In May 2016 the National Doping Control Commission of Chile (CNCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Manuel Miranda Varga after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Amfetamine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered whereas the Athlete failed to attended the hearing of the Disciplinary Panel of the Tribunal de Expertos en Dopaje (TED).

Therefore the TED Disciplinary Panel decides on 31 January 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 May 2016.

In May 2016 the National Doping Control Commission of Chile (CNCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Manuel Miranda Varga after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Amfetamine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered whereas the Athlete failed to attended the hearing of the Disciplinary Panel of the Tribunal de Expertos en Dopaje (TED).

Therefore the TED Disciplinary Panel decides on 31 January 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 May 2016.

In November 2013 the National Doping Control Commission of Chile (CNCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Francisco Moreno Cornejo after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete failed to respond to the CNCD communications, nor attended the hearing of the Disciplinary Panel of the Tribunal de Expertos en Dopaje (TED).

Therefore the TED Disciplinary Panel decides on 24 October 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 November 2013.

In April 2015 the National Doping Control Commission of Chile (CNCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Francisco Moreno Cornejo after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Panel of the Tribunal de Expertos en Dopaje (TED). The Panel establishes that the Athlete only could explain how the substance had entered his system.

Therefore the TED Disciplinary Panel decides on 22 September 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 1 April 2015.

In May 2022 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Zeyad El-Karsh after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances LGD-4033 (ligandrol) and Tamoxifen.

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

Because the Athlete signed and submitted the Early Admission and Acceptance Form the Athlete received a 1 year reduction from CCES.

Therefore CCES decides on 27 June 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 May 2022.

iNADO Update (2022) 06 (6 June)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

iNADO Community

• iNADO 2022 Workshop & Annual General Assembly

Bulletin Board

• iNADO 2021 Annual Report
• iNADO Member-Only Webinar: Developing DCOs to collect Intelligence Information
• New Strategic Plan of The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport

Athlete's Voice

• How an independent athlete representation can act as a partner in the sport system (Léa Krüger, Athleten Deutschland)
• Paralympic bronze medallist Adam Hall discusses the value of the Para Voice

People

• Mr. Ronan O´Laoire (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s, Programme on Safeguarding Sport from Corruption and Crime)
• Ms. Ndiaye Chaya NDIAYE, Senior Manager Product (ADAMS Lead), WADA
• Dr. Matt Fedoruk, Ph.D., Chief Science Officer, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)
• Dr. Raphäel Faiss, Ph.D., Research Manager & Senior Lecturer, Institute of Sport Sciences, University of Lausanne

Science

• Study reinforces the risk of Dietary Supplements as a Source of Unintentional Doping

Practical Development in Anti-Doping

• ADAMS Survey Analysis

iNADO Partners & Sponsors

• New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

iNADO Update (2022) 05 (2 May)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

iNADO Community

• Preliminary Agenda of iNADO Workshop
• Questionnaire on Education Programs of ADOs

Bulletin Board

• iNADO Webinar: PWC Initiatives to Reduce Environmental Impact in Anti-Doping
• iNADO present at SEARADO Webinar

Athlete's Voice

• Adapting to the New Role of Athletes (Allison Wagner, USADA)

People

• Jurgen Secember (Legal Adviser and Investigation Manager at NADO Flanders)
• Gabriela Andreiasu (General Director - RNADA)

Science

• Study on Pain Prevalence and Analgesic Use in Junior Athletes

Practical Development in Anti-Doping

• Paperless Solution for Doping Control Data Collection

Feature of the Month

• UKAD Clean Sport Hub Milestone by Numbers
• E-learning Course for Athletes and Coaches to be Launched

iNADO Partners & Sponsors

• New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

iNADO Update (2022) 04 (4 April)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

iNADO Community

• Preliminary Agenda of iNADO Workshop
• 2020 Testing Numbers by NADOs
• Prosecutor talks about Operation "Aderlass";
  lessons learned, deterrence and naivety
• Larry D. Bowers Award for Excellence in Anti-Doping Science

Bulletin Board

• iNADO Webinar
• Summary of iNADO Member-only Webinar
• iNADO YouTube Channel
• PCC's First Round of Research Call has ended
• Master of "Doping Studies and Analysis of Anti-Doping Policies"

People

• Erratum from March Newsletter:
  Una May, New Chief Executive Officer of Sport Ireland
• Ștefan Rohnean (ANAD)

Science

• Social Environment and Education impact Athletes’ Willingness to Support Anti-Doping Policies

Practical Development in Anti-Doping

• Researchers learn New Fundamentals of Beta-2 agonists
• UKAD share Findings on Research into Athlete Support Teams
• WADA's Anti-Doping and Education Platform marks Anniversary

Feature of the Month

• Global Issues in Different Sport Disciplines

iNADO Partners & Sponsors

• New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

On 7 September 2021 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete K.M. Khushbu Guptah after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Mephentermine. Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. She explained that she had received and used a tablet for the treatment of her muscular pain.

INADA contended that without corroborating evidence the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional while she also didn't mention this product on the Doping Control Form.

The Appeal Panel confirms that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Appeal Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor grounds for No Fault or Negligence.

Therefore ADAPI decides on 20 April 2022 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to confirm the ADDPI Decision of 7 Sepember 2021 for the imposition of a 4 year period of inelgibility on the Athlete.

On 29 Juni 2021 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Kirti Bhoite after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Drostanolone. Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI).

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. She asserted that the source of the positive test were the supplements she had used provided by her coach. Thereupon her coach failed to respond to her calls and she had filed a complaint against him. An investigation report of the Maharashtra Athletics Association (MHAA) about her coach was not included into the first instance proceedings.

INADA contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the substance entered her system and she also didn't mention this product on the Doping Control Form.

The Appeal Panel established that the MHAA investigation report confirmed that the Athlete's coach had provided a number of supplements to the Athlete which were used without issues. Further he had introduced a new product that was injected. He asserted that he was unaware that this product contained a prohibited substance. The MHAA concluded that the coach had acted recklessly and negligently and it had imposed a 4 year period of ineligibility on him.

The Appeal Panel confirms that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. In view of the evidence in this case the Appeal Panel concludes that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that she had acted with a normal degree of fault.

The Panel considers that the coach owed the Athlete a high duty of care because he was a coach, and as such someone in whom the Athlete placed considerable trust. The Appeal Panel deems that the coach had acted far from the standard of care and alertness required of him in his professional duty as a coach.

Therefore ADAPI decides on 18 April 2022 to set aside the ADDPI Decision of 29 June 2021 and to impose a 2 year period of inelibibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 9 March 2020.