On 10 January 2017 the Malta Football Federation (MFA) Control and Disciplinary Board decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the football player Dean Camilleri for his refusal or failure to submit to sample collection. Here the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the MFA Disciplinary Board.

Hereafter in January 2017 the Athlete appealed the MFA decision at the MFA Board of Appeal.

The Athlete argued that he had not received the Notification and therefore failed to attend the First Instance Hearing while he wished the make a statement in his defence. The Athlete asserted that he is a waterpolo player for 24 years and only a football player in the winter season. He testified that as a waterpolo player he was tested several times without issues and had never before refused to provide a sample.

The Athlete explained that during the competition in question he had permission from his coach to leave because he had problems at home when he was told that he was selected for a sample collection. Because of the problems at home he decided to leave. Considering the circumstances the Athlete requested the Board of Appeal for a reduced sanction.

The Board of Appeal accepts the Athlete’s explanation, as supported by evidence, that he had to leave because of urgent problems at home and that there was no evidence that he refused because he had used doping. The Board concludes that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete established No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the MFA Board of Appeal decides 23 March 2017 to reduce the sanction and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the Notification, i.e. 12 December 2016.

In January 2019 the Malta Football Association (MFA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Danny Kabeya after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied any use of the prohibited substance without providing any other other explanation.

The Board finds that the test result showed the presence of the prohibited substance and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Board considers that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional or that the Cocaine possibly only was used socially.

Therefore the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board decides on 29 April 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 January 2019.

In January 2019 the Malta Football Association (MFA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Gianluca Calabretta after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board.

The Athlete admitted the violation and explained that he had used the substance out-of-competition in a social event before the match in question.

The Board finds that the test result showed the presence of the prohibited substance and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Board considers that the violation was not intentional without grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board decides on 29 April 2019 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 January 2019.

In December 2018 the Malta Football Association (MFA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Shamison Zammit after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the substance, accepted the test result and a provisional suspension.

The Board finds that the test result showed the presence of the prohibited substance and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Board accepts that the violation was not intentional and that there are grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board decides on 11 February 2019 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 December 2018.

In January 2019 the Malta Football Association (MFA) has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the football player Danny Kabeya after his sample - collected in December 2018 - tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The MFA Control and Disciplinary Board 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.

The Disciplinary Board establishes that the Athlete had accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. The Athlete could not explain how and when the substance had entered his system, nor that the use was probably recreational and out-of-competition.

Therefore the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board decides on 24 April 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 January 2019.

In January 2022 the Malta Football Association (MFA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Ezekjel Farrugia after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete had prior admitted the violation and did not attend the hearing of the MFA Control, Disciplinary and Etihics Committee.

The Committee 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.

The Committee accepts the violation was not intentional although the Athlete failed to attend the hearing in order to demonstrated that the Cannabis was used out-of-competition as a substance of abuse for the application of a reduced sanction.

Therefore the MFA Control, Disciplinary and Etihics Committee decides on 27 June 2022 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 January 2022.

Mildronate (Meldonium) in professional sports : monitoring doping control urine samples using hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography - high resolution/high accuracy mass spectrometry / Christian Görgens, Sven Guddat, Josef Dib, Hans Geyer, Wilhelm Schänzer, Mario Thevis. - (Drug Testing and Analysis 7 (2015) 11-12 (November-December) p. 973-979)

• DOI: 10.1002/dta.1788

Content:

- Introduction
- Experimental
• Chemicals and reagents
• Synthesis of labelled IS
• Sample preparation
• LC-MS/MS
* Initial testing
* Confirmatory analysis
• Method validation
• Routine doping control samples
- Results and discussion
• Mass spectrometry
• Liquid chromatography
• Method validation
• Routine doping control samples
- Conclusion

Abstract:

To date, substances such as Mildronate (Meldonium) are not on the radar of anti-doping laboratories as the compound is not explicitly classified as prohibited. However, the anti-ischemic drug Mildronate demonstrates an increase in endurance performance of athletes, improved rehabilitation after exercise, protection against stress, and enhanced activations of central nervous system (CNS) functions.
In the present study, the existing evidence of Mildronate’s usage in sport,which is arguably not exclusively) based onmedicinal reasons, is corroborated by unequivocal analytical data allowing the estimation of the prevalence and extent of misuse in professional sports. Such data are vital to support decision-making processes, particularly regarding the ban on drugs in sport. Due to the growing body of evidence (black market products and athlete statements) concerning its misuse in sport, adequate test methods for the reliable identification of Mildronate are required, especially since the substance has been added to the 2015 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) monitoring program.
In the present study, two approaches were established using an in-house synthesized labelled internal standard (Mildronate-D3). One aimed at the implementation of the analyte into routine doping control screening methods to enable its monitoring at the lowest possible additional workload for the laboratory, and another that is appropriate for the peculiar specifics of the analyte, allowing the unequivocal confirmation of findings using hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography-high resolution/high accuracy mass spectrometry (HILIC-HRMS). Here, according to applicable regulations in sports drug testing, a full qualitative validation was conducted. The assay demonstrated good specificity, robustness (rRT=0.3%), precision (intra-day: 7.0–8.4%; inter-day: 9.9–12.9%), excellent linearity (R>0.99) and an adequate lower limit of detection (<10 ng/mL).

Mind sports and doping : an investigation of pharmacological substances that may enhance performance in mind sports [2000] / Olivier de Hon, F. Hartgens. – Capelle aan den IJssel : Netherlands Centre for Doping Affairs (NeCeDo), 2000

As a result of the ratification of the Anti-Doping Convention in 1995, the Dutch government has increasingly compelled the national sports federations to pursue an active anti-doping policy. As a minimum, these federations must have anti-doping regulations. However, mind sports (chess, draughts, bridge, and Go) have provisionally been exempted from this ruling because there are doubts about the relevance of this policy to these sports. In response to a request from the Dutch federations of various mind sports, the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport has asked the Netherlands Centre for Doping Affairs to investigate whether pharmacological substances can be used to enhance performance in mind sports.

Conclusions:
• The factors that determine performance are substantially different between mind sports and physical sports, and this justifies separate anti-doping regulations.
• In the world of mind sports itself, the impression exists that pharmacological substances are used only sporadically to enhance performance.
• It can be expected that performance in mind sports can be enhanced by means of pharmacological substances; however, the expected effect of such substances is minor.
• Some of the possible performance-enhancing substances may be harmful to health, which means that these substances should be considered as doping agents.
• It is recommended that the mind sports federations formally prohibit doping and that these federations draw up regulations that enable sanctions to be imposed when prohibited substances are used in mind sports.
• If the decision is taken to prohibit doping in mind sports, it is recommended that a specific list of prohibited substances be drawn up. The current (IOC) list of prohibited substances should not be used unadapted.
• It is important that national and international anti-doping regulations concerning the mind sports are consistent. This investigation may contribute to the harmonisation of these regulations.

Minderjarigen en het antidopingbeleid – deel 2 / H. Ram

• Tijdschrift voor Sport & Recht (2022) 1, p. 1-10
  
  

In dit tweede deel van dit artikel wordt de jurisprudentie inzake door minderjarige sporters begane dopingovertredingen besproken. Daarbij wordt eerst onderzocht hoe de regels in de Wereld Anti-Doping Code (WADC) die specifiek betrekking heeft op minderjarige sporters, inclusief de specifieke regels die het verloop van dopingcontroles bij minderjarige sporters beheersen, worden toegepast. Vervolgens wordt onderzocht hoe minderjarigheid wordt meegewogen en welke factoren daarbij een rol spelen, in het bijzonder bij het bepalen van de strafmaat. Het artikel sluit af met enige conclusies en een jurisprudentieoverzicht.

Minderjarigen en het antidopingbeleid – deel 1 / H. Ram

• Tijdschrift voor Sport & Recht (2021) 4, p. 79-87
  
  

Na een korte introductie wordt in dit artikel een overzicht gegeven van regelgeving in de Wereld Anti-Doping Code (WADC) die specifiek betrekking heeft op minderjarige sporters, en van specifieke regels die het verloop van dopingcontroles bij minderjarige sporters beheersen. Het merendeel van deze regels is van kracht geweest sinds de eerste versie van de WADC, maar een aantal regels is sindsdien gewijzigd of toegevoegd. Vervolgens wordt een aantal gegevens gepresenteerd die inzicht geven in de daadwerkelijke uitvoering van dopingcontroles bij minderjarigen. Het artikel wordt afgesloten met een bespreking van jurisprudentie inzake begeleidend personeel (zoals trainers, coaches en artsen) die vervolgd en veroordeeld zijn wegens het verstrekken of toedienen van doping aan minderjarige sporters. Tuchtcolleges leggen de maximale straf (levenslange uitsluiting) op als de ernst van de overtreding daar voldoende aanleiding toe geeft. In het tweede deel van dit artikel zal de jurisprudentie inzake door minderjarige sporters zelf begane dopingovertredingen besproken worden.