In June 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rower Malak Singh after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Mephentermine and Phentermine.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI). The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and could not explain how the substances had entered into his system.

The Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel deems that he failed to demonstrate how these substances had entered his system.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 11 January 2024 to impose a 4 year period of inelgibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 27 June 2023.

In June 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the judoka Mohsin Gulab Ali after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine).

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and he argued that he had succesfully participated in competitions for mayy years. He also had been tested many times without issues.

The Athlete stated that he was involved in an altercation with another athlete and his entourage. After the positive test he alleged that he was the victim of sabotage and that he had filed criminal charges against these persons.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Panel deems that he failed to demonstrate with corroboration evidence that the violation was not intentional, nor grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 10 January 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 June 2023.

In June 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the judoka Rahul Sevta after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Oxandrolone and Stanozolol.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He could not explain how the substance had entered his system.

He alleged that the source of the prohibited substances were the supplements or food provided by the coaches at the training camp. He further claimed that the meat he consumed in the camp might have been spiked.

The Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substances had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Panel determines that in the camp 9 athletes had been,  tested, of which 3 athletes tested positive. The Athlete himself tested positive for Oxandrolone and Stanozolol, yet the other two athletes for completely other prohibited substances.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate with evidence that the supplements and food in the camp were the source of the prohibited substances. The Panel did not accept his explanations and deems that he had used these substances intentionally.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 21 December 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 June 2023.

In June 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Parathlete Ranjeet Bhati after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that he had used the substance as prescribed medication and that he was unware of the anti-doping rules and prohibited substances.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. He failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Furthermore the Panel considers that the Athlete had not checked this medication, failed to mention this medication on the Doping Control Form, nor made an application for a TUE. Also he did not show with corroborating evidence that he indeed had informed his doctor that was an athlete subjected to doping control.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 9 January 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 June 2023.

In April 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Sanjeet after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance GW1516.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Panel establishes that the Athlete admitted the violation, yet failed to sign and submit the Acceptance of Consequences Form within the set deadline. Further the Panel considers that this is the Athlete's second anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 27 December 2023 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 April 2023.

On 18 March 2023 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Richa Bhadauriya for her evasion of doping control at a competition in August 2022.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI). She requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete denied that she had acted intentionally and stated that she was unaware that she had been selected for sample collection. She explained that at the competition she suffered from her Asthma, left the venue after finishing the race and underwent medical treatment in a hospital.

INADA contended that the Athlete deliberately had evaded doping control. The Agency argued that the Athlete with her Asthma would be unable to perform a 10 km race within 38 minutes.

Furthermore there was no corroborating evidence that she suffered from her Asthma near the finish line. She indeed went to a hospitial, yet not because of her Asthma.

In view of the evidence the Appeal Panel concludes that the Athlete clearly and deliberately had evaded doping control. Also the Panel determines that there were several inconsistencies in the evidence and explanations provided by the Athlete.

Therefore the Appeal Panel decides on 31 January 2024 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal, to uphold the Appealed Decision and to confirm the imposed 4 year period of ineligibility.

On 3 October 2025 the French Squash Federation (FFSQ) Appeal Panel decided to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after she tested positive for the prohibited substances Prednisolone and Prednisone.

Hereafter the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reopened the case against the Athlete. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard.

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use and acknowledged that she acted negligently. She explained with medical evidence that she had used the medication Solupred for her neck pain she suffered since 2014.

The AFLD determines that:

• The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in her sample and accordingly she committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• She acted negligently and failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional;
• She self-medicated and used the medication prescribed for her daughter;
• She failed to check this medication, nor mention this on the Doping Control Form;
• She already had received Codeine tablets from her doctor as painkillers.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 21 January 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

On 26 June 2015 the French Federation for Kick Boxing, Muay Thai and Associated Disciplines (FFKMDA) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxilofrine (Methylsynephrine).

Hereafter the case against the Athlete was reopened by the AFLD. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that he had used a supplement Lipo-6 Black, recommended by a person he knew, in order to to lose weight.

The AFLD determines that:

• The Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• He had used the prohibited substance without a medical justification;
• He failed to check the ingredients on the label of this supplement;
• He did not mention the supplement on the Doping Control Form;
• He established how the substance had entered his system;
• He acted negligently and failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 21 January 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 June 2015.

On 3 August 2015 the French Handball Federation (FFHB) decided to impose a warning on the handball player after she tested positive for the prohibited substances Prednisolone and Prednisone.

Hereafter the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reopened the case against the Athlete. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substances.  She explained with evidence that she had used the prescribed medication Solupred for the allergic reaction she suffered in May 2015 due to an insect sting.

The Athlete asserted that she had mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form. With her doctor she also made a TUE application in July 2015 for this medication.

The AFLD determines that:

• The Athlete had received a prescription for Solupres 3 months before;
• She self-medicated and did not follow the instructions of the prescription;
• She failed to demonstrate with evidence that she suffered from an allergic reaction in May 2015;
• The retrospective TUE application from July 2015 was invalid;
• The Athlete acted with a degree of negligence.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 21 January 2016 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

On 30 June 2015 the French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (FFHMFAC) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the powerlifter after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

Hereafter the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reopened the case. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he did not attend the hearing.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and acknowledged that he had acted negligently. He explained that he had used recommended supplements provided by a person he knew in order to recover from an injury.

The AFLD finds that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and that he has not established that the violation was not intentional. Not only had the Athlete acted negligently and also he failed to demonstrate with evidence that there was a medical justification for the use of the prohibited substance.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 7 January 2016 to extend the sanction imposed on the Athlete.