Related case:
UKAD 2016 UKAD vs Robin Townsend
October 3, 2016

In October 2015 UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Robin Townsed after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance modafinil.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete accepted the test results and the anti-doping violation. He denied the intentional use of the substance and that the result of fault or negligence on his part. The “only possible explanation” he could provide was that his sample was “spiked at the event”.

The Tribunal did not accept the Athlete’s ‘spiking’ explanation without evidence and finds that none of the Athlete’s supplements had been analysed to exclude contamination by modafinil.
Without grounds for eliminating or reducing the period of ineligibility the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 22 december 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 October 2015.

Hereafter in February 2016 reanalysis of the Athlete's sample also tested positive for EPO resulting in a second charge against the Athlete. Considering the evidence the Tribunal concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping violation by the presence of EPO is his A sample.

The Tribunal rules that this second charge is not a second anti-doping rule violation because it was committed on 5 September 2015 before the Athlete received notice of the first charge. For the purpose of determining the appropriate sanction, this anti-doping rule violation is to be treated as though it were the first.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 3 October 2016:

1.) The anti-doping rule violation (the second charge) has been established.
2.) The period of ineligiblility imposed is 4 years, commencing on 8 October 2015, concurrent with the sanction imposed in respect of the first charge.

In July 2015 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Paul Bird after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances cocaine and furosemide.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. With consent of the parties the Athlete admitted the violation and the non intentional use of the two substances.
Therefore the NADP Anti-Doping Panel Arbitral Tribunal decides on 23 November 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 July 2015.

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent Mark Spessot after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances prednisone and terbutaline. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.

The Respondent gave a prompt admission of the violation and stated that he had used the substances as medication, obtained from an earlier prescription, as treatment for his asthma two days before the competition without intention to enhance his performance.
After the notification of the violation the Respondent’s application for a retroactive TUE was declined due to insufficient medical evidence had been provided to meet the TUE International Standard requirements. To meet the standard in this case, the Respondent would have been required to produce medical evidence that the taking of the prohibited substances was necessary at the time. This would have required a doctor’s visit in relation to the specific period, despite it being a recurrent condition.

The Tribunal finds it difficult to accept that the Respondent’s decision to enter the competition with his degree of experience, and general awareness of the testing regime and prohibited status of prednisone does not amount to significant fault or negligence given the strict obligations on athletes under the Rules.
The Tribunal finds that the Respondent failed to establish that there was no significant fault or negligence on his part in committing the violation. His actions were casual and unthinking and that is not consistent with the clear obligations on every athlete.

Considering the circumstances the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 23 March 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 19 September 2015.

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent Kelsey Kennard after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance probenecid. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Respondent filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the Tribunal.

The Respondent gave a prompt admission and stated that on 10 September 2015 she attended an Urgent Doctor’s clinic and was diagnosed with a bad case of cellulitis. She was administered the protocol treatment for cellulitis, being antibiotics together with probenecid to boost the effectiveness of the antibiotics. At the time of treatment, the Respondent was not intending to play football for the next few months and therefore did not tell the doctors treating her that she was subject to the anti-doping testing regime, nor did she make inquiries about what medication she was being given.
Shortly after, she was persuaded to play football and commenced training for the 2015 National Women's League (NWL) competition. She did not make any inquiries about the medication she had taken to treat her cellulitis at, or following, this seminar. The Respondent was tested at her last NWL game for the season. She failed to disclose probenecid on the doping control form as over two months had elapsed since her treatment, although she did disclose the iron medication that she had taken in the past week.

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent could establish no significant fault given the exceptional circumstances of the case including:
- the emergency nature of the treatment and the clear therapeutic reason for taking the substance;
- the fact that she was not intending to play in the NWL at the time she took the substance;
- the length of time the substance remained in her system from the time it was taken to the time of testing; and
- the change in status from a non-national level athlete to a national level athlete between the time of taking the substance and the time of testing.

Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 1 March 2016 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 22 November 2015.

In July 2015 the Irish Sports Council had reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete IS-3765 after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Irish Sport Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel.
The Athlete did not dispute the test results and stated that the use of cocaine was not intentional. He claimed, sustained by witness statements, that a third party put cocaine in his beer.
Considering the statements the Panel concludes that it is more probable than not that a third party spiked the Athlete’s beer with cocaine without his knowledge in a social situation and without intention to enhance his performance.

With some degree of fault, above the very lowest level of fault, the Irish Sport Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 4 December 2015 to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 July 2015 and without award of costst of the hearing.

In September 2015 Eesti Antidopingu (EAD), the Estonian Anti-Doping Agency, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance tamoxifen.
After notification the Athlete was heard for the Estonian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel. The Athlete could not explain the positive test result. He assumed that it could have happened with using the sports drinks bottles from other athletes. Without an explanation of how the prohibited substance entered his body the Estonian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 5 November 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

In November 2015 Eesti Antidopingu (EAD), the Estonian Anti-Doping Agency, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis with a high concentration above the WADA threshold.
After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and waived his right to be heard for the Estonian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel. The Athlete admitted the violation and submitted that he had smoked cannabis out-of-competition during his stay in the Netherlands, 3 days before he provided a sample and without intention to enhance his performance.
With no significant fault the Estonian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decided on 16 December 2015 to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

In November 2015 Eesti Antidopingu (EAD), the Estonian Anti-Doping Agency, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis with a high concentration above the WADA threshold.
After notification the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the Estonian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel nor did he file a statement in his defence. Without the Athlete’s response the Estonian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 16 December 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

In November 2015 Eesti Antidopingu (EAD), the Estonian Anti-Doping Agency, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). After notification the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the Estonian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel nor did he file a statement in his defence.
Without the Athlete’s response the Estonian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 16 December 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

In November 2015 Eesti Antidopingu (EAD), the Estonian Anti-Doping Agency, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and the substance cannabis with a high concentration above the WADA threshold. After notification the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the Estonian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel nor did he file a statement in his defence.
Without the Athlete’s response the Estonian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 16 December 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.