NADAP 2018 Dylon Mula vs ADC - Appeal

Related case:
NADDP 2018 ADC vs Dylon Mula
October 17, 2018

On 17 October 2018 in First Instance the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the boxer Dylon Mula for his evasion of the Doping Control. Here the Disciplinary Panel was convinced and comfortably satisfied that the Athlete’s conduct resulted into an intentional conduct to evade sample collection notwithstanding that he was being warned that the test was not complete. The Disciplinary Panel deemed that there was insufficient proof of Tampering.

Hereafter in November 2018 the Athlete appealed the First Instance decision of 17 October 2018 with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel.

The Athlete confirmed the anti-doping rule violation and denied that it was intentional. He argued that the sanction was excessive and requested merely for a reduction of the period of ineligibility. He asserted that his conduct was caused due to his age and lack of maturity while in fact he did submit to the Doping Control but could not produce enough urine even though he provided three samples.

Considering all the evidence in this case the Appeal Panel concludes that the Athlete’s conduct during the Doping Control did lead to an evasion especially when he decided to throw away the sample into the toilet and therafter decided to leave the Doping Control Station without permission. However the Appeal Panel is not convinced that the Athlete acted with intent to evade the sample collection since the Athlete did provide not once or twice but also for a third time a sample.

The Appeal Panel deems that the Athlete’s decision to leave the Doping Control Station, though it can never be approved, was more the result of frustration combined with a dose of immaturity, than the result by an intentional decision made by the Athlete for the purpose of evading sample collection for some reason. Further the Appeal Panel established that the Athlete’s samples in question were analysed and had revealed a negative result demonstrating that the Athlete had no intention to cheat. Already had been ruled that the Athlete didn't try to tamper with any part of the Doping Control.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel decides on 9 January 2019 to reform the First Instance decision of 17 October 2018 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the First Instance decision.

Original document

Parameters

Legal Source
National Decisions
Date
9 January 2019
Arbitrator
Cascun, Carmel
Cassar, Maria
Dalli, Christopher
Original Source
National Anti-Doping Organisation of Malta (NADOMALTA)
Country
Malta
Language
English
ADRV
Evasion
Tampering / attempted tampering
Legal Terms
Admission
No intention to cheat
Period of ineligibility
Sport/IFs
Boxing (IBA) - International Boxing Association
Various
Lack of cooperation / obstruction
Document type
Pdf file
Date generated
25 June 2019
Date of last modification
10 July 2019
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