NADDP 2017 ADC vs Kevin Moore

1 Mar 2017

Related case: NADAP 2017 ADC vs Kevin Moore - Appeal June 12, 2017 In July 2016 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Kevin Moore after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances 1,3-Dimethylbutylamine (1,3-DMBA), Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) and Tamoxifen. 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 disputed the validity of the sample collection procedure. He asserted that irregularities resulted in erroneously attribute a urine sample collection to him which in reality does not belong to him and thus the result of a positive test is invalid. Here the Athlete alleged that the collection vessel was not sealed and that the information relating to the urine sample was not written in his presence. Such allegation directly affects the requirements established under the WADC International Standards Testing (IST) and could impinge on the adverse analytical finding. The Panel finds that the bone of contention between the parties concerns the chain of events that occurred between the time when the Athlete produced the required urine sample to when he returned from the 200m race. The two questions put forward are: - 'Did the Athlete make sure that he closed the collection vessel and sealed it in front of the Doping Control Officer (DCO) before the Athlete left the room?'; and - 'Did the DCO fill in the details relating to the collection vessel (the second part of the form) on the Doping Control Form in the presence of the Athlete before the athlete left the room?' Having considered all the evidence produced, the Panel holds the opinion that the procedure conducted for the collection of the urine sample has been irregular. The Panel deems that the Athlete proved by a balance of probability that such breach to the IST had a significant impact on the testing result since the DCO during his testimony did not manage to comfortably satisfy the Panel that the collection vessel was sealed and the form was filled in the presence of the Athlete. Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel concludes on 1 March 2017 that the Athlete has not committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides to revoke his provisional suspension and to acquitt him from the charges brought against him.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

NADDP 2017 ADC vs Scott Dixon

12 Feb 2017

In March 2016 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Scott Dixon for his Refusal or failure to submit to sample collection. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta. Here the Doping Control Officer (DCO) reported that when notified the Athlete refused to be tested despite he was warned about the consequences of his refusal. The Athlete admitted the violation and testified that prior he underwent 28 doping tests and was familiar with the procedures. He asserted that he refused this doping test because of breaches in the procedures for testing as the notification was incorrect and the DCO failed to identify himself to the Athlete. The Panel established that the Athlete had lost the match and that there was commotion about the result of this match. As a result the Athlete was upset and suspicious when the DCO notified the Athlete in de dressing room about the doping test. Considering the evidence in this case the Panel is convinced and is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete was duly and correctly notified by the DCO to submit to sample collection for a doping test and the athlete's conduct does result into an intentional conduct to evade sample collection. Further the Panel holds that there were delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete and that the Athlete participated in a boxing promotion during the ordered provisional suspension. Therefore the National Anti-Doping Discipinary Panel decides on 17 February 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 March 2016.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

WR 2018 WR vs Emre Bender

18 Apr 2019

In November 2018 World Rugby (WR) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Turkish rugby player Emre Bender after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the WR Judicial Committee The Athlete accepted the test results and testified that he had used tablets provided by a fitness trainer at the gym. He acknowledged that he had received some warnings from his coaches and the Turkish Rugby Federation about doping. He requested the Panel to be as lenient as possible as he was anxious to avoid any lengthy suspension. WR contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional and requested the Panel to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility. The Panel finds that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation since his samples tested positive for testosterone. The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to establish the violation was not intentional nor did he establish No Significant Fault or Negligence. Therefore the WR Judicial Committee decides on 18 April 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 1 November 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

WR 2018 WR vs Kisi Keomaka Unufe

12 Mar 2019

In August 2018 World Rugby (WR) had reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American rugby player Kisi Keomaka Unufe after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Heptaminol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the WR Judicial Committee. The Athlete admitted the violation,stated that it was not intentional and demonstrated with evidence that the positive test was the result of a contaminated supplement despite his efforts to ensure the product was safe. He had mentioned this supplement on the Doping Control Form and analysis of this supplement in a Laboratory confirmed it contained Heptaminol. WR accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the product literature nor the packaging of the supplement in question made reference to the substance Heptaminol. However WR contended that the supplement was clearly not contaminated as it listed the prohibited substance Dimethylhexylamine (DMHA) as product ingredient in the product literature and website. A simple reseach on the intenet for DMHA would have revealed that it was a prohibited substance. WR argued that Athlete acted with a substantial degree of fault or negligence and that any reduction of the sanction should be small. The Panel does not accept that the supplement in question was contaminated because the prohibited substance DMHA was listed in the product literature and website. It deems the prohibited substance disclosed in the product literature was not the prohibited substance for which the Athlete tested positive, and it is an Athlete’s duty to consider any and all ingredients of a supplement product. The Panel concludes that the Athlete’s Fault or Negligence was not significant but serious enough that any reduction must not be the largest portion of the presumptive 2 year period of ineligibility. Therefore the WR Judicial Committee decides on 4 February 2019 to impose a 14 month period of ineligibility starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 August 2018) _________________________________________________ Hereafter in February 2019 the Athlete requested the WR Post Hearing Review Body (PHRB) a review of the decision of 4 February 2019. Here the Athlete argued the imposed sanction was unprecedented and disproportionate due to the Judicial Committee: - failed to find that the procuct in question was contaminated; and - misapplied the "Cilic" factors as stipulated in case law. The PHRB disagrees with the Athlete’s contention that the Judicial Committee gave no weight at all to the subjective factors and double-counted the objective factors. To the contrary, the objective / subjective approach articulated in the Čilić decision was fully considered and followed. Comprehensive and cogent reasons were provided by the Judicial Committee. One member of the PHRB finds that the Judicial Committee erred in agreeing there was No Significant Fault on the part of the Athlete and finds that the degree of fault on the Athlete’s part would warrant no reduction of the presumptive sanction of two years’ Ineligibility. While the majority of the members do not regard these considerations as warranting an increase in the sanction imposed by the Judicial Committee these factors do underscore the appropriateness of the Judicial Committee’s decision. The majority of the PHRB would also not tinker with, let alone significantly reduce the sanction of 14 months imposed by the Judicial Committee. That sanction is amply supported by the record and by the Judicial Committee’s findings of fact. It is proportionate in all of the circumstances. The minority view is that the period of Ineligibility should be increased to two years. All members of the PHRB agree that the Judicial Committee’s decision in respect of the Contaminated Supplement issue was wrong. However, in the PHRB's view, it makes no difference to the outcome. The PHRB holds that the delay in the proceedings does not warrant backdating the commencement of the period of ineligibility to the date of the sample collection. Therefore the PHRB decides on 12 March 2019 to uphold the WR Judicial committee's decision of 4 February 2019.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IAAF 2019 IAAF vs Hosein Keyahni

20 Jun 2919

In May 2019 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Iranian Athlete Hosein Keyahni after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO). After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right to be heard, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the IAAF. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and explained that he had high altitude training and underwent medical treatment because he felt dizzy and had dyspnea and numbness. He demonstrated with medical evidence that his doctor administed prescribed EPO while he wasn’t aware that this was a prohibited substance. Therefore the IAAF Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) decides on 20 June 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 May 2019.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

iNADO Update #2019-6

21 Jun 2019

iNADO Update (2019) 6 (21 June) Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO) ____________________________________________________ Contents: - WADA and iNADO to strengthen Collaboration - iNADO seeks a New CEO - iNADO Webinar - Anti-Doping Quiz for visually impaired Athletes - International Conference on Fitness Doping and Public Health (24-25 Oct., Copenhagen) - Collection of Anti-Doping Rules of International Federations - World Conference on Doping in Sport: Registration and Hotels - Collaboration between UKAD and Fitness Industry to curb doping in Gyms - Summary of 2018 Education Activities in Kazakhstan - New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IAAF 2019 IAAF vs Eunice Jepkirui Kirwa

14 Jun 2019

In May 2019 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Eunice Jepkirui Kirwa after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO). After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, waived her right to be heard, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the IAAF. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance claimed that the positeve test was the result of a caudal epidural injection she received. Therefore the IAAF Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) decides on 14 June 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 May 2019.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

JJIF 2017 JJIF vs Laurence Fouillat (2)

22 Jul 2017

DECISION 1. In March 2017 the Ju-Jitsu International Federation (JJIF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French Athlete Laurence Fouilat after his sample, collected in June 2015, tested positive for the prohibited substance Heptaminol. After notification the Athlete failed to respond. However the French Federation for Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo and Associated Disciplines (FFJDA) reported in May 2017 that the addressed FFJDA sports officials were not aware of the Notification and therefore it was not forwarded to the Athlete. Further the FFJDA reported that the Athlete had applied for a retrospective TUE for Heptaminol which was denied by the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFDL) in January 2016. The JJIF established that the Notification by email was validly submitted to the FFJDA sports officals without indication that this Notification was not delivered. Also the JJIF deemed that the Athlete’s TUE application was an admission of the violation and an acceptance of the presence of the prohibited substance in his system. Considering the evidence in this case the JJIF found that the anti-doping rule violation was intentional and that the delays in the proceedings were not attributed to the Athlete. Therefore the JJIF decided on 23 May 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 7 June 2015. _________________________________________________ DECISION 2 Hereafter in May 2017 the Athlete requested the JJIF to reconsider his case and filed a statement with evidence in his defence. The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained with medical evidence that he had used prescribed medication as treatment for his condition. He asserted that he informed his doctor that he was an Athlete subject to doping control and acknowledged that he didn’t check his medication for prohibited substances before using. The Athlete submitted that after deliberations with the FFJDA he became aware that the prescribed medication Ginkor fort was the source of the positive doping test and he applied for a retrospective TUE which was denied by the AFDL in January 2016 due to an incomplete case file. The JJIF accepts the filed medical evidence but concludes that the Athlete acted with significant fault because he failed to investigate his medication before using and afterwards applied for a TUE with an incomplete casefile. The JJIF considers that the substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete were already regarded in their decision of 23 May 2016. On these grounds the JJIF decides on 22 July to uphold the JJIF decision of 23 May 2016 and to dismiss the Athlete’s request for reconsideration.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

JJIF 2017 JJIF vs Laurence Fouillat (1)

23 May 2017

Related case: JJIF 2017 JJIF vs Laurence Fouillat (2) July 7, 2017 In March 2017 the Ju-Jitsu International Federation (JJIF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French Athlete Laurence Fouilat after his sample, collected in June 2015, tested positive for the prohibited substance Heptaminol. After notification the Athlete failed to respond. However the French Federation for Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo and Associated Disciplines (FFJDA) reported in May 2017 that the addressed FFJDA sports officials were not aware of the Notification and therefore it was not forwarded to the Athlete. Further the FFJDA reported that the Athlete had applied for a retrospective TUE for Heptaminol which was denied by the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFDL) in January 2016. The JJIF established that the Notification by email was validly submitted to the FFJDA sports officals without indication that this Notification was not delivered. Also the JJIF deems that the Athlete’s TUE application is an admission of the violation and an acceptance of the presence of the prohibited substance in his system. Considering the evidence in this case the JJIF finds that the anti-doping rule violation was intentional and that the delays in the proceedings were not attributed to the Athlete. Therefore the JJIF decides on 23 May 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 7 June 2015.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IAAF 2018 IAAF vs Felix Kiptoo Kirwa

11 Jun 2019

In February 2019 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Felix Kiptoo Kirwa because his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Strychnine. After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right to be heard, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the IAAF. The Athlete explained with evidence that he had used herbal medicine products as treatment for his arthritis. These products have the ingredient Strychnos nuxvomica, which contain Strychnine, while Strychnine itself was not listed on either product. Considering the Athlete's evidence the IAAF accepts that the violation was not intentional and that presence of Strychnine in the Athlete's sample is consistent with the Athlete's ingestion of the herbal medicine products for therapeutic reasons. Further the IAAF finds that the Athlete established No Significant Fault or Negligence for a reduced sanction and demonstrated how the substance entered his system. Therefore the IAAF Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) decides on 11 June 2019 to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 February 2019.

show » details »
Type:
pdf
Category
  • Legal
  • 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