CAS ad hoc Division (OG Turin) 06/010 Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) v. Fédération Internationale de Bobsleigh et de Tobogganing (FIBT)

Bobsleigh
Eligibility of a bobsleigh team to participate in the Olympic Games
Distinction between an adverse analytical finding and an anti-doping rule violation

An adverse analytical finding is simply a report by the Anti-Doping laboratory that a sample is positive for a prohibited substance. Thereafter, the applicable Anti-Doping regulations (FIBT Regulations in this case) provide for an extensive process, including the athlete’s rights: to ask for a B sample test, be present at the testing of the B sample, and to have a hearing to contest the adverse analytical finding. Only after that process has been completed and the adverse analytical finding is confirmed is an anti-doping rule violation found. As a result, a sanction is imposed on the athlete in the form of Consequences as defined in the FIBT Regulations.

In February 2006 the Brazilian Olympic Committee (BOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian bobsledder Armando Dos Santos after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance nandrolone. As a consequence the BOC decided to exclude the Athlete to compete at the Turin 2006 Olympic Winter Games.

Hereafter the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) filed an application with the CAS Ad hoc Division at the Turin Olympic Games and requested the Panel for an order to declare the Brazilian 4-man bobsleight team ineligible to compete in the Olympic Winter Games and to declare instead the Australian 4-man bobsleigh team eligible to compete in the same Games.

In order for the AOC to succeed, the Panel must first find that in accordance with the FIBT Regulations, there has been a finding of an anti-doping rule violation by a member of the Brazilian 4-man Bob team. The team member, Dos Santos, has not as of this date been found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation. No decision that Dos Santos committed an anti-doping rule violation has been rendered by any authority. The adverse analytical finding announced by the BOC in apparent disregard for Rule 14.14 of the FIBT Regulations that prohibit such public disclosure is not a decision pursuant to Article 13 of the FIBT Regulations which may be appealed to CAS. The Panel finds that to date Dos Santos has not been found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation, nor has he been provisionally suspended. The BOC has chosen to remove Dos Santos from the Olympic team based on its internal policies.

Because there has been no anti-doping rule violation found, the remainder of the AOC’s submissions do not need to be addressed by the Panel. The Application fails at the outset and therefore there is no need to interpret the meaning of Article 11 of the FIBT Regulations with respect to the effect that his doping infraction would have had on the “team” of which Dos Santos was a part at the Challenge Cup.

On the basis of the foregoing facts and legal aspects, the ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport renders the following decision on 20 February 2006:

1.) The appeal filed by the Australian Olympic Committee against the Fédération Internationale de Bobsleigh et de Tobogganing is denied.
2.) (…).

• CAS OG 08/01 The Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee (ANOC) & The Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF) &
• Hidayatova Nazira,
• Aliyeva Mi Kyong,
• Alizada Bo Jyong,
• Makayeva Feruza,
• Chegurko Lyudmila,
• Kheyirova Seda,
• Zeynalova Zarifahon,
• Mammadova Myungsoon,
• Suleymanova Zhang,
• Mirzaliyeva Dilfuza,
• Jafarova Inoyathan,
• Muzaffaova Emine,
• Nuriyeva Liana,
• Rustamova Seon Young,
• Aliyeva Marina,
• Shahbazova Viktorya (the Players)

vs The Federation Internationale de Hockey (FIH) & Real Federación Española de Hockey (RFEH)

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Beijing) 08/001 Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee (ANOC), Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF), Hidayatova Nazira and others (the Players) v. Fédération Internationale de Hockey (FIH)

Related cases:

• CAS OG_2008_04 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF vs FIH
  August  5, 2008
• CAS OG_2008_05 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF & the Players vs FIH
  August 8, 2008
  
  

• Field Hockey
• Olympic Games 2008
• Eligibility
• Standing to challenge a decision

In light of the FIH Anti-Doping Policy, the Applicants have no rights of appeal against the decision taken by the FIH Disciplinary Commission. Therefore, they have no standing to request a relief challenging such decision in relation to an alleged doping case committed by players of an opponent team during a qualifying tournament held for the OG.

The ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 August 2008:

The application filed by the Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee, the Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation and the Players on 31 July 2008 is hereby dismissed.

CAS OG 08/04 The Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee (ANOC) & Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF) vs The Federation Internationale de Hockey (FIH)

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Beijing) 08/004 Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee (ANOC) & Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF) v. Fédération Internationale de Hockey (FIH)

Related cases:

• CAS OG_2008_01 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF & the Players vs FIH & RFEH
  August 2, 2008
• CAS OG_2008_05 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF & the Players vs FIH
  August 8, 2008
• Swiss Federal Court 4A_424_2008 AFHF vs FIH
  January 22, 2009
  
  

• Field Hockey
• Olympic Games

Discretionary power of IFs to adopt the reasoning of their judicial commission and not to appeal before the CAS in a doping matter. An International Federation does not have the obligation to appeal every time its own internal body decides after a review of the facts not to issue a sanction in a doping matter. The Federation must have the discretion to adopt the reasoning of its Judicial Commission and decide not to appeal.

The ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 August 2008:

The application filed on 5 August 2008 by the Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee and the Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation and their requests for preliminary relief are hereby dismissed.

CAS OG 08/05 The Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee (ANOC) & Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF) vs Federation Internationale de Hockey (FIH)

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Beijing) 08/005 Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF) & Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee (ANOC) v. Fédération Internationale de Hockey (FIH)

Related cases:

• CAS OG_2008_01 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF & the Players vs FIH & RFEH
  August 2, 2008
• CAS OG_2008_04 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF vs FIH
  August 5, 2008
• Swiss Federal Court 4A_424_2008 AFHF vs FIH
  January 22, 2009

• Field Hockey
• Olympic Games
• Standing to bring an application before the CAS Ad hoc Division

The Applicants have no standing to file an application before the CAS Ad hoc Division because no adverse finding has been made against them by the Judicial Commission of FIH and thus there was no breach of the rules of procedural fairness in not giving the Applicants an opportunity to be heard.

From 12 to 20 April 2008, one of the three Women's World Hockey Qualifier competitions was held in Baku, Azerbaijan. The winner of the Event would qualify for the Olympic Games. The final of the Event was a match on Sunday, 20 April 2008, between the team representing the Real Federación Española de Hockey (RFEH) and the team representing the Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF). The Spanish team won the final 3-2.

On 21 May 2008, the FIH communicated that the A and B samples of two players, who competed for the Spanish team, taken during anti-doping tests carried out at the Event showed adverse analytical findings (AAF). In the same communication, the FIH stated that the players concerned had requested a hearing by the FIH Judicial Commission.

The hearing impacted not only the players but could also have affected the entire Spanish team by virtue of article 11.1 of the FIH Anti-Doping Policy, which reads: “if more than one team member in a Team Sport is found to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule violation during the Event, the team may be subject to Disqualification or other disciplinary action."

The FIH requested that the Judicial Commission find that the two players had committed an anti-doping rule violation and as a result disqualify the Spanish team from the Event.
The Judicial Commission found that one of the players committed an anti-doping rule violation. However, there was no fault or negligence on her part so no sanction was imposed; the second player was not found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation ("the Decision").

On 31 July 2008, AFHF, together with the players of the Azerbaijan Women's Field Hockey team and the ANOC, filed an application with the ad hoc Division of the CAS.

By decision of 2 August 2008, the ad hoc Division of the CAS dismissed the application filed by the ANOC, the AFHF and the Players on 31 July 2008 (the "First Award"). In this First Award, the CAS Panel found that ANOC, AFHF and the Players did not have standing to bring an appeal of the Decision.

Faced with the absence of standing, on 5 August 2008, the Applicants brought a further application before the CAS ad hoc Division seeking an order that FIH itself bring an appeal to CAS against the Decision.

By decision of 5 August 2008, the CAS ad hoc Division dismissed the application filed on 5 August 2008, including the requests for preliminary relief (the “Second Award”).

This amounts to a third appeal to the CAS ad hoc Division by the Applicants seeking substantially the same final relief as sought in the application which led to the First Award.

According to the Applicants’ submissions, this application arises by reason of their consideration, for the first time, of a copy of the Decision which was made available to them as a result of a direction given by the CAS Panel which delivered the First Award.

The Applicants submit that the Decision “shows the Applicants were openly blamed for committing sabotage of the Spanish team” and that in the Decision, “the Judicial Commission endorsed the allegations put forward by the Respondents.”

The Applicants contend that the alleged findings of the Judicial Commission against them were made in circumstances where they had a right to be heard and were not heard. They submit that, in accordance with article 22.1 of the FIH Statutes and Byelaws, article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and general principles, since they have been denied procedural fairness by the Judicial Commission, the Decision should be annulled.

The CAS Panel finds that the Applicants seem to be seeking to appeal against the dismissed First Award. The First Award was erroneous. Indeed, with great respect, the Panel considered that it was clearly correct. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that the Applicants have no standing to bring this application. In addition it is not necessary to consider the merits of the application or whether the Decision was, in fact, a correct one.

On the basis of the foregoing facts and legal aspects, the ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport renders on 8 August 2008 the following decision:

The application filed by the Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation and the Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee on 7 August 2008 is hereby dismissed.

CAS OG 10/04 Claudia Pechstein vs DOSB & IOC

• On 1 july 2009 the International Skating Union decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the German skater Claudia Pechstein for her anti-doping rule violation she committed.
• On 25 November 2009 the Court of Arbitration (CAS) decided to dismiss the Athlete's appeal (CAS 2009/A/1912) and to uphold the ISU Decision of 1 July 2009.
• On 10 February 2010 the Swiss Federal Tribunal also dismissed the Athlete's appeal.

Consequently the Athlete was ineligible to participate in the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games whereas the DSOB did not nominate the Athlete to participate in the 2010 Olympic Games.

Hereafter on 15 February 2010 the Athlete requested the DOSB to nominate her for the participation in the competitions of the female speed skaters during the Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver 2010. She also requested the IOC to allow her participation in those competitions.

Because the DOSB did not reply immediately on 15 February 2010 the Athlete addressed her application with the Court of Arbitration ad hoc Division.

The DOSB, the IOC and also the ISU requested the Panel to dismiss the Athlete's application and contended that the CAS ad hoc Panel has no jurisdiction the hear the Athlete's case.

Additionally the DOSB contended that the ad hoc Panel was bound by the Award CAS 2009/A/1912 of 25 November 2009 which was not set aside by the Swiss Federal Tribunal.

The Panel determines that the Athlete had not identified any specific decision by the IOC, an NOC, and International Federation or an Organising Committee for the Olympic Games which has arisen during the Vancouver Olympic Games or during a period of ten days preceding the Opening Ceremony of the Games on 12 February 2010 which could be the subject of an appeal to the ad hoc Division.

The Panel has, on its own, searched the record and found no such decision. As a result the Panel finds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the present matter and it so rules.

Therefore the ad hoc Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 18 February 2010:

1.) The ad hoc Division lacks jurisdiction to hear the present Application.

2.) The Application of Ms Claudia Pechstein is dismissed.

3.) Each party shall pay its own costs (see Article 22 of the CAS ad hoc Rules).

CAS ad hoc Division (OG London) 12/005 Jan Sterba v. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)

Related case:
CAS OG_2012_07 International Canoe Federation vs Jan Sterba
August 6, 2012

Canoe
Request to confirm the decision appealed
Standing to appeal

When coming to decide the issue of the standing to appeal, the constant CAS’ jurisprudence establish very clearly that only an aggrieved party, having something at stake and thus a concrete interest in challenging a decision adopted by a sports body, may appeal to CAS against that decision. This reflects the principle of the “Aggrievement Requirement” established in CAS case law and embodied in the CAS Ad hoc Rules. In this respect, when the only requested relief is to confirm a legal valid decision totally in the applicant’s favor, the latter has no legal interest. He is therefore not an aggrieved party and does not have standing to appeal.

On 9 July 2012 the International Canoe Federation Doping Control Panel (ICFDCP) decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Czech Athlete Jan Sterba after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance β-methylethylamine.
The Athlete appealed the decision of 9 July 2012 and on 24 July 2012 the International Canoe Federation Court of Arbitration (ICFCA) decided to set aside the ICFDCP decision and ruled that no anti-doping rule violation has been committed by the Athlete.

Hereafter the Athlete filed an application with the CAS ad hoc Division at the London Olympic Games againt the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) with the ICF, the COC and IOC as interested parties.
The Athlete requested the Panel to confirm the ICFDCP decision of 24 July 2012 in full with no more delay so that he can be sure to compete in the London Olympic Games.

The Panel finds that in the present case the Athlete did not submit an application against a decision but actually requested the confirmation of a decision and as he himself, in his own words wrote “the Athlete fully agrees with appealed decision”. Therefore it is clear and obvious that the Athlete has no concrete legal interest in challenging the decision. In such circumstances the Athlete is not an affected party in the sense of this principal due to the fact that he is not an aggrieved party. It follows that the Athlete does not have standing to appeal in this case.

In light of the above conclusion, the Panel finds that there is no need to address the second question regarding the standing to be sued of WADA. However the Panel finds it important to note that this fact by itself i.e. that the only WADA is a party that was not a party in the previous proceedings and was not a party to the Appealed decision, could be sufficient, by itself, to deny the Application.

The ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 July 2012:

1.) Based on the Appealed Decision and the submissions of the parties, the Panel finds that there is presently no case or controversy preventing the Athlete from participating in the XXX Olympic Games. Therefore, the Applicant has no legal interest and standing to appeal against the decision issued on 24 July 2012 by the International Canoe Federation Court of Arbitration.

2.) The Application of Mr. Jan Sterba submitted on 28 July 2012 is denied.

CAS OG 12/06 Ángel Mullera Rodriguez (Spain) vs the Royal Spanish Athletics Federation (Real Federación Española de Atletismo – RFEA), the Spanish Olympic Committee (Comité Olímpico Español – COE) & Superior Sports Council (Consejo Superior de Deportes – CSD)

Mr Ángel Mullera Rodriguez is a Spanish Athlete competing at international level as runner in the 3000m Steeplechase and he was selected for the Spanish Olympic athletics to compete at the London 2012 Olympic Games.

On 20 July 2012 the Technical Committee of the Royal Spanish Athletics Federation (RFEA) decided to exclude the Athlete to be part of the Spanish Athletics Team and his participaton at the London 2012 Olympic Games.

Reason for this decision was that the RFEA and CSD had received emails exchanged between the Athlete and an unnamed trainer concerning doping practices. In those emails, Mr Mullera and the trainer were explicit in asking and giving advice on some very specific doping protocols and on how to come out clean in any anti-doping controls. Also a Spanish newspaper published in July 2012 about these emails.
The RFEA and CSD had anonymously received those emails about six months earlier and because of the emails’ content they had subjected the Athlete to several out-of-competition anti-doping tests, with no adverse analytical findings.

The Athlete stated to the RFEA that the emails had been partially manipulated. He admitted that some parts of the emails were authentic and that he had in fact inquired about some doping protocols. However, he denied he followed the trainer’s advice or ever doped.

On 23 July 2012 the RFEA Disciplinary Committee rejected an application to open disciplinary proceedings against the Athlete for an anti-doping rule violation. The RFEA Disciplinary Committee stated that the evidence was not sufficient to ascertain an anti-doping rule violation.
Requested by the CSD the RFEA Disciplinary Committee opened on 26 July 2012 a new disciplinary procedure against the Athlete for his possible violation of “notorious and public acts going against the dignity and decorum of sports”.

Hereafter on 29 July 2012 the Athlete filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad hoc Division at the same time the latest RFEA disciplinair procedure was still pending.
The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the decision to exclude him and to order the RFEA to re-admit him to the Spanish Athletics Teams for his participation at the London 2012 Olympic Games. The Athlete argued that the RFEA decision to exclude him was wrong and breaching the applicable laws and regulations.

The CAS Panel has seen no evidence of a true technical reason behind the Athlete’s exclusion, the Panel finds that the RFEA arbitrarily excluded Mr Mullera from the Spanish team and thus violated its own selection criteria. Indeed, the discretion that a national federation can exert in selecting or de-selecting an athlete may not go as far as to become arbitrary. The Panel points out that this is not to be taken to mean that a national federation or a National Olympic Committee shall always be prevented from excluding an athlete from the national team if he or she is suspected of having doped, as is the case here. However, this precautionary exclusion of an athlete for ethical reasons, prior to any disciplinary sanction, must be provided by the pertinent selection rules. It is, of course, a matter for the RFEA to consider whether it wishes to amend its own rules in order to have the right to exclude an athlete from the Spanish national team if he or she is suspected of having behaved improperly with regard to doping matters.

The Panel wishes to express in clear terms that it does not intend to condone Mr Mullera’s inappropriate behaviour and that it fully understands the position of sports bodies which genuinely wish to fight against doping and, therefore, take appropriate measures in cases where one of their athletes behaves inappropriately. The Athlete’s exchange of emails asking how to dope and how to escape anti-doping controls strikes at the very heart of the fight against doping. Whether such behaviour is simply reproachable, or an "attempted use" in the meaning of the World Anti-Doping Code or a "notorious and public act against the dignity and decorum of sports" in the meaning of the Spanish Sports Disciplinary regulation, is not for this Panel to decide.
In any case, as accepted by the Athlete himself, his enquiries regarding doping methods were entirely inappropriate, and the Panel relies on the disciplinary proceedings that the RFEA’s Disciplinary Committee has commenced against the Applicant in order that the matter be investigated and, as appropriate, pursued through the proper channels.

The Panel holds that many will consider Mr. Mullera to be extremely fortunate to be the beneficiary of the RFEA’s improper procedural course and of the lacuna in the RFEA’s selection criteria. However, under the current rules and considering the explanation given by the RFEA, the RFEA may not exclude Mr. Mullera from the Spanish team for the London Olympic Games.

Therefore the Ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 August 2012 that:

1.) The application filed by Mr Ángel Mullera Rodriguez is partially upheld.
2.) The CAS does not have jurisdiction ratione personae over the Superior Sports Council (Consejo Superior de Deportes).
3.) The decision of the Royal Spanish Athletics Federation of 20 July 2012 to exclude Mr Ángel Mullera Rodriguez is set aside.
4.) The selection of Mr Ángel Mullera Rodriguez in the Spanish Olympic team is confirmed.
5.) The Royal Spanish Athletics Federation and the Spanish Olympic Committee are ordered to take all arrangements necessary to enable Mr Ángel Mullera Rodriguez to participate in the 3000m Steeplechase discipline at the XXX Olympic Games in London.
6.) All other requests or motions for relief are rejected.

CAS ad hoc Division (OG London) 12/007 International Canoe Federation (ICF) v. Jan Sterba

Related case:
CAS OG_2012_05 Jan Sterba vs WADA
July 30, 2012

Canoe
Doping (ß-methylphenylethylamine)
BM as a specified stimulant
Application of Art. 10.5.2 in a case where Art. 10.4 applies
Measure of the sanction

1. By virtue of the written and oral evidence given by the different experts, the nature of the substance ß-methylphenylethylamine (BM) has been established to the satisfaction of the hearing panel as being a stimulant. The clear way the supplement is presented by its manufacturer also supports this conclusion. It follows that, under the clear wording of the 2012 Prohibited List, BM is a prohibited substance. However, BM is not expressly listed in Art. S6a of the prohibited list under Non-Specified Substances. As the final sentence of S6a provides that a stimulant not expressly listed in this section is a Specified Substance, BM is therefore a Specified Substance.

2. Arts. 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 of the ICF Anti-Doping Rules are meant to have an impact only in cases where the circumstances are truly exceptional and not in the vast majority of cases. Art. 10.5.2 should not be applied in cases where Arts. 10.3.3 or 10.4 apply, as those articles already take into consideration the athlete’s degree of fault for purposes of establishing the applicable period of ineligibility.

3. The facts that an athlete has established how the Specified Substance entered his or her body, that he acted from the very beginning in the utmost of good faith, that it is undisputed that he did not seek to gain a competitive advantage, that he compared the ingredients of the nutritional supplement with the 2012 Prohibited List, that he then sought the advice of an independent, qualified practitioner, that he declared the supplement on his Doping Control Form and that he is a senior athlete with a long-term clean anti-doping record, show to the requested comfortable degree of satisfaction of the hearing panel, a degree of fault to be so small that it justifies the full reduction of the period of ineligibility to no period, and the sanction of a reprimand.

In June 2012 the International Canoe Federation (ICF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Czech Athlete Jan Sterba after his his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance β-methylethylamine (BM).
The ICF considered this a substance included under the clause, “any other substances with similar chemical structure and similar biological effect(s), as expressed in the final sentence of category S6b of the 2012 Prohibited List.

On 9 July 2012 the ICF Doping Control Panel (ICF DCP) decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Athlete appealed this decision with the ICF Court of Arbitration (ICFCA) which decided on 24 July 2012 to set aside the decision of the ICF DCP and ruled that “No anti-doping rule violation has been committed by Mr. Jan sterba” based on the conclusion the ICF has not established that the substance BM was to be considered a prohibited substance under the 2012 Prohibited List.

Hereafter on 29 July 2012 the ICF appealed the ICFCA decision of 24 July 2012 with the CAS ad hoc Division at the London Olympic Games because of the Athlete’s filed previously an application with the CAS ad hoc Division (CAS OG 12/007) about his participation at the Olympic Games.
The ICF requested the Panel to set aside the ICFCA decision of 24 July 2012 and to uphold the previous ICF DCP decision imposing a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In this case the Presence of the Substance BM in the Athlete’s samples was not disputed. Nor was disputed the structural similarity of BM to substances included in the 2012 Prohibited List at S6b (Levmetamfetamine and Phenpromethamine). It follows that, the issues to be decided by the Panel are:
a) Is BM a Prohibited Substance?
b) Had the Respondent violated the Anti-Doping Rules?
c) If so, what, in the circumstances of this specific case, should the appropriate sanction be?

The Panel finds that BM is a Specified Stimulant as a prohibited substance and the Athlete has committed an Anti-Doping violation under the ICF Rules.
Previously the Athlete has established how the Specified Substance entered his body through his use of the Supplement. It was accepted by the ICF that the Athlete did not intend to cheat and it is the Athlete’s first violation.

The Panel concludes, considering the Athlete’s degree of fault, that it is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete has acted from the very beginning in the utmost of good faith; that it is undisputed that he did not seek to gain a competitive advantage; that he compared the ingredients of the Supplement with the 2012 Prohibited List; that he then sought the advice of an independent, qualified practitioner; that he declared the Supplement on his Doping Control Form and that he is a senior athlete with a long-term clean anti-doping record, and so considers the Athlete’s degree of fault to be so small that it justifies the full reduction of the period of ineligibility to no period, and the sanction of a reprimand.

Therefore the ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 August 2012:

1.) The Application filed by the International Canoe Federation is partially upheld.
2.) The decision of the International Canoe Federation Court of Arbitration of 24 July 2012 is set aside.
3.) The Respondent, Mr Jan Sterba, is found guilty of the offence of using a Prohibited Substance under the International Canoe Federation Anti-Doping Rules.
4.) The sanction of a reprimand is imposed on the Respondent, Mr Jan Sterba.
5.) All other requests or motions for relief are rejected.