In August 2022 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Amandeep after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Darbepoetin (dEPO).

Following notificantion 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 stated that he had received dEPO injections on advice of his supervisor as treatment for his pain and discomfort.

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 deems that the Athlete acted intentionally in his conduct through his use of injections of an unknown substance and without any consultation of a doctor.

Therefore the ADDPI Panel decides on 27 February 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 August 2022.

In August 2022 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Pallavi Jagadale (19) after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Darbepoetin (dEPO).

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete claimed that she is a young athlete and had never received anti-doping education. She was unable to find the source of the prohibited substance. She only had received an injection from a supplement supplier containing a doping free muscle relaxer.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. In view of her significant negligence the Panel deems that the Athlete had acted intentionally.

The Panel did not accept that the Athlete had received an injection with an unknown substance without consultation of a doctor, coach or trainer. Neither accepts the Panel that the Athlete has a disadvantaged background, nor that she was inexperienced with anti-doping considering the multiple tests she was subjected.

Therefore the ADDPI Panel decides on 27 February 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 3 August 2022.

In August 2022 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder Suprity Archarjee after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. The Athlete admitted the violation and could not demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Thereupon the case was referred to the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI). 

The Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the ADDPI Panel decides on 3 February 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 August 2022.

In May 2022 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter Allen Kanagaraj Joseph after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Mephentermine and Phentermine. Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. 

Thereupon the Athlete was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI). He denied that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation, nor that he had used prohibited substances.

The Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel deems that he failed to demonstrate how the substances had entered his system.

Therefore the ADDPI Panel decides on 14 February 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 31 May 2022.

In July 2022 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Aishwarya B. after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine).

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and asserted that she was tested before without issues. She acknowledged that she had used Ostarine tablets in order to recover from an injury, recommended by another athlete.

The Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel did not accept the Athlete's explanation and concludes that she intentionally had used the prohibited substance.

Therefore the ADDPI Panel decides on 13 February 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 July 2022.

In April 2022 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Ram Kumar after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Mephentermine, Metandienone and Phentermine.

Following 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 denied the intentional use of the substances and could not explain how they had entered his system. He had only used supplements he mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

The Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete intentionally had used the prohibited substances. Further the Panel did not accept the Athlete's explanation and deems that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the ADDPI Panel decides on 7 February 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 April 2022.

On 16 August 2022 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Shivpal Singh after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI). The Athlete requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that a contaminated supplement was the source of the positive test. The supplement Prime Testo Booster was  provided by his coach and purchased in a supplement store. Analysis of this supplement in the New Delhi Laboratory revealed the presence of Metandienone contaminants.

Following assesment of the evidence in this case the Appeal Panel determines that:

• The Athlete's violation was not intentional.
• He had checked the label of the product for prohibited substances before using.
• He researched this product on the internet.
• The supplement was provided to him by his coach.
• The supplement store in question had been found involved in the sale of contaminated products.
• The New Delhi Laboratory confirmed the presence of Metandienone contaminants in the Athlete's supplement.
• The Athlete mentioned the use of his supplement on the Doping Control Form.
• As a military officer he followed the directions of his coach.
• The Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore tha ADAPI Panel decides on 10 January 2023 to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 October 2021.

In February 2022 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter for his evasion of Doping Control at a competition in September 2021.

The Doping Control Officers (DCOs) at the competition reported that the Athlete was in the waitingroom at the Doping Control Center after he had been duly notified. Hereafter the Athlete left the waiting room, the building and the premisis.

By contrast the Athlete denied he had evaded Doping Control. He alleged that the DCO was with him all the time and that he gave permission to leave the building.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete refused to accept a sanction of 3 years proposed by ABCD and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Rapporteur establishes that there were conflicting testimonies from the DCO's and the Athlete regarding his alleged permission to leave. He left the building through the main entrance and took an Uber with another passenger. Or the Athlete left the building without permission and escaped into the woods.

The Rapporteur deems that there were inconsistencies and imprecisions in the statements provided by the Athlete and his witnesses. Moreover he failed to produce sufficient evidence that corroborates his version of the event.

Ultimately the Rapporteur determines that the Athlete had been duly notified and that he had signed the Doping Control Form. Thereupon he evaded Doping Control and failed to submit to sample collection without a compelling justification.

Finally the Rapporteurs considers that that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 7 November 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the violation, i.e. on 26 September 2021.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-006 Disciplinary Decision - Football
October 10, 2022

On 10 October 2022 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to 10 month period of ineligibility on the football player after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

In first instance the Panel accepted that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and likely the result of the use of a contaminated supplement.

Hereafter both the Athlete and ABCD appealed the decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal. The Athlete requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and for a more reduced sanction.

By contrast ABCD and the attorney requested for a more severe sanction. They conteded that the Athlete's violation was intentional and dismissed his evidence that his supplements in question were contaminated.

Following assessment of the case a majority of the Panel finds that the Athlete's violation was not intentional. Also the Athlete had demonstrated with valid evidence that his supplements, analysed in the Rio Laboratory, contained Stanozolol contaminants.

In view of the Athlete's conduct the Panel determines that he acted with some higher degree of negligence that justifies the imposition of a more severe sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides by majority on 7 November 2022 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of sample collection, i.e. on 5 February 2022.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-017 Appeal Decision - Table Tennis
December 7, 2022

In August 2021 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the paralympic table tennis player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Androsterone, Etiocholanolone and Testosterone with its metabolites.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Parathlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substances. He explained with evidence that he underwent prescribed medical treatment and had already applied for a retroactive TUE.

However the Athlete's TUE application was rejected and he acknowledged that he had acted negligently with this treatment. ABCD contended that he failed to demonstrate that the use of Testosterone was not intentional, neither was this a WADA approved treatment for his diagnosed condition.

The Rapporteur finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Parathlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor grounds for a reduced sanction. Further he considers that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Parathlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 14 June 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of sample collection, i.e. on 23 February 2021.