Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Vasillie Pavlopoulos (the athlete) of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On January 9, 2012, CCES conducted out-of-competition doping control in Vancouver, British Columbia. A sample collection took place which included the athlete. His sample tested positive on Stanozolol which is a prohibited substance.
History
The athlete admits the doping violations but claims exceptional circumstances. The prohibited substance was found in one of the supplements he used named 1MR.
Decision
1. The evidence, together with the admissions and stated positions of the parties, establish that an anti-doping violation occurred involving the presence of stanozolol in the Athlete’s collected sample. Stanozolol is a prohibited substance according to the Prohibited List Rules of the CADP.
2. The evidence, together with the admissions and stated positions of the parties establish there was fault or negligence by the Athlete in ingesting this prohibited substance. I find on a balance of probabilities that the source of the prohibited substance was stanozolol and the way it entered the Athlete’s system was a 1MR (One More Rep) supplement product provided by the Athlete for testing by Maxxam Analytics in May 2012.
3. The issue before me is whether the two-year provisional suspension pursuant to Rule 7.38 should be reduced, having regard to the totality of the evidence and the conduct of the Athlete. More specifically, and in accordance with Rule 7.45, the question is whether the athlete bears “no significant fault or negligence” and if so, what is the appropriate reduction, if any, to the two-year period of ineligibility of the athlete from
competition.
4. In the particular circumstances of this case, after a careful review of the evidence, I have determined:
a. I am compelled to find that the evidence establish that the Athlete’s conduct cannot be characterized as insignificant fault or negligence.
b. Accordingly, I find there is no proper basis to reduce the mandated two-year period of ineligibility. I further find that the period of ineligibility shall commence as of January 9, 2012, in accordance with Rule 7.13 and the agreement of the parties concerning the prompt admission of the Athlete of the rule violation. In the result, for the reasons expressed above, I hereby confirm the above decision summary.
