SAIDS 2019_01 SAIDS vs Eben Booyens

9 May 2019

In April 2018 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter Eben Booyens after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Drostanolone. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right to be heard, accepted the test result, the provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by SAIDS. SAIDS deems that the test result established the presence of a prohibited substance and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation without grounds for a reduced sanction. Therfore SAID decides on 9 May 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 23 February 2019.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

SAIDS 2018_27 SAIDS vs Andrea Amier

14 Nov 2018

In October 2018 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder Andrea Amier after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Clenbuterol, Hydrochlorothiazide, Oxandrolone and Tamoxifen. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. SAIDS deems that the test result establish the presence of prohibited substances and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. SAIDS holds that the Athlete failed to respond to the communications submitted by SAIDS and consequently that she failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Therfore SAID decides on 14 November 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 29 October 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

ADDPI 2018_21 INADA vs Mahesh Datta Asawale

19 Sep 2018

In May 2018 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor weightlifter Mahesh Datta Asawale after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. He denied the intentional use of the substance and explained that he had used several supplements while he didn’t had any knowledge of prohibited substances. The Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) finds that the test results showed the presence of the prohibited substance and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete established No Significant Fault or Negligence since he was a minor unaware of prohibited substances. Therefore the ADDPI decides on 19 September 2018 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

ADAPI 2018_08 Inderjeet Singh vs INADA - Appeal

14 Dec 2018

On 4 July 2018 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Inderjeet Singh after his A and B samples – provided on 22 June (the First Sample) and 29 June 2016 (the Second Sample) - tested positive for the prohibited substances Androsterone and Etiocholanolone. Here the Disciplinary Panel (ADAPI) dismissed the Athlete’s objections regarding the collection, chain of custody and testing although the Panel established material deviations from the applicable Guidelines and Standards. Hereafter the Athlete appealed the First Instance decision of 4 July 2018 with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI). Again the Athlete argued that material departures occurred of the applicable Guidelines and Standards during the collection, the chain of custody and the analysis of the Athlete’s samples. The India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) contended that the test results were valid and that there were no serious departures of the applicable Guidelines and Standards regarding the collection and testing of the Athlete’s samples. Considering the evidence in this case the Appeal Panel established that there were indeed material departures regarding the procedures for collection, chain of custody and testing for the Athlete's First and Second Sample. The Panel finds that the Athlete established a crucial breach in the chain of custody of the First Sample leading to a reasonable doubt about the test result of this First Sample. In the matter of the Second Sample the Appeal Panel concludes that the identity of the sample was seriously doubtful to deem the entire test negative in accordance with stipulations about departures of the Standards. As a result the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India decides on 14 December 2018 to set aside the test results of the First and Second Sample and to annul the 4 year period of ineligibility imposed on the Athlete by the Disciplinary Panel on 4 July 2018. Further, as a result of this case, the ADAPI makes the following suggestions to the National Anti-Doping Agency and the Ministry of Sports & Youth Affairs: A.) formulate and notify Standard Operating Procedures and/or Regulations in accordance with Articles 7, 8 and 9 of the WADA Anti Doping International Standard: Testing & Investigation, 2015; B.) provide proper authorized transport to the DCO, as well as adequate equipment to maintain the integrity, veracity and identity of each sample collected; C.) henceforth the Review Exercise must mandatorily contain - (i) a detailed Report of re-checking of every stage of AAF, and - (ii) a proper certification of the Reviewing Authority of being fully satisfied with the AAF; D.) await the direction of the Disciplinary Panel or take their permission prior to testing if an application pending, except in a case where it is clear that the Athlete is obstructing or unduly delaying the proceedings for garnering an undue advantage.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

ADAPI 2016_21 INADA vs Suji S. Rani - Appeal

12 Jan 2019

On 12 May 2016 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose only a reprimand on the Athlete Suji S. Rani after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Terbutaline. Here the Disciplinary Panel accepted that the Athlete established how the substance entered her system and that the violation was not intentional as a result of prescribed medication she had used. Hereafter the India National Anti-Doping Agency appealed the First Instance Decision of 12 May 2016 with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI). The Agency argued that the Athlete failed in her duty that no prohibited substance entered her system and requested the Appeal Panel to impose a more severe sanction on the Athlete. The Panel confirms the conclusion of the Disciplinary Panel in First Instance that the Athlete didn’t use a performance enhancing substance and reasonable could not be aware of the risk she would face in consuming a cough syrup which she mentioned on the Doping Control Form. The Appeal Panel finds that a reprimand was a proportional sanction since the violation was not intentional. Therfore on 12 January 2019 the Anti-Doping Apeal Panel of India decides to dismiss the appeal of the India National Anti-Doping Agency and to uphold the ADDPI decision of 12 May 2016.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

ADAPI 2016_10 INADA vs Balinder Singh - Appeal

27 Aug 2018

On 5 May 2017 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the powerlifter Balinder Singh after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone and its Adiols. Hereafter the Athlete appealed the First Instance decision on 5 May 2017 with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI). The Athlete asserted that the positive test was caused by contaminated supplements and in support he had produced a test report from a Laboratory. The Appeal Panel established that the filed test report was insufficient and unreliable, that the Athlete had failed to mention the supplements in question on the Doping Control Form and that the prohibited substance was used prior to the Doping Control. Therefore on 27 August 2018 the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel decides to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal and to uphold the ADDPI decision of 5 May 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

MFA 2018 Malta Football Association vs Gianluca Calabretta

29 Apr 2019

In January 2019 the Malta Football Association (MFA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Gianluca Calabretta after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board. The Athlete admitted the violation and explained that he had used the substance out-of-competition in a social event before the match in question. The Board finds that the test result showed the presence of the prohibited substance and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Board considers that the violation was not intentional without grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence. Therefore the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board decides on 29 April 2019 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 January 2019.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

MFA 2018 Malta Football Association vs Danny Kabeya

29 Apr 2019

In January 2019 the Malta Football Association (MFA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Danny Kabeya after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board. The Athlete accepted the test result and denied any use of the prohibited substance without providing any other other explanation. The Board finds that the test result showed the presence of the prohibited substance and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Board considers that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional or that the Cocaine possibly only was used socially. Therefore the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board decides on 29 April 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 January 2019.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

MFA 2018 Malta Football Association vs Shamison Zammit

11 Feb 2019

In December 2018 the Malta Football Association (MFA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Shamison Zammit after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the substance, accepted the test result and a provisional suspension. The Board finds that the test result showed the presence of the prohibited substance and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Board accepts that the violation was not intentional and that there are grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence. Therefore the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board decides on 11 February 2019 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 December 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

MFA 2016 Malta Football Association vs Ian Zammit

18 Apr 2017

In November 2016 the Malta Football Association (MFA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Ian Zammit after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board. The Athlete asserted that there was a false positive test result caused by the medication he had used as treatment for his condition. The Board finds that the test result showed the presence of the prohibited substance and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Board considers that the Athlete failed to produce any evidence in support of his assertation about a false positive and failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor No Significant Fault or Negligence. Therefore the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board decides on 18 April 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 November 2016.

show » details »
Type:
pdf
Category
  • Legal
  • 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