NADDP 2018 ADC vs Joseph Pace

9 Dec 2018

In September 2018 the National Anti-Doping Commission (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rower Joseph Pace after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis. After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use and accepted a provisional suspension. He explained that he had used Cannabis out-of-competition recreationally and that he wasn’t aware that the substance was prohibited. The National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel accepts the Athlete’s explanantion and decides on 15 November 2018 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 30 September 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

NADDP 2018 ADC vs Brandon Bartolo

9 Dec 2018

In March 2018 the National Anti-Doping Commission (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Brandon Bartolo after his sample tested positive for the prohibited susbstance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel. The imposed provisional suspension was lifted by the Malta Boxing Association. The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He claimed that a contaminated supplement he had used was the source of the positive test purchased in a well known sports shop in Malta. He acknowledged that he didn’t check his supplements for prohibited substances before using. The Athlete declined the opportunity to analyse his supplements in a WADA Accredited Laboratory because he was not in the financial position to pay for the costs of the test. The Panel deems that analysis of the supplement in question in a WADA Accredited Laboratory is the best proof to establish contamination of this product. Since the Athlete declined to do this because of the costs the Panel settles this case based on the filed evidence and the Athlete’s testimony. The Panel is willing to accept that the violation was not intentional but finds that there are no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence. Here the Panel considers that the Athlete didn’t check his supplements for prohibited substances before using because he simply relied on the sports shop reputation and guidance. Further the Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the prohibited substance entered his system nor showed with sufficient evidence that the positive test was the result of a contaminated product. Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 9 December 2018 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the first hearing, i.e. 26 October 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

NADDP 2018 ADC vs Frankie Borg

17 Oct 2018

In August 2018 the National Anti-Doping Commission (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Frankie Borg after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Fluoxymesterone, Mesterolone, Prednisolone and Prednisone. After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, accepted a provisional suspension and explained that he had used medication as treatment for his condition. The National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 17 October 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 24 August 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

NADDP 2018 ADC vs Darko Mitrovic

17 Oct 2018

In March 2018 the National Anti-Doping Commission (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the the volleyball player Darko Mitrovic after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Cannabis and Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use, accepted a provisional suspension and attended the hearing of the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Commission. The National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and decides on 17 October 2018 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 20 March 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

NADAP 2018 Josiah Vella vs ADC - Appeal

1 Mar 2019

Related case: NADDP 2018 ADC vs Josiah Vella October 17, 2018 On 17 October 2018 the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the boxer Josiah Vella after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. Here the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel nor did he file a statement in his defence. Hereafter in November 2018 the Athlete appealed the First Instance decision of 17 October 2018 with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel. The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance. He explained that he failed to attend the hearing in First Instance due to he had not received the hearing notification despite the Anti-Doping Commission contended that this notification had been duly submitted. The Athlete asserted that a fat burner he had used was the source of the positive test. He had seeked professional assistance for his training and diet and had used this fat burner recommended by his nutritionist in order to lose weight for his upcoming match. He argued that the imposed sanction was excessive since he was unaware that it contained a prohibited substance and therefore that the violation was not intentional. He acknowledged that he didn’t research this supplement before using. In support he produced an empty container of the supplement he had used prior to the Doping Control indicating on the container the presence of Clenbuterol in Bulgarian. The Appeal Panel considered the Athlete’s degree of fault in this case and that there are grounds for a proportional reduction of the imposed sanction. The Panel regarded that the Athlete established how the substance entered his system, failed to mention the supplements he used on the Doping Control Form, had limited anti-doping education and no familiarity with the doping regime. Therefore the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel decides on 1 March 2019 to reform the First Instance Decision of 17 October 2018 and to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the First Instance decision.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

NADDP 2018 ADC vs Josiah Vella

17 Oct 2018

In August 2018 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Josiah Vella after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. After notification the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the National Anti-Doping Disciplianry Panel nor did he file a statement in his defence. The imposed provisional suspension was lifted by the Malta Boxing Association as contested by the Athlete. The Panel finds that the positive test result of the Athlete’s sample establish the presence of a prohibited substance and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 17 October 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

NADAP 2018 Dylon Mula vs ADC - Appeal

9 Jan 2019

Related case: NADDP 2018 ADC vs Dylon Mula October 17, 2018 On 17 October 2018 in First Instance the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the boxer Dylon Mula for his evasion of the Doping Control. Here the Disciplinary Panel was convinced and comfortably satisfied that the Athlete’s conduct resulted into an intentional conduct to evade sample collection notwithstanding that he was being warned that the test was not complete. The Disciplinary Panel deemed that there was insufficient proof of Tampering. Hereafter in November 2018 the Athlete appealed the First Instance decision of 17 October 2018 with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel. The Athlete confirmed the anti-doping rule violation and denied that it was intentional. He argued that the sanction was excessive and requested merely for a reduction of the period of ineligibility. He asserted that his conduct was caused due to his age and lack of maturity while in fact he did submit to the Doping Control but could not produce enough urine even though he provided three samples. Considering all the evidence in this case the Appeal Panel concludes that the Athlete’s conduct during the Doping Control did lead to an evasion especially when he decided to throw away the sample into the toilet and therafter decided to leave the Doping Control Station without permission. However the Appeal Panel is not convinced that the Athlete acted with intent to evade the sample collection since the Athlete did provide not once or twice but also for a third time a sample. The Appeal Panel deems that the Athlete’s decision to leave the Doping Control Station, though it can never be approved, was more the result of frustration combined with a dose of immaturity, than the result by an intentional decision made by the Athlete for the purpose of evading sample collection for some reason. Further the Appeal Panel established that the Athlete’s samples in question were analysed and had revealed a negative result demonstrating that the Athlete had no intention to cheat. Already had been ruled that the Athlete didn't try to tamper with any part of the Doping Control. Therefore the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel decides on 9 January 2019 to reform the First Instance decision of 17 October 2018 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the First Instance decision.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

NADDP 2018 ADC vs Dylon Mula

17 Oct 2018

Related case: NADAP 2018 Dylon Mula vs ADC - Appeal January 9, 2019 In July 2017 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Dylon Mula for his evasion, his refusal to sample collection including tampering during the Doping Control. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel. The Doping Control Officer (DCO) reported that during the Doping Control the Athlete was very nervous; asked and drank several bottles of water; provided a partial sample; left without permission the Doping Control; when returned ignored requests to behave and to cooperate; threw the sample collection vessel in the toilet; finally left the Doping Control Station and refused to return. The Athlete admitted that he left the doping room before the completion of the test, disregarded the notice from the DCO to complete the test and left the Doping Control with the intention not to return. He explained his action to the lack of cooperation from the DCOs entrusted to collect the urine sample and to the fact that he was at the doping room for a long time and could not produce more for a sample than that he already had provided. The Panel established that the Athlete did not produce a full sample due to the fact that he decided to leave the doping control room. It was confirmed that the doping test was being carried out after the Athlete had finished his match and at that time there were other athletes who were also waiting to submit their urine sample. The sample collection was taking a long time and one can understand that the Athlete after the competition would be under the effect of the adrenaline of the competition leading to a nervous state. However, the Panel finds that this does not justify the Athletes antagonism and lack of cooperation. Considering the evidence in this case the Panel is convinced and is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete’s conduct resulted into an intentional conduct to evade sample collection notwithstanding that he was being warned that the test was not complete. The Panel cannot tolerate this attitude irrespective whether this was the first time or not but the regulations are there to be obeyed and the Athlete's conduct confirm that he did evade the test knowing the test was not complete. Finally the Panel deems in this case that there is insufficient proof of Tampering. Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 17 October 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

NADDP 2018 ADC vs Keith Galea

7 Mar 2018

In July 2017 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the triathlon Athlete Keith Galea after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Stanozolol and Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel. The Athlete accepted the test results and explained with evidence that he went through a stressful period before the doping test primarily because he was very focused to improve his performances and to repeat and improve his success during the last year. Because he was not satisfied about his performances and his coach he trained with a new coach who provided him syringes and tablets. Here he failed to conduct any research into these products before using nor mentioned any of his products on the Doping Control Form. The Athlete argued that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence in this case on the basis that he during that period was in a state of agitation, confusion and mental weakness that made him vulnerable to be monopolised by his coach in such a way that he could not question or suspect of any of the substances that he was being given by his coach. The Panel accepts that the Athlete was passing through a difficult period but is not convinced that such circumstances were grave enough to impede him to be aware of the possible threats that the substances he was ingesting were possibly prohibited. In this respect the Panel finds that the Athlete did not take any basic precautions, by consulting a doctor or simply by searching the names and details found on the labels of the substances and thus he has departed from his duty of care. When taking into consideration all the facts of the case the Panel believes that the Athlete has departed from the duty of care required from athletes and there is no sufficient justification to justify his negligence. Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 7 March 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 July 2017.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

NADAP 2017 ADC vs Kevin Moore - Appeal

12 Jun 2017

Related case: NADDP 2017 ADC vs Kevin Moore March 1, 2017 In July 2016 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Kevin Moore after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances 1,3-Dimethylbutylamine (1,3-DMBA), Tamoxifen and Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). In First Instance the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel ruled that the procedure conducted for the collection of the urine sample had been irregular. The Disciplinary Panel deemed that the Athlete proved by a balance of probability that such breach to the IST had a significant impact on the testing result since the DCO during his testimony did not manage to comfortably satisfy the Panel that the collection vessel was sealed and the form was filled in the presence of the Athlete. Consequently the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel concluded on 1 March 2017 that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation, decided that his provisional suspension was revoked and that the Athlete was acquitted from the charges brought against him. Hereafter in March 2017 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta appealed the First Instance decision of 1 March 2017 with the National Anti-Doping Appeals Panel. The ADC requested the Appeals Panel to set aside the the decision of 1 March 2017 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Ahtlete. The ADC argued that the alleged flaws or deviations (if any) were not sufficiently serous to have fatally underminded the sample collecting procedure to the extent that it warranted the setting aside of urine samples collected from the Athlete and to declare them invalid for the purpose they were collected for. The Appeals Panels considered in this case the evidence and the Athlete’s conduct during the sample collection procedure and concludes that the Athlete failed to establish facts which the Panel can rationally infer a causative link - which must be more than merely hypothetical - between the alleged departures and the presence of the prohibited substance in his samples and/or which can persuade the Panel to invalidate the samples. The Panel holds that it is amply clear that for deviations to have a significant impact on a testing result these deviations must be significant. Only departures which by their very nature will be considered as serious will undermine the fairness of the testing process. The Appeals Panel does not consider that this has been the case on the occasion of the Athlete’s doping test. Therefore the National Anti-Doping Appeals Panel decides to annul the First Instance decision of 1 March 2017 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The provisional suspension already served by the Athlete shall be credited against the 4 year period of Ineligibility.

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