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.
CAS 2016/A/4475 World Rugby v. Luke Willmott & Rugby Football Union
CAS 2016/A/4503 WADA v. Luke Willmott & Rugby Football Union
Related case:
UKAD 2015 Luke Willmott vs UKAD – Appeal
January 11, 2016
In June 2013, UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) received notification that the International Crime Team had seized a parcel addressed to the Athlete containing vials labelled Jintopirn (Human Growth Hormone, hGH). However analysis of the substance in the vials showed they did not contain hGH. The Athlete was interviewed by UKAD one year later in July 2014 and hereafter charged for attempted trafficking.
On 2 June 2015 the RFU Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 5 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension. The Athlete appealed and on 11 january 2011 the RFU Appeal Panel decided to reduce the sanction and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 1 April 2014.
Hereafter in February and in March 2016 both World Rugby and WADA appealed the decision of the RFU Appeal Panel with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
World Rugby and WADA requested the Panel to set aside the decision of 11 January 2016 of the RFU Appeal Panel and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
After deliberations between the parties they informed CAS on 21 October 2016 that they had reached a Settlement Agreement and requested the Panel to ratify and incorporate the portion of the Settlement Agreement into a Consent Award.
Each of the parties agrees that:
1.) The decision on sanction (points 4.1.2. and 4.1.3. of the operative part of the Appeal Panel Decision) rendered by the Appeal Panel of the Rugby Football Union on 11 January 2016 is set aside.
2.) Mr Luke Willmott is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four years.
3.) The period of ineligibility shall commence on 15 August 2013, such that, for the avoidance of doubt, Mr Luke Willmott shall be entitled to return to training on 15 June 2017, and to competition on 15 August 2017.
4.) The remaining findings set out in the operative part of the Appeal Panel Decision remain in full force and effect.
5.) The costs of arbitration to be determined by the CAS Court Office shall be borne by World Rugby, the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Rugby Football Union in equal shares.
6.) The Parties shall each bear their own legal fees or other expenses incurred in connection with the CAS Appeal.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) renders on 20 January 2017:
1.) The Panel, with the consent of World Rugby, World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), Luke Willmott and Rugby Football Union, hereby ratify the relevant portion of the Settlement Agreement executed by the parties on 20 and 21 October 2016 (see Paragraph 36 of the present award) and incorporates its terms into this consent arbitral award.
2.) The arbitral procedures CAS 2016/A/4475 World Rugbyv Luke Willmott & Rugby Football Union and CAS 2016/A/4503 WADA v Luke Willmott & Rugby Football Union are terminated and deleted from the CAS roll.
3.) Each party is hereby ordered to perform the obligations and duties as per the Settlement Agreement referred to above.
4.) As per clause 5 of the Settlement Agreement signed on 20 and 21 October 2016, the costs of the arbitration, which shall be determined and separately communicated to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be paid by World Rugby, the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Rugby Football Union in equal shares.
5.) As per clause 6 of the Settlement Agreement signed on 20 and 21 October 2016, each party shall bear its/ his own legal costs and expenses.
6.) All other requests or prayers for relief are rejected.
iNADO Quarterly Report 1/2017 / Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2017
(See attached pdf-file for more information)
This communication goes to iNADO’s 67 Members.
iNADO is happy to answer any questions on your Institute’s activities.
Please send your questions to info@inado.org
Contents:
- New members
- New iNADO Partnerships
- iNADO Attendance at Anti-Doping Conferences/Meetings
- iNADO Workshop
- iNADO AGM
- NADOs visited
- NADOs Webinars
- NADOs Board Meetings
- iNADO Public Statements
- iNADO Finances
- iNADO Updates
- iNADO Member Communications
- Added Documents on iNADO Website
- Other iNADO Projects and Activities
In December 2016 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance higenamine.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand.
The Athlete gave a prompt admission about the violation, stated that he had used out-of-competition the supplement ‘The One 2.0.' purchased in Australia and showed that the prohibited substance higenamine wasn’t mentioned on the label of the supplement.
DFSNZ accepted that the Athlete’s violation was non intentional and that the supplement was contaminated as definied under the Rules establishing that his fault was not significant. Considering the circumstances in this case DFSNZ proposed a 9 month period of ineligibility.
After an adjournment requested by the parties in April 2017 a joint memorandum was filed on behalf of DFSNZ and the Athlete.
The Sports Tribunal of New Zealand considers the joint memorandum to be fair and decides on 3 May 2017 to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 22 September 2016.
