Facts
Todd Perry (player) was reported for an Anti-Doping rule violation. During an ATP sanctioned Tour in Capablanca, Morocco on April 7, 2005, an in-competition doping test showed the presence of salbutamol in his A sample. The player used his right to have a hearing before the Anti-Doping Tribunal,

History
The player suffered from asthma since his childhood, for this he uses bronchodilator medication terbutaline administered by inhaler. For this an abbreviated therapeutic use exemption. However the tournament doctor supplied him with salbutamol. The player didn't knew he got another medication.

written submissions player
Counsel for the player wants to govern the procedure by the laws of the state of Delaware to apply for an estoppel precluding the ATP form enforcing its Anti-Doping Rules (ADR).
The player thought by using the tournament doctor he followed the ADR.
The player wasn't aware he used other medication. That the tournament doctor failed to notify the player is also a reason for an estoppel.
The doctrine of proportionality ought to be used.

written submissions ATP
The ATP submits that the player should not be found to have committed a doping offense.
Tournaments guidelines prescribed the salbutamol inhaler.

reasoning
The counsel for the player resquested for an estoppel, however the tournament doctor is not a representative of the ATP, he is assigned but not an employee of the ATP. Therefore the doctrine of an estoppel can't apply.

Decision
The tribunal makes the following orders:
1. A doping has occurred because of the presence of a prohibited substance for which no therapeutic use exemption had been granted.
2. ATP is ordered to disqualify the individual result at the Casablanca Competition, it is further ordered that there be a forfeiture of any medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money obtained at the competition. The disqualification of the results and other consequences will have effect from the time provided.
3. The player is found to have committed "No Fault or Negligence" in respect of the use of the specified substance, the period of ineligibility is eliminated. Furthermore, the findings of the tribunal with respect to a doping offense are specifically limited in their effect as prescribed as not being considered a doping offense for purposes of calculating any future infractions of the Anti-Doping Rules should occur.
4. As a consequence of the finding of "No Fault or Negligence" for the doping offense it is ordered that no other disqualification of results other than as referred to shall arise in this case.
5. By rule the ATP is ordered to issue a warning and reprimand to the player because of the decision.

Facts
Ryan Newport (player) was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules under the Tennis Anti-Doping Program 2005. During an ATP sanctioned tournament Odlum Brown Vancouver Open in Vancouver, Canada, an in competition doping test was conducted at Jule 30, 2005. His A sample indicated the presence of Cannabis (11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the B sample analysis confirmed the presence of the prohibited substance.

History
The player visited friends in Houston before leaving to the Vancouver tournament. There he admits to having participated in the passing around of a joint after having a few drinks. This event must be the cause of the positive analytical result. The player imposed upon himself a suspension till the time of the decision.

written submission player
The player asserts that this was just a one-time event. The player would accept a 60 days period of ineligibility.

written submissions ATP
The presence of a cannabis metabolite is a doping offense and has been admitted by the player. Cannabis is a specifies substance under the rules.
The ATP has no evidence the player didn't use the cannabis for enhancing sport performance.
Being a first offense a 60 days period of ineligibility is issued with consideration of the time in voluntary suspension.
The period of ineligibility is off season but the rules don't adjust the commencement.

Decision
The tribunal makes the following orders:
1. The player admitted a first doping offense thereby establishing a doping offense. The doping offense involved the use of a specified substance cannabanoids referred to in appendix three "The 2005 Prohibited List".
2. Disqualifies the results obtained at the ATP sanctioned Tournament in Vancouver, B.C. Canada in July 2005. Any medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money (without reduction for tax) obtained at the competition are forfeited. The commencement of the forgoing consequences is to be effective in accordance with the rule.
3. The period of ineligibility otherwise applicable is determined to be two months. In accordance with the rules the ineligibility shall commence on November 16, 2005.
4. Fairness dictates that there is no disqualification of the results from the time of sample collection until the commencement of the period of ineligibility.

Facts
Miguel Gallardo Valles (player) provided an urine sample during the ATP sanctioned Tournament "Stella Artois Championships" in London, England on June 4, 2005. His A sample showed the prohibited substance cannabis (11-nor-9-carboxy-delta9-tetrahydrocannobinol). His B sample analysis confirmed the presence of the prohibited substance.

History
The player believes that the positive test originates from an attended post-event party in Germany on May 23, 2005. He was persuaded to smoke marijuana, which was his first time in life. He is concerned about the embarrassment this matter will bring to himself, his family and the sport of tennis and deeply regrets the mistake he has made.
He started with a voluntary suspension on August 29, 2005.

written submissions player
Player asks for a minimum sanction, a suspension of two months with reference at the "Melle van Gemerden" and "Oliver case".
He didn't intend to enhance his sport performance.

written submissions ATP
The counsel for the ATP thinks a period of ineligibility of 60 days is appropriate, the player admits his doping offense and it is his first doping offense. The use of the prohibited substance was not intended to enhance sport performance. The period of voluntary suspension should be considered within his period of ineligibility.

Decision
The Tribunal makes the following orders.
1. The Player under Rule K. 1.c admitted a first doping offense thereby establishing the doping offense defined in Rule C
1. The doping offense involved the use of a Specified Substance Cannabinoids referred in S. 8 of Appendix Three "The 2005 Prohibited List".
2. Rule L. 1 disqualifies the results obtained at the "Stella Artois Championships" in London, England June 5 2005. Any medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money (without reduction of tax) obtained at the competition are forfeited. The commencement of the foregoing consequences is to be effective in accordance with Rule M. 8.
3. Under rule m. 3. the period of ineligibility otherwise applicable is determined to be time served to date of this decision. In accordance with Rule M. 8. c. i. this suspension shall be deemed to commence on September 15, and cease on the day ate this decision is dated but not later than November 10, 2005.
4. Under Rule M. 7. fairness dictates that there is no disqualification of results from the time of sample collection until the commencement of the period of ineligibility on September 15, 2005.

Facts
Melle van Gemerden (player) was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an in competition ATP sanctioned challenger tournament in Phoenix his doping test showed the presence of a cannabis metabolite. His B sample analysis confirmed the existence of the prohibited substance. The player applied for a hearing which took place on April 28, 2005.

History
The player stated that a visit in an Amsterdam disco in a period he was having serious personal (family) problems. He drank to much and took two zips of somebody else's joint. Marijuana is not illegal in the Netherlands. He regrets the embarrassment of this incident brought upon the ATP and has no intention to repeat his misconduct.

Consideration ATP
There is no evidence of the statement of the player how the prohibited substance entered his body, also there is no evidence that he was not intending to improve is sport performance.

Considerations panel
A doping offense has occurred which means disqualification of the results. The panel finds that the use of cannabis was not intended to enhance performances. In an earlier case 2 months of ineligibility was suitable, considering the voluntary suspension this should be the starting point of the period of ineligibility till the day of the decision.

Decision
The Tribunal makes the following orders.
1.
The Player, under Rule K. 1. c., admitted a First Doping Offense
thereby establishing that a Doping Offense occurred as defined in Rule C 1. The Doping Offense involved the use of the Specified Substance cannabinoids, referred to in S. 3 of Appendix Three “the 2004 Prohibited List”.
2. Rule L. 1. disqualifies the results obtained at the tournament in Pheonix, Mauritius on 2 December 2004. Any medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money (without reduction for tax) obtained at the Competition are forfeited. The commencement of the foregoing Consequences is to be effective in accordance with Rule M. 8.
3. Under Rule M. 3. the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable is
determined to be the period of voluntarily foregoing participation in
Competitions. In accordance with Rule M. 8. c. (i) this
Ineligibility shall terminate on the day May 16, 2005.

related cases:
CAS 2006_A_1025 Mariano Puerta vs ITF
July 12, 2001
ITF 2003 Mariano Puerta vs ATP Tour
January 1, 2001

Mariano Puerta (player) was reported for an Anti-Doping Rule violation, his urine sample provided on June 5, 2004, at the French Open Roland Garros in Paris, tested positive for etilefrine.
The player did not dispute the presence in his body of a prohibited substance etilefrine. He asserted "No Fault or Negligence" and "No Significant Fault or Negligence" for the offense and requested an oral hearing, which took place December 6 and 7, 2005. He claims by accident used the glass of his wife which contained the prohibited substance, which she uses as medication to treat hypo-tensive episodes, particularly during menstruation.
However it is likely that the prohibited substance was taken accidentally but it can't be proven. The athlete stays responsible for what he ingests.

Due to an earlier doping violation this case is regarded as a second offense.

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 21 September 2005, namely that a prohibited substance, etilefrine, has been found to be present in the urine sample that the player provided at the 2005 French Open on 5 June 2005;
(2) orders that the player’s individual results in both the singles and doubles competitions must be disqualified in respect of the 2005 French Open, and in consequence rules that the prize money (half the prize money awarded to the doubles pair, in the case of the doubles competition) and ranking points obtained by the player through his participation in those competition must be forfeited;
(3) 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;
(4) declares that the player shall be ineligible for a period of eight years commencing on 5 June 2005 from participating in any capacity in any event or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programmes) 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

Ms. Kristina Antoniychuk (Respondent) is an Ukrainian tennis player. On 22 February 2010 Respondent competed at the 2010 Abierto Mexicano TELCEL presentado por HSBC in Acapulco, Mexico, where she provided a sample for doping control.

The International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Respondent after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.

Respondent stated she used furosemide to treat a medical condition she has for two years. She presented medical records confirming the diagnosis, and further confirming that in January 2010, when the condition worsened, she was prescribed furosemide by a doctor. Respondent stated she was not aware the medication prescribed to her contained any prohibited substance.
Respondent acknowledged that she did not consult a sports medicine specialist, nor did she ensure that the doctor she consulted understood the strict anti-doping rules to which she is subject.

The Tribunal concluded that 19 years old Respondent was inexperienced in relation to doping matters. The ITF finds a reduction of eight months appropriate in this case.

The International Tennis Federation Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decides that Respondent had committed an anti-doping rule violation and that the following consequences should be imposed:
(a) A fourteen-month period of ineligibility, backdated to commence on 22 February 2010 and therefore ending on 21 April 2011.
(b) Disqualification of her results achieved in 6 tennis competitions, including the forfeiture of the ranking points and prize money awarded.

D. Luis Feo Bernabé (player) provided an urine sample pursuant to the Anti-Doping Rules during the “ATP Challenger Tournament” (an ATP sanctioned tournament) in Seville, Spain on 2 October 2004. The player waived his right to have the B sample analyzed, by this he accepted the analytical results.

Because of light muscular pain the player used a homeopathic substance without banned substances. For treatment he was injected with celestone cronodose a dermatological anti-inflammatory in 2004 and also received laparoscopic surgery. The player has a medical condition that required treatment and corrective surgery. The prohibited substance was part of the injected substance. In 2005 dermatological preparations are not prohibited (in 2004 it was prohibited). The tribunal regards a minimal two-month period of Ineligibility as being appropriate in the absence of the application of the principle of lex mitior, the rules in this case were for skin treatment not for muscle treatment. The quantum of the period is based upon the circumstances of this case and for this particular Player.

Decision
1. The Player admitted a First Doping Offense thereby establishing the Doping Offense defined in Rule C 1.The Doping Offense involved the use of a Specified Substance a Glucocorticosteroid referred to in “The 2004 Prohibited List”.
2. Disqualifies the results obtained at the “ATP Challenger Tournament” in Seville, Spain on October 2, 2004. Any medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money (without reduction for tax) obtained at the Competition are forfeited. The commencement of the foregoing Consequences is to be effective in accordance with Rule M. 8.
3. The period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable is determined to be two (2) months. In accordance with Rule M. 8. c. this suspension shall commence on the date April 7, 2005.

Juan Viloca (player) was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules, during the ATP Sanctioned challenger tournament at the Bonasport Club of Barcelona, Spain on October 9 2004. The provided urine sample tested positive 16a-hydroxprednisolone (budesonide metabolite) a S 9 glucocorticosteroids which is a prohibited substance according the Anti-Doping Rules.

The player was notified and he didn't ask for a B-sample analysis, which automatically means he committed a doping offense. For this reason a hearing before the full tribunal was no longer needed. The cause of the positive test is the use of a nasal inhalator with "nasal budesonide" for his condition of extrinsic continuous rhinitis, for which he didn't apply for a therapeutic use exemption (Tue). The tribunal agrees that the prohibited substance wasn't used for enhancing sport performance.

Decision
1. The Player admitted a First Doping Offense thereby establishing that a Doping Offense has occurred as defined in Rule C 1. The Doping Offense involved the use of a Specified Substance, a Glucocorticosteroid referred to in S. 9. of Appendix Three “The 2004 Prohibited List” as a specified substance.
2. Rule L. 1. disqualifies the results obtained at the “ATP Challenger Tournament” in Barcelona, Spain on 9 October 2004. Any medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money (without reduction for tax) obtained at the competition are forfeited. The commencement of the foregoing consequences is to be effective in accordance with Rule M. 8.
3. Under Rule M. 3. the period of ineligibility otherwise applicable is determined to be the period of voluntarily foregoing participation in Competitions. In accordance with Rule M. 8. c. this (1 year) Ineligibility shall terminate on the day following April 15, 2005.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M24 for a violation of the Anti-Dopoing Rules. During a cycling event a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of erythropoietin. Erythropoietin is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
Respondent claims that the positive test derives from medication used after a fall with the bike.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 4 years (which is equal with the decision of the appeal committee of the FFC, dated October 28, 2011) in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFC and related French sport federations.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Jamie Burdekin (player) was reported for an Anti-Doping Rules violation. On 20 July 2004 at the wheelchair British Open in Nottingham he provided samples for testing. The player’s A and B samples both tested positive for cocaine and metabolites of cocaine, a prohibited substance. The player did not dispute (though he did not formally admit) the presence of the drug in his urine sample, but contended that he was innocent of any intention to use a prohibited substance, that he did not knowingly take cocaine and that the drug must have entered his body by means of illicit administration (“spiking”) by a person or persons who were present with him in a bar in Liverpool during the evening of 17 July 2004.

Consideration of the player
Documents were provided very late, by reason of unjustified delay the mandatory two year disqualification should be dismissed.
The laboratory test result documents where written in French, which is not the player’s mother tongue.
It's highly probable that an acquaintance spiked his drinks for this reason no fault or negligence or no significant fault or negligence should apply.

Tribunal conclusions
There are considerations about informing the player too late about his positive drug test and not informing about analyzing the B-sample. But the delays are not regarded to be abnormal. However he should have been notified that the B-sample would be analyzed. For this the starting point of the ineligibility can be adjusted.
Also a claim to ban the two years of disqualification for reason of proportionality are not met in this case.
The problem for the report being in French is not a problem because when requested a translation would have been available.
Fact is that the player has to establish how the prohibited substance entered his body. No fault or negligence was not significant in relation to the offense.
What remains is the starting date of the ineligibility and the forfeiture of results.

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 December 6 2004: namely that a prohibited substance, cocaine and metabolites of cocaine, has been found to be present in the urine sample that the player provided at the British Open in Nottingham on July 20, 2004;
(2) orders that the player’s individual result in both the singles and doubles competition must be disqualified, and in consequence rules that the ranking points and prize money obtained by the player through his participation in the singles and doubles competitions in that event, must be forfeited;
(3) orders, further, that the player’s individual results in competitions in which he participated shall be disqualified and in consequence rules that the ranking points and prize money obtained by the player through his participation in those events, must be forfeited;
(4) declares that the player is ineligible for a period of two years from 23 August 2004 to 22 August 2006 to participate 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.