ANAD Comisia de Audiere 2010_09 ANAD vs Ioan Moldovan

14 Jan 2010

In September 2009 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ioan Moldovan after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and did not request the B sample analysis.
The ANAD Hearing Commission considers that this is the Athlete’s second violation and therefore decides on 14 January 2010 to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

ANAD Comisia de Audiere 2010_08 ANAD vs Angelo Ionel Alexa

14 Jan 2010

In September 2009 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Angelo Ionel Alexa after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.
After notification the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the Commission.
Therefore the ANAD Hearing Commission decides on 14 January 2010 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

ANAD Comisia de Audiere 2010_07 ANAD vs Gabriel Ovidiu Şerban

14 Jan 2010

In December 2009 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Gabriel Ovidiu Şerban after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
After notification the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the Commission.

Therefore the ANAD Hearing Commission decides on 14 January 2010 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

ANAD Comisia de Audiere 2010_06 ANAD vs Ioan Rareș Şuteu

14 Jan 2010

In December 2009 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ioan Rareș Şuteu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance canrenone and stanozolol.
After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and did not request the B sample analysis.

The ANAD Hearing Commission decides on 14 January 2010 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

ANAD Comisia de Audiere 2010_05 ANAD vs Constantin Lazăr

14 Jan 2010

In November 2009 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Constantin Lazăr after he refused to sign the invitation to provide a sample for drug testing.
After notification the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the Commission.
Therefore the ANAD Hearing Commission decides on 14 January 2010 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

ANAD Comisia de Audiere 2010_04 ANAD vs Orsolya Bene

14 Jan 2010

In November 2009 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Orsolya Bene after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance sibutramine.

The minor Athlete stated she used capsules to loose weight. When purchasing the capsules the Athlete was assured that this natural product could be used by elite athletes.
The Commission concludes that the Athlete had no intention to enhance sport performance and she mentioned the capsules on the Doping Control Form.
Therefore the ANAD Hearing Commission decides on 14 January 2010 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

ANAD Comisia de Audiere 2010_03 ANAD vs Ştefan Gheorghe

14 Jan 2010

In November 2009 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ştefan Gheorghe after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance metandienone.
After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and did not request the B sample analysis.

The ANAD Hearing Commission decides on 14 January 2010 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

ANAD Comisia de Audiere 2010_02 ANAD vs Sorin Alexandrescu

14 Jan 2010

In January 2010 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Sorin Alexandrescu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.
After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and did not request the B sample analysis.

The ANAD Hearing Commission decides on 14 January 2010 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

ANAD Comisia de Audiere 2010_01 ANAD vs Vlad Alexandru Ionașcu

14 Jan 2010

In January 2010 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Vlad Alexandru Ionașcu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.
After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and did not request the B sample analysis.
The ANAD Hearing Commission decides on 14 January 2010 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

ISR 2009 NHB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009049 TU

12 Jan 2010

Realted case:
ISR 2009 NHB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009049 T
May 3, 2010

The Dutch Archery Federation (Nederlandse Handboog Bond, NHB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the person after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Atenolol.
The Person waived his right to be heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

In this interim decision, the Disciplinary Commission provided the person concerned a large period of six weeks in which the athlete could apply for a TUE. After six weeks, the application for TUE was still in progress therefore the Disciplinary Committee provided an additional six weeks to obtain dispensation. However, after twelve weeks in total a TUE could not been shown to the Disciplinary Committee. Since there was no valid dispensation certificate the Disciplinary Commission followed up on an anti doping rule violation.
Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by person.

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