AFLD 2013 AFLD vs UFOLEP & Respondent M02 - Appeal

10 Jan 2013

Facts
The Agence Française de Lutte contre le Dopage (AFLD) appeals against the decision of L'Union Française des Œuvres Laïques d'Education Physique (UFOLEP) and respondent M02 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. A sample was collected during an in-competition doping test on June 24, 2012. The sample tested positive on heptaminol. Heptaminiol is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent used a medicine, Debrumyl, against weakness which he purchased from a pharmacy.This medicine contained heptaminol.

Decision
The respondent will be sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 4 months.
An earlier decision from the date September 22, 2012, a reprimand, will be cancelled.
The decision shall take effect from the date of notification.
All results individual obtained by respondent on June 24, 2012 , at the " price Lamarche -sur- Saone " of cycling, with all resulting consequences including forfeiture of medals will be seized.
A summery of this decision will be published and sent to the sports ministry, the national sports federation and the internationals sports federation.

AFLD 2013 FFPJP vs Respondent M01

10 Jan 2013

Facts
The claiment Fédération Française de pétanque et jeu provençal (FFPJP) charges respondent M01 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an doping control on 22 april 2012 a sample was collected from the respondent. His sample tested positive on a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list, and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent failed to explain how the prohibited substance entered his body.

Decision
A period of ineligibility of 6 months, starting on the date of notification.
All price money, medals and competition points will be seized.
The decision will be published and sent to the ministry of sports, the national sports association and the international sports organization involved.

ISADDP 2004 ISC Disciplinary Decision 20041541

7 Jul 2005

In December 2004 the Irish Sports Council (ISC) has reported an Anti-Doping Rule violation against the Athlete IS-1541 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete attended the hearing with his representation and admitted the violation.

The Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the notification of the violation.

ISADDP 2013 AI Disciplinary Decision 20131540

23 Oct 2013

In August 2013 the Athletics Ireland has reported an Anti-Doping Rule Violation against the Athlete (IS-1540) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that his wife prepared his supplements in an mixture with the use of a blender. She also included pills that contained stanozolol which were left by a person and were not intended to be used in the mixture.

Considering his negligence the Irish Sport Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligbility starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

ISADDP 2013 IABA Disciplinary Decision 20131539

7 Jun 2013

In February 2013 the Irish Sports Council (ISC) has reported an Anti-Doping Rule Violation against the Athlete IS-1539 (the Athlete) for his three (3) Whereabouts Filing Failures within an eighteen (18) month period.

Athlete denied the violation and filed some arguments in his defence.
At the hearing the Athlete admitted his fault with the Whereabouts and expressed his apologise for his failure.

Decision
Considering the circumstances in this case the Irish Sports Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

ISADDP 2013 IRFU Disciplinary Decision 20131538

16 May 2013

Facts
The Irish Sports Council (ISC) has reported an Anti-Doping Rule Violation against the Athlete IS-1538 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

History
The athlete prompt admitted the violation and stated, sustained by his doctor, that he used cannabis as treatment for his health problems and without intention to enhance his performance.

Decision
The Irish Sports Anti-Doping Decision Panel (ISADDP) decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collections.

ISADDP 2012 IAWA Disciplinary Decision 20121537

11 Apr 2013

Facts
The Irish Sports Council (ISC) has reported an Anti-Doping Rule Violation against the Athlete IS-1537 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis in a low concentration above the WADA threshold.

History
The Athlete stated that he had used cannabis with some friends without intention to enhance his performance.

Decision
The Panel accepts the Athletes statement and decides only to reprimand the Athlete.

ISADAP 2012 ISADDP Appeal Decision 20111529 - Appeal

15 May 2012

Related case:
ISADDP 2011 IABA Disciplinary Decision 20111529
May 8, 2012

Facts
This is an appeal by the Athlete IS-1501 (the Athlete) against the decision, dated 8 May 2012, of the Irish Sport Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ISADDP) in the matter of Irish Amateur Boxing Association vs the Athlete IS-1501 and the Trainer IS-1502.

History
The ISADDP held that the Athlete had satisfied the provisions of Article 10.3 of the Rules2 and the period of Ineligibility for the Athlete's violation should be reduced to nine (9) months.
While admitting the Rule violation by the Athlete the Notice submits that the Disciplinary Panel erred in reaching its decision for the following reasons:
(a) Due process/fair procedures were not applied;
(b) Very considerable weight should have been given to the fact that consumption of Furosemide by the Ahlete could not have conferred any benefit on him (given his change to a higher boxing weight) in circumstances where his consumption of the substance was inadvertent and not connected with masking the consumption of any other substance;
(c) The penalty imposed was not proportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case, which was not a grave infraction of the Rules and the Athlete's fault should be regarded as negligible at most, as his brother and trainer, who had no training or education in the area of doping, administered the Specified Substance;
(d) The penalty was too severe as it will prevent the Athlete from competing at a regional competition in May 2012, thus rendering him ineligible for selection for the Irish boxing team for the World Championships in October 2012, in circumstances where he has already lost the opportunity to compete at the 2012 Olympics as a result of the provisional suspension;
(e) Insufficient weight was attached to the fact that the Athlete was a minor at the time of the Rule violation;
(f) There was a failure to consider the dependency of the Athlete on his brother and trainer influence over the Athlete;
(g) There was a failure to explain why the period of Ineligibility was not reduced to a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility as permitted by Article 10.3.1;
(h) The period of Ineligibility should have taken into consideration the period between the date the sample was given on 21-22 October 2011 and the date of provisional suspension as all intervening competition results are automatically disqualified;
(i) Article 10.4.2 of the Rules does not necessarily apply in this case as there is no minimum period of Ineligibility in circumstances where 10.2 and 10.3 apply. If the Disciplinary Panel purported to apply Article 10.4.2 in order to have an otherwise applicable period reduced, they erred in principle, because the sanction of nine months Ineligibility must then be read as being half of the period otherwise applicable, namely eighteen months. Eighteen months is a sanction clearly disproportionate in the circumstances of this case taking Article 10.2 and 10.3 to be applicable;
(j) The enhanced duty placed on a trainer when dealing with a minor under Article 10.2.3.1 must have as its corollary that a minor will, as a consequence of his minority, be treated more leniently than an adult;
(k) The worth and educative value of a sanction is lesser for a minor than for an adult and the Disciplinary Panel should have taken account of this. The mere fact of being sanctioned, including by a reprimand, can have a disproportionately significant effect on a minor. A minor may be more likely to learn their lesson as a result of a reprimand than an adult. At the time of the submission of the Notice of Appeal of the Athlete had served four months of the period of Ineligibility already and this had a significant impact on him in terms of illustrating the consequences of consumption of prescribed substances;
(I) Alternatively this an exceptional case in which the Disciplinary Panel should have allowed a full mitigation of the available period of Ineligibility.

Decision
The ISADAP decides to uphold the imposed ISADDP sanction.

ISADDP 2012 MI Disciplinary Decision 20121535

29 May 2012

Facts
The Irish Sports Council (ISC) has reported an Anti-Doping Rule Violation against the Athlete IS-1535 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis in a high concentration above the WADA threshold.

History
The Athlete admitted the violation and waived his right to test the B sample. The Athlete stated that he had used cannabis with friends before the competition without intention to enhance his performance.

The Panel considered the violation to be a serious in particular having regard to the high level of the specified substance, allthough it was not used to enhance sport performance. In particular Motor Sport Ireland was concerned that the Athlete posed a danger not only to himself but also to other competitors.

Decision
The Irish Sport Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ISADDP) decideds to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection.

ISADDP 2012 CI Disciplinary Decision 20121534

27 Jun 2012

Facts
Cycling Ireland has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete IS-1534 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

History
The Athlete admitted that he had used “a pipe load” of cannabis in the company of his friends, in the social setting of his friend’s home. The Athlete is a very occasional cannabis user, who would typically smoke cannabis two to three times per year.

Decision
The Irish Sport Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ISADDP) rules that:
1. The Athlete committed a breach of Article 2.1 of the Irish Anti-Doping Rules. However, his breach was inadvertent and it was not intended to, nor did it, provide him with an unfair advantage.
2. Having already served a period of ineligibility of seven weeks, the respondent is free to recover his Cycling Ireland membership card, and to recommence competition, with immediate effect.
3. All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

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