TAS 2008/A/1698 Riccardo Ricco c. CONI

CAS 2008/A/1698 Riccardo Ricco vs CONI

In July 2008 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian cyclist Riccardo Ricco after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA).

In first instance the Athlete admitted the violation and stated that the substance was administered in Italy before his participation to the Tour de France.
As substantial assistance the Athele testified about the doping involvement of dr. Santuccione and other Athletes.

On 2 October 2008 the Tribunale Nazionale Antidoping del CONI (TNA), the CONI National Anti-Doping Tribunal, decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in November 2008 the Athlete appealed the TNA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).The Athlete requested to annul the Appealed Decision and for a reduced sanction.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed the Athlete’s violation and his substantial assistance and decides on 17 March 2009:

1.) The appeal filed by Riccardo Ricco against the CONI TNA decision of 2 October 2008 is partially accepted.

2.) The CONI TNA of 2 October 2008 is partially reformed.

3.) The Athlete Riccardo Ricco is suspended from all sports activity for a periode of 20 (Twenty) months. This period runs from 18 July 2008.

4.) Any other claim made by the parties shall be rejected.

5.) (…)

TAS 2008/A/1612 M, Rasmussen c/ FMC

CAS 2008/A/1612 Michael Rasmussen c/ FMC

Related cases:

• Dutch District Court 2008 Michael Rasmussen vs RABO Wielerploegen
  July 2, 2008
• Dutch Court of Appeal 2012 Michael Rasmussen vs RABO Wielerploegen
  June 19, 2012
• Dutch Court of Appeal 2013 Michael Rasmussen vs RABO Wielerploegen
  June 25, 2013

On 30 June 2008 the Fédération Monégasque de Cyclisme (FMC) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the cyclist Michael Rasmussen for multiple anti-doping rule violations he committed:

• 3 warnings for his whereabouts filing failures within a period of 18 months between May 2007 and July 2008;
• 1 warning for filing false whereabouts for the period April-June 2007.

Hereafter in July 2008 the Athlete appealed the FMC Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to annul the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

In the matter of his 1st and 3rd warning the Athlete disputed the competence of Anti-Doping Denmark (ADD) to conduct out-of-competition testing in April and in June 2007. Regarding the second warning the Athlete argued that he timely had submitted valid whereabouts information to the UCI.

Further the Athlete disputed the validity of the 4th warning because this was issued by the UCI only following his admission in November 2007, during an anti-doping investigation, that he had provided falsified whereabouts information.

The Panel established that the Athlete was included in the ADD testing pool and accordingly that the ADD had authority to submit the Athlete to sample collection. The Panel determines that the 2nd warning was valid due to the Athlete had anyhow not submitted timely his whereabouts to the UCI.

The Panel deems that UCI's 4th warning was also valid because the Athlete knowingly had provided false whereabouts information. As a result the Athlete had tampered with any part of the doping control.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 January 2009 to uphold the Appealed Decision of 30 June 2008 and rules that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

• CAS 2008/A/1591 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) v. Nathan O’Neill
• CAS 2008/A/1592 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Nathan O’Neill, Cycling Australia (CA) & ASADA
• CAS 2008/A/1616 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) v. Nathan O’Neill
  
  

• Cycling
• Doping (phentermine)
• Applicable law on a subsidiary basis
• Clearance time, detection time and standard of care expected from an elite athlete
• Out-of-competition ingestion of a prohibited substance and no significant fault or negligence

1. So long as the sample testing of the athlete was conducted in an international event and, as the national federation is a member of the international federation (IF), the national federation is bound by the provisions of the IF’s anti-doping regulations, stating that in-competition, international events shall be governed by its anti-doping regulations “exclusively”. In such cases, the law of the country in which the body which has issued the challenged decision has its seat may be applied on a subsidiary basis, and Swiss law may also be additionally applied, particularly in reference to the interpretation and application of the rules of the IF, so long as the IF has its seat in Switzerland.

2. Even in a circumstance where the clearance time of a prohibited substance is longer than the detection time, it remains the responsibility of the athlete, at the time of competition, to ensure the prohibited substance has cleared from his/her body. When an athlete takes a substance which is prohibited in-competition, s/he has a responsibility to ensure, under the standard of care expected from an elite athlete, that at the time of competition, the substance has cleared from his/her system.

3. An athlete that deliberately ingested a prohibited substance has taken a very high risk and the fact that the athlete used this substance out-of-competition cannot constitute the “exceptional” circumstances which could justify a “no significant fault or negligence” finding and thereby give the athlete the benefit of a reduced sanction. Athletes who have used a prohibited substance out-of-competition have a personal duty to ensure a substance prohibited for in-competition is not found in his/her system on the occasion of an in-competition sample collection testing.

On 13 June 2008 the CAS Oceania registry decided in first instance to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Australian cyclist Nathan O'Neill after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Phentermine.

Hereafter ASADA, UCI and WADA appealed this Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Parties requested to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a more severe period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The three parties deemed that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. They contended that the Arbitrator was in error in then finding that the Athlete had established No Significant Fault or Negligence for a reduced 15 month period of ineligibility. The Athlete's evidence was self serving, not corroborated and revealed he did not meet teh required standard of care for an elite athlete.

In view of the evidence the Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substance Phentermine has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Panel determines that the Athlete deliberately had ingested a prohibited substance and concludes that the Arbitrator in the Award at first instance was in error in the application of a reduced sanction. The Panel finds there was a significant fault and negligence on the part of the Athlete in ingesting the Phentermine before competition and competing while the substance remained in his system.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 January 2019:

1.) In matter No. CAS 2008/A/1591 & 1592 & 1616, the appeals are upheld.

2.) The decision of the CAS at first instance dated 13 June 2008 is set aside.

3.) The period of ineligibility of Nathan O’Neill shall be two years from 13 June 2008.

(…).

TAS 2008/A/1587 Luca Ascani c. UPA-CONI & FCI
CAS 2008/A/1587 Luca Ascani vs CONI & FCI

In August 2007 the Italian Cycling Federation (FCI) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Luca Ascani after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Recombinant Erythropoietin (rhEPO).

Consequently on 9 May 2008 the CONI Giudice di Ultima Instanza in Materia di Doping (the Anti-Doping Supreme Court) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in June 2008 the Athlete appealed the CONI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decison and to eliminate or reduce the imposed sanction.

The Athlete claimed that the delays in the proceedings and his right to be heard were violated. He also asserted that several irregularities that had occurred during the Doping Control and during the analysis in the Rome Laboratory would invalidate the test results.

The Panel assessed and adresses the issues raised by the Athlete and determines that:

• The delays in the proceedings were not unreasonable whereas some of the delays were attributed to the Athlete.
• The Athlete had confirmed at the end of the hearing that he had received the opportunity to present his defence.
• No violations have been established during the sample collection procedure.
• No departures of the ISL have been established in the Rome Laboratory that could invalidate the test results.

Accordingly the Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substance rhEPO has been established in the Athlete's samples and that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 February 2009 to partially dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision for the imposititon of a sanction of 2 years.

The Panel only has reformed the commencement of the ineligibility period and set on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 4 August 2007.

CAS 2008/A/1555 UCI vs Andrey Kashechkin & KCF
CAS 2009/A/1779 Andrey Kashechkin vs Kazakhstan Cycling Federation (KCF) & Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI)

TAS 2008/A/1555 UCI v/ A. Kashechkin & Kazakhstan Cycling Federation (CFRK)
TAS 2009/A/1779 Andrey Kashechkin c/Kazakhstan Cycling Federation (CFRK & Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI)

In August 2007 the International Cycling Union (UCI) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kazakh cyclist Andrey Kashechkin after his A and B samples showed that he had used the prohibited method of blood doping.

Following deliberations with the UCI the Disciplinary Commission of the Kazakhstan Cycling Federation (KCF) consequently decided on 25 December 2008 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in January 2009 the Athlete appealed the KCF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Previously in May 2008 the UCI had filed an appeal with CAS in order to ensure that the KCF would open disciplinary proceedings against the Athlete.

The UCI requested the Panel to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to confirm the Appealed Decision. By contrast the Athlete requested to set aside the Appealed Decision, to impose no sanction and to approve his participation in any cycling competition.

The Athlete alleged that in first instance his right to be heard was violated nor was he allowed to file a statement in his defence. Further he disputed the validity of the test results due to there had been several departures of the Rules during the blood sample collection and the transport to the Lausanne Laboratory.

Preliminary the Panel determined that both appeals filed by the UCI and the Athlete have been ordered to be consolidated in one procedure. The UCI appeal is admissible and CAS has jurisdiction to review the Athlete's case.

Moreover the Panel deems that the previous KCF decision in question of 8 April 2008 had been superseded by the Appealed Decision of 25 December 2008 based on new facts after the KCF had received the Athlete's file.

Following assessment of the Athlete's arguments the Panel determines:

• His argument about the lack of proper notification of the Appealed Decision is dismissed.
• Dismissed is the argument that his right to be heard was violated.
• The argument about the alleged conspiracy during to blood sample collection was withdrawn by the Athlete.
• During the blood sample collection the Athlete raised no objections nor did he demonstrate with any evidence the alleged inconsistencies that had been occurred.
• There is no evidence that the blood samples were effected during transport to the Lausanne Laboratory.
• There is no evidence that the testing method and testing results were invalid.

As a result the Panel concludes that the Lausanne lab has established that the Athlete had used the prohibited method of blood doping and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for sport decides on 6 August 2009:

1) CAS doesn't need to rule on the appeal of the UCI's against the decision of April 8, 2008 by Kazakhstan Cycling Federation (KCF).

2.) The appeal filed January 29, 2009 by Andrey Kashechkin against the decision of 25 December 2008 of the Anti-Doping Commission of the Kazakhstan Cycling Federation (KCF) is dismissed.

3.) The Appealed Decision of 25 December 2008 of the Anti-Doping Commission of the Kazakhstan Cycling Federation (KCF) is confirmed.

4.) Andrey Kashechkin is ordered to pay the UCI CHF 1,000 for the immaterial costs by the Anti-Doping Commission of the UCI.

5.) The Kazakhstan Cycling Federation (KCF) is ordered to reimburse UCI the sum of CHF 2,000 (two thousand Swiss francs) in respect of costs, the registry fees of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss francs) paid by Andrey Kashechkin and by the UCI on the filing of their appeal, which remains with CAS.

6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2008/A/1458 UCI v. Vinokourov & KCF

Related case:

CAS 2008_A_1458 UCI vs Alexandere Vinokourov & KCF - Partial Award
July 23, 2009

• Cycling
• Doping (use of a prohibited method)
• Interpretation of the wording of a Commitment signed by the rider
• Payment of a contribution as a condition for the Rider’s reinstatement

1. An athlete who used a prohibited method in the form of an homologous blood transfusion has committed an anti-doping violation (blood doping).

2. The “Rider’s commitment”, signed by the athlete, does not establish the payment of a contribution as a condition for the athlete’s reinstatement. The payment of the contribution is “in addition” to the sanction and, hence, separate and independent of the regular sanction. Furthermore, the Commitment aims at the payment of a “contribution to the fight against doping” which is supposed to be payable to the Council for the Fight Against Doping. This wording differs considerably from terms such as “fine”, as used in the later UCI Anti Doping Rules which would have clearly indicated the meaning of a sanction or even a contractual penalty.

3. In the absence of a contractual condition for a Rider’s reinstatement, an extension of the sanction making the reinstatement dependant on the prior payment of a fine could be based exclusively on the set of rules which specifically govern anti-doping rule violations and their consequences. As long as the applicable regulations do not mention a payment whatsoever as a sanction or a precondition for the reinstatement of an athlete who had served a period of ineligibility, such extension of the sanction is not applicable.

In July 2007 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kazakh cyclist Alexander Vinokourov after his A and B blood samples tested positive for blood doping. On 5 December 2007 the Kazakh Cycling Federation (KCF) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in December 2008 the UCI appealed the KCF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The UCI requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete including payment for costs.

Previously in January 2008 the UCI had suspended this appeal because the Athlete had declared to end his career. However in September 2008 the Athlete announced his return to competition and thereupon UCI requested CAS to reactivate the proceedings against the Athlete.

In its Partial Award the Panel on 23 July 2009 concluded that the Athlete had committed the anti-doping rule violation of blood doping. The Panel decided to set aside the Appealed Decision of 5 December 2007 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 24 July 2007.

Although the Athlete already had admitted and accepted a 2 year period of ineligibility the UCI and the Athlete remained in a dispute about the validity and enforceability of the Athlete's commitment for contribution. In this matter the Athlete had to pay an amount equal to his annual salary from 2007 as contribution to the fight against doping.

The UCI contended that this commitment is legally valid and that the infringement of the Athlete’s personality rights is justified by his free consent and overriding public interest.

By contrast the Athlete challenged the validity of this commitment mainly because he was not free to sign or reject this commitment which was the precondition for his participation in the Tour de France 2007.

Following assessment the Panel concludes that there is no legal basis for UCI to claim the payment of a contribution under the Athlete's commitment. Accordingly, he is not obliged to make the payment requested by UCI. Against this background, further prayers for relief and further considerations of the parties are dismissed.

Therefor the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 August 2010:

1.) Paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Partial Award issued on 16 June / 23 July 2009 in the present procedure are ratified.

2.) No payment is due by Mr. Vinokourov under the “Rider's commitment for a new cycling” signed on 29 June 2007; consequently, the relief requested by the UCI in its written statement dated 4 September 2009 is dismissed.

3.) The arbitration costs incurred in the proceedings after the issuance of the Partial Award, which shall be determined and separately communicated to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be entirely born by UCI.

4.) Each Party shall bear its own legal expenses incurred in the proceedings until the delivery of the Partial Award.

5.) UCI is ordered to pay to Mr. Vinokourov as contribution to his legal expenses incurred in the proceedings after the issuance of the Partial Award an amount of CHF 10'000.- (ten thousand Swiss francs).

6.) All other and further prayers for relief are dismissed.

TAS 2007/A/1444 UCI c/Iban Mayo & RFEC
TAS 2008/A/1465 UCI c/Iban Mayo & RFEC

TAS 2007/A/1444 & TAS 2008/A/1465 UCI c/Iban Mayo & RFEC

CAS 2007/A/1444 UCI vs Iban Mayo & RFEC
CAS 2007/A/1465 UCI vs Iban Mayo & RFEC

On 19 October 2007 and again on 27 December 2007 the Royal Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) decided to cease the proceedings againt the cyclist Iban Mayo Diez and to acquit him because of the inconclusive test results regarding the presence of recombinant Erythropoietin (rhEPO) in his A and B samples.

Here the Paris Lab detected the presence of EPO in the Athlete’s A sample while during the analysis of the A sample the volume of urine was insufficient to establish the presence of EPO due to several abnormalities had been detected. In a second opinion the Lausanne Lab confirmed the presence of rhEPO in the Athlete’s A sample.

At the request of the Athlete his B1 sample was tested and the Ghent Lab reported - with the second opinion of the Sydney Lab - that the test results for rhEPO were inconclusive.
After deliberations between the Athlete and the UCI his B2 sample was tested in the Paris Lab and this time the presence of rhEPO was established and confirmed.

Hereafter in December 2007 and in January 2008 the UCI appealed the two RFEC decisions with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The UCI requested the Panel to set aside the two Appealed RFEC Decisions and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Athelete requested the Panel to uphold the RFEC decisions and to set aside the test results. He alleged that departures of the ISL had constituted doubts about the integrity, validity and identity of the analysed samples. The UCI had also violated his fundamental rights in this case.

The Panel establishes that the samples in question arrived sealed in the Paris Lab and the absence of the additional seal as precaution for the transport packing is no departure of the ISL. In view of the chain of custody documentation and testimonies the Panel has no doubt about the identity of the analysed samples.

The Panel determines that there was indeed a departure of the ISL when the Paris Lab switched to another method for establishing the presence of the prohibited substance instead of using a new aliguote from the A sample.

Considering the circumstances and arguments in this case the Panel accepts the test result of the Athlete’s B2 sample which confirmed the presence of rhEPO in his A sample. The Panel deems that the UCI had established the presence of rhEPO in the Athlete’s samples. Consequently the two appealed RFEC decisions in favour of the Athlete must be set aside.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 11 August 2008:

1.) The appeals of the UCI are admissible;

2.) The decisions rendered on 19 October 2007 and 27 December 2007 by the National Committee of the RFEC are set aside;

3.) The Athlete is sanctioned with a suspension of two years from July 31, 2007;

4.) The Athlete is disqualified from the "Tour de France 2007";

5.) The cyclist pays to the UCI, the amount of CHF 1,000 for costs;

6.) The UCI has to pay the admission costs, of CHF 500 to CAS;

7.) Orders the RFEC to pay a contribution for legal fees of the UCI of CHF 2,000;

8.) Each party has to bear its own lawyer costs;

9.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

CAS 2007/A/1362 CONI v/ Petacchi & FCI
CAS 2007/A/1393 WADA v/ Petacchi & FCI

CAS 2007/A/1362 Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI) v. Alessandro Petacchi & Federazione Ciclistica Italiana (FCI) & CAS 2007/A/1393 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Alessandro Petacchi & FCI

• Cycling
• Doping (salbutamol)
• Abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemption
• Shift of the burden of proof
• No Significant Fault or Negligence
• Reduction of the period of Ineligibility
• Disqualification from a sport event

1. Salbutamol is a Prohibited Substance, both in and out of competition, under Class S3, Beta-2 Agonists. As an exception, when administered by inhalation, Salbutamol requires an abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemption (ATUE).

2. In cases where an athlete is granted with an ATUE and the sample shows a higher concentration of the substance granted, the burden shifts to the athlete to demonstrate that such concentration was the consequence of the therapeutic use of the substance in question.

3. The fault or negligence is considered as non significant, when viewed in all the circumstances and taking into account the criteria for no fault or negligence, i.e. in cases where the overdose was taken with no aim of enhancing the athlete’s performance, like when taking the overdose after the conclusion of the particular sport event.

4. The no significant fault or negligence leads to a reduction of the period of ineligibility, which the athlete would otherwise have to suffer.

5. Following the existing CAS case law, in cases where there is no provisional suspension imposed or voluntarily accepted, a CAS panel may nevertheless take into account the pressure placed on the athlete from sports bodies and others, if the athlete was not able to participate in one or more events while the anti-doping proceedings were pending.

6. According to the applicable regulations, if the event is a stage race, an anti-doping violation committed in connection with any stage entails disqualification from the event except when 3 conditions are fulfilled, among which the athlete must establish that he bears no fault or negligence. The conditions for the exception are cumulative; if the athlete cannot establish that he bears no fault or negligence, he must be disqualified from the whole sporting event.

In June 2007 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian cyclist Alessandro Petacchi after his sample tested positive for the substance Salbutamol in a concentration above the WADA threshold (1352 ng/ml).

In this case the Athlete had an Abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemption (ATUE) that authorized him to use three doses of 200 mcg of Salbutamol by inhaltation per day, and three doses of 0.5 mcg Betamethasone by aerosol per day.

On 24 July 2007 the Disciplinary Commission of the Italian Cycling Federation (FCI) decided that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation. Following the appeal by the Ufficio Procura Antidoping of the Italian National Olympic Committee (UPA-CONI) the FCI Appeals Commission decided that the appeal was inadmissible and that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has jurisdiction.

Hereafter in August 2007 both UPA-CONI and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the FCI decision of 24 July 2007 with CAS.

UPA-CONI and WADA argued that a concentration of 1352 ng/ml in the Athlete’s urine could not have been achieved if he had only used his Ventolin inhaler in accordance with the terms of his ATUE as to the dose, frequency and route of administration of Salbutamol. They relied on the expert opinions and the results of the enantiomer analysis done on the Athlete’s urine sample by the Barcelona Laboratory.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete has failed to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the Salbutamol concentration of 1352 ng/ml found in his sample was "the consequence of the therapeutic use of inhaled Salbutamol". The Panel is not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the result was the consequence of him inhaling Salbutamol in accordance with his ATUE.

The Panel holds that the Athlete and his expert witnesses failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there were any special factors had caused the test results in this case. The Panel accepts that the Athlete is asthmatic and that he took too many puffs of his Ventolin inhaler on that day, including some after the race.

The Panel is satisfied that the Athlete is not a cheat, and that the adverse analytical finding in this case is the result of the Athlete simply, and, possibly, accidentally, taking too much Salbutamol on the day of the test, but that the overdose was not taken with the intention of enhancing his performance. Indeed, it would be an unusual way of attempting to enhance performance to take the prohibited substance after the particular event had concluded.

ln the circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the Athlete bears No Significant Fault or Negligence because his fault or negligence, when viewed in all the circumstances and taking into account the criteria for no fault or negligence, was not significant in relation to this anti-doping rnle violation. It follows, therefore, that the Panel can reduce the period of ineligibility which he would otherwise have to suffer.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 May 2008 that:

1.) The appeals by UPA-CONI and WADA against Decision no. 21 /2007 issued on 24 July 2007 by the Disciplinary Commission of the FCI are admissible.

2.) The appeals by UPA-CONI and WADA against Decision no. 21 /2007 issued on 24 July 2007 by the Disciplinary Commission of the FCI are allowed. That decision is set aside.

3.) Mr. Petacchi has breached Article 15.1 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.

4.) In accordance with Articles 261 and 265 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules Mr. Petacchi is ineligible to compete for a total period of one year, with two months credited against such period in accordance with Articles 255 and 275 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules. Therefore, the period of ineligibility will start on 1 November 2007 and will expire on 31 August 2008.

5.) All competitive results obtained by Mr. Petacchi during the 2007 Giro d'Italia shall be disqualified with all of the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

6.) Mr. Petacchi can retain all competitive results between 23 May 2007 and 31 October 2007, but all competitive results obtained after 31 October 2007 and during the period of ineligibility will be disqualified.

7.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

8.) Each party shall bear its own costs, save for the CAS Court Office fee, which will be retained by the CAS.