In November 2021 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jackline Wambui after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. She requested for a reduced sanction and argued that she was tested before without issues whereas she had not received anti-doping education.

She explained with documents that she had used prescribed medication as treatment for her knee and ankle injury. She asserted that she mentioned to her doctor that she was an athlete and relied on his expertise.

The Athlete was unaware that the applied medication COX-B contained Nandrolone. She  acknowledged that she had not checked her medication, nor mentioned this on the Doping Control Form, nor applied for a TUE.

Further the Athlete claimed that she was unable to request analysis of her B sample because she had received the Notification from ADAK too late. The Panel agrees that the Athlete had not been notified timely by ADAK. Yet the Panel observes that thereupon the  Athlete had not challenged the test results of her A sample, nor the imposed provisional suspension.

The Panel 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.

In view of the evidence the Panel concludes that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete demonstrated that the medication used for her treatment was the source of the prohibited substance.

The Panel determines that the Athlete acted with a degree of negligence because she had relied on the expertise of her doctor while she failed to check her medication, nor made an application for a TUE.

Therefore the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 29 September 2022 to impose a reduced 14 month and 3 week period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 December 2021.

In November 2021 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Solomon Lekuta after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal.

The Athlete accepted the test result, denied the intentional use of the substance and could not explain how the substance had entered his system. Without substantial details he testified he had a knee injury and a chemist had administered an injection for his pain.

He had been tested before without issues and acknowledged that he he had not checked his medication. He could not read and when he travelled internationally he followed his team members. A friend translated for him the communication by WhatsApp from his manager.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor grounds for a reduced sanction.

The Panel considers that the Athlete could not explain how the prohibited substance had entered his system. Despite his low education the Panel holds that he acted negligently because he had a manager and a smartphone available he could use to check the medication he used.

Therefore the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 19 October 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 Nobember 2021.

In August 2021 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Wyvonne Isuza for his refusal to submit to sample collection. Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

The Doping Control Officers reported that on 10 March 2021 the Athlete had attended the Doping Control Station where he expressed his frustration about the Doping Control. Although he was dully warned about the consequences the Athlete thereupon refused sample collection, signed the form and left.

The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal. He denied that the violation was intentional and he argued that he acted without any fault or negligence.

The Athlete stated the he was frustrated that he was repeatedly tested. He was was unaware that he was included in the Registered Testing Pool (RTP) and he had received no response about his complaints.

Further the Athlete asserted that departures of the ISTI jusitfy his refusal. He had not received a notification about his inclusion in the RTP, nor anti-doping education or training in this matter, nor a Notice of Charge from ADAK.

The Panel considers that the Athlete's objections are technical infractions and these infractions would not invalidate the proceedings. Neither are these matters a serious miscarriage of justice or an offence to the principle of natural justice.

In view of the evidence the Panel establishes that the Athlete as an experienced football player refused sample collection on 10 March 2021 while he was advised to proceed. Consequently the Panel concludes that he intentionally committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 15 September 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 September 2021.

ADAK 2020 ADAK vs Henry Cheruiyot Kosgei
ADAK 2020 ADAK vs Henry Cheruiyot Kosgey

Related case:

ADAK 2019 ADAK vs Henry Kosgei
November 19, 2020

On 19 November 2019 the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Henry Kosgei for his evasion and refusal to submit to sample collection in December 2018. In first instance there were delays in the proceedings attributed to the Athlete because he acted evasive and was non responsive.

Hereafter in March 2020 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported a new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample - provided on 7 December 2019 in Cameroon - tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylprednisolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

In addition ADAK reported another anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete. Through his participation in the competition on 7 December 2019 he had violated the imposed 4 year period of ineligibility.

Following several notifications and attempts to contact the Athlete ADAK determined that he was non responsive, nor did he attend the hearing of the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal.

In view of the evidence 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. Furthermore the Panel concludes that the Athlete had breached the imposed ineligibility on 7 December 2019.

Without any response from the Athlete the Panel deems that in both cases he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Consequently the Panel concludes that he has committed 3 anti-doping rule violations within a 10 year period.

Therefore the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 4 February 2021 to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In January 2019 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Naum Jepkorir after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Kenya Sports Disputed Tribunal.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance. She could not explain how the substance had entered her system. She had been tested before without issues and had mentioned on the Doping Control Form the medication she had used.

The Panel 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.

The Panel holds that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Her medical prescriptions and medications she had used could not explain the presence of the prohibited substance.

Therefore the Kenya Sports Disputed Tribunal decides on 2 October 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 January 2019.

iNADO Update (2023) 1 (9 January)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

Bulletin Board

• Get familiar with iNADO's platforms
• 2022 Wrap-up

Building a Supportive Community

• iNADO Annual Member Survey Results

Improving Practice Everywhere

• 2023 Annual iNADO Workshop
• New iNADO Member-only Library Structure and Call for useful Materials

Speaking up for NADOs and RADOs Globally

• iNADO Webinar Summary: Establishing a NADO: Experiences from the Central Asia Region

Guiding Principles

• Guiding Principles at the 2023 iNADO Annual Workshop

Athlete's Voice

• A Thank You Note to Ben Sandford, outgoing Chair of the WADA Athlete Committee

iNADO Sponsors and Partners

• New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-008 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
June 14, 2022

On 14 June 2022 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decides to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the cyclist after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (ostarine).

In first instance the Rapporteur concluded that the Athlete failed to demonstate that the violation was not intentional because of a contaminated supplement. He also deemed that there were several inconsistencies his statements.

Hereafter in July 2022 the Athlete appealed the disciplinary decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel. He requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that he acted as a recreational cyclist. He acknowledged that he had failed to mention all his supplements on the Doping Control Form.

He alleged that he had demonstrated sufficiently with circumstantial evidence and analysis in the Rio Lab that a commercial supplement was contaminated. He asserted that a low concentration of Ostarine was found in this over-the-counter supplement, consistent with the low concentration Ostarine found in his sample.

Following assessment of the evidence the Appeal Panel accepts that the Athlete can be qualified as a recreational cyclist. Although the Athlete had provided two open unsealed supplement for analysis to the Rio Lab this fault can not invalidate the test result that showed that one supplement was contaminated.

Further the Panel considers that scientific studies showed that 15 procent of the industrial supplements can contain contaminants. The Athlete was tested before without issues and the concentration found in his system was very low and consistent with the concentration contaminants present in his supplement.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 9 September 2022 to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 August 2021.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-009 Disciplinary Decision - Table Tennis
June 14, 2022

Previously the TJD-AD Tribunal had imposed a 4 year period of ineligibility on the table tennis Parathlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Androsterone, Etiocholanolone and Testosterone and its metabolites.

Hereafter the Parathlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appel Panel. The Parathlete admitted the use of Testosterone and denied that the violation was intentional. He acknowledged that he acted negligently and had not mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form.

He explained that he underwent medical treatment for his diagnosed Hypogonadism. He blaimed his doctor negligence and asserted that he was misinformed about the prescribed medication.

The Rapporteur considers that the table tennis player is an experienced high level Parathlete who had participated in numerous international events. Yet, he failed to mention his medication on the Doping Control Form and he continued using these substances in 2021.

Prior the Athlete failed to apply for a TUE and thereupon his application for a retroactive TUE was denied. Further he only acknowledged the use of the prohibited substance Testosterone whereas the other prescribed substances were inappropriate for the treatment of his Hypogonadism.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 7 December 2022 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision for the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-014 Appeal Decision - Swimming
October 19, 2022

In October 2021 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the swimmer after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athete refused an acceptance of consequences and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and believed that the herbal supplement he used was contamined. He had used his father's product for arthrosis for the pain he suffered during his vacation. He had checked this product for prohibited substances and he was unaware of the risks of herbal supplements.

Analysis in the Rio Laboratory of this product, delivered in closed and sealed condition, confirmed the presence of the contaminants Chlorothiazide, Dexamethasone and Hydrochlorothiazide.

The Prosecutor contended that the concentration of the substance in the herbal product was extremely high whereas the Athlete failed to mention this product on the Doping Control Form. He could not explain properly were it was purchased, nor identified the manufacturer of this product. As a result he could not demonstrate how the prohibited substances had entered his system nor that the violation was not intentional.

By contrast the Rapporteur finds that the Athlete has established that a contaminated supplement was the source of the prohibited substance. The Athlete's violation was deemed to be not intentional and in view of his conduct there are grounds that he acted with a light degree of fault.

Although the Athlete had not mentioned this product on the Doping Control Form the Rapporteur considers that he was tested before without issues. Further he made efforts to provide additional information about his father's medical condition, the purchase and use of this herbal supplement and its manufacturer.

Therefore the TJD-Panel decides on 18 August 2022 by majority to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 October 2021, which he already has served.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-015-2 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
August 18, 2022

On 18 August 2022 the TJD-AD Tribunal decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide. In first instance the Panel accepted that a contaminated herbal supplement was the source of the prohibited substance.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appeled this Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal.

ABCD requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a more severe sanction in accordance with the previous proposed Acceptance of Consequences.  Although ABCD accepted that the violation was not intentional it deemed that the Athlete had acted with a higher degree of fault or negligence regarding the herbal supplement he had used.

The Rapporteur upholds the conclusion that the violation was not intentional and that the source of the positive test was a contaminated herbal supplement. In view of the Athlete's conduct and his use of this father's herbal supplement the Raporteur agrees that the Athlete acted with a normal degree of fault or negligence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 19 October 2022 to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 October 2021.