NADDP 2020 ADC vs Charlton Abela

25 Jan 2021

Related cases:

  • NADAP 2016 Charlton Abela vs National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta - Appeal
    August 31, 2016
  • NADDP 2016 National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta vs Charlton Abela
    March 24, 2016


In October 2020 the National Anti-Doping Commission (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rower Charlton Abela after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Drostanolone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel. Previously in March 2016 the Athlete was sanctioned for 4 years after he tested positive for the substance Cocaine.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He could not explain how the substance had entered his system whereas he only had used prescribed medication which he had mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

The Panel 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. The Panel deems that the Athlete failed to explain how the prohibited substance had entered his system, whereas his medication could not explain the presence of Drostanolone in his sample.

Because this is the Athlete's second anti-doping rule violation the Disciplinary Panel decides on 25 January 2021 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 9 October 2020.

NADAP Isabel Grech vs ADC - Appeal

28 Feb 2021

Related case:

NADDP 2020 ADC vs Isabel Grech
January 4, 2021

On 4 January 2021 the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decided on 4 January 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the the volleyball player Isabel Grech for her refusal to submit to sample collection.

In first instance the Panel established that the Athlete was duly warned by the Doping Control Officer of the consequences for her refusal. Further she failed to be aware of the anti-doping rules and that she could apply for a TUE regarding her prescribed medication she used.

Hereafter In January 2021 the Athlete appealed the Decision with the the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel. She requested to set aside the Appealed Decision and for a reduced sanction.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied that she acted intentionally. She asserted that there were mittigating circumstances for the imposition of an reduced sanction.

In view of the Athlete's conduct the Appeal Panel holds that it is undisputed that the Athlete had refused to submit to sample collection and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Appeal Panel concludes that the Athlete was fully aware of the consequences of her refusal to submit to sample collection. The Appeal Panel also did not accept that an experienced Athlete, for 20 years involved in Volleybal, was unaware of the anti-doping rules and the necessity to apply for a TUE.

Therefore the Appeal Panel decides on 28 February 2021 to dismiss the Athlete's Appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision for the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 3 February 2020.

NADDP 2020 ADC vs Isabel Grech

4 Jan 2021

Related case:

NADAP Isabel Grech vs ADC - Appeal
January 4, 2021

In February 2020 the National Anti-Doping Commission (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the volleyball player Isabel Grech for her refusal to submit to sample collection.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied that she acted intentionally. She requested for a reduced sanction and stated that she refused sample collection because of the prescribed medication she had used. Fear and ignorance of the applicable regulations were the reason for her refusal and she was unaware that could have requested for a TUE.

In view of the evidence the Disciplinary Panel finds that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation following her refusal to sample collection. The Panel did not accept that she acted with ignorance and concludes that she willingly disregarded her oblication to submit to sample collection.

The Panel deems that the Athlete was duly warned by the Doping Control Officer of the consequences of her refusal. Further she failed to be aware of the anti-doping rules and that she could apply for a TUE for her prescribed medication.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 4 January 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 3 February 2020.

NADAP 2020 Alwyn Cassar vs ADC - Appeal

8 Feb 2021

Related case:

NADDP 2019 ADC vs Alwyn Cassar
November 24, 2020

On 24 November 2020 the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the powerlifter after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone.

In first instance the Disciplinairy Panel accepted that the prescribed Testosterone was used for a legitimate medical treatment. However the Athlete and his doctor failed in their responsibility to apply in advance for a TUE. Also the Panel dismissed the Athlete's request not to disclose his identity.

Hereafter in December 2020 the Athlete appealed this Decision with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel. The appeal was settled by the Appeal Panel based on the written submissions of the Parties.

The Appeal Panel establishes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and that the imposed sanction was undisputed. However the Athlete requested again prohibition of disclosure of his personal details due to the sensitive nature of the case.

Following assessment of the Anti-Doping Regulations the Appeal Panel concludes that public disclosure of the anti-doping rule violation and the name of the Athlete is mandatory and not discretionary. Further the Panel deems that there are insufficient grounds to prohibit public disclosure of his identity.

Therefore the Appeal Panel decides on 8 February 2021 to dismiss the Athlete's Appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision regarding public disclosure of the anti-doping rule violation and the name of the Athlete.

NADDP 2019 ADC vs Alwyn Cassar

24 Nov 2020

Related case:

NADAP 2020 Alwyn Cassar vs ADC - Appeal
February 8, 2021

In Mei 2019 the National Anti-Doping Commission (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter Alwyn Cassar after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained with evidence that the Testosterone was used as prescribed medication by his doctor. Previously the Athlete made an application for a retroactive TUE which was denied in June 2019 and again in October 2019 following his appeal.

The Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Considering the Athlete's request the Panel concludes that there are no grounds not to disclose the Athlete's identity.

The Disciplinairy Panel accepts that the prescribed Testosterone was used for a legitimate medical treatment because of the Athlete's condition. However the Panel deems that the Athlete and his doctor failed in their responsibility to apply in advance for a TUE.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 24 November 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 June 2019.

ADDPI 2022_216 INADA vs Shashank J. Ray

13 Oct 2022

In April 2022 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the basketball player Shashank J. Ray after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete explained that analysis of his supplements had revealed no prohibited substances. He alleged with evidence and scientific literatur that his consumption of pig meat, contaminated with Nandrolone, had caused the positive test.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substance.

The Panel deems that the concentrations of 19-norandrosterone found in the Athlete's samples were too high to be attributed to meat contamination as corroborated in the scientific reports. Further the Panel finds that the Athlete failed to demonstate that he was a regular consumer of pork, nor that he had consumed meat at the material time, nor that this meat was contamined.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 13 October 2022 to impose a 4 year period of inelgibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

ADDPI 2022_215 INADA vs Mickey Menenzes

7 Oct 2022

Related case:

ADAPI 2021_09 Kirti Bhoite vs INADA - Appeal
October 11, 2019

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) and the Athlete received a 2 year period of ineligibility.

In this case an investigation report of the Maharashtra Athletics Association (MHAA) established that the Athlete's coach Mickey Menenzes besides supplements had introduced a new product that was injected containing Drostanolone. The MHAA concluded that the coach had acted recklessly and negligently.

Consequently in May 2022 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Coach for complicity and administration. Following notification the Coach filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Coach admitted the violation, denied the intentional administration of the substance and argued that he was misled by his supplier. He acknowledged that he had used recommended supplements and had administered a new product Propionate.

He asserted that his supplier had assured him that this new product was safe. However after the Athlete Kirti Bhoite was tested positive his supplier retracted these assurances.

Considering the Coach his conduct in this case the Panel finds that he has committed and anti-doping rule violation. The Panel did not accept his explanation that he was misled by his supplier. The Panel agrees with INADA that the Coach intentionally had administered Propionate to enhance the Athlete's sport performance.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 7 October 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Coach Mickey Menenzes, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 May 2022.

ADDPI 2022_214 INADA vs Pushpa

7 Oct 2022

In June 2022 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the wrestler Pushpa after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. She explained with evidence that she underwent medical treatment in a hospital and that the prescribed medication Lasix had been used.

INADA contended that the Athlete had acted negligently because she had failed to mention to her doctor that she was an athlete. Further she failed to mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form, nor made an application for a TUE.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. In view of the evidence the Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore ADDPI decides on 17 October 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibilty on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 July 2022.

ADDPI 2022_211 INADA vs Ashutosh Mehta

15 Sep 2022

In March the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Ashutosh Mehta after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Morphine in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. He testified that another football player had administered opium as self-medication the day before the match while he was unaware that this medication contained a prohibited substance.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed in-competition an anti-doping rule violation.

In view of the evidence the Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional although he acted negligently with his medication. INADA's investigation determinded that the Athlete's substantial assistance was baseless.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 15 September 2022 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 25 March 2022.

ADAPI 2022_24 M.R. Poovamma vs INADA - Appeal

17 Sep 2022

On 16 June 2022 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete M.R. Poovamma after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) related to the supplement she had used.

Hereafter India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI). INADA requested the panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a more sever sanction on the Athlete.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that she had demonstrated that source of the positive test was an over-the-counter medication she had used. Analysis in a laboratory revealed that the supplement Bedtime Latte contained the prohibited substance.

INADA conteded that the Athlete had acted negligently with her supplements as an experienced athlete and had not established the source of the prohibited substance. She failed to mention all her supplements and medications on the Doping Control, nor made an appliciation for a TUE.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional although she had acted negligently.

The Panel considers that the Athlete had not mentioned all her supplements and medication on the Doping Control Form and had not produced corroborating evidence to establish the source of the prohibited substance.

The Panel deems that the laboratory in question was not accredited and their analysis report was insufficient. Moreover the Athlete's tested medication container was delivered open and suspicious and as an experience athlete she had failed to check ther medication before using.

Therefore ADAPI decides on 17 September to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

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