In June 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the judoka Rahul Sevta after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Oxandrolone and Stanozolol.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He could not explain how the substance had entered his system.

He alleged that the source of the prohibited substances were the supplements or food provided by the coaches at the training camp. He further claimed that the meat he consumed in the camp might have been spiked.

The Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substances had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Panel determines that in the camp 9 athletes had been,  tested, of which 3 athletes tested positive. The Athlete himself tested positive for Oxandrolone and Stanozolol, yet the other two athletes for completely other prohibited substances.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate with evidence that the supplements and food in the camp were the source of the prohibited substances. The Panel did not accept his explanations and deems that he had used these substances intentionally.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 21 December 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 June 2023.

In June 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Parathlete Ranjeet Bhati after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that he had used the substance as prescribed medication and that he was unware of the anti-doping rules and prohibited substances.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. He failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Furthermore the Panel considers that the Athlete had not checked this medication, failed to mention this medication on the Doping Control Form, nor made an application for a TUE. Also he did not show with corroborating evidence that he indeed had informed his doctor that was an athlete subjected to doping control.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 9 January 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 June 2023.

In April 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Sanjeet after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance GW1516.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Panel establishes that the Athlete admitted the violation, yet failed to sign and submit the Acceptance of Consequences Form within the set deadline. Further the Panel considers that this is the Athlete's second anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 27 December 2023 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 April 2023.

On 18 March 2023 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Richa Bhadauriya for her evasion of doping control at a competition in August 2022.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI). She requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete denied that she had acted intentionally and stated that she was unaware that she had been selected for sample collection. She explained that at the competition she suffered from her Asthma, left the venue after finishing the race and underwent medical treatment in a hospital.

INADA contended that the Athlete deliberately had evaded doping control. The Agency argued that the Athlete with her Asthma would be unable to perform a 10 km race within 38 minutes.

Furthermore there was no corroborating evidence that she suffered from her Asthma near the finish line. She indeed went to a hospitial, yet not because of her Asthma.

In view of the evidence the Appeal Panel concludes that the Athlete clearly and deliberately had evaded doping control. Also the Panel determines that there were several inconsistencies in the evidence and explanations provided by the Athlete.

Therefore the Appeal Panel decides on 31 January 2024 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal, to uphold the Appealed Decision and to confirm the imposed 4 year period of ineligibility.

On 20 October 2015 the French Orienteering Federation (FFCP) Appeal Panel decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone.

Hereafter the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reopened the case against the Athlete. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that he suffered from Hypogonadisme and an injury after a skiing accident in 2013.

He demonstrated with medical documents that he had used prescribed Testosterone for his condition. He asserted that he was unaware that he had to apply for a TUE.

The AFLD determines that:

• The presence of a prohibited substance has been established;
• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• He underwent legitimate medical treatment for his condition;
• There was a medical justification for the prescribed substance;
• His use of the prescribed medication was consistent with the concentration found in his sample;
• He had already applied and received an approved TUE.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 12 May 2016 to annul the FFCP Appeal Decision and for the acquittal of the Athlete.

In January 2016 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Canrenone, Metandienone, Oxandrolone and Stanozolol. Following notification the Athlete failed to file a statement in her defence.

The AFLD determines that:

• The presence of the prohibited substances have been established in the Athlete's sample;
• She committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• She acted intentionally.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 21 April 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In January 2016 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Canrenone and Furosemide. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that she had used these substances for her appearance in bodybuilding. She asserted that she was unaware that these products were prohibited in sports.

The AFLD determines that:

• The presence of prohibited substance have been established in the Athlete's sample;
• She committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• She admitted the use of these substances;
• She acted with significant negligence.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 21 April 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In October 2015 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Ecuadorian Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete did not file a statement in his defence, nor did he attend the AFLD hearing.

The AFLD determines that

• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• He failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional;
• The violation is deemed to be committed intentionally.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 21 April 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 March 2016.

Related cases:

• AFLD 2008 FFJDA vs Respondent M29
  April 17, 2008
• AFLD 2015 FFJDA vs Respondent M42
  September 10, 2015

In December 2014 the French Federation for Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo and Associated Disciplines (FFJDA), reported a second anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for three whereabouts filing failures within a 12 month period.

After notification and a provisional suspension the FFJDA decided on 5 February 2015 to impose a 10 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Hereafter the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reopened the cases against the Athlete. .

Consequently the AFLD decided on 10 september 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Athlete appealed and on 15 April 2016 the French Council of State (Conseil d'État) decided to impose a reduced 1 year period of ineligibility.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 21 April 2016 to reform its decision of 10 September 2015 and to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In January 2016 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder after his sample tested positive for multiple prohibited substances:

• Canrenone;
• Clenbuterol;
• Oxymetholone;
• Stanozolol;
• Trenbolone.

Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substances. He alleged that he had used these products to recover from an injury because his prescribed medication had no effect on his injury.

The AFLD determindes that:

• The Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• He admitted the use of these substances;
• The substances were used intentionally.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 24 April 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.