In August 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Colombian Athlete John Tello Zuniga after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

Following notification the Athlete timely admitted the violation in November 2023, waived his right for a hearing and accepted the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The AIU deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Because he had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form he received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 13 December 2023 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 25 August 2023.

In April 2023 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Polish boxer Krzysztof Glowacki after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Boldenone. Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and stated that prior he had received medical treatment from a doctor in Warsaw for the serious injury to his hand. Yet the Athlete was hampered to provide timely sufficient evidence from a clinic accompanied by an official translation before he attended the hearing.

The Panel determines that the Athlete's medical treatment with (the banned substance) Betamethasone for his injury could not explain the presence of Boldenone in his system. Ultimately the Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to establish with corroborating evidence that the violation was not intentional and that there are no exceptional circumstances.

Therefore the Panel decides on 13 November 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 April 2023.

In August 2023 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Tobias Richardson after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

Following notification the Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by UKAD.

The Athlete acknowledged that on a Friday with friends he recreationally had used Cocaine out-of-competition and thereupon on Sunday had a match and sample collection. Besides consuming pints of beer on Friday night he had used a total of one gram of Cocaine.

UKAD accepts that the Athlete had used Cocaine out-of-competition in a context unrelated to sport performance that permits the imposition of a reduced sanction.

Therefore UKAD decides on 13 November 2023 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 17 August 2023.

In April 2023 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Taiye Ryan Olowofela after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered by the Rugby Football Union (RFU). The Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing and stated that the use of Cocaine occurred out-of-competition on a Thursday.

Considering the findings of the test result and the Athlete's statements UKAD concluded that the ingestion of Cocaine occurred during the in-competition period. Hereafter the Athlete demonstrated that he had the date wrong and that the use of Cocaine indeed had occurred out-of-competition.

He explained that the match and sample collection had not occurred on a Saturday since the rugby match was this time played unusually on a Sunday. He showed with corroborating evidence that he was at home on the Saturday, feeling unwell from the excesses of the Friday night before.

In view of the new evidence the RFU accepts that the Athlete had used Cocaine out-of-competition in a context unrelated to sport performance. Because he had admitted the violation a reduced sanction shall be imposed on the Athlete.

Therefore the RFU decides on 6 November 2023 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the rugby player, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 28 April 2023. Because the Athlete already had served this period of ineligibility during the provisional suspension he is eligible to participate in sport forthwith.

In May 2023 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Charley Bodman after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Terbutaline. Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete accepted the test result, admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that he used Terbutaline as prescribed medication for his asthma.

He argued that he mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form while he already had made the application for a TUE when he was tested. Thereupon UKAD's TUE Panel dismissed the Athlete's application for a retroactive TUE because he had failed to make an application timely for a TUE in advance for his prescribed medication.

The Athlete asserted that in 2021 and in 2022 he was adviced twice by medical professionals that he needed a TUE. Yet, he was not informed twice that he could not play without a TUE.

Considering the evidence and the circumstances in this case UKAD deems that the Athlete's violation was not intentional. Furthermore UKAD concludes that Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore UKAD decides on 6 November 2023 to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 May 2023.

In May 2022 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) was informed by the police that the rugby player Harry Tyson-Wilson in March 2019 had purchased online the prohibited substance Methandienone.

Thereupon in April 2023 UKAD reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for the possession and use of the prohibited substance. Following notification the Athlete timely admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by UKAD.

In view of the principle of lex mitior and the stipulations in the 2021 ADR UKAD determines that the Athlete shall receive a 1 year reduction for his timely admission of the anti-doping rule violations and his acceptance of the sanction.

Therefore UKAD decides on 26 October 2023 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 April 2023.

As a result of a police investigation into the customer records of a supplier of illicit drugs United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) was informed that in May 2019 an amateur rugby player (48) had purchased Testosterone Cypionate.

Consequently in September 2022 UKAD reported anti-doping rule violations against the Amateur Player for the attempted use and possession of Testosterone.

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

The Amateur Player admitted the purchase of Testosterone in May 2019 and denied the intentional use. He stated that in 2019 he already had retired as a rugby player and as a coach and accordingly he was no subject anymore to the ADR as an Athlete.

He explained that in early 2019 he suffered from health problems and had decided to retire from playing and coaching rugby. Out drinking alcohol with a friend he recommended the use of Testosterone when he told him about his health problems.

Thereupon in his intoxicated state he had ordered some Testosterone. He denied that he had used the substance and stated that when he received the product a few days later he immediately threw it away in the dustbin.

UKAD contended that the Amateur Player was subject of the ADR because he had not notified his retirement to the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU). He was also still registered as a player for the subsequent 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons.

Further UKAD reported that after the provisional suspension had been ordered the Amateur Player had continued to act as the secretary of his rugby club. Moreover WRU established that the Amateur Player as secretary had de-registered a number of players at the end of the seasons, yet had not de-registrated himself until June 2021.

In view of the evidence the Panel determines that the Amateur Player was no longer playing rugby for the club at the end of the 2018/2019 season. However he remained registered with the WRU as a player for the following two seasons and accordingly he remained subject of the ADR in May 2019.

The Panel finds that the Amateur Player indeed had possessed Testosterone and that he had admitted the purchase of the prohibited substance. The Panel is willing to accept that there was no attempted use of the substance and it dismissed the charge in this matter.

Considering the Amateur Player's conduct the Panel concludes that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional and that there are no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence. Finally the Panel determines that the Amateur Player had continued to act as secretary of his rugby club even while he was provisionally suspended.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 26 September 2023 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Amateur Player, starting on the date of the decision.

On 5 April 2023 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the football player Viknesh after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Terbutaline.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI). He requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that he had used a prescribed cough syrup while he was unaware that it contained Terbutaline.

The Appeal Panel confirms that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and could not demonstrate how the substance had entered his system. He failed to apply for a TUE, nor mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form.

The Appeal Panel deems that he acted negligently and could not establish with evidence that the medication he had used contained Terbutaline. Considering a provisional suspension had not been accepted by the Athlete the Panel modifies the starting date of the sanction.

Therefore the ADAPI Panel decides on 2 December 2023 to uphold the Appealed Decision and to set the starting date of the sanction on the date of the decision, i.e. on 5 April 2023.

In June 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the fencer Radhika Prakash Awati after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylprednisolone.

Following notification the Athlete's application for a retrospective TUE was rejected in May 2023 by the TUE Committee. Also her TUE appeal was dismissed in July 2023.

Consequently on 17 August 2023 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter the Athlete and INADA appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI). Both parties requested the Appeal Panel to modify the Appealed Decision regarding the length of the sanction.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that she acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. She asserted that she was unaware that her prescribed medication contained a prohibited substance which she mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

INADA contended that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction and requested the Appeal Panel for a 2 year sanctionb. Without corroborating evidence the Athlete was not credible about the medical treatment she underwent in a hospital.

The Appeal Panel assessed the Athlete's conduct in this case and agrees that she failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that she acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. She filed a dubious medical prescription while there was no hospital records, nor evidence of the purchase of the medication.

Therefore the ADAPI Panel decides on 18 November 2023 to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 17 August 2023.

On 16 Januari 2023 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Radha after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI). The Athlete 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 claimed that she acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. She explained with medical records that she had used prescribe medications as treatment for her diagnosed condition.

Further the Athlete asserted that she was hampered in her defence due problems with her original e-mail account. As a result she was unaware of the hearing, nor notified about the decision rendered by the ADDPI.

The India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) contended that a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and that the Athlete had no valid TUE. Furthermore her medical treatment could not explain the presence of EPO in her sample.

Also INADA contended that the Athlete had admitted the violation and had acted negligently with her medication. Moreover there was sufficient e-mail evidence that showed that the Athlete was aware of the proceedings.

The Appeal Panel assessed the evidence in this case and determines that:

• The presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly she had committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• The Athlete's medical reports and prescribed medication could not explain the use en presence of EPO.
• The Athlete failed to demonstrate the source of EPO.
• E-mail correspondence showed that the Athlete was aware of the proceedings and that she didn't care.

Therefore the ADAPI Panel decides on 18 December 2023 to uphold the Appealed Decision and the imposed 4 year period of ineligibility.