Facts
The French Baseball and Softball Federation (Fédération Française de Baseball et Softball, FFBS) charges respondent M67 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on July 17, 2011, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of tuaminoheptane. Tuaminoheptane is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent has used medication containing tuaminoheptane;
he used it to treat a cold. A befriended physician gave a written statement. He used this medicine every night to avoid snoring.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one month in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFBS.
2. The decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

CAS 2013/A/3241 World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) v. Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI) & Alice Fiorio

Softball
Doping (whereabouts failures)
Minimum sanction for whereabouts failures
Substantive change of the WADA Code

1. According to art. 10.3.3 WADA Code, the sanction for a violation of art. 2.4 WADA Code (whereabouts filing failures and/or missed tests) is a period of ineligibility of at minimum one year and at a maximum two years. Art. 10.5.2 WADA Code regarding reduction of the period of ineligibility based on no significant fault or negligence cannot apply to further reduce a sanction for a violation of art. 2.4 WADA Code.

2. As a signatory of the WADA Code, CONI must implement the articles (and corresponding comments) of the WADA Code listed in its art. 23.2.2 without substantive changes. The sanction regime on individuals (art. 10 WADA Code) has been implemented correctly in the (Italian) Norme Sportive Antidoping (NSA). As a consequence of art. 23.2.2 WADA Code, the corresponding articles of the NSA shall be interpreted in the same manner as the WADA Code. Therefore, by applying art. 4.5.2 NSA (equivalent to art. 10.5 WADA Code) to reduce a sanction for whereabouts filing failures and/or missed tests below the minimum sanction of one year, CONI introduced a substantive change and the sanction is neither in compliance with the WADA Code nor the NSA.

The Italian Anti-Doping Department of the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) registrated two filing failures in 2012 with the Athlete Alice Fiorio after she failed to file her whereabouts information for the period from 1 July 2012 until 31 December 2012. On 14 February a third filing failure was registrated with a missed test as the Athlete was not present to provide a sample for an out-of-competition doping test because she failed to update her whereabouts information.
Therefore the Italian Anti-Doping Department of the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete due to three filing failures/missed test within 18 months.
Considering the Athlete’s statement and with no significant fault or negligence, CONI decided on 30 May 2013 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 30 May 2013 until 29 November 2013.

Hereafter in July 2013 WADA appealed the CONI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
WADA requested CAS to set aside the CONI decision of 30 May 2013 and to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete because of three filing failures and the missed tests.

Because the Athlete’s anti-doping violation is undisputed, this case mainly concerns the interpretation and implementation of the WADA-code and its sanction regime by CONI.
Considering the circumstances, the CAS Sole Arbitrator notes that CONI correctly applied the minimum duration of ineligibility of 1 year for this violation. Due to CONI interpreting the WAD Code for a further sanction reduction the Sole Arbitrator finds that the sanction imposed by CONI is neither in compliance with the WADA Code nor the Italian anti-doping rules.
The Sole Arbitrator finds that a correct and consistent interpretation and application of the sanction system leads to the conclusion that the Italian art. 5.5.2. NSA (WADA CODE 10.5) is not applicable in cases concerning a violation of art. 4.3.3. NSA (WADA Code 10.4). Therefore the minimum period of ineligibility of 1 year (art. 4.5.2 NSA) shall apply.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 Janurary 2014 that:

1.) The appeal filed by WADA on 8 July 2013 is upheld.
2.) The Athlete Ms Alice Fiorio is sanctioned with a 1 year period of ineligibility starting on the date on which this award enters into force. Any period of ineligibility which was already spent by Alice Fiorio shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility.
3.) CONI shall bear the costs of the proceedings, to be determined and served on the parties by the CAS Court Office.
4.) CONI is ordered to pay WADA a total amount of CHF 2000.- as contribution towards the expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings,
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Facts
The French Baseball and Softball Federation (Fédération Française de Baseball et Softball, FFBS) charges respondent M44 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a baseball event the respondent provided a sample for a doping test. His sample tested positive on methylhexaneamine which is a prohibited substance according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Methylhexaneamine is a specified substance.

History
The respondenthas denied throughout the proceedings, that he willfully consumed methylhexanamine, the positivite test of the urine may result either from the of an energy drink, or a nasal spray he used to treat a cold he has suffered from during the week prior to doping control.

Decision
1. The sanction will be a period of ineligibility of 6 months in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFBS.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period of voluntary suspension.
3. The decision will start on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Rodrigo Parada Heit (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 8 June 2012 the player underwent an in-competition doping test. His sample tested positive for the Prohibited Substances, 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone.

History
Due to a ankle injury the player was provided with a prescription for a 25mg dose of Deca-Durabolin which he filled in Cordoba and then took to Salta. There he had a nurse inject him with the substance. Deca-Durabolin is the brand name used for nandrolone in Argentina.
Nandrolone is listed as category S1.Androgenic Anabolic Steroid on the 2012 list of prohibited substances published by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Because at the time he used Deca-Durabolin, the Player was no longer in the national team system and he did not expect to be playing for some time, he therefore did not consider himself to be running a risk of committing an anti-doping rule violation. On 9 March 2012 the Player was unexpectedly called up to “Los Pumitas” (the national Under 20 Squad).

Decision
The sanction imposed for these anti-doping rule violations is a period of Ineligibility of two years, commencing 2 July 2012 (the date upon which the Player was notified of the Adverse Analytical Finding and provisionally suspended) and concluding on (but inclusive of 1 July 2014).

Related cases:
ST 2010_19 DFSNZ vs Adam Stewart - Decision on Jurisdiction
December 6, 2010
ST 2010_19 DFSNZ vs Adam Stewart – Decision on Application
February 16, 2011

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported anti-doping rule violations against the Respondent for attempted use and possession of prohibited substances when he imported prohibited substances by post.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and Respondent was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation of attempting to use prohibited substances between 31 March 2009 and 19 May 2010 by ordering, purchasing and arranging for the delivery of the EPO, hCG and Pregnyl Solvent to a PO Box number. Respondent also admitted the possession of the prohibited substance hCG on or about 24 June 2009.
Under the Sports Anti-Doping Rules, the two incidents were to be treated as one violation with a prescribed penalty of two years’ suspension.
The Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on 7 September 2010.

Related case:
CAS 2013_A_3151 Jonathon Millar vs FEI
October 7, 2013

Facts
The International Equestrian Federation (FEI) alleges Jonathon Millar for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules for Human Athletes (ADRHA). From 30 June to 3 July 2011, the Athlete participated at the CSI4*-W in Spruce Meadows AB in Calgary, Canada, in the discipline of Jumping. On 30 June 2011, the Athlete was selected for in-competition testing. The analysis of the urine sample revealed the presence of Prasterone (DHEA). DHEA is a Prohibited Substance according to the List, in force at the time of Sample collection (Analysis Result Record dated 3 August 2011 and Amended Certificate of Analysis dated 3 August 2011).

History
On 8 September 2008, the Athlete informed his National Anti-Doping Agency, the Canadian Centre of Ethics in Sport ("CCES") that his doctor had concluded that his DHEA level was very low and that he had suggested taking DHEA, at a dose of 25 mg per day. His standard Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) application to the CCES had been denied, outlining in detail the areas for which evidence to support the Athlete's application was lacking. A new TUE form needed to be submitted and that furthermore clear medical support was required for the TUE application to be considered. Because he tested positive the athlete requisted an extension of the deadline to respond to the charge for awaiting his second application for a TUE. Eventually DHEA was not the appropriate medication for his condition.

Decision
1. The athlete is disqualifying from the Competition and all medals, points and prize money won at the Competition must be forfeited, in accordance with Article 9 of the ADRHA. The Tribunal is further disqualifying all other results obtained by the Athlete, in accordance with Article 10.1 of the ADRHA.
2. As a consequence of the foregoing, the Tribunal is imposing the following sanctions on the Athlete, in accordance with Article 169 of the Gemeral Regulations (GR's) and Article 10 of the ADRHA:
a. The Athlete shall be suspended for a period of two (2) years to be effective immediately and without further notice from the date of the notification. The Period of Provisional Suspension, effective from 24 August 2011, i.e. the date of Provisional Suspension,
shall be credited against the Period of Ineligibility imposed in this decision. Therefore, the athlete shall be ineligible through 23 August 2013.
b. The Athlete is fined CHF 2,000.

Costs
The Athlete shall contribute CHF 4,000 towards the legal costs of the judicial procedure, as well as the costs of the B-Sample analysis.

Gene Transfer and Athletics : An Impending Problem / Theodore Friedmann, Johann Olav Koss. - (Molecular Therapy 3 (2001) 6 (June) : p. 819-820)

Is it possible to imagine athletes, trainers, and sports associations irresponsible enough to use the currently highly experimental and imperfect techniques of gene transfer for athletic use? Sadly, yes.
As imperfect and immature as they may be, as little as we know about their long-term dangers, current gene transfer methods may prove to be irresistible to the sports world.
It is hoped that other bodies, including athletic associations, the gene therapy community, and review and regulatory agencies, take the
issue seriously and begin to plan how they might prevent or respond to premature gene transfer attempts in athletes.

Anti-Dope Testing in Sport : The History and the Science / Larry D. Bowers. - (FASEB Journa l 26 (2012) 10 (October) : p. 3933-3936)

Brief history about developments in doping tests, starting from the 1900s till the XXX modern Olympic Games and de XIV Paralympic Games in London. Also how the Anti-Doping Agencies originate starting from concerns regarding the effects of anabolic steroids on athletes in the U.S. congressional hearings in 1988. Programs for testing where developed, but athletes altered their drug abuse behaviors to avoid detection. This resulted in more innovation for test methods and strategies and expanded the scientific disciplines. More collaboration in research enhances the rate of discovery of innovative approaches to solve doping problems.
There are numerous opportunities for members of the scientific community to assist in the fight against the use of performance-enhancing drugs and cheating.