ICC 2022 ICC vs Zubayr Hamza

17 May 2022

In March 2022 the International Cricket Council (ICC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the South African cricket player Zubayr Hamza after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

After notification, the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the ICC.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and explained that by mistake he had used one of his father's heart pills instead of his own anti-allergy medciation. The round white tablet of his medication looked very similar to his father's medication and both medications were kept in the family medicine box.

Based on the evidence the ICC concludes that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional and that the Athlete established No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the ICC decides on 17 May 2022 to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of de provisional suspension, i.e. on 22 March 2022.

AAA 2021 No. 01 21 0016 9375 USADA vs Tricia Downing

2 May 2022

In July 2021 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the parathlete Tricia Downing after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the American Arbitration Association Commercial Arbitration Tribunal.

The Athlete (52) accepted the test result, admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the substance and asserted that her fault was not significant. She explained that she suffered from menopausal symptoms and had used a cream, prescribed by a Nurse Practitioner, while she was unaware that it contained Testosterone.

The Athlete presumed the cream was safe and didn't mention it on the Doping Control Form. She argued that she delegated her responsibility to the Nurse Practitioner (Delegation Coctrine) to ensure that no prohibited substances entered her system. Hereafter the Athlete had applied for a retroactive TUE for her use of Testosterone which was denied by USADA in September 2021.

The Nurse Practioner testified that during the consultation and prescription of the cream was not mentioned that the she was an elite or drug tested athlete, nor was mentioned that the cream contained Testosterone. The Practioner was not specialised in treating athletes, had no anti-doping experience, nor received anti-doping education, nor was she familiar with the WADA Prohibited List.

USADA accepted that the violation was not intentional, but contended that the Athlete had acted with significant fault. Prior she had received considerable anti-doping education and she declined from her Practioner a prescription for DHEA.

USADA's medical expert deemed that Testosterone is not an approved treatment for menopause and there are safety concerns about giving Testosterone therapy to women. Test results showed that the Athlete's Testosterone concentration was normal whereas there was no basis to conclude that the Athlete's Testosterone levels were deficient.

The Arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. Undisputed between the parties is that the violation was not intentional.

The Arbitrator holds that there are no grounds to apply the Delegation Doctrine in determining the Athlete's degree of fault or the lenght of the sanction. In the matter of the prescribed cream the Arbitrator assessed the Athlete's conduct and concludes that she acted with significant fault or negligence without grounds for a further reduction of the sanction.

Therefore the AAA Tribunal decides on 2 May 2022 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 July 2021.

AAA 2021 No. 01 21 0017 1003 USADA vs Taylor Graham

20 Apr 2022

In October 2021 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the wheelchair tennis player Taylor Graham for his refusal to submit to sample collection.

In September 2021 the Doping Control Officer (DCO) established that the Athlete was not present at his residence for out-of-competition testing. When called the Athlete confirmed that he was at his in-law's home for dinner and declined the DCO's offer to meet. He explained that he was no longer on the team, intended to retire, yet had not filed the required paperwork to retire.

When informed about the consequences the Athlete still refused to submit to sample collection and after the DCO had read the Athlete Refusal Form the Athlete confirmed.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete fully admitted in his written statement his refusal due to his intention to retire but failure to communicate this to USADA. Based on the evidence in this case the Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete's refusal was intentional or at a minimum was negligent.

Therefore the Amercan Arbitration Association Commercial Tribunal decides on 20 April 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 October 2021.

FEI 2022 FEI vs Chiara Marrama

3 May 2022

In February 2022 the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian rider for her refusal or failure to submit to sample collection after notification.

The Doping Control Officer (DCO) reported that in November 2021 at the Doping Control Station the Athlete refused to provide a sample because she was menstruating. She became upset when the DCO explained to her that this was not a valid reason to refuse to provide a test. Although duly informed about the consequences the DCO and a FEI official could not convince the Athlete to provide a sample and ultimately she left the Doping Control Station.

Hereafter the Athlete gave a timely admission, accepted a provisional suspension, signed an Acceptance of Consequences Form and received a 1 year reduction. The FEI Tribunal was requested to issue a decision based on the written submissions of the parties.

Therefore the FEI Tribunal decides on 3 May 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 2 December 2021.

UKAD 2021 Philip Bowes vs UKAD - Appeal

14 Apr 2022

Related case:

UKAD 2021 UKAD vs Philip Bowes|
August 5, 2021

On 5 August 2021 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the boxer Philip Bowes after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Ostarine in a low concentration.

In first instance the Athlete denied the intential use of the substance and attempted to prove that a contaminated product was the source. However the Panel deemed that he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the NADP Appeal Tribunal and requested for a review and not a rehearing. He introduced new evidence and provided character statements in his behalf.

The Appeal Panel assessed 4 grounds of appeal and finds that:

  • the Athlete gave a different and inconsistent account by reference to his new version of what supplements he had used;
  • he failed to establish that he was an extremely careful user of supplements as he claimed;
  • he failed to prove his absence of intention;
  • despite character evidence and assessment of his credibility he still had not established an absence of intention.

Therefore the Appeal Tribunal decides on 14 April 2022 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision of 5 August 2021 for the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility.

UKAD 2021 UKAD vs Philip Bowes

5 Aug 2021

Related case:

UKAD 2021 Philip Bowes vs UKAD - Appeal
April 14, 2022

In October 2020 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Philip Bowes after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Ostarine in a low concentration.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He asserted that positive test was the result of a contaminated product, yet analysis of his supplements and products he had used revealed no prohibited substances. Supported by expert witnesses he argued that the violation was not intentional and that the analysis of his fingernail and toenail must be allowed by UKAD.

Although the Athlete gave a prompt admission UKAD contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substance.

The Panel 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. Further the Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 5 August 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 2 September 2020.

FA 2021 Football Association vs Chioma Ubogagu

20 Apr 2022

In December 2021 the English Football Association (FA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Chioma Ubogagu after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Canrenone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the FA Regulatory Commission.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission and explained that the source was the new anti-acne medication she had used prescribed by her dermatologist. She acknowledged that she had to check this product for prohibited substances before using.

The Athlete had mentioned her prescription for Minoxycline on the Doping Control Form, yet not her new prescription for Spironolactone. Thereafter her application for a retroactive TUE in December 2021 was rejected.

The FA Commission considers that the prescribed medication was used as treatment of her medical condition. She was tested before without issues when she used prescribed medication for some years while she assumed that the medication she mentioned in the Doping Control Form was sufficient for both subscriptions.

The Commission finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. Both the FA and the Commission accepts that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the FA Regulatory Commission decides on 20 April 2022 to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 18 January 2022.

UzNADA Annual Report 2021 (Uzbekistan)

28 Feb 2022

National Anti-Doping Agency of Uzbekistan for 2021 activity reporting information / National Anti-Doping Agency of Uzbekistan (UzNADA). - Toshkent : Ўзбекистон Республикаси Вазирлар Маҳкамаси Ҳузуридаги Миллий Антидопинг Агентлиги, 2022

USADA Annual Report 2021 (United States)

3 Jun 2022

USADA Annual Report 2021 / United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). - Colorado Springs : USADA, 2022

USADA Annual Report 2020 (United States)

28 Jun 2021

USADA Annual Report 2020 / United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). - Colorado Springs : USADA, 2021

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