Decision. the FIBA Secretary General in accordance with Article of the FIBA Internal Regulations governing Anti-Doping in the matter

Similar documents
Decision. the FIBA Disciplinary Panel established in accordance with Article 8.1 of the FIBA Internal Regulations governing Anti-Doping in the matter

Decision. the FIBA Disciplinary Panel established in accordance with Article 8.1 of the FIBA Internal Regulations governing Anti-Doping in the matter

Decision. the FIBA Disciplinary Panel established in accordance with Article 8.1 of the FIBA Internal Regulations governing Anti-Doping in the matter

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT (CAS) Anti-doping Division XXIII Olympic Winter Games in Pyeongchang

Arbitration CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/006 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Kleber Da Silva Ramos, award of 20 August 2016

the FIBA Disciplinary Panel established in accordance with Article 8.1 of the FIBA Internal Regulations governing Anti-Doping in the matter

UWW ANTI-DOPING PANEL DECISION. Case

Issued Decision UK Anti-Doping and Nigel Levine

INTERNATIONAL PARALYMPIC COMMITTEE (the Applicant) Versus. Mr. Piotr TRUSZKOWSKI (the Respondent)

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING ADAM SEROCZYNSKI BORN ON 13 MARCH 1974, ATHLETE, POLAND, CANOE

UWW ANTI-DOPING PANEL DECISION. Case

Arbitration CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/004 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Silvia Danekova, award of 12 August 2016

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING ALMAS UTESHOV BORN ON 18 MAY 1988, KAZAKHSTAN, ATHLETE, WEIGHTLIFTING

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING VITA PALAMAR BORN ON 12 OCTOBER 1977, UKRAINE, ATHLETE, ATHLETICS

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION

Arbitration CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/010 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Gabriel Sincraian, award of 8 December 2016

ANTI-DOPING BY-LAW OF THE AUSTRALIAN OLYMPIC COMMITTEE

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING IRYNA KULESHA BORN ON 26 JUNE 1986, BELARUS, ATHLETE, WEIGHTLIFTING

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION

Arbitration CAS 2012/A/2986 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Riley Salmon & Fédération Internationale de Volleyball (FIVB), award of 30 May 2013

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT (CAS) Ad hoc Division Games of the XXXI Olympiad in Rio de Janeiro AWARD. Ihab Abdelrahman...

DECISION OF THE WORLD CURLING FEDERATION CASE PANEL. Dated 14 June, In respect of the following

SOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY UNION - ANTI-DOPING REGULATIONS

BASKETBALL AUSTRALIA ANTI-DOPING POLICY

In re: ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ANTI-DOPING RULE IN TERMS OF ARTICLE 2.1 OF THE 2016 ANTI-DOPING TRIBUNAL FINDINGS AND SANCTION

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING IRYNA KULESHA BORN ON 26 JUNE 1986, BELARUS, ATHLETE, WEIGHTLIFTING

BCAC ANTI DOPING POLICY

Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018 (as of August 2017) 1

Arbitration CAS 2009/A/2011 Stephan Schumacher v. International Olympic Committee (IOC), award on costs of 6 May 2010

IAAF ADVISORY NOTE USE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION (ANTI-DOPING AND INTEGRITY PROGRAMMES)

IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT UNDER THE ANTI-DOPING RULES OF THE RUGBY FOOTBALL LEAGUE DECISION

Arbitration CAS ad hoc Division (OG Rio) 16/023 Ihab Abdelrahman v. Egyptian NADO, award of 16 August 2016 (operative part of 11 August 2016)

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATHLETICS FEDERATIONS

ANTI-DOPING POLICY OF SINGAPORE

The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXXI Olympiad, in Rio de Janeiro, in 2016

Anti-Doping Important Facts and Highlights from WADA s Athlete Guide. At-a-Glance

AWARD DELIVERED BY THE FISA DOPING HEARING PANEL Sitting in the following composition

JUDICIAL AWARD DELIVERED BY THE FISA DOPING HEARING PANEL. sitting in the following composition. In the case of Kissya Cataldo Da Costa (BRA)

Panel: The Hon. Justice Tricia Kavanagh (Australia), Sole Arbitrator

ANTI-DOPING REGULATIONS

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION

The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXI Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver, 2010

ANTI-DOPING AWARD DELIVERED BY THE ANTI-DOPING HEARING PANEL OF FISA. Members: Jean-Christophe Rolland Tricia Smith. In the case

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATHLETICS FEDERATIONS

FIVB Disciplinary Panel Decision. In the matter of Mr. Saber Hoshmand (Iran)

ANTI-DOPING AWARD DELIVERED BY THE ANTI-DOPING HEARING PANEL OF FISA. Members: Jean-Christophe Rolland Tricia Smith. In the case

ANTI-DOPING ESSENTIALS

Panel: Mr. Peter Leaver QC (United Kingdom), President; Mr. Malcolm Homes QC (Australia); Mr. Kaj Hobér (Sweden)

United States Olympic Committee National Anti-Doping Policies

Panel: Mr. Kaj Hobér (Sweden), President; Prof. Richard McLaren (Canada); Mr. Michele Bernasconi (Switzerland)

Panel: The Hon. Annabelle Bennett (Australia), Sole Arbitrator

Member Federations Council and Commission Members. Circular No 3 of 2017 Anti-Doping Programme Information

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING YARELYS BARRIOS BORN ON 12 JULY 1983, CUBA, ATHLETE, ATHLETICS

THERAPEUTIC USE EXEMPTION POLICY U.S. ANTI-DOPING AGENCY. Effective JANUARY 1, (Revised June 21, 2018)

The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XX Olympic Winter Games in Turin, 2006

DECISION. of the. ISU Disciplinary Commission. In the matter of

Arbitration CAS ad hoc Division (O.G. Sydney) 00/015 Mihaela Melinte / International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF), award of 29 September 2000

Arbitration CAS 2006/A/1190 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) & Shoaib Akhtar & Muhammed Asif, award of 28 June 2006

INTERNATIONAL PARALYMPIC COMMITTEE (the Applicant) Versus. Mr. Yoldani SILVA PIMENTEL (the Respondent)

FILA ANTI-DOPING REGULATIONS

Arbitral Award. The Arbitration Panel. composed of

We Are For Clean Basketball

We Are For Clean Basketball

Anti-Doping. Important Facts and Highlights from WADA s Athlete Guide. At-a-Glance

DOPING CONTROLS your rights and your obligations

UK ANTI-DOPING. and THE RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION. and DAN LANCASTER

Arbitration CAS 2015/A/4210 Karam Gaber v. United World Wrestling (FILA), award of 28 December 2015

U.S. ANTI-DOPING AGENCY WHEREABOUTS POLICY

Anti-Doping Code. Effective from 1 January 2015

Arbitration CAS 2017/A/4974 Lei Cao v. International Olympic Committee (IOC), award of 31 July 2017

Arbitration CAS 2016/O/4455 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. Elmira Alembekova, award of 13 October 2016

2016 AUSTRALIAN OLYMPIC TEAM

U.S. ANTI-DOPING AGENCY WHEREABOUTS POLICY

FISA DOPING HEARING PANEL IN THE MATTER OF: Anastasia FATINA and Anastasia KARABELSHCHIKOVA

Arbitration CAS 2016/O/4454 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. Vera Sokolova, award of 13 October 2016

Panel: Prof. Massimo Coccia (Italy), President; Mr. Peter Leaver QC (England); Mr. Olli Rauste (Finland)

5, route Suisse - P.O. Box Mies Switzerland. Founded in 1932

TABLE TENNIS AUSTRALIA INC YOUTH OLYMPIC TEAM NOMINATION AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Arbitration CAS 2017/A/4973 Chunhong Liu v. International Olympic Committee (IOC), award of 31 July 2017

INTERNATIONAL WEIGHTLIFTING FEDERATION (IWF) Weightlifting

DECISION of the FEI TRIBUNAL. dated 22 April 2015

Arbitration CAS 2009/A/1755 Adam Seroczynski v. International Olympic Committee (IOC), award of 20 August 2009

Panel: Mr Rui Botica Santos (Portugal), President; Mr Jehangir Baglari (Islamic Republic of Iran); Mr Raymond Hack (South Africa)

HOCKEY INDIA ANTI DOPING POLICY AND REGULATIONS

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT (CAS) Anti-Doping Division Games of the XXXI Olympiad in Rio de Janeiro AWARD

IOC Regulations on Female Hyperandrogenism

The Pakistan Cricket Board's Anti- Doping Rules

SARU ANTI DOPING REGULATIONS

Netball Australia Anti-Doping Policy

Panel: Mr Hans Nater (Switzerland); President; Mr Dirk-Reiner Martens (Germany); Mr Raj Parker (United Kingdom)

SR/Adhocsport/1025/2017

Arbitration CAS 2016/O/4465 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. Mikhail Ryzhov, award of 13 October 2016

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC EXECUTIVE BOARD DECISION REGARDING RASHID RAMZI BORN ON 17 JUNE 1980, ATHLETE, BAHRAIN, ATHLETICS

IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTE FOR DRUG-FREE SPORT ANTI-DOPING DISCIPLINARY COMMITTE HELD AT HOLIDAY INN ROSEBANK RULING

Disciplinary Commission. Case No April 28, Decision of the ISU Disciplinary Commission. against. and

UEFA Anti-Doping Regulations

Transcription:

Decision by the FIBA Secretary General in accordance with Article 13.7.2 of the FIBA Internal Regulations governing Anti-Doping in the matter Jason Anthony Smith (born 13 September 1983) hereafter: ( the Player ) (Nationality: US-American) Whereas, the Player underwent an in-competition doping test on 17 December 2011 on the occasion of a regular season game in the German Pro B league; upon being asked whether he had taken any medication, the Player indicated that he had been using Diabetic Insulin Hunolog Lantis containing insulin, a prohibited substance under Article S.2.3 of the 2011 WADA Prohibited List; Whereas, on 23 December 2011, the Player applied to the National Anti Doping Agency of Germany ( NADA ) for a Therapeutic Use Exemption ( TUE ), submitting a confirmation from his doctor that it was medically necessary for the Player to use insulin; 1

Whereas, NADA granted the requested TUE for insulin on 13 January 2012; Whereas, the analysis of the Player's sample was conducted at the WADA-accredited Institute of Doping Analysis and Sports Biochemistry ( IDAS ) in Kreischa, Germany, on 3 January 2012 and (specifically for insulin) on 24 February 2012; neither of the analyses showed any indication for use of substances included in the 2011 WADA Prohibited List; Whereas, on 30 March 2012, the Player explained in writing to the Anti-Doping Commission of the German Basketball Federation (hereinafter referred to as the ADC ) that he had been suffering from diabetes since the age of three and had taken insulin ever since; the Player further submitted that he had not been aware of insulin being a prohibited substance and that in 2007 he had contacted FIBA and thought that the reply of FIBA s Anti-Doping Officer was enabling him to play anywhere in Europe without taking any further steps such as applying for a TUE; Whereas, in the hearing before the ADC held on 23 May 2012, the Player s counsel made reference to the Player s written explanations above; Whereas, on 23 May 2012, the ADC decided to impose on the Player a period of six months ineligibility, commencing on 28 March 2012 (the ADC Decision ); Whereas, on 1 July 2012, the Player s brother provided FIBA with a copy of the ADC decision; Now, therefore, the FIBA Secretary General takes the following: 2

DECISION The decision issued by the German Basketball Federation on 23 May 2012 is adopted by FIBA. For the purposes of FIBA Competitions, a period of six months ineligibility, i.e. from 28 March 2012 to 27 September 2012, is imposed on Mr. Jason Anthony Smith. All national member federations shall apply this decision for the purposes of their national competitions and shall take all necessary action to render this decision effective. Reasons: 1. Article 4-13.7.2 of the FIBA Internal Regulations governing Anti-Doping (the FIBA ADR ) reads as follows: In accordance with Article 15.4.1 of the Code and in order to ensure that decisions adopted by organizations other than FIBA are in line with the Code and the regulations of FIBA, the Secretary General of FIBA may, upon request or ex officio: a) decide that a decision taken by a national member federation or by organisations outside FIBA and its national member federations (e.g. state bodies, the IOC, national antidoping organisations or other national or international sports organisations inside or outside the Olympic movement) be adopted for the purposes of FIBA Competitions, if the following requirements are cumulatively met: i) the accused Person has been cited properly; ii) he has been given an opportunity to be heard; iii) the decision has been properly communicated; iv) the decision is not in conflict with the regulations of FIBA; v) extending the sanction does not conflict with ordre public. 3

In deciding whether the above-mentioned requirements are fulfilled, the Secretary General of FIBA, the FIBA Appeals Panel or the CAS shall not review the merits of the decision in question. Under exceptional circumstances the Secretary General of FIBA may request the parties involved to state their position only as regards the fulfilment of the abovementioned requirements. No person shall be entitled to challenge the substance of the decision in question. b) submit a case to the Disciplinary Panel mentioned in Article 4-8.1 above. 2. FIBA initially notes that the Player has been cited properly in the ADC Decision and that he was given an opportunity to be heard before the ADC. In fact, the Player admitted the violation in his written submission of 30 March 2012 filed before the ADC and, although he did not personally appear at the hearing of 23 May 2012, was represented by counsel who made express reference to the written submission in his pleading. 3. Further, FIBA notes that the ADC Decision was properly communicated to the Player, as evidenced by the fact that on 1 July 2012 the Player contacted FIBA, through his brother, in order to receive further information about the ADC Decision that had been sent to him. 4. Lastly, FIBA finds that the ADC decision is not in conflict with the FIBA Regulations. The provisions applied by the ADC Commission are in compliance with articles 4-10.2, 4-10.5.2 and 4-10.5.4 of the FIBA ADR, especially with respect to insulin being a prohibited (and nonspecified) substance and regarding the double reduction of the sanction due to the lack of significant fault or negligence and due to the Player s admission of the violation. Also, the sanction imposed is in line with the minimum period of ineligibility provided for in article 4-10.5.5 the FIBA ADR. In addition, extending the sanction does not conflict with ordre public. 4

5. In accordance with article 4-13.7.4 of the FIBA ADR, all national member federations shall apply this decision for the purposes of their national Competitions and shall take all necessary action to render such decision effective. To this end, FIBA shall publish this decision on its website. 6. This decision is subject to an Appeal according to the FIBA Internal Regulations governing Appeals as per the attached Notice about Appeals Procedure. Pursuant to Article 4-13.7.2 cited above In deciding whether the above-mentioned requirements are fulfilled, the Secretary General of FIBA, the FIBA Appeals Panel or the CAS shall not review the merits of the decision in question. Geneva, 19 July 2012 Patrick Baumann FIBA Secretary General 5