Facts
The UK Anti-Doping organization (UKAD) charges Denis Catana (respondent) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The prohibited substance Metenolone was found to be present in a sample taking for Doping Control purposes from the Respondent and provided by him on 20 August 2010. The Respondent didn't sent in a written defence and was unrepresented at the hearing.
History
Respondent took various supplements as was common for weightlifters which he had sourced in various ways and from various sources. He bought some at specialist shops and had purchased some supplements in Moldova. In addition he had purchased supplements in gyms where he had been training. He had not asked for advice from his team doctor or coaches in relation to the supplements that he had been taking. the Alezon Gel which he took for a leg injury was a veterinary product for use with horses. He had the Alezon Gel massaged into his leg on 20 August 2010. He had not disclosed that he had used this gel or the other supplements prior to taking the doping test. He claimed that he thought he only had to disclose pills or the like that he had taken. The Respondent contested that the presence of Metenolone in his system must have been caused by it being present, without his knowledge, in one or more of the supplements taken by him since he had not intentionally consumed Metenolone and he could think of no other mechanism for it having entered his system.
Considerations UKAD
The athlete has not proven the source of the prohibited substance Metenolone. Without no significant fault or negligence or aggravating circumstances the period of ineligibility should be 2 years.
Decision
The tribunal determins:
1. in contravention of Article 2.2 of the Anti-Doping Rules there was present in a Bodily Sample given by the Respondent on 20 August 2010, Metenolone which is a Prohibited Substance falling within s1.1(a) (Anabolic Androgenic Steroids - Exogenous) on WADA's 2010 List of Prohibited Substances;
2 in respect that there was not, at the time the sample was taken, present a therapeutic use exemption granted to the respondent in accordance with Article 3 of the Anti-Doping Rules, an Anti-Doping Rule Violation was committed by the respondent;
3. the respondent has failed to establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system for the purposes of Articles 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 of the Anti-Doping Rules;
4. in any event, the Respondent has failed to establish that he bore No Fault or Negligence and/or that he bore no significant fault or negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation committed by him; and, accordingly,
5. in respect of the Anti-Doping Rule Violation committed, the Respondent is ineligible for a period of two years from 21 September 2010 until 20 September 2012 (both dates inclusive) with all the consequences provided for in Article 10.10.1 of the Anti-Doping Rules.
Costs
No application was made by either party in relation to costs and no order as to costs is made.
Appeal
The parties can appeal within 21 day after the receipt of a copy of this decision.
