ADAK 2019 ADAK vs Purity Jerono Talam

3 Jun 2021

Related case:

ADAK 2018 ADAK vs Purity Jerono Talam
February 20, 2019

On 20 February 2018 the Panel of the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Purity Jerono Talam after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxandrolone.

Hereafter the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) established that the Athlete had participated in 5 competitions in China between April 2018 and May 2019 during her suspension.

Consequently ADAK reported a violation of the prohibition of participation during the imposed ineligibility. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Sports Disputes Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted that she had participated in the 5 competitions in China at instigation of her manager who also failed to pay her for these marathons. She asserted that she was unaware that she was sanctioned for 4 years and that she not had received the Decision of the Tribunal. She acknowledged that prior in February 2018 after notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

The Panel deems that the Athlete indeed was sufficiently aware that a provisional suspension was ordered and despite she intentionally had participated in 5 competitions in China. Since the Athlete had filed an appeal against the Decision of 20 February 2019 the Panel dismiss the Athlete's assertion that she was unaware that she was banned due to she had not received the Decision of the Tribunal.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete had breached the provisional suspension, thereupon the period of ineligibility and accordingly she had committed a second anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 3 June 2021 to impose an additional 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date the current period of ineligibility shall end, i.e. on 12 February 2022.

Polish Supreme Court I NO 48-19 Athlete vs Polish Olympic Committee

9 Oct 2019

On 28 June 2017 the Disciplinary Panel of the Polish Anti-Doping Agency (POLANDA) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the judoka after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Clomifene. 

In first instance and in the appeals filed hereafter the Athlete argued with assistance of an expert witness that the findings of the Panels were erroneous, his right of defence violated and that the International Standard of Laboratories (ISL) was incorrectly applied. 

The Athlete asserted that several irregularties had been established during the analysis of his A and B samples and that these departures of the ISL would invalidate these test results. Nevertheless the Poland Appeal Panel decided on 12 March 2018 to uphold the Appealed Decision of 28 June 2017. 

Again the Athlete appealed with the Court of Arbitration for Sport of the Polish Olympic Committee (PKOL). Yet after assessment of the Athlete’s assertions the Tribunal concluded that the Athlete failed to establish that there were any departures of the ISL that would invalidate the test results. Accordingly the PKOL Tribunal decided on 17 December 2018 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal. 

Hereafter in February 2019 the Athlete filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of of Poland against the Decision of the PKOL Court of Arbitration for Sport. However the Supreme Court deems on 9 October 2019 that the Athlete’s allegations are unfounded and that there are insufficient grounds to accept and handle the cassation appeal.

HUNADO 2020 HUNADO vs Tót László

15 Oct 2020

In August 2020 the Hungarian Anti-Doping Group (HUNADO) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the horse rider Tót László after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Amfetamine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the HUNADO Doping Committee. 

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied the use of the substance. He could not explain how the Amfetamine had entered his system and argued that he was tested before without issues.

The Doping Committee finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete’s samples and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Committee considers that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor other grounds for a reduced sanction. 

Therefore the HUNADO Doping Committee decides on 15 October 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 28 August 2020.

Estonian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel 2015 EAD vs Ilja Nikolajevi

12 May 2015

In February 2015 the Estonian Athletics Association has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Estonian Athlete Ilja Nikolajevi after an IAAF (Now: World Athletics) Expert Panel concluded unanimously in January 2015 in their Expert Opinion, that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he had used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping. 

This conclusion of the IAAF Expert Panel is based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 16 April 2013 until 28 November 2013 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP). Previously the Athlete submitted his explanations for the abnormal findings in his ABP to the IAAF which were rejected by the Expert Panel. 

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. The Athlete denied the use of doping and he disputed the reliability of the ABP due to he was tested before 7 time without issues whereas several circumstandes could explain the abnormalities in his ABP. 

The Estonian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel accepts the findings of the IAAF Expert Panel and agrees that the Athlete failed to explain the abnormalities in his ABP. In view of the evidence the Panel concludes that abnormalities did exist in the ABP and that he committed an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method under the World Anti-Doping Code 2009 and applicable IAAF Rules. 

Therefore the Estonian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 12 May 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 3 February 2015.

Estonian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel 2015 EAD vs Nikolai Vedehin

12 May 2015

In March 2015 the Estonian Athletic Association has reported an anti-doping rule violation aganst the Athlete Nikolai Vedehin after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Trimetazidine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. 

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that he used the medication Preductal for the last 5-6 years that contained Trimetazidine as ingredient whereas he mentioned this medication on the Doping Control Form.

The Athlete knew that Trimetazidine was prohibited in-competition he therefore used the medication only out-of-competition. Yet he was unaware that Trimetazidine was also listed as prohibited out-of-competition since 1 January 2015.  

The Estonian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in his sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel deems that the Athlete was fully responsible for the violation since he failed to check the Prohibited List regularly for the the annual changes. 

Therefore the Panel decides on 12 May 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 March 2015.

ST 2021_03 DFSNZ vs Mahdi Namdari

11 Oct 2021

In May 2021 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the wrestler Mahdi Namdari after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Stanozolol. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted a provisional suspension and filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and explained that he suffered from a knee injury and that he had accepted pills from a gym member in orde to recover. He asserted that he has never been prescribed with Stanozolol and with limited English he did not understand the risk.

The parties in this case reached an agreement and filed a joint memorandum in relation to the sanction for approval into a decision of the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand. The Tribunal considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission for the imposition of a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 11 October 2021 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 May 2021.

TJD-AD 2021-13 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling

5 May 2021

In November 202 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Canrenone, Modafinil and Oxandrolone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD). 

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substances. She asserted that she ony had used the supplements and medication she had mentioned on the Doping Control Form and requested for a reduced sanction. 

The TJD-AD Reporteur finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete’s sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor grounds for a reduced sanction. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 5 May 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 23 November 2020.

TJD-AD 2021-12 Disciplinary Decision - Volleyball

22 Apr 2021

In January 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the volleyball player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a high concentration above the WADA threshold.

After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD). 

The Athlete gave a prompt admission, denied the intentional use of the substance and accepted a provisional suspension. He acknowledged that he was struggling with addiction problems after a motorcycle accident in 2012. 

The TJD-AD Rapporteur finds that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete’s sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 22 April 2021 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 13 December 2019.

TJD-AD 2021-10 Disciplinary Decision - Football

22 Apr 2021

In October 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Isometheptene.

After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD). 

The Athlete declined an acceptance of sanction of 6 months proposed by ABCD, accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. He requested for a reduced sanction due to No Significant Fault or Negligence.

He asserted that the source of the prohibited substance was an unprescribed medication Doralgin he had used for his headache. The Brazil Lab confirmed that the positive test result was consistent with the Athlete’s use of this medication. 

The TJD-AD Rapporteur finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete’s samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and that there are grounds for a reduced sanction in view of the Athlete’s degree of fault. Further the Rapporteur considers that in similar cases reduced sanctions were imposed by the TJD-AD and that there were delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel dedices on 22 April 2021 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 1 September 2020.

TJD-AD 2021-09 Disciplinary Decision - CrossFit

5 Apr 2021

Previously the CrossFit Games Organisation, as non-signatory of the World Anti-Doping Code, imposed a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Brazilian Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Enobosarm (ostarine), LGD-4033 (ligandrol) and Metandienone. 

The sanction was imposed by CrossFit without a hearing although the Athlete wanted to be heard. In October 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) confirmed in a Decision that the Athlete’s participation in competitions would be a violation of the Brazilian Anti-Doping Code. 

Hereafter in October 2020 the Athlete filed a request with the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD). The Athlete disputed the validity of the imposed CrossFit sanction and the ABCD Decision and requested to lift the imposed suspension. 

The TJD-AD Rapporteur established that under the Rules the anti-doping decision from CrossFit, as Non-Signatory, and the ABCD Decision are only valid after confirmation by the TJD-AD.

Due to the TJD-AD had not approved the CrossFit Decision the TJD-AD Rapporteur deemed that the ABCD Decision was invalid. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 5 April 2021 to lift the imposed sanction on the Athlete.

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