DECISION 1.
In March 2017 the Ju-Jitsu International Federation (JJIF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French Athlete Laurence Fouilat after his sample, collected in June 2015, tested positive for the prohibited substance Heptaminol.
After notification the Athlete failed to respond. However the French Federation for Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo and Associated Disciplines (FFJDA) reported in May 2017 that the addressed FFJDA sports officials were not aware of the Notification and therefore it was not forwarded to the Athlete. Further the FFJDA reported that the Athlete had applied for a retrospective TUE for Heptaminol which was denied by the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFDL) in January 2016.
The JJIF established that the Notification by email was validly submitted to the FFJDA sports officals without indication that this Notification was not delivered. Also the JJIF deemed that the Athlete’s TUE application was an admission of the violation and an acceptance of the presence of the prohibited substance in his system.
Considering the evidence in this case the JJIF found that the anti-doping rule violation was intentional and that the delays in the proceedings were not attributed to the Athlete. Therefore the JJIF decided on 23 May 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 7 June 2015.
DECISION 2
Hereafter in May 2017 the Athlete requested the JJIF to reconsider his case and filed a statement with evidence in his defence.
The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained with medical evidence that he had used prescribed medication as treatment for his condition. He asserted that he informed his doctor that he was an Athlete subject to doping control and acknowledged that he didn’t check his medication for prohibited substances before using.
The Athlete submitted that after deliberations with the FFJDA he became aware that the prescribed medication Ginkor fort was the source of the positive doping test and he applied for a retrospective TUE which was denied by the AFDL in January 2016 due to an incomplete case file.
The JJIF accepts the filed medical evidence but concludes that the Athlete acted with significant fault because he failed to investigate his medication before using and afterwards applied for a TUE with an incomplete casefile. The JJIF considers that the substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete were already regarded in their decision of 23 May 2016. On these grounds the JJIF decides on 22 July to uphold the JJIF decision of 23 May 2016 and to dismiss the Athlete’s request for reconsideration.
