Facts
Filippo Volandri was reported for a Ani-Doping Rules Violation (ADRV). His urine sample, taken on March 13, 2008, at the Indian Wells tournament in California, United States, tested positive on the prohibited substance salbutamol. The player doesn't dispute this fact. An oral hearing was held on 15-01-2009.

History
The player had a therapeutic use exemption (“TUE”) in respect of salbutamol when he gave his sample. The abnormal result was the consequence of the therapeutic use of inhaled salbutamol for his asthma.

Considerations tribunal
Salbutamol was not a specified substance under the 2008 Program, but is under the 2009 Program. The parties agree that Salbutamol in this case will be regarded as a specified substance. An application therefore will be regarded as a lex mitior by the Anti-Doping Tribunal hearing the case. Several times a TUE was granted. Unfortunately applying lately the player forgot to mention the explanation that the treatment was ongoing. On 27 December 2004 the player, applied for an Abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemption (“ATUE”) in respect of use of salbutamol. However, the player’s use of salbutamol on March 12-13, 2008, can't properly be characterised as therapeutic.

decision
The Tribunal:
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 13 November 2008; namely that a prohibited substance, salbutamol, has been found to be present in the urine sample that the player provided at Indian Wells on 13 March 2008;
2. finds that the player has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the abnormal test result was the consequence of the player’s therapeutic use of inhaled salbutamol;
3. orders that the player’s individual result must be disqualified in respect of the Indian Wells tournament, and in consequence rules that the prize money and ranking points obtained by the player through his participation in that event must be forfeited;
4. orders, further, that the player’s individual results (including ranking points and prize money) in competitions including and subsequent to the Manerbio competition on 18 August 2008 shall be disqualified and all prize money and ranking points in respect of those competitions shall be forfeited;
5. orders, however, that the player’s results (including ranking points and prize money) in all competitions subsequent to the Indian Wells tournament up to and including the Cordenons competition on July 28, 2008 shall remain undisturbed;
6. finds that the player has succeeded in establishing to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal that his use of the prohibited substance leading to the positive test result in respect of the sample taken on March 13, 2008, was not intended to enhance his sport performance;
7. declares that the player shall be ineligible for a period of three months (i.e. calendar months) starting on January 15, 2009 and expiring at midnight London time on April 14, 2009 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
Courtny Nagel (player) was reported for a an Anti-Doing Rules violation (ADRV). A sample provided by her on 28 July 2008 at the Nordic Light event in Stockholm, Sweden, revealed the prohibited substance canrenone.

history
Ms Nagle has explained the presence of Canrenone in her system was due to her therapeutic use of spironolactone to treat a medical condition. She has produced medical records confirming the diagnosis and the prescription of spironolactone to treat that condition in 2004, with further prescriptions in 2005 and 2006. She explains that she had a ‘flare up’ of her condition in the summer of 2008, started taking the spironolactone again on 2 July 2008, and stopped on September 2, 2008, after the condition improved. Ms Nagle explained that she was not aware the medication prescribed to her contained any prohibited substance. She says she took the medication only for therapeutic purposes and not to enhance her performance or to mask the use of any other substance, and notes that she declared the medication on her doping control form when she provided her sample on 29 July 2008.

considerations tribunal
The medical condition is proven, she even filled in the name of the medicine on the doping form. She established to explain how the prohibited substance entered her body. Canrenone is not classified as a “specified substance” in the 2008 list of prohibited substances and Prohibited Methods, but it is so classified in the 2009 List (Lex Mitior).

decision
Ms Nagle acknowledges that she has committed a Doping Offence under Article C.1 of the Program and accepts the following consequences:
1. A sixteen-month period of Ineligibility, backdated to commence on 29 July 2008 and therefore ending at midnight on November 28, 2009.
2. Disqualification of her results achieved in the following events, including the forfeiture of the ranking points and prize money awarded therein.
3. Ms Nagle has waived her right, under Article O of the Program, to appeal against the Decision, both as to the finding that she has committed a Doping Offence and as to the imposition of the Consequences

facts
Maximilian Abel (player) was reported for a Anti-Doping Rules Violation (ADRV). During the Tournament Open Moselle in Metz, France on September 30, 2007, an urine sample was taken. Both samples (A and B) tested positive on cocaine and metabolites, which are prohibited substances.

history
The player doesn't dispute the analytical findings but has no idea how he ingested the prohibited substance. His suggestion is that outside influences are responsible. He doesn't apply for an oral hearing or legal representation.

Decision
The tribunal:
1. confirms the commission of the Doping Offence specified in the charge;
2. orders that the player' s individual results in the Tournament must be disqualified, and in consequence rules that the prize money and ranking points obtained by the player through his participation in the Tournament must be forfeited;
3. orders, further, that the player' s results in all singles and doubles competitions subsequent to the Tournament shall be disqualified and all prize money (half the prize money awarded to the pair in the case of doubles competitions) and ranking points in those competitions forfeited;
4. declares that the player shall be Ineligible for a period of two years commencing on 22 January 2008 from participating in any
capacity in any event or activity ( other than anti-doping education or rehabilitation program) authorized by the ITF or any national or regional entity which is a member of or is recognized the ITF as the entity governing the sport of tennis in
that nation or region.

Facts
Martina Hinges (player) was reported for an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV). An urine sample taken during the Wimbledon Championship 2007 tested positive for the metabolite of cocaine (benzoylecgonine). Cocaine is a prohibited substance in competition. An oral hearing in respect of the charge took place in London on December 11 and 12, 2007.

History
The player was never been reported for a doping offence. She has no idea how the substance entered her body, also the measured substance was very low. She challenged the procedure of sample taking. She did not admit that the sample tested was provided by her, nor that the laboratory results were reliable. She also contended that if the ITF could prove that she had committed a doping offence, she bore “no fault or negligence” or “no significant fault or negligence” for the offence.

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 October 1, 2007, namely that a prohibited substance, benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine, has been found to be present in the urine sample that the player provided at the Wimbledon Championships on 29 June 2007;
2. orders that the player’s individual results in the ladies’ singles competition must be disqualified in respect of the 2007 Wimbledon
Championships, and in consequence rules that the prize money and ranking points obtained by the player through her participation in that
competition must be forfeited;
3. orders, further, that the player’s individual results in all singles and doubles competitions subsequent to the 2007 Wimbledon Championships shall be disqualified and all prize money (half the prize money awarded to the pair in the case of doubles competitions) and ranking points in respect of those competitions forfeited;
4. declares that the player shall be ineligible for a period of two years commencing on 1 October 2007 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
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.