In August 2019 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Joy Kemuma Loyce after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO). After 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 denied the violation, stated that she had used normal supplements and was tested several times before without issues. Later the Athlete admitted that she had purchased and used EPO and had no interest in nor received anti-doping education.

ADAK contended that the Athlete had produced a number of admissions, denials and lies while the evidence showed that she intentionally had used EPO and the presence of this prohibited substance has been established in her sample.

The Panel finds that ADAK established that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that the Athlete had admitted the charges.

Therefore the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 19 August 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 October 2018.

In May 2019 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Recho Jerubet Kosgei after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Androsterone and Etiocholanolone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. There were substantial delays in the proceedings attributed to the Athlete and due to the COVID-19 Pandemic while the Athlete failed to file a statement in her defence nor attended the hearing of the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal.

ADAK requested the Panel to impose a 4 year sanction and argued that she committed an anti-doping rule violation because the presence of prohibited substances had been established her sample. Further ADAK contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional nor how the substances entered her system. The Athlete in her previous submission only produced protests of innocence and suggested without evidence that the supplements, medication or other products had caused the positive test.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and didn't demonstrate that the violation was not intentional nor how the substances entered her system. Also the Athlete failed to respond to the charges and failed to participate in the proceedings. She was duly notified and she repeatedly seeked adjournments and postponements of the hearing.

Therefore the Kenya Sport Dispute Tribunal decides on 1 October 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 May 2019.

In October 2018 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete David Kipkoech Ndusu after he evaded and refused to comply to submit to sample collection.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Judiciairy Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal settled the case based on the written submission of the parties since the Athlete's advocate failed to file a statement in his defence nor attended the hearing of the Tribunal.

ADAK contended that in his submissions the Athlete already had admitted that he had been approached and requested to provided a sample but that he did not believe that the chaperone was an ADAK official. He admitted that he did not ask the chaperone for an official identification and that he walked away and failed to submit to sample collection.

In his submissions the Athlete argued that after the Nairobi Marathon he was approached by a person requesting him to submit to sample collection. The Athlete admitted the violation and alleged that he feared for his safety as he was approached by a person outside the venue and an hour after the Marathon without showing any identification.

Regarding the proceedings the Panel established that ADAK's Notice of Charge of 11 December 2018 was delivered late to the Athlete on 10 January 2019 to conclude that the Athlete gave a prompt admission hereafter.

Considering the circumstances and the Athlete's conduct during the notification the Panel finds that violation was intentional and he failed to provide compelling reasons to justify his evasion or refusal to submit to sample collection. The Panel holds that after the notification he reacted hasty or perhaps phobic against the chapeone in question.

Therefore the Kenya Judiciary Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 28 July 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the competition, i.e. on 28 October 2018.

In February 2020 World Rugby (WR) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian rugby player Leonid Kalinin after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing and didn't file a statement in his defence. The case was settled by the WR Independent Judicial Committee based on the filed submissions.

The Committee finds that presence of a prohibed substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Without grounds for a reduced sanction the Independent Judicial Committee decides on 10 June 2020 to impose a 4 year period of inelgibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 February 2020.

World Anti-Doping Code International Standard for Laboratories / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2009. - (International Standard for Laboratories (ISL), version 6.0, in force 1 January 2009)

The International Standard for Laboratories was first adopted
in June 2003 and became effective on 1 January 2004. The
enclosed represents version 6.0 that incorporates revisions to
the International Standard for Laboratories that were
approved by the World Anti-Doping Agency Executive
Committee on 20 September 2008. The revised International
Standard for Laboratories is effective as of 1 January 2009.

World Anti-Doping Code International Standard for Laboratories / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2008. - (International Standard for Laboratories (ISL), version 5.0, in force 1 January 2008)

World Anti-Doping Code International Standard for Laboratories / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2004. - (International Standard for Laboratories (ISL), version 4.0, in force 1 January 2004)

In February 2019 the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cricket player Kazi Anik Islam after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methamfetamine(d-). 

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

The BCB considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission, that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete had limited knowledge of anti-doping. 

Therefore the Bangladesh Cricket Board decides on 14 July 2020 impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 February 2019.

In June 2020 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the life saver John Elsmor after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA treshold (1516 ng/ml).

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right to be heard, accepted the test result and a provisional suspension. He stated that he had used the substance five to seven days before he was tested to cope with stress.

DFSNZ accepted that the Athlete’s violation was not intentional with grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence. DFSNZ proposed a 9 month period of ineligibility considering that the Athlete gave a prompt admission and that the use of Cannabis was unrelated to sport performance.

In July 2020 a joint memorandum was filed on behalf of DFSNZ and the Athlete. The Sports Tribunal of New Zealand considers the joint memorandum to be appropriate and decides on 31 July 2020 to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 14 March 2020.

iNADO Update (2020) 10 (5 October)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

iNADO Community 

• First NADO & RADO Capability Register... your contribution is needed!
• Annual Reports 2019
• Education App of iNADO Members awarded

iNADO Bulletin Board 

• New Episode of iNADO Live Chat
• Vacancy at International Paralympic Committee

People 

• New General Manager of Anti-Doping Singapore
• New Chair for Drug Free Sport New Zealand

Athletes Voice 

• Caster Semenya and the Search for a fair Solution

Science

• Athletes willingness to dope reduces after their Coaches get trained in need Supportive Communication Skills

Practical Developments 

• Lessons learned from Covid-19: WADA forms Strategic Testing Expert Group
• International Triathlon Union becomes World Triathlon

Feature of the Month 

• #NonStopClean
• New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center