In November 2018 World Rugby (WR) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Turkish rugby player Emre Bender after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the WR Judicial Committee

The Athlete accepted the test results and testified that he had used tablets provided by a fitness trainer at the gym. He acknowledged that he had received some warnings from his coaches and the Turkish Rugby Federation about doping. He requested the Panel to be as lenient as possible as he was anxious to avoid any lengthy suspension.

WR contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional and requested the Panel to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility.

The Panel finds that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation since his samples tested positive for testosterone. The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to establish the violation was not intentional nor did he establish No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the WR Judicial Committee decides on 18 April 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 1 November 2018.

In April 2017 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violations against the rugby player Lucky Schuster Palamo after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Salbutamol in a concentation above the WADA threshold.
After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the substance, waived his right to be heard and filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete stated that he suffered from asthma since childhood and the symptoms deteriorates during exercise including training and playing rugby. The asthma is more severe in hotter weather conditions necessitating an increased use of inhaled Salbutamol to manage his symptoms. He asserted that he was not aware that excessive use of his inhaler would result in an anti-doping violation. During the competition in Suva in March 2017 the Athlete used his inhaler more frequently due to the hot and humid conditions since he had never played in Fiji and had played all of his rugby matches in either New Zealand or Australia.

World Rugby accepted that the violation was not intentional, that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence due to his careless use of his inhaler and requested for the imposition of a 3 month period of ineligibility.

Considering the circumstances and evidence in this case the Judicial Committee agrees that the Athlete’s fault was not significant or negligent. Therefore the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 16 August 2017 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 April 2017.

In March 2017 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Adrian Gabriel Chiper after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the World Rugby Judicial Committee.

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use and was unaware that there was anti-doping information on the internet neither that steroids were prohibited. He stated that he had purchased the substance as medication on the internet as treatment for his knee injury. He acknowledged that he didn’t report his injury to the team officials and failed to mention his medication on the Doping Control Form. He only discussed his medication with his team doctor after de sample collection.

World Rugby contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional nor how the substance entered his system. It requested the Committee for the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility.

On the balance of probabilities, the Judicial Committee is skeptical about the Athlete’s statement. The Committee holds that to self-diagnose and to self-treat a knee injury in the sport of rugby, based on advice from Google, is difficult to understand. The Committee finds it difficult to accept the Athlete’s version how the prohibited substance entered his system. While not absolutely essential to proving that the violation was unintentional, any question about the source of the prohibited substance severely undercuts the Athlete’s case on this point.

Therefore the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 20 August 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 November 2017.

Related case:
World Rugby 2017 Aaron Davis vs WR – Appeal
July 19, 2018

In March 2017 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violations against the American rugby player Aaron Davis after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the World Rugby Judicial Committee.

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use and requested for a reduced sanction. He asserted that the violation was inadvertent and was caused by his use of a contaminated multi-vitamin/multi-mineral product called “Animal Pak”.

Much of the evidence and the submissions received at the hearing concerned the possibility of the Animal Pak supplement being contaminated. Expert testimony was tendered by both the Athlete and World Rugby and evidence was also received from an executive of the manufacturer of Animal Pak.

World Rugby requested for a sanction of 4 years and contended that the violation was intentional since the Athlete failed to establish that product Animal Pak was the source of his positive test.

The Committee established that neither the Montreal Lab or the Salt Lake City Lab found any 19-norandrosterone or other Nandrolone substance in their analysis of the product Animal Pak. As a consequence the Committee finds that the Athlete has failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that his positive test was caused by a contaminated supplement or that his anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.

Further the Committee holds that the Athlete was engaged in conduct which he knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.

Therefore the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 27 November 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 March 2017.

Related case:
World Rugby 2016 WR vs Rubén Ricco
March 30, 2017

On 30 March 2017 the World Rugby Judicial Committee decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Argentine rugby player Rubén Ricco after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clomiphene.

Here the Committee didn’t accept the Athlete’s statement as it found it highly unlikely that he purchased Clomiphene over the counter at a pharmacy and failed to produce any corroborating evidence in support. Also the Committee didn’t believe that the Athlete purchased and used Clomiphene to treat a skin condition. Further the Committee regarded it improbable that more than 5 months had elapsed between his administration of Clomiphene and the sample collection.

Hereafter in April 2017 the Athlete appealed the first instance decision with the World Rugby Post-Hearing Review Body. The Athlete requested the Review Body to annul the decision of the Judicial Committee and to impose a reduced sanction.
The Athlete disputed the findings of the Judicial Committee and argued that the Clomiphene was used only as treatment for his skin condition and not for performance enhancement.

The Review Body establish that the postitive test result for Clomiphene was valid and that World Rugby produced no direct evidence of the availablilty of the Clomiphene in Argentina. However the Athlete neither had gone back to the pharmacist in question to obtain evidence of his purchase nor to obtain a statement confirming the availability of Clomophene over-the-counter. The Review Body finds that in first instance there was no inconsistency in the factual findings where parts of the witness’ evidence were accepted and other parts were rejected by the Judicial Committee.

The Review Body agrees that it was improbable that more than 5 months had elapsed between his administration of Clomiphene and the sample collection. Also it agrees that the Athlete was engaged in conduct which he knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk. Thus the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation was intentional and without grounds for a reduced sanction the applicable sanction was a 4 year period of ineligibility.

Therefore the World Rugby Review Body decides on 5 October 2017 to uphold the decision of the Judicial Committee rendered on 30 March 2017.

Related case:
World Rugby 2017 WR vs Aaron Davis
November 27, 2017

On 27 November 2017 the World Rugby Judicial Committee decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the American rugby player Aaron Davis after he tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). Here the Athlete asserted that the violation was inadvertent and was caused by his use of a contaminated multi-vitamin/multi-mineral product called “Animal Pak”.

However the Judicial Committee established that neither the Montreal Lab or the Salt Lake City Lab found any 19-norandrosterone or other Nandrolone substance in their analysis of the product Animal Pak.
As a consequence the Committee deemed that the Athlete failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that his positive test was caused by a contaminated supplement or that his anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.

Hereafter in December 2017 the Athlete appealed the first instance decision op 27 November 2017 with the World Rugby Post-Hearing Review Body. The Athlete requested the Review Body to annul the decision of the Judicial Committee and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete disputed the findings of Judicial Committee and argued that the violation was not intentional and caused by a contaminated supplement. He rejected the conclusion in first instance that he was engaged in conduct which he knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.

Considering the evidence in this case the Review Body establish that:

- The Judicial Committee made no error in its conclusion that the Athlete failed to identify the product Animal Pak as the origin of the 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).
- The Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.
- The Athlete’s use of the product without seeking professional guidance over several years was reckless in that he failed to exercise extreme caution.
- There were no substantial delays in the first instance case.
- The Athlete was engaged in conduct which he knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.
- Without grounds for a reduced sanction the applicable sanction was a 4 year period of ineligibility.

Therefore the World Rugby Review Body decides on 19 July 2018 to uphold the decision of the Judicial Committee rendered on 27 November 2017.

Related case:
World Rugby 2017 Rubén Ricco vs WR - Appeal
October 5, 2017

In July 2016 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violations against the Argentine rugby player Rubén Ricco after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clomiphene.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the World Rugby Judicial Committee.

The Athlete admitted the violation, accepted the test result, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He and his friend testified that the Clomiphene pills were purchased over-the-counter at a pharmacy without a prescription. Recommended by his friend the medication was used to treat pain and discomfort that the Athlete was experiencing as a result of an irritated nipple. He claimed that the medication was used until the beginning of January 2016 while he was tested 5 months later on 30 May 2016.

The Committee didn’t accept the Athlete’s statement and finds it hightly unlikely that he purchased Clomiphene over the counter at a pharmacy without showing any corroborating evidence in support. Also the Committee does not believe that the Athlete purchased and used Clomiphene to treat a skin condition. Further the Committee holds it improbable that more than 5 months had elapsed between his administration of Clomiphene and the sample collection.

The Committee concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation as a result of the presence of Clomiphene. It deems that the Athlete was engaged in conduct which he knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.

Therefore the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 30 March 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 July 2016.

In July 2016 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Sri Lankan rugby player Rochana Hettiarachchi after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance tamoxifen. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the World Rugby Judicial Committee.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission, he denied the intentional use of the substance tamoxifen and could not explain the presence of the substance in his system. However he admitted that previously he had purchased the supplement Dianabol (metandienone) and a medication Liv52 in order to recover from an injury after he was misinformed that this supplement was ‘safe’.
The Athlete explained that he had received minimal ant-doping education and he was not capable of reading or understanding in English when the anti-doping booklets and relevant documents were in English and not in the Sinhalese language.

Considering the Athlete’s explanation the Judicial Committee is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete was engaged in conduct which he knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk. Also the Committee finds that this case has little if anything to do with a lack of education.

Without grounds for a reduced sanction the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 20 February 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 July 2016.

In July 2016 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian rugby player Oxana Korobchuk after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she waived her right to be heard.

The Athlete admitted the violation and submittted that she suffered from a hip injury and that she had received injections from a private doctor without her knowledge that a prohibited substance was administered.
World Rugby contended that the Athlete failed to produce any evidence about the claimed medical treatment and the injections she received from an unidentified doctor. Neither did the Athlete establish that the violation was non intentional.

The World Rugby Judicial Committee concludes that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction and decides on 9 October 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 July 2016.

In July 2016 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Spanish rugby player Luis Alvaro Puentes Rodríguez after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Amphetamine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete failed to respond.

Due to the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (AEPSAD) was declared non-compliant with the WADA Code and the Madrid laboratory was suspended by WADA, World Rugby was requested by AEPSAD to open proceedings against the Athlete and his samples were transferred from Madrid to the WADA-accredited laboratory at Ghent, Belgium.

World Rugby asserted that this is the Athlete’s second anti-doping rule violation and the Athlete has not established that the violation was not intentional nor did he provide any evidence about the circumstances in this case.
Without grounds for a reduced sanction and without the Athlete’s response the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 25 February 2017 to impose a 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his second anti-doping rule violation starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 25 July 2016.