In February 2016 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian rugby player Alena Mikhltsova Bogacheva after her sample, provided on 3 February 2016, tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium (Mildronate) in a concentration of 20 ng/mL (0.02 μg/mL). 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 and stated that she had used the substance as prescribed medication. Due to Meldonium would be included in the 2016 Prohibited List she stopped using this medication in October 2015.

On 11 April 2016 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) issued a Notice about Meldonium with guidelines in the circumstances that there may be grounds for no fault or negligence on the part of the Athlete.

The Judicial Committee accepts the Athlete’s explanation and finds that the Athlete established on a balance of probability that the anti-doping violation was neither intentional or reckless. Due to the Athlete ceased taking Meldonium in October 2015, it is seriously questionable whether she could have reasonably apprehended there would be minute quantities of the substance in his system after 1 January 2016 and there was a significant risk it might constitute an anti-doping rule violation.

The Committee determine that there was No Fault or Negligence on the Athlete’s part and that the Athlete’s case came within paragraph number 3 of the WADA Notice (Cases where the concentration is below 1 μg/ml and the test was taken before 1 March 2016). As a result the Judicial Committee concludes that there are grounds to reduce the period of ineligibility from 4 to 2 years and also to eliminate this 2 year period of ineligibility.

Therefore the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 3 May 2016, and in its final decision of 3 June 2016, that with the elimination of the 2 year period of inelibilibility the Athlete was permitted to resume playing Rugby immediately.

In July 2016 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Namibian rugby player Arthur Christo Bouwer after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol). 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 and denied the intentional use of the prohibited product. He stated that over the past 2 years he had used a number of supplements and all of these supplements were mentioned on the Doping Control Form.
He admitted that he had used capsules of a product provided to him by another tourist ‘Antonio’ during his European Tour in October 2015. He stated that at that time he went through a depression stage, he was open to try new products and he was assured that this product was ‘safe’. Afterward the Athlete found out that the capsules of the product he had used might have been Superdrol (Methyldrostanolone) or Super-Anadrol (Oxymetholone). Neither of these products contain the substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol).
The Athlete acknowledged his failure to reseach the product on the internet before using and that he had been reckless.

The Judicial Committee finds that the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation has been established and that the Athlete’s statement and evidence is vague. He failed to prove the consumption of Superdrol or Super-Anadrol, due to these products don’t contain Turinabol, and he failed to prove that his conduct was unintentional.

Without grounds for a reduced sanction the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 26 October 2016 to impose a 4 year period on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 July 2016.

In April 2016 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Namibian rugby player Cameron Xavier McNab after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol) and Metandienone (Dianabol). 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 denied the intentional use of the substances and stated that previously he had purchased and used the supplements Jack 3d, Hellfire EPH 150 (containing stimulants) and Animal M Stak in November and December 2015. He used the supplement Jack 3d at least 30 days before the doping test.
He argued that the positive test could only be attributed to those supplements due to contamination with two different anabolic steroids. However the Athlete’s sample, provided in April 2016, did not contain the stimulant Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) and the detection window for the substance Dianabol is about 20 days after intake and for Turinabol the detection window is about 40 to 50 days. In his defence the Athlete asserted that irregularities occurred during the transport from Windhoek to the Swiss Laboratory via South Africa.

Considering the statements and evidence the Judicial Committee establish that no departures occurred concerning the sample collection and the chain of custody. Also the Committee finds the Athlete’s statement is unconvincing due to several significant discrepancies. The Athlete also failed to establish that the violation was unintentional.

Therefore the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 31 August 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 April 2016.

In July 2016 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Uruguayan rugby player Gonzalo Campomar Santamaria after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the World Rugby Judicial Committee.

The Athlete requested for a reduced sanction, denied the intentional use of any product containing the prohibited substance and stated he had only used a Supplement P6 Extreme, a legal natural testosterone booster, between March and May 2016. He purchased this Supplement from ‘a player’s friend’ after he suffered from a rugby injury and underwent surgery in June 2015. The Athlete assumed that the main component in the Supplement (Tribulus Atatus Extract) is the source of the positive test. Also he argued that the Supplement may be contaminated by androgenic-anabolic steroid referring to medical literature.

World Rugby argued that the Athlete’s conduct was reckless, he failed to produce hard evidence in support of his statement and neither that the anti-doping violation was unintentional. The Athlete didn’t demonstrate a link between the Supplement and the Substance due to the ‘testosterone booster’ the Athlete didn’t test positive for Testosterone nor did he prove that the supplement was contaminated.

The Judicial Committee agrees that the Athlete didn’t provide reliable and probative forensic evidence which supported his that his Supplement was likely to have been contaminated and neither did he produce evidence which scientifically indicated the P6 Extreme could be linked to the substance Stanazolol. The Committee finds it more likely that the anabolic steroid was ingested independently of the Supplement.

Therefore the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 10 October 2016 to impose an 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 July 2016.

REVISION

Hereafter in October 2016 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) informed World Rugby that the Uruguayan rugby player Gonzalo Campomar Santamaria previously had committed an anti-doping rule violation and was sanctioned for 18 months on 22 February 2013 by the Organización Nacional de Antidopaje del Uruguay (NADO Uruguay) after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Ephedrine.

In spite of the Athlete's objections the Judicial Committee rules that it has jurisdiction to amend the sanction for the Athlete's second anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 20 February 2017 to amend its decision of 10 October 2016 and to increase the period of ineligibility from 4 to 8 years starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 July 2016.

In April 2016 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian rugby player Lucas Domingues after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.
The Athlete gave a prompt admission, he waived his right to be heard and submitted that he had used the substance to recover from a serious knee injury he suffered.

The World Rugby Judicial Committee weighs the Athlete’s prompt admission against his intentional use of the substance for the purpose of assisting his recovery from his knee injury and decides on 15 November 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 April 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.

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.

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 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.

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.