Facts
The Irish Sports Council (ISC) alleges the Athlete IS-1519 (the Athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The Athlete provided a sample of urine collected from an in-competition doping test in February 2008. His sample tested positive on terbutaline which is a "specified substance" on the World Anti-Doping Code, 2008 Prohibited List.

History
The violation was admitted on behalf of the Athlete. The prohibited substance entered his body in the form of a Bricanyl inhaler. The Athlete had the benefit of an Abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemption Form (ATUE) for the two year period from 2005, that shortly prior to the expiry of that period in 2007, a new ATUE form was applied by the Athlete and his doctor but, for whatever reason, the application for the ATUE did not reach the Irish Sports Council. The Panel was satisfied that this arose due to an administrative oversight and not used for enhancing his sport performance.

Decision
The Panel was satisfied that no period of ineligibility was appropriate having regard to the evidence. However, under Article 10.3 of the Rules, the Panel was obliged to issue and did issue a warning and reprimand to the player IS-1519.

Related case:
ISADDP 2008 IMAC Disciplinary Decision 20081517
February 9, 2009

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed against a decision of the Irish Sport Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of 9 February 2009 in the case of the Athlete IS-1517 (the Athlete).

The Athlete was previously sanctioned with a 3 month period of ineligibility for her refusal in an out-of-competition doping test.

Considering the circumstances in this case the ASADAP Panel concludes that there is a gap in the relevant Rules related to the refusal to provide a sample. However the Panel rules that a 2 year period of ineligibility is not unjust or disproportionate having regard to the importance of combating sport and having regard to the fact that the Athlete retired from competing in competitions.

Therefore the Appeal Panel decides on 29 July 2010 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete IS-1717.

Related case:
ISADAP 2010 WADA vs ISADDP Appeal Decision 20081517 - Appeal July 29, 2010

Facts
The Irish Sports Council (ISC) alleges the Athlete IS-1517 (the Athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The Athlete was guilty of an anti-doping rule violation by refusing to provide a urine sample when requested to do so by authorised Doping Control Officers in September 2008.

History
The athlete arrived at her home on the evening in question that she was unable to provide the requested sample as she had an urgent commitment away from her house and that it was private and work related. She also explained that it was not possible for the testers to accompany her but that she would be at her training venue from 8pm later that evening and would be available to meet with the testers to provide the sample then. The athlete explained that she had just taken up a new position in July 2008, some five weeks previously, as a manager, and that she had arranged a meeting with a important client who might be in a position to bring a considerable amount of business.

Decision
The decision of the Panel is, that the A hlete IS-1517 did commit the alleged anti-doping rule violation in breach of Article 2.3 of the Rules and that the appropriate sanction is a period of three months’ ineligibility dating from 19 November 2008. That period will, therefore, expire on 19 February 2009.

Facts
The Irish Sports Council (ISC) and the Irish Martial Art Committee (IMAC) alleges the Athlete IS-1516 (the Athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The athlete violated the applicable requirements regarding athlete availability for out-of-competition testing, including an alleged failure to provide “whereabouts” information as required.

History
Due to domestic problems the athlete didn't receive any letters addressed to her. She admits her failures and stopped competing in her sport.

Decision
Considering the circumstances the Panel felt that a period of three months was appropriate. The Athlete had already served a provisional suspension of three months imposed by the IMAC. That provisional suspension expired previously in September 2006. The Panel was satisfied that it would not be appropriate to impose a new sanction on the Athlete.

In October 2005 the Irish Sports Council (ICS) has reported an Anti-Doping Rule Violation against the Athlete IS-1515 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis in an concentration above the WADA threshold.

After notification the Athlete informed the Panel that he accepted at the very outset the result of the adverse analytical finding and the violation of the Rules and expressed his deep regrets that the incident had taken place. He had no intention to enhance his sport performance with the specified substances.

The Panel decides on 21 December 2005 to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

In August 2004 the Irish Sport Council (ISC) has reported an Anti-Doping Rule Violation against the Athlete IS-1514 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

After notification the Athlete admitted the use of the substance and therefore the Panel decides on 12 August 2004 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Sam Chalmers (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. He was tested out-of-competition on 13 May 2013 while in camp with the Union’s Under 20s squad preparing for the IRB Junior World Championships 2013 the Tournament. His sample contained metabolites of methandienone and stanozolol.

History
The player admitted the anti-doping rule violation by mail. He had taken a pill called Pro SD, to gain weight, for around 2 weeks exactly before his doping test.

Decision
A period of ineligibility of two years, commencing on the date his provisional suspension took effect, namely 11 June 2013. The period of ineligibility runs until midnight on 10 June 2015.

Costs
No order for costs are made.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Roman Kulakivskiy the player for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 16th November 2012 the Player provided an urine sample during an out-of competition test. His sample tested positive on metenolone and stanozolol, which are prohibited substances on de World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
At the end of December 2011 Mr Kulakivskiy was operated in Lodz (Poland) on the right knee joint. The doctor suggests that with medications used in operational and post operational period has entered some drugs that are prohibited by WADA. However the Player made a false claim the prohibited substances were ingested as a result of the Lodz Hospital medical treatment for his injured knee. The evidence clearly indicated the steroids must have been taken during the Tournament period between 27th October 2012 and 16th November 2012. Given this was after he had been previously tested there was a strong inference the Player thought he would not be tested again. In relation to the Player’s comment he only took substances provided by the Team Doctor or Coach, none of the remaining 11 Players who were tested returned Adverse Analytical Findings. Thus, it was submitted it could be inferred the two steroids were consumed in addition to the substances supplied to the Team. The Player’s lack of honesty in response to questions during the hearing in failing to disclose the circumstances relating to the taking of the banned substances indicated intentional use, possibly to expedite his recovery from on-going problems (which were still present in November) in relation to his knee following surgery.

Decision
The sanction imposed for this anti-doping rule violation is a period of ineligibility of three years (36 months) commencing from 12th December 2012 (being the date upon which the Player’s provisional suspension commenced) and concluding (but inclusive of) the 12th December 2015.

Costs
Written submission should be provided on time.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Oleg Lytvynenko(OL), Serhii Sukhikh (SS) and Bogdan Zhulavskyi (BZ) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Following the European Nations Cup Division 1B match between Ukraine and Germany in Berlin on 27 October 2012 (the “Match”), one of the players selected for doping control procedures was SS. Instead of presenting himself at the doping control station for testing, he gave his shirt to his team-mate OL, who proceeded to provide a Sample, passing himself off as SS. His ability to perpetrate this deception was facilitated by him obtaining SS’s passport from the national team manager of the Ukraine team, BZ, which he then used to prove that he was SS.

History
OL said that SS had “drank a sports drink "GUITAR" before the match and during and after the match he felt feverishness and he had an excited appearance and he was afraid that his sample will be positive."

Decision
On 27 October 2012 the following anti-doping rule violations were committed:
Serhii Sukhikh
- tampering or attempted tampering with any part of Doping Control, contrary to Regulation 21.2.5;
- failing or refusing to submit to Sample collection, contrary to Regulation.
Sanction: two years Ineligibility concluding on (but inclusive of) 6 December 2014.
Oleg Lytvynenko
- tampering or attempted tampering with any part of Doping Control, contrary to Regulation 21.2.5
Sanction: two years Ineligibility concluding on (but inclusive of) 6 December 2014
Bogdan Zhulavskyi
- tampering or attempted tampering with any part of Doping Control, contrary to Regulation 21.2.5
Sanction: four years Ineligibility concluding on (but inclusive of) 6 December 2016

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Rodrigo Parada Heit (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 8 June 2012 the player underwent an in-competition doping test. His sample tested positive for the Prohibited Substances, 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone.

History
Due to a ankle injury the player was provided with a prescription for a 25mg dose of Deca-Durabolin which he filled in Cordoba and then took to Salta. There he had a nurse inject him with the substance. Deca-Durabolin is the brand name used for nandrolone in Argentina.
Nandrolone is listed as category S1.Androgenic Anabolic Steroid on the 2012 list of prohibited substances published by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Because at the time he used Deca-Durabolin, the Player was no longer in the national team system and he did not expect to be playing for some time, he therefore did not consider himself to be running a risk of committing an anti-doping rule violation. On 9 March 2012 the Player was unexpectedly called up to “Los Pumitas” (the national Under 20 Squad).

Decision
The sanction imposed for these anti-doping rule violations is a period of Ineligibility of two years, commencing 2 July 2012 (the date upon which the Player was notified of the Adverse Analytical Finding and provisionally suspended) and concluding on (but inclusive of 1 July 2014).