Mr Kevin Moats (58) is an age group athlete, in the 55 year old to 59 year old category, who participated in the sport of Ironman triathlon. The Athlete used regularly medically prescribed Testosterone under medical supervision to treat andropause and hypothyroidism since 2005.
In April 2012 the World Triathlon Corporation (WTC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the substance Testosterone without a valid TUE. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the AAA Panel for WTC Doping Disputes.
WTC contended that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation whereas he failed to apply for a TUE in advance for such use.
The Athlete admitted the violation and explained that he had a valid medical condition and used the prescribed Testosterone 7 days before the out-of-competition test. He had not mentioned the prescribed Testosterone on the Doping Control Form as it only requested disclosure of substances used within the 3 days prior to sample collection.
The Athlete argued that the WTC's own rules did not require for athletes like him to obtain a TUE based on the chart on the WTC's TUE website saying that no TUE in advance was required for Age Group athletes. He acknowledged that he did not consult the WTC ADR nor contacted WTC, USA Triathlon, or USADA to ascertain whether he had to apply for a TUE.
The Panel finds that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and acted with at least some degree of fault and negligence in failing to obtain a TUE. The Panel regards the Athlete's testimony both credible and persuasive and considers that he had admitted the violation and demonstrated with medical evidence how the substance entered his system.
The Panel establishes that there was substantial evidence of possibly contradictory, or at best ambiguous, instruction by the WTC on whether a TUE was required in advance of an event for an age group athlete who had received no anti-doping education under a relatively new anti-doping regime applicable to WTC event.
The Panel concludes that there are grounds for no significant fault or negligence because the Athlete reasonably interpreted the website to indicate that WTC rules did not require him to obtain a TUE for WTC events.
Therefore the AAA Panel for WTC Doping Disputes decides on 10 October 2012 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 30 January 2012.
