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 17 November 2015 the French Federation of Workers and Amateurs in Sports (FSGT) Appeal Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the cyclist after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

Thereupon the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reopened the case against the Athlete. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and asserted that his prostate cancer could explain the positive test results. Further he disputed the bad conditions for sample collection at the competititon and insisted that his B sample should be analysed in another accredited laboratory.

The AFLD determines that:

• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• He failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that his medical condition could explain the positive test results;
• Only intentional use could explain the high concentration Nandrolone metabolites established in his samples; 
• The circumstances at the competition were approprate enough for sample collection;
• Under the Rules the A and B samples must be analysed in the same laboratory.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 3 February 2016:

• To uphold the FSGT Appeal Panel decision for the imposition of a 2 year ban on the Athlete; and
• To extend the sanction for application with other relevant French sports federations.

In August 2015 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Prednisolone and Prednisone. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substances. She explained with evidence that she underwent medical treatment for her Asthma and that she had used Solupred tablets (Prednisone) prescribed by her doctor.

The AFLD determines that:

• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• She underwent legitimate medical treatment for her condition;
• There was a medical justification for the prescribed substance;
• Her use of the prescribed medication was consistent with the concentration found in her sample;

Therefore the AFLD decides on 3 February 2016 for the acquittal of the Athlete.

On 25 August 2015 the French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (FFHMFAC) Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Clenbuterol and Stanozolol. 

Thereupon the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reopened the case against the Athlete. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and claimed that was the victim of sabotage of his water bottle. Further he alleged that his rights had been violationed due to he was not notified about the postive test in July 2015.

The AFLD determines that:

• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• He failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that he was the victim of sabotage;
• He was duly notified about the positive test in July 2015;
• Oral ingestion of Stanozolol with water is immiscible;
• Use of both substances potentiate their enhancing effects.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 3 February 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the notification, i.e. on 8 July 2015.

On 21 September 2015 the French Federation for Public Physical Education (UFOLEP) Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a warning on the cyclist after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Tuaminoheptane.

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 with evidence that he underwent medical treatment for his virus infection and that he had used Rhinofluimucil spray (Tuaminoheptane)  prescribed by his doctor.

The AFLD determines that:

• 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;

Therefore the AFLD decides on 3 February 2016 to annul the UFOLEP Decision and for the acquittal of the Athlete.

On 21 November 2015 the French Federation for Public Physical Education (UFOLEP) Appeal Panel decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the cyclist after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Betamethasone.

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 with evidence that he underwent medical treatment for his dental infenction and that he had used Célestène (Betamethasone) tablets prescribed by his dentist.

The AFLD determines that:

• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• He underwent legitimate medical treatment for his dental infection;
• There was a medical justification for the prescribed substance;
• He mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form;
• His use of the prescribed medication was consistent with the concentration found in his sample;

Therefore the AFLD decides on 3 February 2016 to annul the UFOLEP Appeal Decision and for the acquittal of the Athlete.

In April and in May 2015 the French Athletics Federation (FFA) reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete after his samples, collected in March and in April 2015, tested positive for the prohibited substance Roxadustat (FG-4592).

Hereafter on 28 May 2015 and on 1 July 2015 the FFA Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a fine and a total of 4 years on the Athlete. Thereupon the case was referred to French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) to consider further consequences. 

The AFLD determines that:

• The Athlete had committed two anti-doping rule violations;
• The Athlete had admitted the intentional use of the substance.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 3 February 2016:

• to uphold the FFA decision for the imposition a sanction of 4 years on the Athlete;
• to report the decision and extend the sanction to the National and International Sports Federations.

On 26 June 2015 the French Federation for Kick Boxing, Muay Thai and Associated Disciplines (FFKMDA) Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the kickboxer after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Boldenone.

Thereupon the FFKMDA Appeal Panel failed to render timely a decision and the case was referred to French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance and requested for annulment of the case. He claimed that he was unaware that the supplements he had used to recover from an injury contained Boldenone.

Further the Athlete claimed that several irregularities had occurred during the Doping Control. He asserted that these failures would invalidate the entire sample collection.

The AFLD determines that:

• The Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and the test results were undisputed;
• Following notification and sample collection the Athlete had signed the Doping Control Form;
• The sample collection was valid and the Doping Control Officer in question was competent;
• The Athlete acted with significant fault or negligence because he failed to check his supplements;
• He ignored his doctor's instructions and attempted to quicken his recovery.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 21 January 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 May 2015.

On 3 October 2015 the French Squash Federation (FFSQ) Appeal Panel decided to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after she tested positive for the prohibited substances Prednisolone and Prednisone.

Hereafter the case against the Athlete was reopened by the AFLD. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substances. She explained with medical documents that she had use Solupred (Prednisolone) as treatment for her pain.

The AFLD determines that:

• The Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• She acted with significant fault or negligence because she failed to check her medication;
• She failed to demonstrate a medical justification, nor that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 21 January 2016 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision notification .