English translation of anti-doping paragraphs from Sport Act No.440/2015 which is in force from January 2016

In April 2015 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Basil Onuta after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance bendroflumethiazide.

After notification the Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and waived his right to be heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta.
The Athlete submitted that he used prescribed medication which contains the prohibited substance. The Panel notes that the Athlete failed to mention his medication on the Doping Control Form and failed to make an application for a TUE. Considering the circumstances the Panel concludes that the use of the substance is not justified and that the Athlete acted with negligence and without intention to cheat.
Therefore the Anti-Doping Diciplinary Panel decides on 26 August 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In June 2015 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violtion against the Athlete Alessio Restuccia for evading the sample collection.
After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta.
The Athlete stated that he cooperated to provide a sample for drug testing but failed to produce enough urine. The Athlete explained that he could not complete the sample collection because he was afraid to be fired if he arrived too late at work and mentioned this situation on the Doping Control Form.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete had no intention to evade the sample collection but acted recklessly and negligently. Considering the circumstances the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 26 August 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In April 2015 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violtion against the Athlete Bjorn Camilleri after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances nandrolone and boldenone.
After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta. The Athlete denied the use of doping and stated he only used a prescribed medication.

The Panel accepts the reported test result and concludes that the Athlete failed in his responsibility that no prohibited substance enters his body.
Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 26 August 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In April 2015 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violtion against the Athlete Clayton Darmanin after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances boldenone and metenolone.
After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta.
The Athlete denied the use of doping and stated he only used a catafast medication during training.

The Panel accepts the reported test result and concludes that the Athlete failed in his responsibility that no prohibited substance enters his body.
Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 26 August 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Related case:
NADDP 2015 National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta vs Steve Camilleri
April 29, 2015

On 29 April 2015 the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Steve Camilleri for evading the sample collection.

Hereafter in May 2015 the Athlete appealed the decision of 29 April 2015 with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of Malta and filed several arguments in his defence against the previous decision.

In review of the evidence the Appeal Panel finds that under the Rules the Athlete was duly notified by the Doping Control Officers to provide a sample for drug testing and even if the Athlete is not in a testing pool or in ADAMS the Athlete has to comply after notification to provide a sample.

The Panel concludes that there were no serious departures from the International Standard for Testing. The Panel also rejects the Athlete’s argument for lex mitior to reduce the imposed sanction because the disciplinary proceedings against the Athlete were opened with the new Anti-Doping Regulations already in force since 9 January 2015.

Considering the Athlete’s negligence, with no intention to cheat and without tested positive before the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel decides to reduce the sanction and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension i.e. on 2 March 2015.

Related case:
NADAP 2015 Steve Camilleri vs National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta - Appeal
July 31, 2015

In December 2014 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violtion against the Athlete Steve Camilleri for evading the sample collection.
After notification of the violation a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta.

The Maltese Doping Control Officers (DCO) testified that the Athlete was notified on 15 January 2015 at the Sport Complex to provide a sample for drug testing. Hereafter the Athlete was on his mobile phone, walked away and left the sport complex without providing a sample. Other withnesses testified that the Athlete was approached by the DCO’s at the Sport Complex on that day.
The Athlete denied the violation and stated on that day at the Sport Complex no one had notified him to provide a sample and said that he didn’t recognize the two DCO’s.

Considering the statements and evidence the Panel concludes that on 15 January 2015 the Athlete was duly notified by the DCO’s to provide a sample for drug testing.
The Panel finds it very unlikely that the Athlete claimed that he didn’t recognize the two DCO’s in spite of he had contact before with these DCO’s when he provided a sample. Also the Panel finds that the Athlete failed to contact his coach after he had received serveral calls from his coach about the doping control.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel rules that the Athlete with intention evaded the sample collection and decides on 29 April 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

Related case:
NADDP 2015 National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta vs Eman Xuereb
September 29, 2015

On 29 April 2015 the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Eman Xuereb after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine.

Hereafter in May 2015 the Athlete appealed the decision of 29 April 2015 with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of Malta.
The Athlete requested the Appeal Panel for a reduced sanction and argued that he didn’t know that the cannabis cigarette he smoked at a party with friends also contained traces of cocaine; the use was out of completion; without intention to enhance performance; and days behore he provided a sample.

The Appeal Panel finds that the Athlete failed to prove how the prohibited substance entered his body and notes that the alleged use of cannabis wasn’t found in the Athlete’s sample.
Therefore on 20 September 2015 the Appeal Panel decides to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal and to uphold the decision of 29 April 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

NADAP 2015 Eman Xuereb vs National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta - Appeal
September 20, 2015

In December 2014 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violtion against the Athlete Eman Xuereb after his sample 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 National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he had smoked a cannabis cigarette with friends at a party and he didn’t know that it also contained cocaine. The Athlete argued that the use was out of competition 36 hours before he provided a sample and without intention to enhance his performance.

With strict liability and without mitigating circumstances the Panel decides on 29 April to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension i.e. on 2 December 2014.

In November 2015 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Gabriel Iulian Minciu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.

After notification the Athlete failed to attend the ANAD hearing nor did he file a statement in his defence. Therefore ANAD decides on 2 December 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 1 December 2015.