Jaresbericht 2013 / Natonale Anti-Doping Agentur Austria (NADA Austria). - Wien : NADA Austria, 2014
Contents:
I. NADA Austria
I.1 Vision
I.2 Mission
I.3 Qualitätsmanagement
I.4 Kommissionen
I.5 Mitarbeiter
I.6 Nationale und Internationale Kooperationen
II. Dopingkontroll-System
II.1 Dopingkontrollen
II.2 Medizin
II.3 Recht
III. Prävention
III.1 Print
III.2 Online
III.3 On-Site
Jaresbericht 2012 / Natonale Anti-Doping Agentur Austria (NADA Austria). - Wien : NADA Austria, 2013
Contents:
I. NADA Austria
I.1 Vision
I.2 Mission
I.3 Qualitätsmanagement
I.4 Kommissionen
I.5 Mitarbeiter
I.6 Nationale und Internationale Kooperationen
II. Dopingkontroll-System
II.1 Dopingkontrollen
II.2 Medizin
II.3 Recht
III. Prävention
III.1 Print
III.2 Online
III.3 On-Site
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority 2015-16 annual report / Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA). - Canberra : ASADA, 2016
Contents:
01 OVERVIEW
02 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STATEMENT
03 OUR OPERATIONS
04 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
05 FINANCIAL INFORMATION
06 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
07 ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATION PANEL
08 AUSTRALIAN SPORTS DRUG MEDICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
09 APPENDIXES
10 ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY
11 INDEXES
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority 2014:15 annual report / Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA). - Canberra : ASADA, 2015
Contents:
01: OVERVIEW
02: PERFORMANCE REPORTING
03: MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
04: FINANCIAL INFORMATION
05: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
06: ASADA ADVISORY GROUP
07: ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATION PANEL
08: AUSTRALIAN SPORTS DRUG MEDICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
09: APPENDIXES 165
10: ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY
11: INDEXES
In April 2017 the National Anti-Doping Organisation Flanders (NADO Flanders) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Dutch football player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold (1014 mg/ml). After notification the Person filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission.
The Person admitted he had smoked joints and NADO Flanders accepted that the use of cannabis was non intentional and that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence.
Considering the test results the Commission concludes that the Person is a long term cannabis user and that the use was not intentional. With No Significant Fault the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 27 June 2017 to impose a € 1.000,- fine and a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on the date of the decision.
Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne by the Person.
In February 2017 the English Football Association (FA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the player Patrick Lacey after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the FA Regulatory Commission.
The Athlete admitted the violation and demonstrated with evidence from expert witnesses that he suffered from depressions over a period of 4 years and used alcohol and cocaine to cope with this problem. He stated that in November 2016 after a match, two days before the sample collection, he went out in the evening with friends, had consumed alcohol until the next day and had used cocaine.
The Regulatory Commission accepts the evidence of the expert witnesses about the Athlete’s cognitive impairment and finds that the Athlete established how the substance entered his system and that het violation was non intentional.
Considering No Significant Fault or Negligence in this case the FA Regulatory Commission decides on 10 May 2017 to impose a 14 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 December 2016.
In October 2016 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Drew Priday after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance metenolone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete gave a prompt admission of the violation and filed a statement in his defence.
The Athlete stated that he had used a purchased product Parabolon 100 as recommended by a friend and he injected the substance on separate occasions for a total of three weeks without intention to enhance his sport performance.
However the analysis report of the product Parabolon 100 showed that it contained the prohibited substance trenbolone and not the substance metenolone.
UKAD rejected the Athlete’s explanation about how the prohibited substance entered his system and that the violation was not intentional.
Considering the Athlete’s prompt admission UKAD decides on 21 April 2017 to impose a 3 year and 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 October 2016.
Related case:
NADO Flanders 2016-024 Joe Fournier vs NADO Flanders - Appeal
On 30 March 2017 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) published the original appeal decision of the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Council about the Athlete Joe Fournier and its translation of the decision on the UKAD website.
On 6 December 2016 the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a € 4000,- fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Britsh boxer after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance sibutramine.
Hereafter the Athlete appealed the decision of 6 December 2016 with the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Council. The Athlete filed several objections in his defence against the previous decision and he was heard for the Disciplinary Council.
At first the Athlete challenged the validity of the test results but pending the appeal he accepted these results.
Instead the Athlete could produce evidence demonstrating that the prohibited substance entered his system due to the dietary supplement ‘Perferct Shape’. The supplement in this matter was used out-of-competition and mentioned on the Doping Control Form as recommended and provided by his trainer. The filed analysis reports of the this supplement showed that the was contaminated and the presence of the substance sibutramine wasn’t mentioned as ingredient on the label of the product.
On the basis of the new evidence the Disciplinary Council finds that the Athlete has established that the prohibited substance entered his system through the use of the contaminated supplement.
Considering the Athlete’s degree of fault in this case and without intention to enhance sport performance the Disciplinary Council concludes that there are grounds for a reduced sanction.
Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Council decides to partially reform the decision of the Disciplinary Commission of 6 December 2016 and to reduce the imposed sanction of 4 years to a 18 month period of ineligibility starting on 6 December 2016.
Fees and expenses for this Council shall be borne partially by the Athlete.
Related case:
NADO Flanders 2016-024 Joe Fournier vs NADO Flanders - Appeal (Translation UKAD)
March 3, 2017
On 6 December 2016 the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a € 4000,- fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Britsh boxer after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance sibutramine.
Hereafter the Athlete appealed the decision of 6 December 2016 with the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Council. The Athlete filed several objections in his defence against the previous decision and he was heard for the Disciplinary Council.
At first the Athlete challenged the validity of the test results but pending the appeal he accepted these results.
Instead the Athlete could produce evidence demonstrating that the prohibited substance entered his system due to the dietary supplement ‘Perfect Shape’. The supplement in this matter was used out-of-competition and mentioned on the Doping Control Form as recommended and provided by his trainer. The filed analysis reports of the this supplement showed that the was contaminated and the presence of the substance sibutramine wasn’t mentioned as ingredient on the label of the product.
On the basis of the new evidence the Disciplinary Council finds that the Athlete has established that the prohibited substance entered his system through the use of the contaminated supplement.
Considering the Athlete’s degree of fault in this case and without intention to enhance sport performance the Disciplinary Council concludes that there are grounds for a reduced sanction.
Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Council decides to partially reform the decision of the Disciplinary Commission of 6 December 2016 and to reduce the imposed sanction of 4 years to a 18 month period of ineligibility starting on 6 December 2016.
Fees and expenses for this Council shall be borne partially by the Athlete.
On 30 March 2017 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) published the original appeal decision of the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Council about the Athlete Joe Fournier and its translation of the decision on the UKAD website.
Related case:
CAS 2017_A_5296 WADA vs Gil Roberts
January 25, 2018
In March 2017 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Gil Roberts after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance probenecid.
After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the for the Commercial Arbitration Tribunal of the American Arbitration Association.
The Athlete produced the test results from the BSCG Laboratory indicating that a “Moxylong” capsule had been tested which contained probenecid. The Athlete explained that he believed the positive test results for Probenecid resulted from kissing his girlfriend who had recently ingested Moxylong capsules sublingually immediately before he kissed her and shortly before his out-of-competition doping control.
Considering the statements and evidence the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete has met his burden in establishing how the prohibited substance entered his system and that the athlete did not know or suspect and could not have reasonably known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution that he had ingested a prohibited substance.
Therefore the AAA Tribunal decides on 20 June 2017 that the Athlete is without fault in this matter, without disqualification of his results and is he immediately eligible to compete in sporting events.
