In July 2023 NADO Flanders reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Dutch kickboxer after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide. 

Following notification the Athlete did not accept the sanction proposed by NADO Flanders. Thereupon he was heard for the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission.

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. However he could not explain the source of the substance and he assumed that there had been een mix-up of medication belonging to him and his mother.

The Commission 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.

The Commission did not accept the Athlete's explanation and regards that he probably had used the substance in order to reduce his weight. Consequently the Commision deems that he failed to demonstrate how the substance had entered his system, nor grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 12 December 2023 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne partially by the Athlete.

Related case:

SAIDS 2023-09 SAIDS vs Tebogo Tsotetsi
August 15, 2023

On 15 August 2023 the Anti-Doping Tribunal Hearing Panel decided to impose a 20 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete Tebogo Tsotetsi after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Salbutamol.

In First Instance the Panel accepted that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and deemed that she had acted negligently with grounds for a reduced sanction.

Hereafter in September 2023 the Athlete appealed the Decision of the Hearing Panel. The Athlete requested the Appeal Board to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a further reduced sanction.

The Athlete admitted the violation and explained that she was unaware that the cough syrup she had used for her illness contained Salbutamol. She asserted the she acted not intentional due to ignorance as a recreational athlete who had never received anti-doping education.

Although the violation was not intentional SAIDS contended that the Athlete acted negligently with her self-medication that clearly contained a prohibited substance. Further SAIDS rejected that she is a recreational athlete because of her participation in large marathons finishing in the top percentiles.

Following assessment of the Athlete's conduct with her self-medication the Appeal Board determines that the Athlete had acted with a degree of negligence and that there were no grounds to reduce the imposed sanction.

Therefore the Appeal Board decides on 12 December 2023 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision and the sanction of 20 months.

Related case:

ADAK 2019 ADAK vs James Mwangi Wangari
September 23, 2020

23 September 2020 the Kenyan Sports Disputes Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete James Mwangi Wangari after his sample tested posive for the prohibted substance Testosterone.

Hereafter in December 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported a new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the World Athletitcs Disciplinary Tribunal.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He alleged that a contaminated supplement had caused the positive test result and that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

He asserted that without success he made diligent attempts to establish the source of the prohibited substance. Because of the costs he was also unable to request analysis of his B sample.

World Athletics contended that the Athlete had committed a second anti-doping rule violation and failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. Because of the high concentration established in the sample his violation is deemed to be intentional.

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

The Sole Arbitrator considers that there is no corroborating evidence about the contamination theorie. Moreover the Sole Arbitrator agrees that the high concentration found in the Athlete's sample can only be consistent with the administration of a Nandrolone injection.

Therefore the Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 7 December 2023 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 21 December 2022.

In October 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Fouad Idbafdil after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

Following notification the Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU. 

Because he had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form he received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 6 December 2023 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 October 2023.

iNADO Update (2023) 11/12 (6 December)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

Building a Sportive Community

• Welcome Indonesia
• Invitation to Participate in Code Review Feedback and Discussions
• 2024 iNADO Annual General Assembly and Workshop
• ADAMS Group

Improving Practice Everywhere

• iNADO Webinar: Evaluation of the Effectiveness of ADO EPO Programmes Lessons learned and Q&A
• Summary and Recording: AFLD Handling of sunbstances of abuse in results management Recording and summary
• e-Library new material

Speaking up for NADOs and RADOs Globally

• Remarkable contribution during the 19th Asian Games in Hangzhou

Guiding Principles

• iNADO invites the Anti-doping community to sign the Declaration on Guiding Principles

Monthly Features

• Goodbye Janka and Ilayda
• Welcome to the team Alex
• New CEOs Malta and India
• Joseph de Pencier Condolences Book

iNADO Sponsors and Partners

• Berlinger Special AG celebrates 30 Years of commitment to sports integrity

In June 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the wrestler Pooja Dhanda. INADA contended the Athlete had 3 Whereabouts Failures within a 12 month period:

• a Filing Failure for July-September 2022;
• a Filing Failure October-December 2022; and 
• a Filing Failure / Missed Test on 21 December 2022.

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

The Athlete denied the charges and requested for a reduced sanction. She asserted that she timely had submitted her Whereabouts for Q4-2022. 

She acknowledged the Missed Test on 21 December 2022. Nevertheless she was available for sample collection and alternatively on the same day she provided a sample.

The Athlete claimed that there had been substantial delays in the notification of her Whereabouts Failures. Further she alleged that she was hampered by technical problems when she attempted to enter her Whereabouts in ADAMS.

The Panel finds that 3 Whereabouts Failures had been established and accordingly that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel deems that she acted with a light degree of fault.

Therefore the ADDPI decided on 5 December 2023 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the dat of the Provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 June 2023.

In November 2022 the South American Sports Organization (ODESUR) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Bolivian Athlete Basco Mamani after his sample, provided during 2022 South America Games, tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol.

As a result on 30 March 2023 ODESUR ruled that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. Hereafter the case was referred to the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) to consider consequences to be imposed on the Athlete.

Following notification in July 2023 a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that in October 2022 he suffered from a cold and consulted a doctor when his condition deteriorated.

Thereupon he receiveid from the pharmacy the wrong medication Ambroterol instead of the prescribed Ambroxol. He claimed that when he contacted the pharmacy and his doctor he was told that both medications had the same composition and were valid, although both people lacked doping knowledge.

The Athlete acknowledged that he had not checked his medication before using, nor mentioned his medication to his sport doctors at the Games when he received further medical treatment. Because he was so sick at the Games he also failed to mention properly all his medication on the Doping Control Form.

The AIU contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Furthermore the AIU deemed that the Athlete was not credible because of several inconsistencies in his conduct, his evidence and his testimonies.

In view of the evidence the Panel concludes that the Athlete had demonstrated how the prohibited substance had entered his system. Yet, he failed to establish that the violation was not intentional.

The Panel determines that without any precautions the Athlete clearly had acted recklessly with his medication. He failed to check the ingredients of the mediation with anyone, not even with his sports doctor, neither did he even look at the label of the medication.

Therefore the Panel decides on 5 December 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 July 2023.

In September 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian Athlete Ahmed Abdelwahed after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance, he argued that the concentration in his sample was very low, and he assumed that his supplements through biotransformation had caused the positive test. However analysis in a laboratory of his supplements and hair did not reveal the presence of Meldonium.

The AIU contended that the presence of a prohibited substance properly had been established in the Athlete's sample and that the B sample had confirmed the A sample. There is no evidence of supplement contamination and the AIU rejected the Athlete's alleged biotransformation theory.

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence of the parties and their expert witnesses and determines that:

• The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly he committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• The Athlete failed to produce convincing evidence about the biotransformation theory.
• The Athlete failed to demonstrate that he acted with No Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the Panel decides on 5 December 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 September 2023.

On 5 April 2023 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the football player Viknesh after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Terbutaline.

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

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that he had used a prescribed cough syrup while he was unaware that it contained Terbutaline.

The Appeal Panel confirms that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and could not demonstrate how the substance had entered his system. He failed to apply for a TUE, nor mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form.

The Appeal Panel deems that he acted negligently and could not establish with evidence that the medication he had used contained Terbutaline. Considering a provisional suspension had not been accepted by the Athlete the Panel modifies the starting date of the sanction.

Therefore the ADAPI Panel decides on 2 December 2023 to uphold the Appealed Decision and to set the starting date of the sanction on the date of the decision, i.e. on 5 April 2023.

Related case:

ADAK 2021 ADAK vs Samuel Lomoi
January 6, 2023

On 6 January 2023 the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal ruled that the Athlete Samuel Lomoi had committed an anti-doping rule violation after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Triamcinolone acetonide.

Accordingly the Panel decided in first instance to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 12 September 2021.

Hereafter in June 2023 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) appealed the decision of the Tribunal with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel. ADAK requested the Appeal Panel to modify the Appealed Decision regarding the commencement of the Athlete's period of ineligibility.

Following investigations ADAK had recently established that the Athlete during the provisional suspension and during the current sanction had participated in 3 competitions. ADAK contended that pending the findings of their investigations into the Athlete's conduct it had been unable to timely file and appeal within the set deadline of 21 days.

ADAK acknowledged that the appeal was filed 123 days after the Tribunal had rendered its decision. ADAK denied that the delay in filing the appeal was not due to carelessness, yet merely caused by the time to conduct a proper investigation into the Athlete.

The Athlete argued that ADAK under the Rules had failed to file an appeal timely within the set time period and accordingly its appeal must be deemed inadmissible.

The Appeal Panel considered ADAK's contentions and concludes that the appeal was filed too late without sufficient grounds for admitting an appeal out of time. By contrast the  Appeal Panel determines that when new evidence has surfaced a party is allowed to file an application for review.

Nevertheless the Appeal Panel decides on 28 November 2023 that ADAK's appeal is dismissed because it was filed too late.