Related case:
NADDP 2017 ADC vs Kevin Moore
March 1, 2017
In July 2016 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Kevin Moore after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances 1,3-Dimethylbutylamine (1,3-DMBA), Tamoxifen and Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
In First Instance the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel ruled that the procedure conducted for the collection of the urine sample had been irregular. The Disciplinary Panel deemed that the Athlete proved by a balance of probability that such breach to the IST had a significant impact on the testing result since the DCO during his testimony did not manage to comfortably satisfy the Panel that the collection vessel was sealed and the form was filled in the presence of the Athlete.
Consequently the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel concluded on 1 March 2017 that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation, decided that his provisional suspension was revoked and that the Athlete was acquitted from the charges brought against him.
Hereafter in March 2017 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta appealed the First Instance decision of 1 March 2017 with the National Anti-Doping Appeals Panel. The ADC requested the Appeals Panel to set aside the decision of 1 March 2017 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
The ADC argued that the alleged flaws or deviations (if any) were not sufficiently serous to have fatally underminded the sample collecting procedure to the extent that it warranted the setting aside of urine samples collected from the Athlete and to declare them invalid for the purpose they were collected for.
The Appeals Panels considered in this case the evidence and the Athlete’s conduct during the sample collection procedure and concludes that the Athlete failed to establish facts which the Panel can rationally infer a causative link - which must be more than merely hypothetical - between the alleged departures and the presence of the prohibited substance in his samples and/or which can persuade the Panel to invalidate the samples.
The Panel holds that it is amply clear that for deviations to have a significant impact on a testing result these deviations must be significant. Only departures which by their very nature will be considered as serious will undermine the fairness of the testing process. The Appeals Panel does not consider that this has been the case on the occasion of the Athlete’s doping test.
Therefore the National Anti-Doping Appeals Panel decides to annul the First Instance decision of 1 March 2017 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The provisional suspension already served by the Athlete shall be credited against the 4 year period of Ineligibility.
