The Irish Sports Council (ISC) has reported an Anti-Doping Rule Violation against the Athlete IS-1525 (the Athlete) after his sample tested postive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

The Athlete stated that he had used a supplement that contained the prohibited substance without intention to enhance his performance..

Decision
The panel:
1. Finds that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation, due to the presence of methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) (MHA) in his bodily sample, which is a Specified Substance under the Rules.
2. Finds that the Athlete has succeeded in establishing on a balance of probability how MHA entered his body.
3. Finds that the Athlete has established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that his use of MHA was not intended to enhance sport performance or mask the Use of a performance enhancing substance.
4. Declares the Athlete ineligible for a period of 12 months starting on the date of the sample collection.

Mr. Richard Meeker (the Respondent) is a 51-year old member of USA Cycling who has been competing as an amateur cyclist for over 35 years.

USADA has reported an anti-doping rule violation against Respondent after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone. USADA notified the person of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension.
The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport (NACAS) on 22 October 2013.

Respondent stated that the positive test may have been caused by his use of dietary supplement that he purchased and used prior to his positive test. Prior to the hearing Respondent’s supplement were analysed and the test results confirmed that one the supplements contained the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and DHEA. However the Respondent did not test positive for DHEA.

Considering the Respondent’s statements and the evidence in this case the Panel finds that Respondent did not testify falsely but he failed to show by a balance of probability how the prohibited substance entered his system.

On 18 November 2013 the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 6 September 2012 to 5 September 2014.

Facts
The Irish Sports Council (ISC) has reported and Anti-Doping Rule Violation against the Athlete IS-1523 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances boldenone and androstatrienedione.

History
The athlete admitted the use of the two steroid substances for a period of 2/3 weeks approximately six months prior to the hearing. The products identified by the Athlete were “Sustanon” and “Deca”. He explained that he injected himself with those steroids which he had obtained from a person in his gym. He said that he used these without intention to enhance his sport performance but for his own personal weight training, strength training and general fitness. He stated that the drugs made him aggressive and therefore he stopped using them. When the panel offered a reduction for "substanctial assistence" the Athlete refused to tell from whom he purchased the prohibited substances and also he refused to mention the name of the gym where it was offered to him.

Decision
The Panel agrees that the period of ineligibility should commence on 2 September 2010 having regard to the provisions the Athlete will, therefore, be ineligible and barred for a period of 2 years from 2 September 2010 from participating in any competition or other activity or funding as provided under the Rules.

In August 2010 the Irish Sports Council (ISC) has reported an Anti-Doping Rule Violation against the Athlete IS-1522 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

The Athlete testified at the hearing. He confirmed that he had consumed cannabis in a social context on different occasions in advance of, but unconnected with, his sporting activities. He also admitted that he had used cannabis since the date of his testing.

On 16 December 2010 the Panel decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 1 March 2011.

In June 2009 the Irish Sports Council (ISC) has reported an Anti-Doping Rule Violation against the Athlete IS-1521 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

The Athlete testified at the hearing. He confirmed that he had used cannabis in a social context on different occasions in advance of, but unconnected with, his sporting activities. He expressed his unequivocal regret and remorse for his violation of the Irish Anti-Doping Rules and submitted that his consumption of the prohibited drug was not intended to enhance his sport performance or to mask the use of a performance enhancing substance.

On 5 October 2009 the Panel decides to impose a reprimand on the Athlete including the time alreadey served under the provisional suspension until the date of the decision.

In October 2009 the Irish Sports Council has reported an Anti-Doping Rule Violation against the Athlete IS-1520 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

The Athlete admitted the violation, filed a statement in his defence and attended the hearing.
On 23 December 2009 the Panel decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Facts
The Irish Sports Council (ISC) alleges the Athlete IS-1519 (the Athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The Athlete provided a sample of urine collected from an in-competition doping test in February 2008. His sample tested positive on terbutaline which is a "specified substance" on the World Anti-Doping Code, 2008 Prohibited List.

History
The violation was admitted on behalf of the Athlete. The prohibited substance entered his body in the form of a Bricanyl inhaler. The Athlete had the benefit of an Abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemption Form (ATUE) for the two year period from 2005, that shortly prior to the expiry of that period in 2007, a new ATUE form was applied by the Athlete and his doctor but, for whatever reason, the application for the ATUE did not reach the Irish Sports Council. The Panel was satisfied that this arose due to an administrative oversight and not used for enhancing his sport performance.

Decision
The Panel was satisfied that no period of ineligibility was appropriate having regard to the evidence. However, under Article 10.3 of the Rules, the Panel was obliged to issue and did issue a warning and reprimand to the player IS-1519.

Related case:
ISADDP 2008 IMAC Disciplinary Decision 20081517
February 9, 2009

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed against a decision of the Irish Sport Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of 9 February 2009 in the case of the Athlete IS-1517 (the Athlete).

The Athlete was previously sanctioned with a 3 month period of ineligibility for her refusal in an out-of-competition doping test.

Considering the circumstances in this case the ASADAP Panel concludes that there is a gap in the relevant Rules related to the refusal to provide a sample. However the Panel rules that a 2 year period of ineligibility is not unjust or disproportionate having regard to the importance of combating sport and having regard to the fact that the Athlete retired from competing in competitions.

Therefore the Appeal Panel decides on 29 July 2010 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete IS-1717.

Related case:
ISADAP 2010 WADA vs ISADDP Appeal Decision 20081517 - Appeal July 29, 2010

Facts
The Irish Sports Council (ISC) alleges the Athlete IS-1517 (the Athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The Athlete was guilty of an anti-doping rule violation by refusing to provide a urine sample when requested to do so by authorised Doping Control Officers in September 2008.

History
The athlete arrived at her home on the evening in question that she was unable to provide the requested sample as she had an urgent commitment away from her house and that it was private and work related. She also explained that it was not possible for the testers to accompany her but that she would be at her training venue from 8pm later that evening and would be available to meet with the testers to provide the sample then. The athlete explained that she had just taken up a new position in July 2008, some five weeks previously, as a manager, and that she had arranged a meeting with a important client who might be in a position to bring a considerable amount of business.

Decision
The decision of the Panel is, that the A hlete IS-1517 did commit the alleged anti-doping rule violation in breach of Article 2.3 of the Rules and that the appropriate sanction is a period of three months’ ineligibility dating from 19 November 2008. That period will, therefore, expire on 19 February 2009.

Facts
The Irish Sports Council (ISC) and the Irish Martial Art Committee (IMAC) alleges the Athlete IS-1516 (the Athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The athlete violated the applicable requirements regarding athlete availability for out-of-competition testing, including an alleged failure to provide “whereabouts” information as required.

History
Due to domestic problems the athlete didn't receive any letters addressed to her. She admits her failures and stopped competing in her sport.

Decision
Considering the circumstances the Panel felt that a period of three months was appropriate. The Athlete had already served a provisional suspension of three months imposed by the IMAC. That provisional suspension expired previously in September 2006. The Panel was satisfied that it would not be appropriate to impose a new sanction on the Athlete.