ADAPI 2022_16 Vishvendra Singh vs INADA - Appeal

29 Apr 2022

On 27 December 2021 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Vishvendra Singh after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Darbepoetin (dEPO). 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. He explained that the prescribed medication he used was the source of the positive test whereas he was unaware that this medication contained a prohibted substance.

INADA contended that without corroborating evidence the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional while he also didn't mention his medication 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 he 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 29 April 2022 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to confirm the ADDPI Decision of 27 December 2021 for the imposition of a 4 year period of inelgibility on the Athlete.

ADAPI 2022_15 Rahki Halder vs INADA - Appeal

29 Apr 2022

On 16 December 2021 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the weightlifter Rahki Halder after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Etiocholanolone, Testosterone and Adiols. Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and asserted that she had acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. She explained with evidence that she suffered from a back injury and as treatment had used a product recommended by another athlete. She believed that this supplement was clean because it was natural plant based and thus she was unaware that it contained prohibited substances.

INADA contended that without corroborating evidence the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Further she acted negligently with her self-medication and didn't list the product on the Doping Control Form.

The Appeal Panel confirms that the presence of prohibited substances have 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 Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore ADAPI decides on 29 April 202 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the ADDPI Decision of 16 December 2021 for the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility.

ADAPI 2021_14 Gurmeet Singh vs INADA - Appeal

5 Apr 2022

On 6 December 2021 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided in absentia to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Gurmeet Singh for his second anti-doping rule violation after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Aandrosterone, Etiocholanolone, Testosterone and Adiols.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI). The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and could not explain of these substances had entered his system. He assumed that the supplements he used were the contaminated while he was willing to have his supplements tested.

INADA contended that this is the Athlete's second violation and in first instance failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Although duly informed the Athlete failed to join the proceedings, nor the hearing, nor filed any statement in his defence.

Further INADA asserted that without corroborating evidence the Athlete only alleged that his supplements were contaminated whereas the supplements mentioned on the Doping Control Form were not the source of the positive test.

The Appeal Panel confirms that the presence of prohibited substances had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Appeal Panel deems that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore ADAPI decides on 5 April 2022 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the ADDPI Decision of 6 December 2021 for the imposition of an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his second anti-doping rule violation.

ADDPI 2021_177 INADA vs Shubham

2 May 2022

In December 2021 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the wrestler Shubham after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

After 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 accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained with medical information that in August 2021 he suffered from an urinary infection and its symptoms. He underwent treatment in a hospital and used prescibed Lasix in the days before sample collection.

The Athlete asserted that he was unaware that the prescribed medication contained a prohibited substance. He acknowledged that he did'nt told his doctor that he was an Athlete and he didn't mention his medication on the Doping Control Form. Hereafter he applied for a retroactive TUE which was denied in September 2021 and after an appeal again denied by INADA in November 2021.

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 concludes that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete acted in this case with some degree of negligence.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 2 May 2022 to impose a 5 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e on 14 December 2021.

ADDPI 2021_176 INADA vs Atul Kumar

12 Apr 2022

In September 2021 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the canoe Athlete Atul Kumar after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Higenamine. After notification the Athlete was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He claimed that the supplements he had used were the source of the positive test. He asserted that he had checked the products on the internet and blaimed the manufacturer for wrong information on their website.

INADO contended that Athlete participated in national and in international competitions and was tested before without issues Yet, he failed to mention his supplements on the Doping Control Form nor consulted his coach, doctor or other experts about the safety of his supplelents.

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 concludes that the violation was not intentional and that Athlete acted negligently regarding the supplement he had used.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 12 April 2022 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

ADDPI 2021_175 INADA vs Nilesh Balhara

19 Apr 2022

In April 2021 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the judoka Nilesh Balhara after for his refusal and evasion of Doping Control in February 2021.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Doping Control Officers (DCO) reported that Athlete was duly notified that he was selected for sample collection. However the Athlete refused to sign the notification form, nor accompanied the DCO's to the Doping Control Station and instead he left the venue. Thereupon a person from the Athlete's entourage made threats to DCO and tried to manipulate the doping process.

The Athlete asserted that the DCOs didn't show their identification card and were not acting in accordance with the ISTI.

Based on the evidence the Panel established that the INADA DCOs had authority to conduct doping control although their ID cards had expired as reason why they were not wearing them around their neck. Video footage showed that the Athlete asked the DCOs for their IDs and that he clearly tried to evade signing the notification form and the sample collection.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete intentionally had evaded sample collection without compelling justifications. Further the Panel questioned the Athlete's conduct and the contradicting statements he made in this case while he was tested before as Athlete without issues.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 19 April 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 April 2021.

ADDPI 2021_174 INADA vs Jaspreet Singh

20 Apr 2021

In September 2021 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Jaspreet Singh after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Metandienone and Methyltestosterone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete failed to respond to the communcations, nor attended the hearing of the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) and a decision was rendered in absentia of the Athlete.

The Panel finds that the presence of prohibited susbstances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Because the Athlete didn't respond he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional nor how the substance had entered his system.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 20 April 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 9 September 2021.

ADDPI 2021_188 INADA vs Rakesh Pandey

18 Apr 2022

In April 2019 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the badminton Parathlete Sankar S. after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substances. He explained with medical evidence that for his back pain he underwent treatment in a hospital where his doctor had administered him with prescribed Deca Durabolin (Nandrolon). He mentioned this medication on the Doping Control Form and thereupon he applied for a retroactive TUE which was denied in September 2021.

INADA contended that the Athlete had acted negligently as he failed to mention to his doctor that he is an Athlete. He didn't check his medication before using and the treatment with this product is not appropriate for this condition.

The Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited subtances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and considers that he acted with some degree of fault or negligence.

Therefore the ADDP decides on 18 April 2022 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Parathlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

UCI-ADT 2021 UCI vs Ilya Davidenok

23 Dec 2021

In January 2020 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kazakh cyclist Ilya Davidenok after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO). Presviously the Athlete was sanctioned for 2 years, starting on 16 October 2014, for the presence of a prohibited substance in his sample.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete denied the violation, yet he didn't file a statement in his defence, nor submitted an Acceptance of Consequences within the set deadline.

Thereupon the Athlete failed to respond to the UCI communications and didn't participate in the proceedings. The case was referred to the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal and a decision was rendered based on the written submissions of the parties.

The Sole Arbitrator 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 Arbitrator holds that the Athlete didn't submit an answer in these proceedings and concludes that he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Further the Arbitrator considers that this is his second anti-doping rule violation, there are no grounds for a reduced sanction, yet there had been substantial delays in proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 23 December 2021 to impose a fine and an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting backdated on 3 April 2020.

Costs of the UCI for the results management and the sample analysis shall be borne by the Athlete.

UCI-ADT 2021 UCI vs Luis Ricardo Villalobos Hernández

21 Dec 2021

In May 2020 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Mexican cyclist Luis Ricardo Villalobos Hernández after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance GHRP-6.

The Athlete provided a sample in April 2019 and it was initially analysed and reported as negative by the Mexico Laboratory. Yet, after the Mexico Laboratory ceased its operations in November 2019 the Athlete's sample was reanalysed in the Montreal Laboratory revealing the presence of GHRP-6.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete requested the Laboratory Documentation Package and analysis of his B-sample. Further he provided limited information about the supplements and medication he had used at the material time.

In January 2021 the Athlete indicated he was investigating the chain of custody in Mexico. Hereafter he failed to respond to the UCI communications nor participated in the proceedings. The case was referred to the UCI Anti-DopingTribunal and a decision was rendered based on the written submissions of the parties.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's A and B samples and accordingly that he commmitted an anti-doping rule violation. The Arbitrator holds that the Athlete didn't submit an answer in these proceedings and concludes that he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 21 December 2021 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 May 2020.

Costs of the UCI for the results management, the sample analysis and the documentation packages shall be borne by 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