WADA - Romanian Anti-Doping Agency - WADA v. Sobota

27/05 2011 17:01 0040213115541

APPEAL COMMISSION beside

ANAD

NATIONAL ANTI-DOPING AGE!1 ICY

Bucharest File no.25/2010

DEtl:ISION No. 2/19.05.2011

Date: 19.05.2011

Ci1airperson: Carmen TROCAN

Members: Florín Alin CÁRSTOIU

Ionela TUDOR LHena Magdalena COST ACHE

DanOANCE A

Niculae TEODORESCU Georgeta Ml$CÁ Se,::retary: Gabríela Bicheru #1175 P. 002/011 The Appeal Commission, sunmoned on 9.05.2011, 17.30 H, at the official seat ofthe National Anti-Doping Agency, 37 - 39 Basarabia Bvd., District 2, Bucharest reviewed the appeal submitted by the World Anti--Doping Agency (WADA), with the Headquarters in Canada, Stock Exchange Tower 800 Victc,da Square, Suite 1700, PO Box 120, Montreal, Quebec, 4421B7, represented by dr. Fram::JiS Kaiser, Place SaintFran9ois, PO Box 7191, 1002, Lausanne, Switzerland against Deci; ion no 1/11.01.201 l ofthe Hearíng Commissionfor athletes and athletl!S support personnel who violated the anti-doping rules beside ANAD (referred herein as the Hearing Commission) sanctkning the athlete Sobota Kamil Mihail, registered to National Co llege "Aurel Vlaicu" and Dinamo Bucharest Sport Club with one year of ineligibility, pursuant to the provisions of art. 36 of Law no. 227 /2006 regarding prevention and fight against doping ín sport republished by appJ:.fog the provisions of article 46 (3) ofthe same law.

pursuant to the provisions of art. 36 of Law no. 227 /2006 regarding prevention and fight against doping ín sport republished by appJ:.fog the provisions of article 46 (3) ofthe same law. The following persons were present and heard to the meeting of the Appeal Commission on 09.05.2011: the athlete Sobota Kamil Mihail, identified with ldentity Card series KX no. 750461, issued by SPCELP Cluj -1'-lapoca on 07.07.2010, CNP 1920331125821, Mrs. Gabriela Andreiafiu, the representative of th-:i: Hearing Commission pursuant to Em powerment Letter no. 118/05.05.2011, and Mrs. lleana V.:ijialii, director ofDoping Control Laboratory.27/05 2011 17:01 0040273115541 ANAD #1175 P.003/011 The Appellant was not present and asked for the case to be judged in its absence. As no other requests were r,:ceived, the Appeal Commission established to have a decision made on 19.05.2011.

By reviewing the appeal subn-: itted against the Decision no. 1/1 J.01.2011 of the Hearing Commission, the Appeal Commissio11 takes note ofthe fol\owings: The requirements regarding fo.e right to appeal of the Appellant are met. The appeal was submítted in due time.

De facto, on February the 16'\ 2011, the Appellant appealed against Decision no. 1/11.01.2011 of the Hearing Commi,;sion with regard to the athlete Sobota Karnil Mihail. The Appellant shows that Sobota Kamil Mihail is a rugby player, member of Dinamo Bucharest Sport Club, but does not take into ac,::.ount that the athlete is registered to two different clubs and he is also rnember of National Coli.::ge "Aurel Vlaicu" Bucharest; both clubs are members of Romanian Rugby Federation.

Sport Club, but does not take into ac,::.ount that the athlete is registered to two different clubs and he is also rnember of National Coli.::ge "Aurel Vlaicu" Bucharest; both clubs are members of Romanian Rugby Federation. In its appeal, the Appellant highlights that the substance "stanozolol" detected in athlete's biological sample is nota specified ;.ubstance. The Appellant also underlines that the athlete had not been granted a Therapeutíc Ose l\xemption (TOE), therefore he was guilty ofhaving violated art. 2.2(a) of Law no. 227/2006 (the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in athlete's sample). By rev.ewing the evidences in the file and how the Decision of the Hearing Commission was reasoned, the Appellant does not note in athlete's favor the fact that the presence of a prohibited substa,,ce in athlete's body was due to a medica! prescription and considers very difficult to prove, i11 this case, athlete's no fault or negligence ar athlete's no significant fault or negligence towar::ls how the prohibited substance got into hís body. The Appellant considers as ,.,pplicable the provisions of Law no. 227 /2006, republished and requests to have the athlete sar:uioned with an íneligibility period between 18 rnonths and two years. When reasoníng the requ:ist, the Appellant specities that the requirements concerning reduction of sanction in art. 46 (2) of Law no. 227/2006, republished are not met and invokes 227/05 2011 17:01 0040213115541 /.NI.O #1175 P. 004/011 CAS cases law and art. 1 O of the W ·,r!d Anti-Doping Code, which reads "sanction cannot be completely eliminated on the basis ,:,f No Fault or Negligence when the administration of a prohíbited substance had been (don,::) by the athlete's personal physician or trainer without

completely eliminated on the basis ,:,f No Fault or Negligence when the administration of a prohíbited substance had been (don,::) by the athlete's personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the Athlete, while the al 111etes are responsible for the choice of medica! personnel and for advising medica! personnel th1:t they cannot be given any prohibited substance." The Appellant also underlines the athlete had at hand the chance to use Internet to obtain information conceming the adminis:ered medicine. In Appellant's opinion, the athlete did nothing to make sure the prescribe<'. medication did not contain any compound in the 20 JO Prohibited List and requests: to have ·:he appeal admitted as formulated, to have the Decision no. 1/11.0l.201 1 of the Hearing Commi ssion set aside and to have the athlete sanctioned wíth a period of ineligibility to be set betwe,: n 18 months and two years. Based on the reasons invoked by the Appellant and the evidences administrated in the case, the Appeal Commission takes note ofthe followings: On the JO'h of November, 201 O, the athlete Sobota Kamil Mihail, regístered both to National College "Aurel Vlaicu" and Dinamo Bucharest Sport Club, sport discipline rugby, underwent an out of competition doping testing ordered by the relevant federation (Romanian Rugby Federation). Following this doping contrnl, the athlete's sample with the code no. 1953068A was found positive for 3' -hydroxistano:! olol and 4fi-hydroxistanozolol, metabolítes of stanozolol, substances in the 2010 Prohíbited Lbit. The statements given by the ,:1oaches and the athlete show the athlete was educated with regard to his oblígations related to doping issues. According to the statements dthe Hearing Commission representative and the director of Doping Control Laboratory, the ingc1ited medicine did not influence sport perfonnance and once

The statements given by the ,:1oaches and the athlete show the athlete was educated with regard to his oblígations related to doping issues. According to the statements dthe Hearing Commission representative and the director of Doping Control Laboratory, the ingc1ited medicine did not influence sport perfonnance and once ingested, it could stay in the system I ór two - three months. By reviewing the athlete's atiitude during the doping control process and establishing the athlete's degree of fault, the Appe,.1.l Commission took note of the athlete's good faith, who admitted he used WINSTROL prod:ict from the moment he signed the Not/ficationfor doping testing. By reviewing the evidencei; in the file, it has been establíshed that the above-mentioned medicinet had been prescribed to t'.1e athlete by a medica! doctor to treat the "relapsed right tíbial-tarsían sprain". The athlete's i:tatement that he declined his status of being athlete in front 327/05 2011 17:01 0040273115541 ANAD #1175 P.005/011 of the doctor, corroborated with the fa.::t that, according to the patients' register, it was a common practice for the employees of the ho:,,pital where the athlete was treated not to fil! in the box "profession" of the register, led the ,\ppeal Commission to the conclusion that the use of the prohibited substance was not based or1 the athlete's intention to dope. The athlete's availability for a new doping control during the Appeal Commission's hearing has also led to the conclusion ·egarding the athlete's no significant fault.

The Appeal Commission alsi: • took note that during 24 April - 23 October 201 O, the athlete was suspended for disciplinary reasons by the International Federation of Rugby Amateur European Rugby Association. This drcumstance, corroborated with the fact that, according to the statement of the Doping Control l aboratory' s Director, the Winstrol product did not improve

athlete was suspended for disciplinary reasons by the International Federation of Rugby Amateur European Rugby Association. This drcumstance, corroborated with the fact that, according to the statement of the Doping Control l aboratory' s Director, the Winstrol product did not improve the sport perfom1ances and it only 11creased the effort resistance led tot the conclusion that, during the period when the athlete htak the medicine, the athlete was not in a regular contact with the medica! doctors of the clubs where the athlete was registered, which meant that the idea regarding the use of doping substanc1,s seemed not to be reasoned clearly. Based on the provided evide111Jes in the file, the Appeal Commission appreciates that the athlete has no sígniflcant fault or n1•:gligence in relation to the administration of the Winstrol product, taking into account that, fi-i the moment of ingestion, he was serving a disciplinary ineligibility period and this product was not intended, due to its effects, to influence the sport performance. On the other hand, the Appe,1! Commission should consider the strict liability principie, which also applies to this case. Despite the fact that the effect of this medication can persist in the body for many months, as it is fi:,1pt in the adipose tissue and released more at certain times, the athlete should have manifested an increased vigilance to the effects of the products prescribed to him as wel! as to their ;:,ersistence in time. For this reason, the Appeal Commission took note ofthe athlete's negligenc1: and establishes a sanction of 14 months ineligibility period for the athlete. Pursuant to the provisions ,:.f art. 28 of the Regulation that sets the organization and functioning of the Appeal Commis:1ion, no. 69/2011, with further changes and based on the above-mentioned, the Appeal Comn-,ission, with unanimity ofvotes DECIDES 427/05 2011 17:02 0040273115541 ANAD #1175 P.008/011

above-mentioned, the Appeal Comn-,ission, with unanimity ofvotes DECIDES 427/05 2011 17:02 0040273115541 ANAD #1175 P.008/011 l. Admits partially the appeal suhmitted by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), with the Headquarters in Canada, S,o ck Exchange Tower 800 Victoria Square, Suite 170 0, PO Box 120, Montreal, Quebec, 442 1 B7.

2. Sets aside the Decision no. l/I 1.01.2011 ofthe Hearing Commissionfor athletes and their support personnel who v:'o/ated the anti-doping rules beside A.N.A.D.

3. Sanctions the athlete Sobota Kamil-Mihai, identified with IC KX 750 461, issued by SPCELP Cluj-Napoca, on 07.117.2 010, CNP 1920331125 821 registered to Aurel Vlaicu National Co!lege and Dinamo Bucharest Sport Club with ineligibility from any sport activity for 14 (fourteen) mor.:hs. The sanction begins to run from the date of the current decision. Any suspension peri<ld applied to the athlete befare the coming into force of the present decision will be credit:id against the total suspension period.

4. Ali the results obtained by th, athlete Sobota Kamil Mihail in competitions, starting with November the l 0th, 201 O up t.J the beginning of the applicable inelígibility period will be disqualified, with ali the com,,fiquences resulting, including withdrawal ofmedals, points and pri.zes.

The decision may be appeail,1d to the Court of Arbitration in Sport in Lausanne, in 21 days since the communicatic:'i. Mandatory.

CHAIRPERSON, Carmen TROCAN 527/05 2011 17:02 0040273115541 ANAD

COMISIA DE APEL de pe Hlnga

AGENTIA NATIONALÁ AN'l'l-DOPING

Bucurefiti

Mandatory.

CHAIRPERSON, Carmen TROCAN 527/05 2011 17:02 0040273115541 ANAD

COMISIA DE APEL de pe Hlnga

AGENTIA NATIONALÁ AN'l'l-DOPING

Bucurefiti Dosar nr.25/2010

DE C l Z I E Nr. 2/19,05.2011

Data: 19.05.20 11

Pn•,fiedinte: Carmen TROCAN

Membri: Florín Alín CÁRSTOIU

Ionela TUDOR El1::na Magdalena COST ACHE

Dan OANCEA

Niculae TEODORESCU Georgeta MI$CÁ Sec1:·etar: Gabriela Bicheru #1175 P.007/011 Comisia de Apel, íntrunita 11, fiedin\!í la data de 9.05.201 1, ora 17.30, la sediul Agentiei Nationale Anti-Doping din Bucureri, Bd. Basarabia, nr. 37-39, sector 2, a analiza! contesta¡ia fonnu\ata de Agentia Mondial!í Anti-Doping (WADA), cu sediul 1n Canada, Stock Exchange Tower 800 Victoria Square, Suite 17 00, PO Box 120, Montreal, Quebec, 4421B7, reprezentatl\ prin dr. Fran9ois Kaiser, Place Saint• Franfiois, PO Box 71 91, 1002, Lausanne, Elvetia, ímpotriva Deciziei nr.1/11.01 .2011 a Comis ,fi¡ de audiere a sportivilor fi¡ a personalului asistent al sportivilor care au incl'ilcat regle111entarile anti-doping de pe lilnga ANAD (denumitá in continuare ,,Comisia de audiere"), prin care sportivului Sobota Kamil Mihail, legitimat la

sportivilor care au incl'ilcat regle111entarile anti-doping de pe lilnga ANAD (denumitá in continuare ,,Comisia de audiere"), prin care sportivului Sobota Kamil Mihail, legitimat la Colegiul National "Aurel Vlaicu , fi¡ CS Dinamo Bucurefiti, i-a fost aplicatil. sanctiunea suspendarii de la participarea 1n cacl :·ul oricárei competitii pe o perioada de 1 an, In conformitate cu prevederile art. 36 din Legea rr. 227/2006 privind prevenirea fi¡ combaterea dopajului in sport, republícata, fünd aplicabile pr,:vederile art. 46 (3) din aceefi lege.27/05 2011 17:02 0040213115541 /.NI.O #1175 P. 008/011 La fiedin\a Comisiei de Apel din data de 09.05.2011 a fost prezen\i fi¡ au fost audiati sportivul Sobota Kamil Mihail, identificat cu C.l. seria KX nr. 750461 , eliberat de SPCELP Cluj -Napoca la data 07.07 .20 I O, CNP l 92J33 l 125821, precum fi Gabriela Andreiafiu, reprezentantul Comisiei de audiere conform lmpu: •fimicirii nr. 118/05.05.201 I, fi¡ doamna !leana Vajial!i, directorul Laboratorului de Control Doping. Contestatorul nu a fost prezenil. acesta solicitand solu¡ionarea cai:ului in lipsil. Nemaifünd alte cereri, Comisb de Apel a ramas in pronun\are, pe care a amiinat-o pentru data de 19 .05.2011.

Nemaifünd alte cereri, Comisb de Apel a ramas in pronun\are, pe care a amiinat-o pentru data de 19 .05.2011. Analizand contesta\ia formu, :ata 1mpotriva Deciziei nr. 1/11 .01.201 I a Comisiei de audiere, Comisia de Apel retine urmilwarele: Sunt 1ntrunite condi\iile privind exercitarea dreptului de apel de cAtre contestator. Apelul este formulat 1n termen. in fapt, la data de 16 febr.1 arie 201 1 contestatorul a formulat contesta¡ie 1mpotriva Deciziei nr. 1/11 ianuarie 2011 a Co nisiei de Audiere privind pe sportivul Sobota Kamil Mihail. Contestatorul arat!i cá Sobota Kamil .'\1ihail este rugbyst fi membru al Clubului Sportiv Dinamo Bucuresti, dar nu retine faptul ca s¡,ortívul are dubla legitimare, fiind legitimat fi¡ la Colegiul National "Aurel Vlaicu" Bucuresti; ,imbele c]uburi sunt afilíate la F.R.R ugby. in contesta¡ia sa, contestatonil precizeaza ca substanta ,,stanozolol", depistatá in proba biologica a sportivului, nu este subst11n\a specifica. Subliniazii, totodatii, faptul ca sportivului nu i se acordase o scutire de Uz Terapeutic (SUT), pe cale de consecinti!i acesta f/íOandu-se vinovat de

lncalcarea prevederilor art. 2.2 (a) d ,n Legea nr. 227 /2006 (prezenta unei substante interzise sau a metaboli¡ilor orí markerilor aceste ,a fn proba sportivului). Fata de analiza probelor de la dosar fi¡ a motivarii Deciziei Comisieí de ,\ udiere, contestatorul nu re¡ine Tn favoarea sportívului foptul ca prezen¡a substantei interzise in co::pul sau s-a datorat unei prescrip\ii medicale fi consideri!i cá este foarte greu de demonstrat, 1n spe¡a data, lipsa vinei sau neglijen\eí sau lipsa vinei sau 227/05 2011 17:02 0040213115541 ANAD #1175 P. 008/011 neglijentei sernnificative a sportivulu i fata de rnodul tn care substanta ínterzisa a pátruns in corpul s!lu, Contestatorul considerll ca surt aplicabile prevederile Legii nr. 227/2006, republicata, fi¡ so!icitá sanc¡ionarea sportivului cu f>L1spendare din activitatea sportivll pe o perioada stabilitá lntre 18 Juni fi 2 ani. in motivarea fi1,:estei cereri, contestatorul precizeaza di nu sunt tntrunite conditiile prevazute de art. 46 (2) di11 Legea nr. 227/2006, republicatá, cu privire la rnic$orarea sanc¡iunii fi¡ invoca jurisprudenta Cudi de Arbitraj Sportiv (CAS) fi¡ art. 10 din Codul Mondial Anti-Doping conform caruia "sanctít.1, 1ea nu poate fi cornplet eliminat!I pe baza lipsei vinei sau

sanc¡iunii fi¡ invoca jurisprudenta Cudi de Arbitraj Sportiv (CAS) fi¡ art. 10 din Codul Mondial Anti-Doping conform caruia "sanctít.1, 1ea nu poate fi cornplet eliminat!I pe baza lipsei vinei sau neg!ijentei atunci cil.nd adminístrarea substantei interzíse a fost efectuata de medicul personal al sportivului sau de antrenor, fara ca : portívul sa fitie, sportivíí sunt $i responsabíli de alegerea personalu!ui medica! $Í de aten¡ionarea personalului medica! ca nu trebuie sil. li se dea nício substanta interzislí". Contestatorul rnai subliniaza ci'I sportivul avea la indemil.na posibilitatea de a consulta Internet-u! pentru a se b,forma cu privire la medicamentul administrat. In opinia contestatoruluí, sportivul nu a fil.cut nimic pentru a se asigura ca rnedícatia prescrisa nu contine níciun compus tnscris pe Lista interzi ,¡¡ pe anul 20 10 fi solicita: admiterea contestatieí astfel cum a fost formulara, anul area Deciziei m· 1/11 ianuarie 20 11 a Comisiei de Audíere $Í sanctionarea sportívului cu suspendare din activíta¡ ea sportiva pe o perioadi'I cuprinsa íntre 18 luni fi¡ 2 ani. Fata de motivele invocate c,,e clítre contestator fi de probele adminístrate in cauza, Comísia de Apel retine urmatoarele: La data de 10 noíembrie 2010 sportivul Sobota Kamil Mihail, dublu legitimat la Colegiul

Comísia de Apel retine urmatoarele: La data de 10 noíembrie 2010 sportivul Sobota Kamil Mihail, dublu legitimat la Colegiul Na¡ional "Aurel Vlaicu" fi¡ CS Din.1mo Bucurefiti, disciplína rugby, a fost supus unei testil.ri doping, tn afara competitiei, la coma[da federa¡iei de specialitate (FR Rugby), In urma acestui control, prob,;1 cu codul 1953068A, a sportivul a fost depístatá pozitiv cu 3'-hidroxistanozolol $Í 4P-hidroxistanozolol, metaboliti ai stanozololului, substan¡e atlate pe lista interzisa pe anu 1 201 O. Din declaratiile date de antrer ori fi¡ de sportiv rezulta ca sportivul a fost instruit cu privire la obligatiile ce-i reveneau in ceea ce: privefite dopíngul. Confonn declara\iilor repr,,:zentantuluí Comísiei de audiere fi¡ ale directoruluí Laboratorului de control doping, mt:,,Jicamentul ingerat nu influen¡eazli performan¡a sportiva iar odata ingerat se poate men¡íne Tn organism tímp de 2-3 luní de zi!e. 327/05 2011 17:02 0040213115541 ANAD #1175 P. 010/011 Analifind atitudinea sportivu 'ui pe parcursul organi.:árii fi¡ desfilfiurárii procesului de control doping fi¡ stabilire a gradulu i de vinovátie, Comisia de Apel retine buna credint1\ a sportivului, care a declarat inca din 1T11Jmentul semnárii invitatiei la controlul doping faptul c1\ a

control doping fi¡ stabilire a gradulu i de vinovátie, Comisia de Apel retine buna credint1\ a sportivului, care a declarat inca din 1T11Jmentul semnárii invitatiei la controlul doping faptul c1\ a luat medicamentul ,,Wínstrol". Din 111alíza probelor de la dosar se retine cá medicamentul ln cauza i-a fost prescris sportivului de: un medie pentru diagnosticul ,,entorsa recidivantá tibio­ tarsiana dreapta" . Sustinerea de catrt: sportiv a faptului c1\ el fi"a declinat calítatea de sportiv tn fata medicului, coroborata cu faptul e,\ din consultarea registrului pacientilor rezulta indubitabil ca, Jn mod curent, angaja¡ii unita¡ii ,;pitaliceeyti la care a fost tratat sportivul nu completeaza rubrica intitulata "profesia", conduc, la concluzia Comísiei de Apel ca ingerarea substantei interzise nu are la baza intentia sporti,:ului de a se dopa. Disponibilitatea total!\ a spoi:dvului de a fi supus unui nou test doping la momentul audierii sale tn fata Comísiei de Ap,J, a condus, de asemenea, la conturarea convingerii lipsei unei víni semnificative a sportivului. Comisia de Apel maí retine 1:á, in períoada 24 aprilie - 23 octombrie 2010 , sportivul a fost suspenda! disciplinar de Federatia lnternationalá de Rugby Amator - Asocia¡ia Europeaná de Rugby. Aceasta imprejurare, c,oroborata cu faptul el\, potrivit declaratiei directornlui

fost suspenda! disciplinar de Federatia lnternationalá de Rugby Amator - Asocia¡ia Europeaná de Rugby. Aceasta imprejurare, c,oroborata cu faptul el\, potrivit declaratiei directornlui Laboratorului de control doping, medicamentul ,, Winstrol" nu are ca efect ameliorarea performantelor sportive, ci numai cm¡:terea rezísten¡ei la efort, este de natur!\ a contura concluzia ca sportívul nu se afla, in períoada i"igerarii medicamentuluí, íntr•o comunicare permanent!I cu medicií de la cluburile la care este legitimat, ceea ce face ca ideea de a consuma substante dopante sa apara a nu avea un suport 'iustíficativ ciar. Fa¡l\ de probatoriíle administ: r:ite in cauzá, Comísia de Apel apreciaz!I c!i sportivul nu are o vina sau neglijent!i semnificativa ':n leg!itura cu administrarea medicamentului ,,Wínstrol" tn condi¡iile ln care se afia, la data ingerllrii acestuia, In perioada de suspendare disciplinara iar acest medicament, prín efectele sale, nu era de natura a influenta performanta sportiva. Pe de altll parte, Comisia cL: Apel trebuie sl't tina cont de principiul responsabilitatii stricte, care se aplica fi¡ ín prezenta i:auz!I, cu toate c!i efectul acestui medicament poate persista mai multe luni tn organism, fiind retinut 1n tesutul adipos fi eliberat Jn salturi (conform declaratiei ODC), sportivul ar fi tmbuit sa manifeste o vigi lentll sporita cu privire la efectele

mai multe luni tn organism, fiind retinut 1n tesutul adipos fi eliberat Jn salturi (conform declaratiei ODC), sportivul ar fi tmbuit sa manifeste o vigi lentll sporita cu privire la efectele medicamentelor care i se prescriau p·:ecum $i cu privire la 427/05 2011 17 :0 3 0040213115541 /.NI.O #1175 P 011/011 persistenta ln timp a acestora. Pentr,., acest motiv, Comisia de Apel retine neglijen\a sportivului fi stabile$te ca sanqiune suspendarea 1:.cestuia pe o perioadá de 14 luni. Fata de cele de mai sus, Comisia de Apel, in temeiul prevederilor art. 28 din Regulamentul de organizare fi¡ func\ionare a Comisiei de Apel ru·. 69/2011 , cu modificári, cu unanimitate de voturi

DECIDE :

l. Admite 1n parte contes·,:I¡ia formulatá de catre Agentia Mondiala Anti - Doping (W ADA) cu sediul ín Canada, Stoc/.,: Exchange Tower 800 Victoria Square, Suite 1700, PO Box 120, Montreal, Quebec, 4421 B7

2. Anuleazá Decizia nr. 1/L 1.01.2 011, emisa de Comisia de audiere a sportivilor fi¡ a personalului asisten! al sportivilor care au inciílcat reglementiirile anti-doping, de pe liingií

A.N.A.D.

3. Aplica sportivului Soboti1 Kamil Mihail Sobota Kamil Mihail, identificat cu C.I. seria

KX nr. 750461, eliberat de SPCELP Ciuj-Napoca, la data 07.07.20 10, CNP 1920331 125821 legitimat la Colegiul national "i',urel Vlaicu" fi¡ CS Dinamo Bucurefiti, sanctiunea cu suspendarea din activitatea sportivil pe o perioada de 14 (patrusprezece) luni, cu incepere de la data la intrlirii tn vigoare a prezem:,'.i decizii. Orice perioadii de suspendare aplicatá sportívului ínainte de intrarea ín vigoare a prez,,,ntei Decizii va fi scázutá din perioada totala de suspendare.

4. Toate rezultatele in comp,i:titii ob\inute de sportivul Sobota Kamil Míhail, incepiind cu data de 10 noiembrie 2010 $Í pi,11.1a la ínceperea perioadei de suspendare aplicabilá vor fi descalificate, cu toate consecinteJ:.,fi ce rezultií din aceasta. inclusív retragerea medaliílor, punctelor si premiilor.

Cu drept de atac la Curtea d,: Arbitraj Sportiv de la Lausanne, tn termen de 21 de úle de la comunicare. Obligatorie. Carmen 5