UKAD 2023 UKAD vs Amateur Player

26 Sep 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.

ADAPI 2023_36 Viknesh vs INADA - Appeal

2 Dec 2023

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.

ADAPI 2023_22 Radhika Prakash Awati vs INADA - Appeal

18 Nov 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.

ADAPI 2023_12 Radha vs INADA - Appeal

18 Dec 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.

ADAPI 2023_11 Kashish Malik vs INADA - Appeal

21 Nov 2023

On 8 March 2023 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the taekwondo Athlete Kashish Malik after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

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

The Athlete asserted that in first instance the ADDPI had not considered evidence demonstrating that she had a medical prescription as treatment for her diagnosed infection. By contrast the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) contended that the Athlete had failed to apply for a TUE, nor mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form.

The Appeal Panel determines that the Athlete, as an experienced professional, failed to produce evidence of purchase of her medication, including the prescribed medication Lasix. Further she failed to check her medication and neither informed her sports doctor about her condition and prescribed medication.

The Appeal Panel concludes that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and deems that she failed to demonstrate that there are grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the ADDPI Panel decides on 21 November 2023 to uphold the Appealed Decision and the imposed 2 year period of ineligibility, starting on the date of the ADDPI Decision.

ADAK 2023 ADAK vs Betty Chelangat

14 Dec 2023

In August 2023 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Betty Chelangat after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methasterone.

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

ADAK deems that the Athlete's violation was intentional and determines that she shall receive a 1 year reduction for her timely admission of the anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore ADAK decides on 14 December 2023 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 September 2023.

ADAK 2023 ADAK vs Samuel Lomoi - Appeal

28 Nov 2023

Related case:

ADAK 2021 ADAK vs Samuel Lomoi
January 6, 2023

On 6 January 2023 the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal ruled that the Athlete Samuel Lomoi had committed an anti-doping rule violation after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Triamcinolone acetonide.

Accordingly the Panel decided in first instance to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 12 September 2021.

Hereafter in June 2023 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) appealed the decision of the Tribunal with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel. ADAK requested the Appeal Panel to modify the Appealed Decision regarding the commencement of the Athlete's period of ineligibility.

Following investigations ADAK had recently established that the Athlete during the provisional suspension and during the current sanction had participated in 3 competitions. ADAK contended that pending the findings of their investigations into the Athlete's conduct it had been unable to timely file and appeal within the set deadline of 21 days.

ADAK acknowledged that the appeal was filed 123 days after the Tribunal had rendered its decision. ADAK denied that the delay in filing the appeal was not due to carelessness, yet merely caused by the time to conduct a proper investigation into the Athlete.

The Athlete argued that ADAK under the Rules had failed to file an appeal timely within the set time period and accordingly its appeal must be deemed inadmissible.

The Appeal Panel considered ADAK's contentions and concludes that the appeal was filed too late without sufficient grounds for admitting an appeal out of time. By contrast the  Appeal Panel determines that when new evidence has surfaced a party is allowed to file an application for review.

Nevertheless the Appeal Panel decides on 28 November 2023 that ADAK's appeal is dismissed because it was filed too late.

ADAK 2023 ADAK vs John Kariuki Gikonyo

23 Nov 2023

In April 2023 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete John Kariuki Gikonyo after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substanceTrimetazidine.

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

ADAK deems that the Athlete's violation was intentional and determines that he shall receive a 1 year reduction for his timely admission of the anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore ADAK decides on 23 November 2023 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 May 2023.

ADAK 2023 ADAK vs Rashid Issa

21 Sep 2023

In December 2022 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder Rashid Issa for his Evasion, Refusal or failure to submit to sample collection at a bodybuilding championship in October 2022.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. The Athlete did not attend the hearing and the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal settled the case based on the written submissions of the Parties.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied that he intentionally had evaded doping control. He asserted that he indeed had cooperated with the sample collection.

The Athlete tesitified that at the Doping Control Station he all night had attempted to produce a sample although he had ingested a dozen bottles of water. Feeling unwell the Doping Control Officers (DCO) declined his request for a meal.

Hungry and tired after 24 hours without food he ultimately received permission to go to his apartment accompanied by a DCO. In a bad condition he hurried to his apartment to get something to eat and thereupon discovered that he had lost contact with the DCO.

The Panel considered the evidence in this case and accepts that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that there are grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Panel decides on 21 September 2023 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 January 2023.

ADAK 2022 ADAK vs Michael Saruni

31 Aug 2023

In July 2022 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Michael Saruni for his evasion and failure to submit to sample collection during the Athletics Kenya 2022 World Champion Trials.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. After delays the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal.

The Doping Control Officers at the competition testified that after notification the Athlete went with the chaperone to the Doping Control Station. Because of a heavy cough the Athlete ran into the men's toilet near the Doping Control Station followed by the chaperone.

The DCOs reported that at the men's toilets the Athlete attempted to change places with another person impersonating the Athlete and wearing his outfit. After the DCO's had discovered the impersonation and the Athlete was found he thereupon run away and disappeared.

By contrast the Athlete confirmed that he had participated into the competition, yet denied that he was selected for doping control, nor that he had evaded sample collection. He alleged that this was a clear case of mistaken identity and that he only later heard that his friend was arrested for impersonation.

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence regarding the Athlete's evasion and determines that:

  • The Athlete was properly identified and notified at the competition that he was selected for sample collection.
  • The Athlete intentionally evaded sample collection and accordingly committed an anti-doping rule violation.
  • There are no grounds for the imposition of a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Panel decides on 31 August 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility 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