Doping Control of Athletes

1 Nov 1988

Doping Control of Athletes / E.G. de Jong. R.A.A. Maes, J.M. van Rossum. - (TrAC. Trends in Analytical Chemistry 7 (1988) 10 (November-December); p. 375-382)

CAS A1_2020 Shayna Jack vs Swimming Australia & ASADA

16 Nov 2020

CAS A1/2020 Shayna Jack v. Swimming Australia & Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority

In July 2019 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the swimmer Shayna Jack after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance LGD-4033 (Ligandrol). Consequently the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel decided on 19 December 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. 

Hereafter in January 2020 the Athlete appealed the Decision of 19 December 2019 with the Oceania Registry Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). 

ASADA contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the prohibited substance entered her system and that there are nog grounds for a reduced sanction. It acknowledged that there was no evidence that the Athlete intentionally had used the substance to enhance performance nor was there evidence of long-term use of the substance. 

The Athlete accepted that she committed an anti-doping rule violation and denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance. She acknowledged that she did not know how the substance entered her system. She could only provide possible explantions: contaminated supplements; contamination through mixing supplements in a blender used by other persons; and contact or ingestion of the substance at training facilities she had visited. 

The Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete could not demonstrate how the prohibited substance entered her system but is willing to accept that the violation was not intentional.

Based on the Athlete’s evidence and presentation and the evidence and presentations of those who know her best, the Athlete presented to the Sole Arbitrator as a person who was inherently very unlikely to intentionally or recklessly ingest a Prohibited Substance. The history of testing is also consistent with the Athlete’s evidence of a lack of intention to cheat. Futher the found concentration of the prohibited substance in her sample was low and insufficient to enhance performance. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 November 2020 that: 

1.) The appeal filed by Ms. Shayna Jack on 2 January 2020 is partly upheld.

2.) Ms. Shayna Jack has committed a violation of Article 2.1 the Swimming Australia Limited Anti-Doping Policy 2015 and as a result, is suspended for a period of two (2) years commencing as from the date of her provisional suspensions (i.e. 12 July 2019).

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

SDRCC 2020 CCES vs Mickael Badra

20 Oct 2020

In January 2020 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the the football player Mickael Badrea after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dexamphetamine (d-amphetamine, dextroamphetamine).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. In the preliminary proceedings the Athlete explained that he had used medication from a friend to help him with his diagnosed ADHD hereafter. The Athlete requested for a Tribunal hearing and applied for a retroactive TUE.

In this case there were persistent delays in the proceedings attributed to the Athlete regarding the scheduled meetings, his TUE application and the submission of relevant medical evidence for this application.

Both CCES and SDRCC establised since July 2020 that the Athlete completely disengaged from the ongoing proceedings. He did not respond to the communcation from CCES nor SDRCC. His absence and total lack of participation persisted until the conclusion of this case.

The SDRCC decided to settle the case based on the written submissions of the parties and regards that no evidence or submission of any kind from the Athlete was received.

The Sole Arbitrator 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.

Previously the CCES had offered a 1 year period of ineligibility on the basis that the Athlete provided grounds for this reduced sanction. Since the Athlete completely disengaged for the current process the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete failed to establish with evidence or aguments that the violation was not intentional nor grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the SDRCC Doping Tribunal decides on 20 October 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 January 2020.

SAIDS 2020_06 SAIDS vs Tebogo Mamathu

21 Sep 2020

In May 2020 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Tebogo Mamathu after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxandrolone.

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

SAIDS considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission and received ample anti-doping education. The Athlete tested her supplements for prohibited substances but she was unable to establish the source of the posititve test. Further it holds that already red flags were raised regarding the Athlete's Steroidal Passport.

Therefore SAIDS decides decides on 21 September 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 23 February 2020.

SAIDS 2020_03 SAIDS vs Minor Athlete

6 Nov 2020

In May 2020 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Athlete (15) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Enobosarm, LGD-4033 and RAD140. The minor Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SAIDS Disciplinary Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation, he disputed SAIDS jurisdiction to conduct Doping Control at his High School and claimed that his rights as a Minor had been violated.

The Panel establishes that SAIDS has jurisdiction, that the sample collection at het High School was valid and that the minor Athlete's rights were not infringed. The Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional nor how the substances entered his system. He provided no evidence that showed that contaminated supplements were the source of the positive test.

The Panel finds that the presence of 3 prohibited substances in the system of the 15 year old Athlete is alarming. It assums that the Minor had been assisted by an adult and recommends further investigation in this matter. Finally the Panel considers that there were delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Panel decides on 6 november 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 26 February 2020.

SAIDS 2020_02 SAIDS vs Ngoni Chidoma

7 Jul 2020

In December 2019 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Ngoni Chidoma after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone.

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

SAIDS deems that this is the Athlete's second violation and that he failed to establish how the prohibited substance entered his system. Further it considers that there were delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete

Therefore SAIDS decides on 7 July 2019 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 17 August 2019.

SAIDS 2019_43 SAIDS vs Siminikwe Gege

12 Feb 2020

In September 2019 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Siminikwe Gege a after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

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

SAIDS finds that the Athlete acted negligently and established how the substance entered his system. It considered that he gave a prompt admission, that he is a minor and had not received anti-doping education.

Therefore SAIDS decides on 12 February 2020 to impose a 3 year and 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 September 2019.

SAIDS 2019_20 SAIDS vs Mhlanhla Mlondobozi

1 Aug 2019

In April 2019 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Mhlanhla Mlondobozi after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methyltestosterone.

After notification the Athlete waived his right for a hearing, accepted the test result, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by SAIDS.

SAIDS finds that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor could he demonstrate that contaminated supplements were the source of the positive test.

Therefore SAIDS decides on 1 August 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 25 April 2019.

SAIDS 2019_18 SAIDS vs Mahlatse Chiliboy Rapelle

25 Jun 2020

Related cases:

  • SARU 2011 SARU vs Mahlatse Chiliboy Ralepelle & Bjorn Basson
    January 27, 2011
  • World Rugby 2014 WR vs Mahlatse Chiliboy Ralepelle
    June 16, 2015

The South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Mahlatse Chiliboy Rapelle after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Zeranol. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SAIDS Disciplinary Panel.

This is the Athlete's 3rd anti-doping violation. His first postitive test in 2010 resulted in a No Fault or Negligence Decision and was settled with a reprimand. His 2014 positive test was considered a first anti-doping rule violation and a sanction of two years was imposed.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance but could not explain how it entered his system. SAIDS requested the Panel to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his third anti-doping rule violations.

The Panel establishes that under the Rules this is the Athlete's second anti-doping rule violation and that he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional nor how the prohibited substance entered his system. Further the Panel considered that there were delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Panel decides on 25 June 2020 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 17 January 2019.

SAIDS 2019_14 Roberspeare Bopda

19 Jul 2019

In June 2019 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder Roberspeare Bopa 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 SAIDS.

SAIDS accepts that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete established how the prohibited substance entered his system. It considers that the the Athlete gave a prompt admission and mentioned his medication in question on the Doping Control Form. The Athlete had not received anti-doping education and he was unaware the his medication contained a prohibited substance.

Therefore SAIDS decides on 19 July 2019 to impose a 14 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 June 2019.

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