mother’s Vicks inhaler, purchased in the United States, and did not know it contained a prohibited substance other than the Danish type to which he was used to. The Vicks inhalers, one purchased in the United States and the other in Denmark, have the same white body but different caps.
The Panel accepts Swimmer’s statement and concludes he had no intention to enhance performance. Therefore the FINA Doping Panel decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Swimmer starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 March 2013. The FINA Doping Panel annulled all results achieved by the Athlete from 14 December 2012 onwards including forfeiture of medals and prizes.

CAS 2012/A/2747 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Judo Bond Nederland (JBN), Dennis de Goede & Dopingautoriteit (NADO)

• Judo
• Doping (methylhexaneamine)
• Evidence of the lack of intent to enhance performance under Article 10.4 WADC
• Difference between the sanction under Articles 10.5.2 and 10.4 WADC
• Rationale of Article 10.4 WADC
• Difference between direct and indirect intent
• Establishment of intent and prohibited substances in- and out-of-competition

1. Clause two of Article 10.4 of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) does not require the athlete to prove that he did not take the product with the intent to enhance sport performance. Otherwise, an athlete’s usage of nutritional supplements, which are generally taken for performance-enhancing purposes, but which is not per se prohibited by the WADC, would render Article 10.4 inapplicable even if the particular supplement that is the source of a positive test result contained only a specified substance. Although an athlete assumes the risk that a nutritional supplement may be mislabelled or contaminated and is strictly liable for ingesting any banned substance, Article 10.4 WADC distinguishes between specified and prohibited substances for purposes of determining an athlete’s period of ineligibility. Art. 10.4 provides a broader range of flexibility in determining the appropriate sanction for an athlete’s use of a specified substance because there is a greater likelihood that specified substances, as opposed to other prohibited substances, could be susceptible to a credible, non-doping explanation.

2. According to art. 10.5.2 WADC the standard two-year sanction can only be reduced – at a maximum – down to one year (half of the standard sanction). Art. 10.4 WADC, on the contrary, allows a further reduction. However, in both provisions the decisive criteria to justify any reduction is the concept of fault. It therefore does not come as a surprise that – irrespective of the applicable provision – the length of sanction imposed in CAS jurisprudence in relation to nutritional supplements containing the specified substance methylhexaneamine does not differ dramatically.

3. The express language of art. 10.4 WADC is ambiguous and susceptible to more than one interpretation. It seems rather obvious that art. 10.4 WADC was intended by the drafters of the WADC as a lex specialis. In cases involving specified substances a reduction of the standard sanction should be contemplated on the basis of art. 10.4 WADC only. This is clearly evidenced when comparing the conditions and the consequences contained in art. 10.4 WADC and art. 10.5.2 WADC. The reason for this differentiation is clearly indicated in the comment to art. 10.4 WADC. According thereto, specified substances – unlike other prohibited substances – are particularly susceptible to unintentional anti-doping rule violations. Thus, the drafters of the WADC wanted to exclude reductions of the standard sanction involving a specified substance only where the anti-doping rule violation was committed intentionally. Therefore, in cases where the prerequisites for a reduction under art. 10.4 WADC are not fulfilled, logically there is no room for a reduction based on the more restrictive provision in art. 10.5.2 WADC.

4. Intent is, in principle, established if an athlete knowingly ingests a prohibited substance. However, an athlete’s behaviour may also be qualified as intentional, if the athlete acted with indirect intent only, i.e. if the athlete’s behaviour is primarily focused on one result, but in case a collateral result materializes, the latter would equally be accepted by the athlete. Article 10.4 remains applicable, if the athlete’s behaviour was not reckless, but “only” oblivious. In any event, the distinction between indirect intent and the various forms of negligence is difficult to establish in practice.

5. The assessment whether or not an athlete acts with (direct or indirect) intent within the meaning of art. 10.4 WADC is further complicated if the substance at stake is prohibited in-competition only, but was ingested by the athlete out-of-competition. In principle, the drafters of the WADC wanted to exclude the applicability of art. 10.4 WADC only if the anti-doping rule violation was committed intentionally. The taking of a substance out-of-competition that is only prohibited in-competition does not constitute, as such, an anti-doping rule violation. The taking of such substance only becomes an anti-doping rule violation, if the substance is still present in the athlete’s fluids in-competition. Therefore, an athlete only acts intentionally within the above meaning, if his intention covers both, the ingestion of the substance and it being present in-competition.

On 25 August 2011 the Netherlands Judo Association (JBN) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Dennis de Goede after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) related to his use of a supplement. Following his appeal on 29 December 2011 the JBN decided to replace the sanction and to impose a warning and reprimand on the Athlete.

Hereafter March 2012 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the JBN decision of 29 December 2011 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the JBN decision of 29 December and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and that he used the supplement recommended by his brother. He asserted that at the competition in question he was not scheduled to participate and was asked to replace an injured teammate in the final matches.

The Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands (Dopingautoriteit) points to the interpretation and application of the JBN Doping Regulations. It does not comment on the Athlete's degree of fault or the period of ineligibility.

The Panel notes that it is undisputed that Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation. What is at stake here are the consequences of this action. The standard sanction for an anti-doping rule violation according to art. 38.1. of the Previous JBN Rules is a two-year period of ineligibility.

The Parties are in dispute, whether or not the Athlete is entitled to a reduction of the standard period of ineligibility under art. 39.3 of the Previous JBN Rules.

Based on the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator holds that the Athlete could not have planned or intended to take part in the event on 28 May 2011. It follows from this that the athlete did not act intentionally.

Considering relevant case law the Sole Arbitrator determine that it is appropriate to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Sole Arbitrator finds it fair to start the sanction on the date JBN appeal decision was rendered, i.e. on 29 December 2011.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 April 2013:

1.) The Appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Appeal Board of the Judo Bond Nederland dated 29 December 2011 is partially upheld.

2.)The decision of the Appeal Board of the Judo Bond Nederland dated 29 December 2011 is set aside and replaced with the following:

Dennis de Goede is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of eighteen months, commencing on 29 December 2011.

3.) All sporting results obtained by Dennis de Goede between 29 December 2011 and the date of this award shall be disqualified.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

6.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

The Féderation Internationale de Natation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swimmer after she missed three doping tests by not being available for testing within the required 1 hour time slot.
After notified by FINA in July 2012 the Swimmer filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the FINA Doping Panel in August 2012.
The Swimmer stated she had difficulties in her sports career and changes in life which seriously troubled her.
The Panel concludes the Swimmer continuously neglected her duties during a period of 6 months. She was repeatedly warned of the consequences of her conduct through letters from FINA.
The Panel finds the Swimmer’s statement not convincing and her behavior has shown a degree of negligence and lack of interest. Therefore the FINA Doping Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Swimmer starting on 1 September 2012.

Related case:
CAS 2011/A/2499 Albert Subirats vs FINA
August 24, 2011

The Féderation Internationale de Natation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against Albert Subirats (the Swimmer) for three whereabouts filing failures within an eighteen-month period.

After notification by FINA the Swimmer filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the FINA Doping Panel.
The Swimmer stated he always sent in time the relevant whereabouts information to his Federation. He showed copies of emails to the Venezuelan Swimming Federation (VSF) as a prove he indeed has sent information with the intention to send whereabouts information through the VSF to FINA. The Swimmer argued he has never been aware of the two filing failures in the past, due to the FINA letters were addressed to the VSF and never forwarded them to him.
Considering the Swimmer had no intention to escape from doping control the FINA Doping Panel decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility starting on 7 May 2011.

Hereafter the Swimmer appealed the FINA Decision to the CAS Panel (CAS 2011/A/2499 Albert Subirats vs FINA) in July 2011.
The CAS Panel concludes that FINA never notified a filing failure communication to the Swimmer. In particular, FINA did not send the letters concerning the filing failures directly to the Swimmer, but only to the VSF, and he did not receive any such communications from the VSF before his third failure. As a consequence, the Swimmer was unaware of all filing failures until the third filing failure occurred and was not in a position to repair on that.

Thus, since it is undisputed that the Swimmer did not receive any failure notice before the third whereabouts filing failure, the existence of a second and a third violation cannot be reproached to the him. For these reasons, no anti-doping rule violation (Whereabouts Filing Failures and/or Missed Tests) exists and, as a consequence, the Swimmer’s Appeal is upheld, the FINA Decision overturned, the second and third filing failure for the fourth quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011 are cancelled and the Swimmer's results reinstated.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel rules:
1.) The Appeal filed by Mr. Albert Subirats is upheld.
2.) The decision rendered on 21 June 2011 by the FINA Doping Panel is overturned.
3.) The second and the third filing failure for the fourth quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011 are cancelled.
4.) Mr. Albert Subirats' results are fully reinstated.