In December 2015 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the respondent E47 after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methylphenidate.
Without a statement in his defence AEPSAD decides on 18 March 2016 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the respondent starting on the date of the sample collection.
In December 2015 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the respondent E46 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance propranolol.
After notification the respondent filed a statement in his defence.
He admitted the violation and stated that he had used a medication prescribed by his neurologist for his migraines and he mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form. He acted without intention to enhance and requested for a reduced period of ineligibility and to limit the annulment of results obtained in the previous competitions.
AEPSAD accepted the respondent’s statement and decides on 10 February 2016 to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the respondent starting on the date of the sample collection.
In November 2015 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the respondent E45 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance prednisone. The minor respondent mentioned the use of prednisone on the Doping Controle Form without a TUE.
After notification the representative of the minor respondent admitted the violation and submitted that the substances were used as prescribed medication for the respondent’s medical condition, sustained by medical files and without intention to enhance performance.
In addition the respondent’s application for a TUE was approved on 19 November 2015 and filed as evidence in his defence.
Considering the evidence and mitigating circumstances AEPSAD decides on 13 January to impose a warning on the respondent including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes won in the competition.
iNADO Update #69 addresses a number of matters of interest to the NADO and RADO community, especially about the debate on meldonium being on the Prohibited List. It also announces iNADO’s newest Member, and the first grant of iNADO Quality Recognition for Sample Collection.
Topics:
- New iNADO Member
- Meldonium
- Criminalising Doping
- DFSNZ Awards for E-Learning
- NADA Germany E-Learning for Doctors
- AEPSAD Partnership with ADKC
- PILD
- Norwegian Study on Doping Prevention
- KazADC Website
- Power of Code Compliance
- iNADO Quality Recognition
- Join iNADO
In November the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the respondent E44 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.
After notification the respondent filed a statement with objections in his defence.
The respondent disputed the reliability of the chain of custody and the laboratory. The respondent argued that AEPSAD has no jurisdiction because he is an international level athelete under UCI Rules.
AEPSAD dismissed the respondent’s arguments and concludes that under the Rules AEPSAD has jurisdiction and that the documentation showed that the his sample was valid and tested in an accredited laboratory.
Without grounds for reduction AEPSAD decides on 1 February 2016 to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the respondent starting on the date of the decision.
In an preliminary hearing in March 2015 two athletes testified that the respondent in September 2013 at a competition a beverage drink had offered to them. The day after the competition the respondent confessed to the athletes that the product could test positive because it contained the substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
Because under the Rules the anti-doping rule violation wasn’t reported in writing to AEPSAD within 10 days in 2013 AEPSAD decides on 29 March 2016 without valid evidence to cease disciplinary proceedings against the respondent.
In November 2015 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the respondent E42 for his refusal to provide a sample as second violation.
After selection to provide a sample for drug testing at the competition in September 2015 the respondent refused to cooperate although is was informed by the Doping Control Officer about the possible consequences. The respondent mentioned the use of the prescribed medication terbutaline, his application for a TUE and his refusal on the Doping Control Form.
After notification the respondent filed a statement in his defence. The respondent asserted that he suffered from asthma and used prescribed terbutaline as medication and that his 3 applications for a TUE were dismissed.
AEPSAD considers that the respondent was sanctioned before in September 2013 with a 4 month period of ineligibility and that his refusal to provide a sample in this case was without a valid justification.
Therefore AEPSAD decides on 10 February 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the respondent starting on the date of the sample collection.
Related cases:
In March 2014 the Spanish police arrested 13 people in the police action operation Jimbo. Several Athletes were arrested whom operated in Lucena, Cantabria, Silla (Valencia), Marbella (Malaga), Almonte (Huelva) and Sevilla. After house searches the police confiscated blood bags, syringes, growth hormone, EPO and other doping substances. The Police seized in the respondent’s house several prohibited substances:
After news reports in the national media about opertion Jimbo the Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD reported in October 2014 an anti-doping rule violation against the respondent E41 for the possession of S1 class (anabolic agents), S2 class (peptide hormones, growth factors and related substances) and S0 class prohibited susbstances (Non-approved substances). Analysis of the seized substances in the AEPSAD accredited laboratory in February 2015 confirmed the respondent’s possession of prohibited substances.
After notification the respondent failed to file a statement in his defence. Considering the aggravating circumstances AEPSAD decides on 21 January 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the respondent.
In October 2015 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Ukrainian respondent E40 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance carphedon.
AEPSAD managed in November 2015 to contact the respondent in the Ukrain and to inform him about the violation. The respondent submitted in December 2015 a letter to AEPSAD with several arguments in his defence and a plea to impose a 6 month sanction. AEPSAD considered the respondent’s letter confusing also due to the respondent’s poor knowledge of the language and without an explanation or justification about the positive test result and the presence of the substance in his body.
Considering the circumstances AEPSAD decides on 13 January 2016 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the respondent starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 31 august 2015.
In September 2015 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the respondent E39 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The respondent admitted the violation and stated that he took a few puff of a cannabis cigarette with friends without intention to enhance his performance.
AEPSAD did not accept the respondent’s statement because the concentration cannabis found his sample was not consistent with his statement that he only took a few puffs before the competition. Therefore on 1 December 2015 AEPSAD decides to impose a 1 year period of ingeligibility on the respondent without a fine and starting on the date of the sample collection.
