The Féderation Internationale de Natation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swimmer for failing to inform FINA of her return to competition and availability for out-of-competition testing.
In January 2009 the Swimmer retired from swimming due to the serious illness of her mother and a fracture in her hand. In August 2009 the Swimmer returned to competitive swimming without informing FINA of her return from retirement.

After notification by FINA the Swimmer was heard for the FINA Doping Panel in January 2010.
Hereafter the Panel accepts Swimmer’s statement and concludes that the Hungarian Swimming Association (HSA) failed in its responsibility to know, understand, uphold and apply the FINA Rules. As a result the Swimmer was not educated with the FINA rules, neither did anyone with an official position within the HSA. Therefore the Swimmer will bear a significant sanction in large part because her federation fell below the standard of professionalism and care expected of a modern national swimming organization.
Considering the circumstances the FINA Doping Panel decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Swimmer starting from 22 January 2010. All results obtained by the Swimmer after 21 January 2009 and through the date of the decision are disqualified.

CAS A1/2013 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority vs. Jarrod Bannister

In March 2013 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jarrod Bannister for his Whereabouts Filing Failures and 3 Missed Tests.

The Athlete admitted the violation, however he disputed that his Whereabouts Filing Failure on 31 July 2012 was inexcusable.

In this matter the Athlete failed to report the room number where he stayed in the hotel in Cologne, Germany. As a result the Doping Control Officer (DCO) couldn't locate the Athlete. Due to the hotel used the system of shared rooms only the first person was recorded and not the second. The Athlete was the second person and therefore not registered by the hotel. Furthermore the DCO was told by the receptionist that the Athlete allready had checked out.

In view of the circumstances in this case the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Whereabouts Filing Failure and Missed Test of 31 July 2012 was to some extent excusable. Although the Athlete acted with a significant degree of fault the Sole Arbitratior deems that there are grounds for a more reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 July 2013 that:

1.) The Athlete has breached Article 6.4 of the Athletics Australia Anti-Doping Policy.

2.) That the Athlete's period of ineligibility in respect of that breach be one of twenty months commencing on 19 June 2013 and finishing at midnight on 18 February 2015.

3. That, in accordance with Article 17.5.3 of the Athletics Australia Anti-Doping Policy, each party shall bear in equal proportions the CAS fee and shall otherwise bear their own costs of this proceeding.

The Féderation Internationale de Natation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swimmer for three whereabouts filing failures. The Swimmer has not or has not timely sent his whereabouts information to FINA for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarter of 2010. The Swimmer was notified by FINA and heard for the FINA Doping Panel in September 2010.
The Swimmer stated in that period he had left Warsaw to take care of his seriously ill mother in Krakow. His physical and psychological condition did not allow him to send his whereabouts information to FINA and he did not have access to internet in that time.
The FINA Doping Panel finds Swimmer’s statement not convincing and decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Swimmer starting on 5 November 2010.

The Féderation Internationale de Natation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swimmer for three whereabouts filing failures. The Swimmer has not or has not timely sent his whereabouts information to FINA for the 4th quarter of 2009, and 1st and 2nd quarters of 2010. The Swimmer was notified by FINA and heard for the FINA Doping Panel in August 2010.
The Swimmer stated in that period he was in poor psychological state because of his serious shoulder injury and surgery and recovery period hereafter. Swimmer had no intention to cheat and resumed sending his whereabouts information regularly again from 1 March 2010.
Considering the circumstances the FINA Doping Panel decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Swimmer starting from 20 August 2010.

Facts
The International Saling Federation (ISAF) charged Simon Baudney (athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 23rd June 2007 The athlete along with 5 or 6 other members of his team was tested as a part of the regular testing program. His sample revealed the presence of two metabolites of cocaine (Benzoilecgonina and Ecgonine Methyl Ester).

History
The athlete accepted that test were carried out, but he doesn't accept that metabolites of cocaine that had been found in his sample were in his body at the time of the test.

Decision
1. The 'chain of custody' aspects were less than perfect but the Jury is nevertheless satisfied that any shortcomings did not affect the Adverse Analytical Finding,
2. The Jury is satisfied that an Anti-Doping Rule violation has occurred in that there was the presence of two metabolites of a prohibited substance in the athlete's bodily specimen.
3. The Jury is completely satisfied that the athlete told the truth to the Hearing Body when he stated that he had not knowingly taken cocaine or any other banned substance,
4. Having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case, the Jury is satisfied that the athlete bears no fault or negligence with regard to the presence of the two metabolites in the bodily specimen.
5. There were no claims, nor was there any evidence of organised doping at team level by Alinghi, the athlete's team. The Jury was satisfied that the Alinghi Team provided comprehensive advice and facilities to its sailors regarding anti-doping matters,
6. In the circumstances of this case, the Jury took into consideration what would be expected of a responsible professional sailor in taking reasonable precautions to ensure that he would not take banned substances without his knowledge in today's America's Cup environment. The Jury considers that during the 32nd America's Cup, it was not reasonable to expect sailors to totally isolate themselves from public areas. In this context, the Jury is satisfied that the Adverse Analytical Finding was not caused by the negligence of the athlete.
7. The Jury has jurisdiction to assess whether Simon Daubney breached the Anti-Doping Rules and to decide if he committed any fault, but because the 32nd America's Cup has finished and there is no question of Team Alinghi being involved with organised doping, ISAF has the jurisdiction in respect of a penalty.
8. The Jury notes that Simon Daubney voluntarily stopped competitive sailing from 13th July 2007.
9. This decision will be delivered to: the athlete, his lawyer

The Féderation Internationale de Natation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swimmer after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.

After notification by FINA the Swimmer was hear for the FINA Doping Panel in August 2010.
The Swimmer stated she had used a nutritional supplement, prescribed by a licensed nutritionist and prepared by a licensed pharmacy. The Swimmer argued she took numerous precautions to avoid ingesting a prohibited substance, she discussed the WADA Prohibited List with her nutritionist and took the prescription to an accredited pharmacy.
She had no intention to enhance performance and declared the use of the supplement on her doping control form.

The Panel finds the Swimmer has not undertaken enough enquiries on the supplement, in the light of strict liability of the Swimmer.
Considering the Swimmer’s statement and the circumstances, the FINA Doping Panel decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Swimmer starting on 20 august 2010.

The 2013 Prohibited List International Standard : The World Anti-Doping Code / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2012.

- The official text of the Prohibited List shall be maintained by WADA and shall be published in English and French. In the event of any conflict between the English and French versions, the English version shall prevail.
- This List shall come into effect on 1 January 2013

Facts
The International Baseball Federation (IBAF) against Sidney Ponson (Player) for violation of the IBAF Anti-Doping Rules. The prohibited substance, phentermine, was present in the urine sample provided by the Player immediately following the match against the Dominican Republic on, 7 March 2009. He didn't request a B-sample analysis

History
The Player, a pitcher, participated in the 2009 Classic for his national team, the Netherlands. He used the prohibited substance, on prescription from his doctor, to lose weight and admits the doping offence.

Considerations panel
The Player took the phentermine on the advice of a licensed medical physician, not to enhance his performance but to help him lose weight, after seeking and obtaining the physician's assurance that phentermine was not baned by Major League Baseball.

Decision
The Tribunal unanimously rules as follows:
1. The Player has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the IBAF Anti-Doping Rules in that phentermine, a Prohibited Substance, was present in the sample collected from him afer the 2009 World Baseball Classic match between the Netherlands and the Dominican Republic on 7 March 2009.
2. As a consequence:
a. The Player's individual results from the 2009 World Baseball Classic matches in which he played are Disqualified in
accordance with Articles 9.1 and 10.1 of the IBAP Anti-Doping Rules, with any medals, points or prizes that he eared from his participation in those matches to be forfeited.
b. In accordance with Article 10.2 of the IBAP Anti-Doping Rules, the Player is ruled Ineligible for a period of two years.
In accordance with Article 10.10 of the IBAF Anti-Doping Rules, during that period of Ineligibility the Player may not
'participate in any capacity in any Event or activity (other than 94 See paragraph 3.3, above. IBAF v. Ponson, lBAF Anti-Doping Tribunal, lBAF 09-001: Final Award, dated 8 June 2009 authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized or organized by IBAF or any National Federation or a club or other member organization of IBAF or any National Federation, or in Competitions authorized or organized by any professional league or any international or national level Event organization.' This includes Major League Baseball. If the Player does continue to paricipate in
Major League Baseball, then Article 10.10.2 of the IBAP Anti-Doping Rules will apply to push back the commencement date of the period of Ineligibility imposed in this Award to the date of his last MLB match.
c. In accordance with Article 10.9.2 of the IBAP Anti-Doping Rules, the two-year period of Ineligibility shall be deemed to
have commenced on 7 March 2009 and therefore shall end at midnight on 6 March 2011.

Costs
Each of the parties shall bear its own costs of these proceedings.

Appeal
The following persons may appeal against this Pinal A ward to the Cour of Arbitration for Sport in Lausane, Switzerland: the Player, the IBAP, WADA, and any other Anti-Doping Organization under whose rules a sanction could have been imposed. The IBAP is directed to disseminate a copy of this Final Award to each such person without delay. Article 13.6 provides that any such appeal must be filed with the CAS within 21 days from the date of receipt of the decision.

Publication
The IBAP reports this decision publicly within 20 days of the date of this decision. To ensure that baseball players are properly informed about the natue and extent of their responsibilities under the IBAP Anti-Doping Rules, the entirety of this decision should be published on the IBAP's official website.

The Féderation Internationale de Natation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swimmer for three whereabouts filing failures within an eighteen-month period.
After notification by FINA in August 2010 the Swimmer did not request a hearing neither made any submissions in regard to the case at issue. In September 2010 the Swimmer informed FINA his decision to retire from international competitions and asked his name to be removed from the FINA Out-of-Competition Programme Register.
Hereafter the FINA Doping Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Swimmer starting on 5 November 2010.

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 substances norandrosterone and noretiocholanolone (nandrolone).
The FINA notified the Swimmer and ordered a provisional suspension.
The Swimmer did not request a hearing neither made any submissions in regard to the case at issue.
The FINA Doping Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Swimmer starting on 5 June 2009.