In May 2021 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Argentine rugby player Luciano Daniel Torres after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by World Rugby.

Because of the Athlete's early admission and acceptance of sanction World Rugby decides on 19 August 2021 to impose a reduced 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 May 2021.

In May 2021 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Colombian rugby player Juan David Herrera after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone) and Boldenone.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by World Rugby.

Because of the Athlete's early admission and acceptance of sanction World Rugby decides on 11 August 2021 to impose a reduced 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 May 2021.

In December 2021 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Namibian ruby player Gerhard Opperman after after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Metandienone and Tamoxifen.

After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing, accepted the provisional sanction and the sanction proposed by World Rugby.

World Rugby deems that the violation was committed intentionally and considers that the Athlete gave an early admission and accepted the proposed sanction in orde to receive a reduction of the sanction of 1 year.

Therefore World Rugby decides on 31 March 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 December 2021.

In February 2020 World Rugby (WR) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian rugby player Leonid Kalinin after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing and didn't file a statement in his defence. The case was settled by the WR Independent Judicial Committee based on the filed submissions.

The Committee finds that presence of a prohibed substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Without grounds for a reduced sanction the Independent Judicial Committee decides on 10 June 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 February 2020.

In August 2019 World Rugby reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Cayman Island rugby player Keswick Wright after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. In spite of submissions between the Athlete and WR he failed to request for a hearing.

In his previous submission the Athlete admitted the use of Cannabis and indicated that he stopped playing for a long time because of the severe chronic pains he suffered. The Cannabis was used for pain relief and he acknowledged that he didn’t mention this on the Doping Control Form. Furthermore the Athlete didn’t file any written submissions in his defence.

WR finds that the violation was not intentional and does not contest that the use of Cannabis was used out-of-competition for non-sporting reasons. It requested the Panel to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete of between 6-9 months.

The WR Judicial Panel settled the case based on the written submissions from the parties. Since he failed to request for a hearing nor filed written submissions in his defence the Athlete is deemed to have admitted the violation and to have waived his right for a hearing.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in his sample and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. Therefore the WR Judicial Panel decides on 7 January 2020 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 August 2019.

In August 2019 World Rugby (WR) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Venezuelan rugby player José Ramon Piña after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone), Etiocholanolone and Testosterone including its adiols.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and the World Rugby Independent Judicial Committee rendered a decision based on the parties' written submissions. The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he had intentionally used the substances to recover from an injury.

The Committee finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established and accordingly that he intentionally had committed the anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Judicial Committee decides on 16 November 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provional suspension, i.e. on 13 August 2010.

In August 2019 World Rugby (WR) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazillian rugby player Alisson Kalkmann Ribeiro after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Clomifene. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the WR Judicial Committee.

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that he had acted with very low degree of fault. He asserted that this was his first doping control, he was an unexperienced rugby player who had never received any anti-doping education. Prior he had used many supplements, vitamins and medication without problems. He explained that he had used a medication containing 100mg of Clomifene prescribed by his club doctor. He trusted his doctor since he was a specialized sports doctor well aware that the Athlete was a professional rugby player.

WR accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete established on a balance of probabilities that the prescribed Clomiphene was the source of the postive test. Also WR contended that the Athlete failed to act with the utmost caution.

The Judicial Committee is troubled about the Athlete's conduct in this case. However since WR does not seek to prove that the violation was intentional the Committee will accept that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete has demonstrated the source of the prohibited substance in his samples on a balance of probabilities.

The Committee considered that (i) the Athlete did not read the label of the product used (or otherwise ascertained the ingredients), (ii) did not cross-check the ingredients on the label with the list of prohibited substances, (iii) did not make an internet search of the Clomiphene prescribed, and (iv) did not diligently instruct his doctor that he was an athlete who could not consume any prohibited substances but rather just assumed that his doctor would know this.

Further the Committee is puzzled that the Athlete failed to provide any explanation or detail on what kind of treatment was being sought through the off-label use of Clomiphene. Neither was produced any witness statement from his doctor to corroborate his version of events, nor was provided any medical details as to why Clomiphen would be prescribed to an apparently healthy 19-year old male athlete.

The Committee concludes that the Athlete acted with a serious although less than significant degree of fault or negligence. Giving some credit to the subjective factors in this case, a reduction of 3 months from the presumed 2-year period of ineligibility is warranted.
Therefore the Judicial Committee decides on 26 January 2020 to impose a 21 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 August 2019.

In April 2018 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the South African rugby player Unathi Elis Mali after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Metandienone and Stanozolol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the World Rugby Judicial Committee.

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction.
She claimed that the violation was caused by her drinking of contaminated water at a gym in Zwide, Eastern Cape Province, where she had been training shortly before going to Hong Kong. The supplements she had used were tested but analysis revealed no prohibited substances.

She asserted that bodybuilders in the gym were putting substances into the watercontainers from which she got her drinking water at the gym; and that this was the only possible source of the Stanozolol and Metandienone found in her body, as she never ingested either substance anywhere else or in any other circumstances. She argued that she did not know that her conduct in drinking contaminated water constituted an ADRV because she had no idea that it was contaminated with any prohibited substance.

World Rugby contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the source of the prohibited substances was contaminated water from those containers in the gym. Further it pointed to a number of discrepancies in her statements.

The Judicial Committee finds it unlikely that bodybuilders at this gym would have used such a crude and unreliable method as to add steroid-containing supplements to the large, shared water containers. In stating that view, the Committee doesn’t rely on the expert evidence about the insolubility of Stanozolol and the limited solubility of Metandienone. The Committee accepts the Athlete’s explanation of why she did not bring her own water from home, where she has a limited daily supply for her needs there, and that she could not afford to buy bottled water.

The Committee’s primary finding is not that she acted irresponsibly in taking her drinking water from the water containers. The Committee deems that the water in those containers was not contaminated at all in the way she describes. The Committee rejects her explanation of how she came to have these prohibited substances in her body. She failed to offer another explanation and the Committee finds that she has failed to discharge her burden of disproving intentionality.

Therefore the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 18 January 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 April 2018.

In August 2018 World Rugby (WR) had reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American rugby player Kisi Keomaka Unufe after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Heptaminol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the WR Judicial Committee.

The Athlete admitted the violation,stated that it was not intentional and demonstrated with evidence that the positive test was the result of a contaminated supplement despite his efforts to ensure the product was safe. He had mentioned this supplement on the Doping Control Form and analysis of this supplement in a Laboratory confirmed it contained Heptaminol.

WR accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the product literature nor the packaging of the supplement in question made reference to the substance Heptaminol. However WR contended that the supplement was clearly not contaminated as it listed the prohibited substance Dimethylhexylamine (DMHA) as product ingredient in the product literature and website.
A simple reseach on the intenet for DMHA would have revealed that it was a prohibited substance. WR argued that Athlete acted with a substantial degree of fault or negligence and that any reduction of the sanction should be small.

The Panel does not accept that the supplement in question was contaminated because the prohibited substance DMHA was listed in the product literature and website. It deems the prohibited substance disclosed in the product literature was not the prohibited substance for which the Athlete tested positive, and it is an Athlete’s duty to consider any and all ingredients of a supplement product.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete’s Fault or Negligence was not significant but serious enough that any reduction must not be the largest portion of the presumptive 2 year period of ineligibility.
Therefore the WR Judicial Committee decides on 4 February 2019 to impose a 14 month period of ineligibility starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 August 2018)

Hereafter in February 2019 the Athlete requested the WR Post Hearing Review Body (PHRB) a review of the decision of 4 February 2019. Here the Athlete argued the imposed sanction was unprecedented and disproportionate due to the Judicial Committee:
- failed to find that the procuct in question was contaminated; and
- misapplied the "Cilic" factors as stipulated in case law.

The PHRB disagrees with the Athlete’s contention that the Judicial Committee gave no weight at all to the subjective factors and double-counted the objective factors. To the contrary, the objective / subjective approach articulated in the Čilić decision was fully considered and followed. Comprehensive and cogent reasons were provided by the Judicial Committee.

One member of the PHRB finds that the Judicial Committee erred in agreeing there was No Significant Fault on the part of the Athlete and finds that the degree of fault on the Athlete’s part would warrant no reduction of the presumptive sanction of two years’ Ineligibility.
While the majority of the members do not regard these considerations as warranting an increase in the sanction imposed by the Judicial Committee these factors do underscore the appropriateness of the Judicial Committee’s decision.

The majority of the PHRB would also not tinker with, let alone significantly reduce the sanction of 14 months imposed by the Judicial Committee. That sanction is amply supported by the record and by the Judicial Committee’s findings of fact. It is proportionate in all of the circumstances.

The minority view is that the period of Ineligibility should be increased to two years. All members of the PHRB agree that the Judicial Committee’s decision in respect of the Contaminated Supplement issue was wrong. However, in the PHRB's view, it makes no difference to the outcome. The PHRB holds that the delay in the proceedings does not warrant backdating the commencement of the period of ineligibility to the date of the sample collection.

Therefore the PHRB decides on 12 March 2019 to uphold the WR Judicial committee's decision of 4 February 2019.

In April 2018 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Jamaican rugby player Joshua Christie after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Drostanolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

In his submission the Athlete admitted the use of a Testosterone booster purchased in a local gym in a period that he had dislocated his shoulder, stopped attending training sessions and was depressed about his situation. He stated that he stopped using this supplement in March 2018 when he continued his training sessions and he was selected for competitions.

After his submission the Athlete failed to respond to the communications from World Rugby. Without the Athlete’s response the World Rugby Judicial Committee deems that the Athlete has admitted the violation and to have waived his right to an oral hearing. The Committee renders a decision based on the filed submissions.

Considering the Athlete’s submission the Committee finds that there is no evidence that the Athlete used any other substances that might explain the adverse analytical finding. The only plausible conclusion is that the supplement he described in his submission caused his positive finding. There is no evidence either that he made any effort to find out what he was consuming and whether it contained a prohibited substance. The Committee rejects his statement about his ignorance, that the violation was not intentional and used only for his shoulder injury.

Therefore the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 25 July 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 April 2018.