SDRCC 2018 CCES vs Grant McDonald

In November 2018 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Grant McDonald (19) after his A and B sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Higenamine.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted the test results and a provisional suspension. He denied the intentional use of the substance and challenged the sanction proposed by the CCES. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Doping Tribunal of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC).

The Athlete explained that he had purchased the supplement Amino IQ in his supplement store and was assured that this supplement was guaranteed to be free from banned substances. He mentioned the use of this supplement on the Doping Control Form.
In the store the Athlete researched the first listed ingredients of this supplement on the Global DRO website with his cellphone. However he conducted only an incomplete search for all the listed ingredients and he acknowledged that afterwards he never completed his search. As a result he missed the listed prohibed substance Higenamine mentioned on the label of the product.

The CCES accepted that the Athlete is not a cheater, that he gave a prompt admission, fully collaborated to the CCES, consulted the ingredients of the supplement on the Global Dro website and purchased the product in a store and not on the internet.
The CCES also contended that he acted negligently since he failed to verify the full list of ingredients. He had only verified the first ingredients listed on the label, he stopped just before Higenamine and never completed his search later.

The Sole Arbitrator holds that the Athlete’s main fault was to have been negligent by failing to verify all the ingredients contained in a new brand of supplements he started to use. The Arbitrator deems that the Athlete was 19 years old and that he was tested for the first time. He demonstrated transparency and humility when confronted with his mistake en established No Significant Fault or Negligence in this case.

Threfore the SDRCC Doping Tribunal decides on 8 April 2019 to impose a 10 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 3 November 2018.

Original document

Parameters

Legal Source
National Decisions
Date
8 April 2019
Arbitrator
Brunet, Patrice M.
Original Source
Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC) - Centre de règlement des différends sportifs du Canada (CRDSC)
Country
Canada
Language
English
ADRV
Adverse Analytical Finding / presence
Legal Terms
Case law / jurisprudence
No intention to cheat
No intention to enhance performance
No Significant Fault or Negligence
Period of ineligibility
Prompt / Timely Admission
Sole Arbitrator
Sport/IFs
American Football (IFAF) - International Federation of American Football
Other organisations
Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES)
Canadian University Sports (U Sports)
Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC)
Analytical aspects
B sample analysis
Doping classes
S3. Beta-2 Agonists
Substances
Higenamine
Various
Supplements
Document type
Pdf file
Date generated
9 May 2019
Date of last modification
24 September 2020
Category
  • Legal Source
  • 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