In October 2015 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Gordon Dimitri after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances nandrolone, drostanolone and cocaine. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he has used at the gym the substances nandrolone and drostanlone about 2 months prior to the competition where he was tested and without intention to enhance his performance for the Regatta. He did not admit the use of cocaine.

The Panel did not accept the Athlete’s statement and concludes that the test results establish the anti-doping violation without grounds for a reduced sanction.
Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 24 March 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In October 2015 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Mario Azzopardi after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance nandrolone.

After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta. The Athlete stated that he was treated with prescribed testosterone for his condition and he did not mention his medication on the Doping Control Form.

The Panel finds that the Athlete’s prescribed medication isn’t consistent with the nandrolone found in his sample and he had no TUE for both the substances testosterone and nandrolone.
Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 24 March 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In October 2015 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Clyde Cutajar after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance nandrolone.

After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he did not attend the hearing of the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta. The Athlete submitted that it wasn’t his intention to violate the anti-doping rules.

The National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel concludes that the test results establish the anti-doping violation and decides on 2 March 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In October 2015 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Nur Nafuri after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.

After notification the Athlete failed to file a statement in his defence, nor did he attend the hearing of the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta.

Without the Athlete’s response the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 2 March 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In December 2015 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Dusty Cassar after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance boldenone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta.
The Athlete admitted the use of the substance two months prior to the competition where he was tested and without intention to enhance his performance for the Regatta.

The Panel concludes that the test results establish the anti-doping violation and considers the his explanation that the substance wasn’t intentionally used for the Regatta not an excuse.
Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 2 March 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of his provisional suspension.

JADDP 2016-007 JADA vs J-4516
January 6, 2017

In October 2016 the Japan Anti-Doping Agency (JADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete J-4516 (the Athlete) after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the Japan Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (JADDP).

The Athlete explained that he took a vitamin supplement since January 2015 and mentioned this on the Doping Control Form. He asserted that this supplement was the source of the positive test result and argued that the supplement was recommended by his Football Club and considered as “being confirmed not to contain any prohibited substance”. Statements and evidence from several officials, JADA and the laboratory test report confirmed that the prohibited substance was found in this recommended supplement.

Considering the statements and circumstances in this case the Panel finds that reasonably can be presumed that the prohibited substance was detected in the supplement and that the Athlete cannot be recognized to have lacked fault or negligence or significant fault or negligence.

Therefore the Japan Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 6 January 2017 to impose only a reprimand without a period of ineligibility on the Athlete including disqualification of his results.

In October 2016 the Japan Anti-Doping Agency (JADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete J-4515 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 1-testosterone and 1-androstenedione.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Japan Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (JADDP).

The Athlete accepted the test results and stated that he took a total of 36 different supplements, most of them purchased on the internet, and without research of the ingredients before using.

The Panel finds that the Athlete took a significant risk with his supplements and failed to establish that the violation wasn’t intentional.
Therefore the Japan Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 7 November 2016 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 October 2016 the Japan Anti-Doping Agency (JADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete J-4514 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance metandienone.

After notification the Athlete admitted the intentional use of the substance, waived his right to be heard and filed a statement in his defence.

Considering the Athlete’s admission and without grounds for a reduced sanction JADA decides on 19 December 2016 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 October 2016 the Japan Anti-Doping Agency (JADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete J-4513 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances drostanolone and clenbuterol.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission about the intentional use of the substances, waived his right to be heard and filed a statement in his defence.

Considering the Athlete’s prompt admission and the seriousness of the violation JADA decides on 2 February 2017 to impose a 3 year and 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension i.e. on 18 October 2016.

12 Principles for a more robust and independent global antidoping system to protect clean athletes : of the IOC Executive Board / IOC Executive Board. - Lausanne : International Olympic Committee (IOC), 2017

Declaration of the IOC Executive Board

12 principles for a more robust and independent global Anti-Doping System to protect clean athletes

Already in October 2015, the Olympic Summit proposed an independent anti-doping testing and sanctioning system. In particular, after the publication of the interim report of Prof. McLaren in July 2016, a broad public debate started about the future of the WADA Anti-Doping System. Having followed closely and participated in this debate, the IOC Executive Board today emphasises the Olympic Movement perspective of a more robust and independent anti-doping system. The IOC would like to implement the following principles in a dialogue and close cooperation with WADA and its stakeholders:

Strengthening WADA

1.) The World Anti-Doping Agency must be equally independent from both sports organisations and from national interests. This is necessary because even the perception of a conflict of interests can be considered damaging to the credibility of the anti-doping system. With regard to national interests, this is particularly important because of the recent challenges to the system from certain National Anti-Doping Organisations (NADOs), from disputes between different NADOs, and from appeals by International Federations (IF) against decisions of National Anti-Doping Institutions.
2.) Since the sports organisations and the governments are both founding stakeholders on an equal basis, they must be represented equally on the WADA Foundation Board and Executive Committee. The role of athletes on the Foundation Board and Executive Committee must be strengthened. The representation of athletes must be by elected (not appointed as now) athlete representatives. The WADA boards should also include independent members.
3.) WADA to have a neutral President and Vice-President who have no function in any government or governmental organisation or in any sports organisation. The candidates to be agreed upon by both founding stakeholders, i.e. the governments and the sports organisations, including the elected representatives of athletes. This was already proposed by the Olympic Movement in October 2016.
4.) The role of WADA to be strengthened and clarified to be the sole international body responsible for:
a. Legislation with regard to the World Anti-Doping Code including the list of prohibited substances and standardisation of anti-doping procedures
b. Accreditation of anti-doping laboratories
c. Compliance monitoring including investigation of all code signatories
d. Anti-doping research
e. Prevention
5.) The IOC supports WADA’s intention to have a compliance policy which drives towards Code compliance of all signatories of the World Anti-Doping Code. This would ensure a level playing field for all the athletes of the world.

Creation of an Independent Testing Authority

6.) An Independent Testing Authority (ITA) to be created.
7.) The ITA to develop with each respective International Federation an International Test Distribution Plan (ITDP) not only by sport but by discipline. This ITDP to contain a minimum number of tests for every athlete wanting to participate in the World Championships or in the Olympic Games. This number to be transparent for each athlete in a discipline of a sport. Athletes not having the established minimum testing level not to be eligible for World Championships and Olympic Games.
8.) The NADOs to execute these international tests on request by the ITA.
9.) The NADOs to continue and, where appropriate, to strengthen all their other testing activities and WADA to ensure that NADOs’ Test Distribution Plans are implemented independently from national interests.
10.) The ITA board to be restricted to a supervisory role only. The ITA board to have no power to direct or instruct the management of the anti-doping programme.
11.) The ITA board to include representatives from public authorities, the Olympic Movement and WADA as well as elected athlete representatives.

Sanctions

12.) Sanctioning with regard to individuals (athletes, officials, coaches, doctors, etc.) following a case established by the ITA, or sanctioning of a Code signatory (sports organisations, event organisers, NADOs and laboratories) following a declaration of non-compliance by WADA, both to be determined by the independent Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), following the democratic principle of the ‘separation of powers’.

https://www.olympic.org/news/declaration-of-the-ioc-executive-board-1