IAAF 2018 IAAF vs Samson Munga Kagia

27 Feb 2019

In November 2018 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Samsom Munga Kagia. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right to be heard, accepted the provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the IAAF. Therefore the IAAF Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) decides on 27 February 2019 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 14 October 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IAAF 2018 IAAF vs Davinder Singh Kang

7 Mar 2019

Related case: ADDPI 2017_21 INADA vs Davinder Singh Kang April 23, 2018 In May 2018 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Indian Athlete Davinder Singh Kang after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances 5α-Adiol and 5β-Adiol. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was scheduled to be heard for the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal. On 14 February 2019, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) advised the IAAF that it was conducting a review of the analytical performance of the New Delhi Laboratory, including in connection with the Adverse Analytical Finding. In light of this ongoing review, WADA suggested to the IAAF, in the interest of fairness to the parties, that the Athlete's hearing be adjourned whilst WADA completed its review of the Laboratory. On 1 March 2019, the New Delhi Laboratory and WADA reported that the issued AAF was withdrawn after review of the analytical results. WADA considered the case closed and notified the IAAF to discontinue the disciplinary proceedings against the Athlete with immediate effect. On 7 March 2019 the IAAF Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) decided to withdraw its Notice of Charge and to acquit the Athlete.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

FINA 2019 FINA vs Kira Toussaint

11 Mar 2019

In December 2018 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Dutch swimmer Kira Toussaint after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Tulobuterol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement with evidence in her defence. The Athlete denied the intentional use nor did she use any medication that contained this substance while she had a valid TUE for the use of Dexamphetamine (D-amphetamine, Dextroamphetamine). Supported by an expert witness the Athlete argued that her medicine Wellbutrin contained the active substance Bupropion which has the similar chemical structure to that of Tulobuterol. Here the Athelete contended that the positive result for Tulobuterol is explained by her use of Bupropion leading to a false positive. After the Athlete’s expert report regarding Bupropion was submitted to WADA an investigation was initiated and reanalysis of the Athlete’s sample was performed. Hereafter the Beijing Lab reported that the adverse analytical finding for Tulobuterol in the Athlete’s sample was incorrect and the result was updated in ADAMS. FINA officially withdrew its case against the Athlete on 11 March 2019. Accordingly the FINA Doping Panel finds on 19 March 2019 that the Athlete has not committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides to cancel the process and scheduled hearing.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

FINA 2019 FINA vs Henrique Martins

8 Mar 2019

In May 2018 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian swimmer Henrique Martins after his sample tested positive for the Selective androgen receptor modulator Ostarine (SARM S-22). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the FINA Doping Panel. The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He stated that he was tested before without issues, that his supplements were prescribed by an sports doctor with knowledge of the anti-doping rules and he mentioned his supplements on the Doping Control Form. The Athlete contended that the positive test was the result of his use of a prescribed amino acids infusion which was contaminated with Ostarine. The Athlete’s sports doctor confirmed the treatment and testified that in March 2018 the prescribed amino acids supplement was administered through a single intravenous infusion because of the Athlete’s illness. Here unwillingly an over-the-limit infusion with amino acids was administered while contaminated with Ostrarine. Further the analysis in an accredited Lab of the used infusion ampoules revealed that they were contaminated with Ostarine. Based on the evidence the Panel is satisfied that the Athlete has established by a balance of probabilities that an ampoule of amino acids was the likely source of his positive test and accordingly that he demonstrated how the substance entered his system. Considering the Athlete’s conduct in this case the Panel finds that his degree of fault of fault was moderate. Therefore the FINA Doping Panel decides on 8 March 2019 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 May 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

ADAK 2018 ADAK vs Purity Jerono Talam

20 Feb 2019

In February 2018 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Purity Jerono Talam after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxandrolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete requested to test the B-sample but she was not able to pay the costs. She filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the Kenya Judiciary Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and provided a list of the prescribed medication she used. She gave several possible explanations about how the substance entered her system. The Panel did not accept the Athlete’s explanations and finds that she failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor how the substance entered her system while she acted with significant risk. Therefore the Judiciary Office of the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 20 February 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

ADAK 2018 ADAK vs Michae Otieno Obuya

21 Mar 2019

In July 2018 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder Michae Otieno Obuya after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Kenya Judiciary Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance, stated that he had used several supplements and he had not received anti-doping training before. He assumed that the supplements he had purchased locally were contaminated and provided a list of all the supplements he used. He argued that he was tested before without issues and complained about de delays during the sample collection. The Panel finds that the anti-doping rule violation has been established and deems on the balance of probabilities that the violation was not intentional but also that the Athlete acted with significant fault. Therefore the Judiciary Office of the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 21 March 2019 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 5 May 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

ADAK 2018 ADAK vs Victor Wachira Miano

27 Feb 2019

In June 2018 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Victor Wachira Miano after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and waived his right to be heard for the Kenya Judiciary Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance, could not explain how it entered his system and requested for a reduced sanction. He submitted that he only had used supplements and underwent medical treatment for his injury as mentioned on the Doping Control Form. In his 3rd submission the Athlete stated that he also had used a natural EPO booster which he failed to mention on the Doping Control Form. The Panel did not accept the Athlete’s statements and finds that he failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor how the substance entered his system. Therefore the Judiciary Office of the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 27 February 2019 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 7 July 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

ADAK 2018 ADAK vs Sheetal Jayendra Kotak

7 Mar 2019

In March 2018 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan bobybuilder Sheetal Jayendra Kotak after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone, 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone), Boldenone and Metenolone. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and the case was settled by the Kenya Judiciary Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal. The Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted the test result, the provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK). The Athlete submitted that she underwent treatment for her condition and that she had used prescribed medication while she was unaware that she had to apply for a TUE. The Panel holds that there were inconsistencies in this case and that the incomple case file raises serous doubts in the mind of the Panel regarding fair prosecution by ADAK. The Panel considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission, that the violation was not intentional and that she curiously had invited ADAK to conduct the test on her. Therefore the Judiciary Office of the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 7 March 2019 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 17 January 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

ADAK 2017 ADAK vs Hillary Kipkosgei Yego

27 Feb 2019

In April 2017 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Hillary Kipkosgei Yego after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defense. The Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing, accepted the test result and the sanction proposed by the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK). In his submission the Athlete stated that he injected himself the substance as treatment for his injuries without any further evidence in support. Neither did he mention his treatment on the Doping Control Form. The Panel finds that the anti-doping rule violation has been established and that the Ahtlete failed to demonstrate to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel how the prohibited susbstance entered his system. Therefore the Judiciary Office of the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 27 February 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 April 2017.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

ADAK 2017 ADAK vs Mark Magut Kipsoi Kwambai

20 Feb 2019

In July 2017 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Mark Magut Kipsoi Kwambai after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone). After notification and the following delays the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Kenya Judiciary Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal. The Athlete accepted the test result, denied the intentional use of the substance and could not explain how it entered his system. He had no knowledge of the anti-doping rules and had not received any anti-doping education. He stated that in the week before the competition in question he had used over-the-counter medication for his injury and illness and had received an injection with an unknown substance in a clinic. The Panel holds that the Athlete had not mentioned any medication on the Doping Control Form and failed to produce any evidence in support of his statement. Further the Panel is troubled about the inconsistencies in the Athlete’s statement and finds that he failed to demonstrate on the balance of probability how the prohibited substance entered his system. The Panel considers that the Athlete was hardly educated in anti-doping and that he was hired as pace setter for two Kenyan athletes in the marathon in Italy to enhance performance of these athletes. He ignored the instructions to stay behind as he was leading he finished the marathon in Italy in the third position and was tested accordingly. The Panel deems that the Athlete has met his burden of proof in demonstrating lack of intention although he failed to produce evidence how the substance entered his system. Therefore the Judiciary Office of the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 20 February 2019 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 July 2017.

show » details »
Type:
pdf
Category
  • Legal
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin