facts
Laura Paus Tio (player) was reported for an Anti-Doping Rules Violation (ADRV). During the Wimbledon Championship Qualifiers at Roethampton on June 19, 2007, her urine samples tested positive for the prohibited substances hydrochlorothiazide and Amiloride. The player claims "no fault or negligence" or "no significant fault or negligence". The rights of an oral hearing have been waived and the case was handled in written representations.

history
The player was prescribed ameride for therapeutic purposes, she did not appreciate and was not advised it contained a prohibited substance. The player is a graduate of Medicine and Surgery with a master in nutrition and food science. It would haven been possible to get a therapeutic use exemption for the prescription but she didn't apply for this.

considerations of the tribunal
The reasons from the player differ in her written representation, at first she states to have used the diuretic to treat liquid retention in the knee and a weight problem, later she states to have used is for pre-menstrual symptoms, oedemas an hypertension. Also she didn't declare the use of the medication on the doping control form she signed. Only after the positive test her practitioner informed her that Ameride contained the prohibited substances.

Decision
The tribunal makes the following decision:
1. A doping offence has been established;
2. The player is automatically disqualified in respect of the Wimbledon Championship Qualifiers, and forfeits any computer ranking points and prize money obtained in that competition;
3. The period of ineligibility to be imposed is 2 years;
4. The period of ineligibility shall commence on October 1, 2007;
5. The player shall be disqualified from any events in which she competed between June 19 and October 1, 2007 and forfeits any computer ranking points and prize money obtained in that competition.

Laura Paus Tio (player) was reported for an Anti-Doping Rules Violation (ADRV). During the Wimbledon tournament in 2007 her urine samples tested positive for the prohibited substances hydrochlorothiazide and Amiloride. The decision was a two-year ban on the player, starting from October 11, 2007, which was the date she voluntarily withdrew from competition because of the doping charge against her. The tribunal also disqualified certain of the results obtained by the player prior to her withdrawal from competition.

The player filed an appeal against the decision to the court of arbitration in sport (CAS) on February 15, 2008, asking the CAS to reduce the ban impose because of "no fault or negligences" or "no significant fault or negligence". The player subsequently dropped the first part of the appeal.
The CAS rejected the appeal because her fault was to great for being regarded as "no significant fault or negligence" because she did not take responsibility for checking whether her prescribed medication contained substances that were prohibited under the program of 2007 regarding the code for the ADRV. She didn't tell or showed her doctor the anti-doing rules, only she asked if the substances would enhance her performance. However the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code would classify her diuretics as specified substances, meaning that the decision could be a reprimand up to a two-year period of ineligibility. By this the CAS recommended to apply for a reconsideration at the ITF for an earlier reinstatement.
The player filed an application for an earlier reinstatement.

Decision
1. The ITF hereby reduces the period of Ineligibility to be served by the Player from 24 months to 18 months. Accordingly, the Player’s ban will end on 10 May 2009, and she will be eligible to compete again from 11 May 2009 onwards, provided that the Player has by that date paid to the ITF all of the prize money forfeited under the Tribunal’s decision of 25 January 2008.
2. The ITF notes that this decision may be appealed to the CAS by the Player, the Player’s NADO or WADA, in accordance
with Article O of the 2009 Programme.

Facts
John Paul Fruttero (player) was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the Comerica Challenger tournament in Aptos, California, on July 16, 2007, he provided an urine sample for a doping test. Both samples (A and B) tested positive for the prohibited substance modafinil and metabolites. The player admitted the doping offence but requested an oral hearing.

history
The player used Provigil for jet lag and problems resuming normal sleep patterns when traveling extensively. He didn't knew it was a stimulant and would be performance enhancing. The substance is not mentioned on the prohibited list for this reason he claims no significant fault or negligence. The player voluntarily suspended himself from competition after receiving notification about the confirmed B sample analysis.

Before the oral hearing was held the parties agreed a compromise and an oral hearing was cancelled.

decision
The tribunal rules:
1. It confirms the commission of the doping offence specified in the notice of charge set out in the ITF's letter to the player dated November 7, 2007.
2. It orders in accordance with the results obtained by the player (double and single competitions) at the tournament be disqualified, including forfeiture of the associated ranking points and prize money (without deduction for tax).
3. It accepts the player's plea of no significant fault or negligence. In consequence, it imposes a period of ineligibility of 14 months instead of the period of two years otherwise applicable.
4. The commencement of this period of ineligibility is to be back-dated to October 1, 2007. Accordingly, the player shall be ineligible until (and including) November 30 from participating in any event or activity (other than authorized by the ITF or any national or regional entity which is a member of or is recognized by the ITF as the entity governing the sport of tennis in that nation or region.
5. The player's result in tournaments after the tournament but prior to October 1, 2007, shall not be disqualified, but his results from October 1, 2007, onwards shall be disqualified, including forfeiture of the associated ranking points and prize money (without deduction for tax).

Related case:

CAS 2006_A_1032 Sesil Karatantcheva vs ITF
July 3, 2006

In September 2005 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) reported 2 anti-doping rule violations against the minor tennis player Sesil Karatantcheva after her samples - provided in France in May 2005 and in Japan in July 2005 - tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Following assessment of the evidence in this case the ITF Tribunal rejects the Athlete's defence that the positive test results are on the balance of probabilities the result of endogenous production of Nandrolone by the Athlete consequent on her pregnancy.

Therefore on 11 January 2006 the Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal:

1. finds that the doping offence specified in the notice of charge set out in the ITF’s letter to the player dated 27 September 2005 has been committed by the player: namely that a prohibited substance, 19-norandrosterone, in a concentration above the reporting threshold of 2 ng/ml, has been found to be present in the urine sample that the player provided at the French Open on 31 May 2005;
2. finds that the doping offence specified in the notice of charge set out in the ITF’s letter to the player dated 25 October 2005 has been committed by the player: namely that a prohibited substance, 19-norandrosterone, in a concentration above the reporting threshold of 2 ng/ml, has been found to be present in the urine sample that the player provided out of competition in Tokyo on 5 July 2005;
3.  in the case of both doping offences, rejects the player’s defences founded on alleged absence of a valid contract, alleged lack of jurisdiction and/or lack of consent, and rejects the defence that the positive test results are on the balance of probabilities the result of endogenous production of nandrolone by the player's pregnancy;
4. declares, however, that by reason of Article M.6.1 of the Programme the two offences are to be treated as one single first offence for the purpose of the imposition of a period of ineligibility under Article M.2 of the Programme;
5. orders that the player’s individual result must be disqualified in respect of the French Open held at Roland-Garros, France, and in consequence rules that the ranking points and prize money obtained by the player through her participation in that event, must be forfeited;
6. orders, further, that the player’s individual results in all competitions subsequent to the French Open shall be disqualified and all prize money and ranking points in respect of those competitions forfeited;
7. declares that the player shall be ineligible for a period of two years commencing on 1 January 2006 from participating in any capacity in any event or activity (other than authorised anti-doping education or rehabilitation programmes) authorised by the ITF or any national or regional entity which is a member of or is recognised by the ITF as the entity governing the sport of tennis in that nation or region.

facts
M. Charles Irie (player) was reported for a violation the Anti-Doping Rules. During the David cup in Plovdiv, Bulgaria, on April 11, 2008, he provided an urine sample for a drug test. His sample tested positive for the prohibited substance nikethamide. The player didn't know how he ingested the substance. He did not deliberately consume the substance or used it to enhance his sport performance. The case is handled on the basis of written submissions.

Decision
The Tribunal’s Ruling:
(1) confirms the commission of the doping offence specified in the notice of charge set out in the ITF’s letter to the player dated 9 July 2008: namely that a prohibited substance, nikethamide and metabolite thereof, has been found to be present in the urine specimen that the player provided on 11 April 2008 at the Davis Cup tie in Plovdiv, Bulgaria;
(2) orders that the player’s results in respect of the Davis Cup must be disqualified; and that the player’s individual results in competitions subsequent to the Davis Cup shall be disqualified;
(3) finds that the player has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that his consumption of a substance or substances leading to the positive test result was not intended to enhance sport performance; and
(4) declares the player ineligible for a period of two years, running from 16 July 2008 until midnight London time on 15 July 2010, from
participating in any capacity in any event or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized by the ITF or any national or regional entity which is a member of or is recognized by the ITF as the entity governing the sport of tennis in that nation or region.

Facts
Roy Mariano Hood (player) was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the French Open Championship at Roland Garros on May 31, 2005, he provided an urine sample for a doping test. His sample was tested positive for the prohibited substance finasteride. The player challenged the jurisdiction of the tribunal, that challenge was withdrawn shortly before the hearing and it was accepted that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine the offence and the appropriate sanction.

History
The player used the prohibited substance in medication for the treatment of hair loss. He argued to bear no fault or negligence or no significant fault of negligence within the meaning of special circumstances.

Decision
The tribunal make the following decision:
1. A doping offence has been established;
2. The player is automatically disqualified in respect of the French Open Championship 2005, and forfeits any medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money (without deduction for tax) obtained in that competition;
3. The period of ineligibility imposed is 1 year.
4. The period of ineligibility shall commence on October 10, 2005.
5. The player shall not be disqualified from any events subsequent to the French Open Championship 2005.

facts
Meliha Karic (player) was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a doping test an urine sample was taken at the British Open wheelchair event, in Nottingham on July 25,2006. Her sample tested positive for the adrafinil or modafinil metabolite. The player admits the doping offence.

history
The player suffered tragic injuries in Sarajevo from a bom during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, she is confide to a wheelchair and is paraplegic. Her medication contained prohibited substances but it was only recently the Anti-Doping rules where applicable in wheelchair Tennis. She did file the medication she uses on the filing form during the doping test.

Decision
The Tribunal’s Ruling:
(1) confirms the commission of the doping offence specified in the notice of charge set out in the ITF’s letter to the player dated September 26, 2006, namely that a prohibited substance, adrafinil or modanfinil metabolite, has been found to be present in the urine sample that the player provided at the British Open wheelchair event held at Nottingham, England;
(2) orders that the player’s results in the British Open be disqualified, and in consequence rules that any prize money and ranking points obtained by the player through her participation in events in that competition must be forfeited;
(3) declares that the player shall be ineligible for a period of two years commencing on July 25, 2006 from participating in any capacity in any event or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation program) authorized by the ITF or any national or regional entity which is a member of or is recognized by the ITF as the entity governing the sport of tennis in that nation or region.

facts
Mark Nielsen was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. An urine sample, taken during the Australian Open in Melbourne on January 12, 2006, tested positive for a metabolite of finasteride which is a prohibited substance. The player doesn't dispute that he committed a doping offence and doesn't request an oral hearing.

history
Since November 2003 the player took finasteride against premature baldness, he didn't know the substance was prohibited since January 1, 2005. In these circumstances he argued to bear no significant fault or negligence within the meaning of exceptional circumstances.

decision
The tribunal decides:
1. A doping offence has been established;
2. The player is automatically disqualified in respect of the Australian Open Championship 2006, and forfeits any computer ranking points and prize money obtained in that competition;
3. The period of ineligibility to be imposed is 2 years;
4. The period of ineligibility shall commence on March 10, 2006.
5. The player shall not be disqualified from any events subsequent to the Australian Open Championship 2006.

Related case:
CAS 2006_A_1183 Karol Beck vs ITF
March 8, 2007

facts
Karol Beck (player) was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping rules. During the semi-final of the Davis Cup at Bratislava on September 24, 2005, an urine sample was taken for a doping test.

history
The player's explanation was that his drink has been spiked at a club in Bratislava on September 15, 2005, or mistakenly took one of his mother's Clenbuterol tablets believing it was his prescribed drug intended to cure his headache. The player argues that there is no significant fault or negligence.

Decision
The tribunal decides unanimously:
1. A doping offence has been established;
2. The player is automatically disqualified in respect of the Davis Cup semi-final held at Bratislava, and forfeits any medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money (without deduction for tax) obtained in that competition;
3. The player will be disqualified form any events subsequent to September 24, 2005, including forfeiture of any medals , titles, computer ranking points and prize money (without deduction for tax);
4. The period of ineligibility to be imposed is 2 years;
5. The period of ineligibility shall commence on November 1, 2005.

facts
Ms Ilanit Fridman (player) was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules (ADRV). During the Open Wheelchair Tennis Championships in San Diego, California, the player provided an urine sample for a doping test. The sample tested positive for terbutaline which is a prohibited substance. After receiving notice of the positive test she took a voluntary suspension.

history
The player is paraplegic due to a car accident and confined to a wheelchair. She was diagnosed for asthma and uses an inhaler since childhood, she claims this inhaler contained the terbutaline. A doctor provided a statement she was treated with an inhalator containing salbutamol, but it is likely the doctor obtained the information from the player. The player did sent in a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) but addressed it to the wrong organization.

decision
The tribunal:
(1) confirms the commission of the doping offense specified in the notice of charge set out in the ITF’s letter to the player dated January 25, 2006: namely that a prohibited substance, terbutaline, has been found to be present in the urine specimen that the player provided on October 5, 2005, at the US Open Wheelchair Tennis Championships in San Diego, California;
(2) orders that the player’s individual result must be disqualified in respect of the singles and doubles events at the US Open Wheelchair Tennis Championships 2005, and in consequence rules that the 38 ranking points in respect of the singles event and the 75 ranking points in respect of the doubles event, and the prize money of US $78 in respect of the singles event, and of US $20 in respect of the doubles event, obtained by the player through her participation in that competition, must be forfeited;
(3) orders, further, that the player’s individual results in the competition in which she took part subsequent to the US Open Wheelchair Tennis Championships 2005, shall not be disqualified but shall remain undisturbed;
(4) finds that the player has succeeded in establishing on the balance of probabilities that her use of terbutaline leading to the positive test result was not intended to enhance sport performance;
(5) declares the player ineligible for a period of one month, running from December 24, 2005, to January 23, 2006, from participating in any capacity in any event or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized by the ITF or any national or regional entity which is a member of or is recognized by the ITF as the entity governing the sport of tennis in that nation or region.