In May 2022 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the swimmer Tayden De Pol after his two samples - provided in March and in April 2022 - tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylphenidate related to medication he had used.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by CCES. An application for a retroactive TUE was rejected by WADA.

CCES finds that the Athlete had failed to apply timely for a prospective TUE for his medication and considers that the Athlete had signed the Waiver of Hearing Form. Further CCES deems that the Athlete's two positive tests are considered as a single anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore CCES decides on 2 August 2022 to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 17 May 2022.

In December 2021 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Canadian Ice Hockey player Anthony De Luca for presence and use after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold (295 ng/mL).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete admitted that he had used Cannabis daily in Canada until his arrival in England. He asserted that any use occurred out-of-competition in a context unrelated to sport performance.

UKAD contended that Athlete had used Cannabis at the material time on the day of the competition and that it was unlikely that the found concentration in his sample was attributed to his use before his arrival to England.

The Panel concludes that there was no evidence that the Athlete had used Cannabis at the material time on the day of the competition since the London Lab could not corroborate UKAD's contention in this matter. As a result the Panel deems that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation for the presence, not for the use of Cannabis.

Nevertheless the Panel also did not accept the Athlete's denial that he had not used Cannabis after his arrival in England two weeks before the competition. Further the Panel considers that the Athlete continued to play professionally in Canada while he was aware that a provisional suspension was ordered in the United Kingdom.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 21 June 2022 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision. This sanction could be reduced to 1 month if the Athlete satisfactorily completes a Substance of Abuse treatment program approved by UKAD.

iNADO Update (2022) 08 (1 August)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

iNADO Community

• Latest Annual Reports of NADOs available at the ADKC
• 6th Annual Forum for Anti-Doping in Recreational Sport

Bulletin Board

• iNADO Webinar: WADA NADO EAG Elections: What you need to know
• Member-Only Webinar Summary: AFLD Compliance with the WADA Code: Challenges and Achievements

Athlete's Voice

• NADA Germany Survey Athletes to Understand Their Anti-Doping Education Needs

iNADO Partners & Sponsors

• New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-012 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
July 16, 2020


On 16 July 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after she tested positive for the prohibited substances Canrenone and Oxandrolone.

In first instance the Panel deemed that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the Oxandrolone had entered her system. She also failed to prove that the violation was not intentional, nor grounds for a reduced sanction.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested for a reduced sanction.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and asserted that she only had participated as an amateur cyclist. She explained the use of Canrenone and how the Oxandrolone possibly had entered her system.

ABCD contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the substance Oxandrolone had entered her system. It also rejected the Athlete's assertion that she only competed as an amateur cyclist and that she had not received anti-doping education.

Following assessment of the case the Rapporteur agrees with ABCD's contentions and does not accept any of the Athlete's assertions.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 12 August 2020 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision for the imposition of a sanction of 4 years.

In Oktober 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Androsterone, Etiocholanolone and Testosterone.

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

The Athlete denied that the violation was intentional and explained with medical evidence that she underwent prescriped treatment for her low Testosterone. Yet, she did not explain the presence of the other prohibited substances.

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

The Rapporteur deems that the Athlete explained the use of Testosterone whereas she failed to apply for a TUE. The Athlete also failed to demonstrate how the other prohibited substances had entered her system, nor that the violation was not intentional.

Further the Rapporteur considers that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction and that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 16 July 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 28 July 2019.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-034 Appeal Decision - Cycling
August 12, 2020

In August 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Canrenone and Oxandrolone.

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

The Athlete admitted the occasionally use of the medication Spironolactone (Canrenone) and requested for a reduced sanction. She denied the intentional use of Oxandrolone and assumed that the supplements and drinks she had used during the competitions were possibly contaminated.

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

The Rapporteur deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the Oxandrolone had entered her system. Furthermore she failed to prove that the violation was not intentional, nor grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 16 July 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 29 August 2019.

In January 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Volleyball Parathlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Eventually the Athlete responded in July 2019 and filed a statement in his defence in November 2019.

The Parathlete denied the intentional use and requested for a reduced sanction. He explained with medical information that the substance was prescribed and used for one of the medical conditions he suffered.

He admitted his negligence and was unaware that he had to list any and all the medication he used whereas he already had mentioned a large number of medications on the Control Form.

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

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and that the substance was used for a legitimate medical treatment. Further the Rapporteur considers that there are mitigating circumstances in this case.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 25 June 2020 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Parathlete. The sanction starts on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 5 July 2019, which the Athlete has already served.

In November 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the volleyball player after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Isometheptene. Also ABCD reported an anti-doping rule violation against the physical therapist for the administration of a prohibited substance.

After notification the Athlete and the physical therapist filed statements in their defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She stated that the day before the match during the warming-up she suffered from severe headache. Because she found the doctor not present she ingested a capsule of Sedamed provided by the physical therapist.

The Athlete acknowledged that she didn't check this medication and immediately ingested the capsule. Also she didn't mention the use of this product on the Doping Control Form.

The physical therapist denied that he acted intentionally and confirmed that he only gave the Athlete the capsule for her headache. He was not part of the Athlete Support Personnel, yet hired by the organisation of the competition and not entitled to prescribe medication.

The Rapporteur 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.

The Rapporteur accepts that the violations committed by the Athlete and the physical therapist were not intentional and that they demonstrated how the substance had entered the Athlete's system. In view of the circumstances the Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete achted with No Significant Fault or Negligence and that the physical therapist acted with No Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 29 June 2020 to impose a warning, without a period of ineligibility, on the Athlete. Furhter the Panel dismissed the charges against the physical therapist.

In February 2020 the  Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the basketball player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and failed to attend the hearing of the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete admitted the violation, claiming ignorance and denied the intentional use of the substance. He stated that he had used the substance 6 months ago for only 2 weeks and had purchased it on the internet.

At that material time he asserted that he was not a registered Athlete, in between two sports contracts, suffering from personal problems and had used the substance out-of-competition.

The Rapporteur 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 Rapporteur deems that the Athlete had admitted the intentional use of the substance and that there are no mitigating circumstances. He claimed ignorance whereas the use of the substance is prohibited out-of-competition.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 29 June 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 20 february 2020.

In August 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for his refusal or failure to submit to sample collection in July 2019.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and failed to attend the hearing of the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Doping Control Officers reported that after notification the Athlete had attended the Doping Control Station, yet after 40 minutes the Athlete refused to cooperate and left the Doping Control Station.

In his submissions the Athlete asserted that during the Doping Control he was in an extremely uncomfortable situation, hungry, without changing clothes, with his wife, with a borrowed car, 200 km away from home, with a sick son waiting, with long waiting for sample collection, less information and believing he had to provide a blood sample.

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur establishes that the Athlete had been duly notified, he attended the Doping Control Station and thereupon refused to submit to sample collection and left.

After assessment of the Athlete's assertions the Rapporteur finds that the Athlete had produced several inconsistencies, untruths, omissions and important concealment attempts. Accordingly the Rapporteur deems that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation for intentional refusal and failure to submit to sample collection.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 29 May 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 August 2019.