In July 2015 the International Federation of Rowing Associations (FISA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Abdel Mohsen Massoud after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.

After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he did not attend the hearing of the FISA Doping Hearing Panel. The National Federation confirmed that the Athlete cannot read or write so they translated the questions to the Athlete and answered them in English.

The Athlete stated that he is a lightweight rower and that during Ramadan he wasn’t losing the weight he wished to. He bought the medication, Lasix, on the advice of someone in a gym. He thought that a medication used to lose water from the body would not be considered as doping so he did not ask the pharmacist or the doctor as he normally does when he takes medication when he is ill.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete did not take the medication following notification of the out of competition anti-doping test and that he took the medication as noted in his statement.
Considering the Athlete’s degree of fault the FISA Doping Hearing Panel decides on 3 September 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

In August 2014 the International Federation of Rowing Associations (FISA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Nikael Bikua-Mfantse after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance trimetazidine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete submitted the FISA questionnaire with medical evidence in his defence and he waived his right to be heard.

The Athlete submitted that at the time he used the medication Preductal prescribed by his cardiologists on several occasions since 2010 for a condition described as myocarditis, and later for other heart conditions. He mentioned his medication on the doping control form and he was sure that it was not a banned substance.

The FISA Panel accepts that the medication was not intended to enhance performance due to the evidence that it was prescribed for a particular medical condition and mentioned on the Doping Control Form. The substance was not banned before 2014 and it was prescribed for him since 2010. He failed to apply for a TUE when the substance became prohibited in 2014.

Considering the Athlete’s degree of fault and his legitimate medical treatment the FISA Doping Hearing Panel decides on 15 December 2014 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 8 June 2014.

On 8 July 2012 the Hearing Panel of the Brazillian Rowing Confederation (CBR) decided to impose a 6 month period on the minor Athlete Gabriella Eduarda Cardozo de Almeida Salles after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances hydrochlorothiazide and chlorothiazide.

Hereafter the FISA Doping Hearing Panel reviewed the national cases and decided to reopen this case.

In the Decision of 8 July 2012, the CBR Panel found that the prohibited substances could have been the result of supplement contamination. The CBR Panel also agreed with the Athlete’s arguments that as she was not competing at the time of testing, and it was not just before a planned competition then she would not have used the banned substances as masking agents. Based on these arguments, the sanction was reduced from 2 years to six months.

Considering the Athlete’s explanations the FISA Panel finds that the Athlete only speculates on a way that the substance could have entered her body. No evidence was presented which established how the substance hydrochlorothiazide or chlorothiazide came to be in her body.

The Athlete failed to provide in her first written submission or in the Final Plea the name of the supplement which could be at fault and has not shown through analysis that any of the supplements she did take were contaminated or how any particular supplement could have been contaminated at the place of manufacture.

The FISA Panel concludes that the Athlete’s explanations relating to no fault or negligence are not sufficient and that the Athlete did not establish the basis for reducing the sanction from 2 years.
Therefore the FISA Doping Hearing Panel decides in February 2013 to impose 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the original suspension, i.e. on 7 June 2012.

Related case:
UKAD 2015 RFL vs Ross Bevan
May 27, 2015

On 27 May 2015 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Ross Bevan after his sample tested positive for the prohibited susbstance drostanolon. During the period of ineligiblility the Athlete remained subject to testing.

In October 2016 UKAD reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for his refusing, without compelling justification, to submit to sample collection after notification.

In September 2016 at his house the Athlete refused to provide a sample and to sign a Doping Control Form after he had told the UKAD Doping Control Officer (DCO) that he had to take his sick child to his mother’s house and the DCO had confirmed that he was unable to return the following day.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. The Athlete at first denied the charge against him but in November 2016 the Athlete admitted the violation and he wanted to seek a reduction of the period of ineligibility.

UKAD considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission and that he committed a second anti-doping rule violation as significant serious breach of his responsibilities. UKAD does not accept the Athlete’s circumstances as exceptional but acknowledged that his refusal to provide a sample is explicable.

Therefore UKAD decides on 16 December 2016 to grant a reduction of the sanction and to impose a 7 year and 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 October 2016.

UKAD 2016 UKAD vs Shila Panjavi
March 2, 2017

In July 2016 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Shila Panjavi after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that she had acquired approximately 100 free samples of supplements and she ingested approximately 20 of those supplements. She also acquired vitamin B and vitamin E vials from Iran when she visited and she injected herself with these vitamins. She stated that previously on her trip in Iran in 2015 she suffered from a foot swelling which was treated by a local Kurdish doctor with prescribed stanozolol. In April 2016, two months before the sample collection, she suffered again in Iran from a foot swelling. Assisted by her father to translate she revisited the Kurdish doctor and the same medication was prescribed. Here she realized that stanozolol was prescribed and that it was a prohibited substance.

However Professor Cowan of the WADA accredited laboratory in London stated that the Athlete’s explanation is not consistent with the test results from her samples collected in June 2016.
Apart from Prof. Cowan’s evidence the Panel is not satisfied that the Athlete’s explanation was true and it leads the Panel to reject the Athlete’s explanantion for the presence of stanozolol in her system.

In addition UKAD reported that during the provisional suspension the Athlete was training in the weightling club owned by her father. The Panel considered the evidence in this matter and concludes, by a small margin, that the allegation of the Athlete’s breach of the provisional suspension is not proved.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 2 March 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 July 2016.

In October 2016 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Michael Ellerton after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances prednisolone and prednisone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission and explained the presence of prednisolone and prednisone to his oral ingestion of the medication of a friend in order to treat mouth ulcers. He used the medication without undertaking any research into its ingredients or any further checks. He stated that he had ingested the medication around five days before the Event and provided details of his dosage. UKAD obtained scientific evidence that corroborated the timing and dosage of the Athlete’s ingestion of his friend’s medication.

UKAD accepted that the Athlete has not acted intentionally and invited the Athlete to apply for a retroactive TUE. The TUE Committee rejected in November 2016 the application due to the fact that the Athlete had self-medicated using another person’s prescription medication.

Without a valid TUE UKAD considers the Athlete’s prompt admission and degree of fault in this case and decides on 24 February 2017 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 11 September 2016.

In October 2016 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Chinu Sandhu after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete did not challenge the test results and stated that the probable source of the prohibited substance is the supplement Myprotein he had used. He mentioned the supplement on the Doping Control Form and had researched the product on the internet before using. Because of the cost the Athlete did not conduct tests of the supplements nor offered these to UKAD to conduct these tests.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete has not proved to their comfortable satisfaction that the violation was unintentional because he did not establish that the prohibited substance entered his system through using a supplement from an apparently reputable supplier which turned out to be contaminated.

Therefore National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 27 February 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 October 2016.

In April 2016 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ishmael Grech after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel of Malta.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that the substance was used two days before the competition when he was out for drinks with his friends. He asserted that after some amounts of alcohol he had used cocaine without intention to enhance his performance.

The Panel accepts the Athlete’s explanation and that the violation wasn’t intentional. Considering the circumstances the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 27 July 2016 to impose a 1 year and 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 29 April 2016.

Related cases:

• NADDP 2016 National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta vs Charlton Abela
  March 24, 2016
• NADDP 2020 ADC vs Charlton Abela
  January 25, 2021

On 24 March 2016 the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Charlton Abela after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the NADDP decision of 24 March 2016 with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of Malta. The Athlete disputed the Appealed Decision on several grounds and requested for a reduced sanction.

Considering the test results the Appeal Panel has no doubt that the Athlete committed an anti-doping violation. The Panel finds that the Athlete failed to explain the presence of the substance in his system nor did he produce evidence that the substance was ingested unintentionally.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Appeal Commission of Malta decided on 31 August 2016 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the imposed 4 year period of ineligibility, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 November 2015.

Related cases:

• NADAP 2016 Charlton Abela vs National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta - Appeal
  August 31, 2016
• NADDP 2020 ADC vs Charlton Abela
  January 25, 2021

In October 2015 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Charlton Abela after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta.

The Athlete denied the use of cocaine and stated that he only had used an over the counter medication for tooth-aching and argued that the sample container wasn’t properly sealed during the sample collection procedure.

The Panel deems that the sample collection procedure, the chain of custody and the test results were valid whereas the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 24 March 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.