This is the unanimous decision of the independent Anti-Doping Tribunal of the International Tennis Federation (“the ITF”) of the ITF Tennis Anti-Doping Programme 2004 (“the Anti-Doping Programme”) to determine a charge brought against Mr Travis Moffat (“the player”) following a positive drug test result in respect of a urine sample provided by the player on 4 February 2004 at the Sydney International wheelchair tennis event in Sydney, Australia.
In a fax dated 19 May 2004, the player admitted the doping offence, which makes a hearing unnecessary. Written representations are filed by the player and the ITF's solicitors.
In his sample the prohibited substance found was a metabolite of cannabis. The player did not request a B-sample analysis, by this he accepted the results of the A-sample.
The player was paralyzed by a car accident, he replaced the medicine he used with cannabis (THC) for control of all spasm and pain and in the process removed a myriad of side effects and instituted an efficacious treatment for his problems. He didn't use the TCH to enhance is sport performance. He didn't apply for a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) because the use of cannabis as a medicine is illegal.
January 1, 2004, cannabinoids became a prohibited substance for the first time. Cannabis and cannabinoids were not prohibited under the predecessors to the Anti-Programme for 2004.
The tribunal declares that the player shall be ineligible for a period of six months starting from the date of this decision 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. Any computer ranking points or prize money gained in this period will be forfeited.

Mr. Yousefi Pashaki (Respondent) is a Iranian athlete in the sport of IPC Powerlifting.
On 5 February 2012, Respondent competed at the Malaysian Open Powerlifting Championships in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, where he provided a sample for doping control.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine.
The IPC notified Respondent of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension. The notification letter enclosed a letter “Letter of Decision” for the Respondent to complete and return to IPC by no later than 7 March 2012.

Respondent returned the signed Letter of Decision to the IPC in a timely fashion. In the Letter of Decision, Respondent stated that he:
- had no valid Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) justifying the presence of the prohibited substance founds in the sample;
- challenged the consequences set out in the ‘Notification of an Adverse Analytical Finding’ and wished to be invited to a hearing;
- waived his right to request the B sample analysis; and
- accepted the provisional suspension.

Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Committee.
Respondent stated that he used the supplement Jack3d for the first time prior to the competition and he did not know it contained a banned substance. Respondent’s claim that he stopped taking the supplement 12-15 days prior to the competition is incompatible with the analytical finding of the laboratory considering the quick elimination of the half-life of the prohibited substance.
The Committee finds that Respondent is negligent in his general anti-doping duties because Respondent knowingly purchased the supplement Jack3d with the intention of improving his performance.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends the following to the IPC Governing Board:
(a) Respondent’s individual results obtained at the Malaysia Open Powerlifting Championships and at any other event from the date of 5 February 2012 onwards should be automatically disqualified, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes won;
(b) A two-year period of ineligibility should be imposed on the Respondent;
(c) The Respondent shall receive credit for the period of provisional suspension and should therefore be declared ineligible from 29 February 2012 (date of notification) until 28 February 2014; and
(d) a financial sanction of € 1.500,- should be imposed on Respondent.

On 31 July 2012 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

Facts
Simon Larose (Player) provided an In-Competition urine sample pursuant to the Anti-Doping Rules during an ATP sanctioned tournament in Bucharest, Romania on September 11, 2004.
After analysis the sample indicated the presence of cannabis and a cocaine metabolite.
The player commits he used the prohibited substances therefore a hearing is not necessary.

decision
A first doping offence has occurred and a 2-year period of ineligibility will start on the date of the voluntary suspension november 11, 2004. There is no forfeiture because the player didn't win any ranking points or prize money.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Ms. Sara Abbasova (Respondent) after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance nandrolone.
The IPC notified Respondent of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension.
Because Respondent has been previously sanctioned for 2 years during the 2001 IPC Powerlifting European Championships, therefore the IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends to impose lifetime ineligibility to Respondent.

On 21 September 2004 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Mr. Gundruy Ismayilov (Respondent) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol on 18 September 2004.
The IPC notified Respondent of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension.

Respondent’s coach presented the Committee the testing results of a Turkish laboratory, dated 13 September 2004, initiated by IPC Azerbaijan in an effort to ensure that Respondent was not committing any anti-doping rule violations. The results of the Turkish Sample Analysis showed no Adverse Analytical Finding.
The Committee ruled not to consider the results of the Turkish Sample Analysis to be relevant to its recommendation to the IPC Management Committee.

Because Respondent has been previously sanctioned for 2 years during the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games the IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends to impose lifetime ineligibility to Respondent.

On 21 September 2009 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

Hereafter on 8 November 2013 IPC has overturned Azerbaijani powerlifter Gunduz Ismayilov’s lifetime ban, imposed on him in 2004, after his former partner confessed in a court of law to spiking his drink with a substance which led to his second anti-doping violation in four years.

The decision by the IPC to overturn the ban now however comes after his former partner - an athlete who also competed in Athens - admitted in a Baku court of law that she had sabotaged his drink in the Athens Paralympic Village with a prohibited substance which led to the anti-doping violation. The two had separated in 2003, and although they had remained on good terms, she had spiked the drink as a form of punishment.

Pedro Braga (player) requested a hearing before the ATP Tour Anti-doping Tribunal which took place on May 20, 2004 . During the ATP sanctioned tournament Brazilian Open in Salvador de Bahia Brazil September 7, 2003, a sample was taken. The sample showed the presence of stanozolol metabolites, which is a prohibited substance.
The player submits that the sample was compromised because in stayed at the Brazilian Customs for 27 days at room temperature. Also the pH value was increased. There was a difference in the analysis of the A and B-sample, the A-sample showed metabolites of stanozolol but the B-sample showed the substance stanozolol. The player never use any forbidden substance. He the exceptional circumstances or no significant fault or negligence for which a reduction or elimination of any period of ineligibility is justified.
The ATP finds that the player committed a doping offence, the player is responsible for any forbidden substance in his body. The substance stanozolol is not affected by degradation. The player was unable to establish exceptional circumstances, by this the period of ineligibility for a first offense is 2 years. There is no difference between the applicable sanctions for this in the rules in 2003 and 2004 the principle of lex mitior doesn't apply.
The panel agreed that there is no dispute about the urine sample. Stanozolol is entirely an exogenous substance. The stanozolol is not affected by the 27 days stay in Brazilian customs. The pH value is not important for the found substance. The difference in found substances of the A and B-sample is due to the sensitive analytical techniques.
Because the player doesn't know how the substance entered his body there are no exceptional circumstances. Lex Mitior doesn't apply in this case.
The decision is that a doping offence has occured, ranking points and prize money gained in the tournament or other ATP tournaments in the period of ineligibility will be forfeited, the period of ineligibility will be 2 years commencing on the date of the decision.

Vladimir Buben (Respondent) is a Belarussian athlete in the sport of IPC Powerlifting, participating in the 2004 Athens Paralympic Games.
On 27 September 2004 the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Mr. Buben after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance metandienone.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee concluded Respondent committed an anti-doping rule violation. Without reasons to consider no fault or no significant fault or negligence the Committee decided for:
- automatic disqualification of the Respondent’s individual results including forfeit of any medals, points and prizes;
- disqualification of all of the Respondent’s previous individual results obtained in the 2004 Athens Paralympic Games;
- disqualification of all of the Respondent’s subsequent individual results obtained after the occasion date;
- imposition of lifetime ineligibility, in accordance with a second violation commencing 27 September 2004.

On 3 November 2004 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

Facts
Frenchman Nicolas Coutelot (player) was tested positive for a metabolite of cannabis after a qualifying match for the Vina del Mar tournament in February 2004, in Chili.
Under World Anti-Doping Code, cannabis is listed since 2004 as a "specified substance" and the use of a specified substance can carry a minimum penalty of a warning through to a maximum penalty of a one-year suspension.
The use of cannabis in this case was determined by the tribunal not used for performance enhancing reasons.

History
The reason for his positive test was his addiction to cannabis, although he knew the substance would be out of his system in two weeks he was unable to quit immediately because of withdrawal symptoms. He stopped using cannabis approximately around December 27 or 28, 2003.

Decision
The tribunal determined that the player committed a doping violation under the rules of the Tennis Anti-Doping Program. The independent tribunal, which heard evidence on August 2, 2004.
The tribunal has handed Frenchman Nicolas Coutelot a two-month suspension from the ATP Tour or Challenger Series event or other activity authorized or organized by the ATP.

facts
Graydon Oliver (player) appealed for a hearing held on January 28, 2004. During the ATP sanctioned tournament the "NASDAQ-100 Open" in Miami, Florida, on March 25, 2003, he provided a urine sample. His A- sample was tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide, the B-sample confirmed the existence of the prohibited substance. Another sample provided by the player tested negative on the prohibited substance.

history
Player uses a product for sleep management, testing this product at the lab of Aegis Science Corporation revealed the prohibited substance consistent with those of the player. The player accepts a voluntary suspension.
It is confirmed that the player used a contaminated supplement unknowingly which means his case is seen as exceptional circumstances. Also the quantity of the prohibited substance would not have been enough to enhance sport performance. The possibility that this diuretic detected could mask the of anabolic steroids is absent in this case. It is a technical violation of the Anti-Doping Rules.
The prohibited substance was not on the label of the product nor was there a website to determine the ingredients. These facts are a classical illustration to all sport persons of the problems using supplements of any kind and homeopathic herbal supplements in particular. The ATP has issued warning about the use of supplements.

decision
The decision is that a first doping offence has occurred, prize money race/entry ranking points earned at the tournament "Nasdaq-100 Open" will be forfeited. No order is made for the forfeiture of race/entry ranking points or prize money earned at ATP sanctioned or recognized events subsequent to the "Nasdaq-100 Open" until the commencement of the suspension herein. By the principle lex mitior and upon findings of exceptional circumstances a period of suspension for two months is to be served. The suspension will commence on the date of the decision.

Mr. Oleksandr Vasiliev is a Ukrainian athlete in the sport of IPC Shooting.
On 6 May 2011, Mr. Vasiliev (Respondent) competed at the 2011 IPC Shooting World Cup in Alicante, Spain, where he provided a sample for doping control.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide.
The IPC notified Respondent of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension. The notification letter enclosed a letter “Letter of Decision” for the Respondent to complete and return to IPC by no later than 8 July 2011.

Respondent returned the signed Letter of Decision to the IPC in a timely fashion. In the Letter of Decision, Respondent stated that he:
- had no valid TUE justifying the presence of the Prohibited Substance found in his sample;
- accepted the A sample analysis and waives the right for the B sample analysis;
- accepted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation;
- challenged the consequences set out in the ‘Notification of an Adverse Analytical Finding’ and wished to submit information to support a claim for a reduced or eliminated period of ineligibility;
- waives the right to a Hearing.

On 27 July 2011 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.
Respondent explained his medical record and stated he took a medication because of acute medical discomfort on his pre-existing condition, due to travel and late night arrival at the competition, on his own initiative without consultation with any of the support staff in attendance at the event. Respondent did not check the ingredient list of the medication package at the time he bought or used it.
The Hearing Panel finds that the absence of intentional use of the substance is proven, but ruled Respondent was negligent in his general anti-doping duties.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends the following to the IPC Governing Board:
a. Respondent’s individual results obtained at the 2011 IPC Shooting World Cup in Alicante, Spain, and at any other event from the date of 6 May 2011 onwards should be automatically disqualified, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes won;
b. A two-year period of ineligibility should be imposed on Respondent.
c. Respondent shall receive credit for the timely admission of the anti-doping rule violation and should therefore be declared ineligible from 6 May 2011 until 5 May 2013; and
d. A financial sanction of € 1.500,- should be imposed on Respondent.