Related case:
UKAD 2016 UKAD vs Sam Barlow
June 27, 2016

In July 2015 an an out-of-competition test at the house of the Athlete changed into an altercation and common assault against the doping control officer (DCO). The Athlete stated that he did not commit the assault with intent to avoid a doping test but because he thought de DCO was a burglar.
On 27 June 2016 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for tampering the doping control process.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the decision of 27 June 2016 with the Appeal Tribunal of the National Anti-Doping Panel. The Athlete argued that the factual findings of which he complains were induced by errors of reasoning and, but for those errors, could not have been made.

The Appeal Tribunal finds that the Tribunal was intitled to accept the statement of the DCO and to dismiss the evidence of the Athlete and his partner that he thought dat the DCO was a burglar.
Also the Appeal Tribunal concludes that the Tribunal made a careful assessment of the facts and evidence, including the CCTV footage and that no error of law or misapplication of principle can be shown.

Therefore the Appeal Tribunal decides on 6 September 2016 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal because no ground has been shown for enterfering with the factual findings of the Tribunal.

Related case:
UKAD 2016 Sam Barlow vs UKAD – Appeal
September 6, 2016

In July 2015 an UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) doping control officer (DCO) attended the house of the Athlete Sam Barlow for an out-of-competition test which changed into an altercation and common assault against the DCO.

Hereafter the Athlete pleaded guilty to the Court to common assault on the DCO. The Athlete stated that he did not commit the assault with intent to avoid a doping test but because he thought de DCO was a burglar.

Because the out-of-competition test was aborted by the DCO UKAD reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for tampering the doping control process.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The National Anti-Doping Panel did not accept the statements of the Athlete and his partner that the DCO was a burglar rather than a doping control officer.
Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 27 June 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 November 2015.

In March 2026 the International Volleyball Federation (FIVB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Iranian Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances boldenone and metandienone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the FIVB Disciplinary Panel.

The athlete stated that he had used two medications that could have caused the positive test result without intention to enhance his performanc. He had received a dexamethasone injection for his cold and sore throat and he took a Methan 10 pill recommended by a trainer at his fitness centre.

The Panel finds that the Athlete failed to explain how the substance entered his system and could not establish that the violation wasn’t intentional without additional supporting evidence. The Panel notice that when the Athlete had been more educated by his national federation about doping he should have researched his medication and products before using.

Without grounds for a reduced sanction the FIVB Disciplinary Panel decides on 5 September 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 24 March 2016.

In July 2015 the International Volleyball Federation (FIVB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Puerto Rican Athlete after her A and B samples 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 FIVB Disciplinary Panel.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of prohibited substances and sustained by an expert witness she disputed the deviations in the sample collection procedure, the chain of custody and the validity of the sample analysis.

Considering the facts and circumstances in this case the Panel concludes that there were no departures of the ISTI with the chain of custody related to or at the laboratory. The Athlete failed to provide any proof demonstrating that there were deviations in the sample collection procedure and that these deviations could have reasonably caused the Adverse Analytical Finding.

The Panel finds that the presence in the prohibited substance has been established and that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation under the FIVB Rules. Therefore the FIVB Disciplinary Panel decides on 20 June 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 23 July 2015.

In February 2016 the International Volleyball Federation (FIVB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete after his sample (provided on 9 January 2016) tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium. After notification a provisional suspension was ordere. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the FIVB Disciplinary Panel.

The Athlete admitted that he had used prescribed meldonum for his heart condition until 13 December 2015 without intention to enhance his sport performance. He argued that the substance was still in his system in January 2016 and that he had no fault or negligence in this case considering the low concentration found in his sample (300 ng/mL) and in accordance with the criteria in the WADA Notice to issue a No Fault or Negligence in samples taken before 1 March 2016.

Considering the statements and the WADA Notice the Panel accepts that there is no other evidence suggesting that the Athlete had used Meldonium after 1 January 2016.

Therefore the FIVB Disciplinary Panel decides on 28 April 2016:

1.) The athlete Mr. Alexander Markin (Russia) has committed an anti-doping rule violation (presence of the prohibited substance “S4. Hormone and Metabolic Modulators (Meldonium))” according to Article 2.1 of the FIVB MADR.
2.) No period of ineligibility shall be imposed on the athlete Mr. Alexander Markin due to the determination that he had No Fault or Negligence pursuant to Article 10.4 FIVB MADR.
3.) The Russian national team’s results from the 2016 European Olympic Qualification competition stand.
4.) This decision may be appealed in accordance with the attached Notice of Appeals.

In January 2016 the International Volleyball Federation (FIVB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Mexican Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Oxilofrine (methylsynephrine) and Phenethylamine. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the FIVB Disciplinary Panel.

The Athlete expressed her apologises for the non intentional violation and asserted that it was caused by the supplements she used to lose weight. The Athlete admitted that she completely relied on the recommendations of her nutritionist and before using she did not research the ingredients of the supplements nor did she conduct any research for the product on the internet.

The Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and concludes that the Athlete was significantly negligent. Therefore the FIVB Disciplinary decides on 23 February 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of her last competition.

In October 2015 the International Volleyball Federation (FIVB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Slovak Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone in a low concentration.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the FIVB Disciplinary Panel.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and asserted that the supplement he had used was contaminated. Because his usual approved supplement wasn’t available the Athlete had purchased this supplement. He only had researched the label of this product and not consulted any anti-doping professionals or authorities before using the supplement.
He admitted that he failed to mention the supplement on the Doping Control Form and argued that there were grounds for a reduced sanction.

The FIVB conducted an investigation on this supplement provided by the Athlete and on the same supplement from the store where the Athlete had purchased this product.
Analysis results from the accredited laboratory in Cologne showed that the prohibited substance was found in the supplement provided by the Athlete and also in the supplement purchased in the store.

The Panel accepts the evidence confirming that the Athlete’s supplement was contaminated with the prohibited substance.
The Panel notes that the Athlete is a professional volleyball player who had received anti-doping information and therefore should have been educated about the danger of contamination in supplements.

Considering the proven contamination and the Athlete’s degree of fault in this case the FIVB Disciplinary Panel decides on 9 February 2016 to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 9 October 2015.

In July 2015 the International Volleyball Federation (FIVB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete from the United States Virgin Islands after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he did not attend the hearing of the FIVB Disciplinary Panel.
The Athlete failed explain how the substance came into his body and he argued that the doping control process was unprofessional and improperly performed.

The Panel considered the Athlete’s arguments and concludes that there was no departure of the WADA ISTI and, in any event, could not have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding.

Considering the Athlete gave no explanation and without intention to enhance his performance the FIVB Disciplinary Panel decides on 19 October 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 31 August 2015.

Related case:
KNWU 2005 KNWU Decision Disciplinary Committee 2005119 T
July 1, 2005

In July 2005 the Royal Dutch Cycling Federation (KNWU) has reported a second anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his A and B samples, provided in Canada in June 2005, tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoetin (rhEPO).
After notification the Person file a statement in his defence and he was heard for the KNWU Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete stated that his team doctor had adminstered him injections and he disputed the reliability of the EPO test. His team doctor denied the administration of EPO and stated that he only had administered supplements.
However evidence showed that the Person previously already had admitted the use of doping to the media and to a KNWU official.

The Committee dismissed the Persons's arguments and concluded that the Person had committed an anti-doping violation. Therefore on 5 September 2005 the KNWU Disciplinary Committee decided on 5 September 2005 to impose a CHF 2000,- fine and a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Person, starting on the date of the decision.

Previously in April 2005 the Person tested positive for testosterone with a T/E ration above the WADA threshold. On 1 July 2005 the KNWU Anti-Doping Committee issued a decision that acquitted the Athlete from any charges related to a doping offence.

However the UCI appealed this KWNU decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) which decided in 2006 to annul the KNWU decision for acquittal and to impose a 2 year period of ineligiblilty.

Hereafter - already involved in an CAS proceeding - the Person filed an appeal with CAS in October 2005 against the KNWU decision of 5 September 2005.
Considering the Person was already sanctioned in the previous CAS decision as a first anti-doping violation the CAS Panel decided in 2006 to dismiss the Person's appeal and to impose a lifetime period of ineligiblilty on the Person.

Related case:
KNWU 2005 KNWU Decision Disciplinary Committee 2005120 T
September 5, 2005

In April 2005 the Royal Dutch Cycling Union (KNWU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his A and B samples for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.
After notification the Athlete filed a statement with medical files in his defence and he was heard for the KNWU Disciplinary Committee.

The Person explained that his high T/E ratio is caused by his exceptional low testosterone level and that he underwent further medical examinations for his condition.
The Person assumed also that the food supplements he used could have contained contaminations.

The KNWU Disciplinary Committee accepted the Person’s explanation and decided on 1 July 2005 to acquit the Person with the recommendation to apply for a TUE because of his high T/E ratio.

Hereafter in August 2005 the UCI appealed this KNWU decision for acquittal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS Panel concluded that the testosterone in the samples were of exogenous origin and decided to annul the KNWU decision of 1 July 2005 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Person.

In addition CAS decided in a new proceeding in 2006 to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Person because the he had committed a second anti-doping violation in 2005 .