TJD-AD 2018-096 Disciplinary Decision - Football

29 Oct 2018

In April 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. The Athlete admitted the recreational use of the Cocaine and denied the intentional use of the substance.

The Rapporteur finds that the presence of the prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and that it was used in a context unrelated to sport performance.

The Rapporteur deems that the Athlete acted negligently due to his lack of anti-doping education. Further the Rapporteur considers that the concentration found in his sample was consistent with the recreational use of the subtance a few day before the Doping Control.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 29 October 2018 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 April 2018.

TJD-AD 2018-079 Disciplinary Decision - Bodybuilding

27 Sep 2018

In January 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Anastrozole, Drostanolone and Oxandrolone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete gave a prompt admission and denied the intentional use of the substances. He stated that he is an amateur bodybuilder with lack of knowledge and requested for a reduced sanction based on his prompt admission.

The Rapporteur finds that the presence of prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further Rapporteur considers the Athlete's prompt admission and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 27 September 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 9 December 2017.

TJD-AD 2018-043 Disciplinary Decision - Football

22 May 2018

Related case:

TJD-AD 2019-144 Appeal Decision - Football
February 15, 2019

In November 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Anastrozole. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the subsance and requested to lift the provisional suspension. He stated that the contaminated supplements he had used were the source of the prohibited substance. Analysis of these supplements in a laboratory revealed that 5 supplemenst produced in a compounding pharmacie were contaminated. Further the Athlete questioned the irregularities he had established in the chain of custody of his samples.

The TJD-AD Rapporteur finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and the result of a contaminated supplement produced in a compounding pharmacy. In view of the Athlete's conduct regarding the risks in using these compounding supplements the Rapporteur considered his degree of fault. ABCD was invited to investigate the irregularities regarding the chain of custody.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 22 May 2018 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 February 2018.

TJD-AD 2019-144 Appeal Decision - Football

15 Feb 2019

Related case:

TJD-AD 2018-043 Disciplinary Decision - Football
May 22, 2018

The Football player received on 22 May 2016 a 6 month period of ineligibility after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Anastrozole, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 February 2018. In First Instance it was accepted that the violation was not intentional and the result of a contamined supplements produced in a compounding pharmacies.

Hereafter in May 2018 both the Athlete and the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal.

The Athlete asserted that analysis in an independent laboratory had established that the supplement in question was contaminated. Also he disputed the irregularities that occurred during the chain of custody.

The ABCD did not accept the test result and evidence of the contaminated supplement in question because ABCD had not been involved in the analysis in a laboratory as ordered by the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF).

Nevertheless the Rapporteur considered the parties arguments and accepts the evidence and conclusions made in First Instance regarding the anti-doping rule violation and the contaminated supplement in the Appealed Decision.

Therefore the TJD-Appeal Panel decides on 15 December 2018 to dismiss the appeals filed by the Athlete and ABCD and to uphold the Appealed Decision.

FIH 2017 FIH vs Kumar Subramiam

17 Apr 2018

In December 2017 the International Hockey Federation (FIH) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Malaysian hockey player Kumar Subramiam after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Sibutramine.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted a provisional suspension, filed a statement in his defence, waived his right to be heard and thereupon accepted the sanction proposed by the FIH.

The Athlete submitted that at the relevant time he had used Carbo Flex, a chocolate drink slimming product that was contaminated with Sibutramine whereas this substance was not listed as ingredient on the label of this product.

Analysis of the Carbo Flex in a Malaysian Lab revealed the presence of Sibutramine and thereupon this was confirmed by the Lausanne Lab. Additional analysis of sealed packages received from an independent source in the Lausanne Lab again confirmed the presence of Sibutramine.

Based on the evidence in this case the FIH accepts that more likely than not the violation was not intentional and the result of a contaminated product. Further the FIH deems that there are ground for No Significant Fault or Negligence in this case in view of the Athlete's conduct.

Hereafter the parties in this case reached an agreement and requested the FIH Disciplinary Panel to confirm this agreement into a decision in accordance with the Rules.

Therefore the FIH Disciplinary Panel decides on 17 April 2018 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 16 October 2017.

FIH 2018 FIH vs Li Dongxiao

8 Nov 2018

In July 2018 the International Hockey Federation (FIH) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Chinese hockey player Li Dongxiao after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Sibutramine.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted a provisional suspension, filed a statement in her defence and waived her right to be heard.

The Athlete submitted that at the relevant time she had used two kinds of coffees during and before the competitions: DL Slimming Coffee and Gold Coffee. The substance was not listed as ingredient on the label of these products and analysis of these coffees in the Chinada Lab revealed a high concentration of Sibutramine in de DL Slimming Coffee.

Furthermore additional analysis of sealed packages of the two coffees received from an independent source again confirmed the presence of Sibutramine in the DL Slimming Coffee. As a result the Chinese Hockey Association deemed that the Athlete's violation was not intentional.

Based on the evidence in this case the FIH Disciplinary Commissioner also accepts that the violation was not intentional because of a product contaminated by Sibutramine. Further the Commisioner finds that the Athlete's degree of fault or negligence falls in the normal category for the imposition of a reduced sanction.

Therefore the FIH Disciplinary Commissioner decides on 8 November 2018 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 16 May 2018.

ST 2021_07 DFSNZ vs Athlete

1 Dec 2021

In March 2021 New Zealand Customs intercepted a parcel containing Ibutamoren capsules adressed to the Athlete and informed the New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority (Medsafe) about this shipment. Medsafe contacted the Athlete and Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ). In July 2021 anti-doping rule violations were reported against the Athlete for the use and possession of the prohibited substance.

After notification the amateur Athlete admitted the purchase and use of the substance in March 2021 to assist him with his gym training. After interception of the first parcel a replacement product was delivered and used a few day before he was informed by Medsafe about the prohibited substance.

Meanwhile in March 2021 the Athlete also became a registered football player for his local club and so subjected to the Sports Anti-Doping Rules (SADR). The Athlete stated that he was unaware the product was prohibited, or that he was subject to the anti-doping regime due to his weekend recreational football.

DFSNZ accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the product was used not in the context of sport or anti-doping. Further DFSNZ regarded that he is a recreational athlete, participating in football for fun at a low level of competition. He had not received any anti-doping education or information about the SADR, he is relatively young, and acted with a low degree of fault or negligence.

In October 2021 DFSNZ and the Athlete reached an  agreement for a jount memorandum with an appropriate sanction for 13 months. However by Minute the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand deemed that this 13 month period of ineligibility is not fair or proportionate on the facts of this case.

The Tribunal previously had expressed concern about the lack of jurisdiction within the anti-doping code to differentiate sanctions between different levels of athlete, when lower-level athletes faced the same sanctions as elite competitors who receive doping education and support.

The Tribunal found the effects of the new 2021 Code which introduced a new category of athlete and provided a more flexible sanctioning regime for recreational athletes had not been reflected by the proposed sanction.

Considering these circumstances the Tribunal did not approve the proposed sanction of 13 months and decides on 1 December 2021 to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the amateur Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 August 2021.

JADCO 2021 JADCO vs Nesta Carter

25 Nov 2021

Related cases:

  • IOC 2016 IOC vs Nesta Carter
    January 13, 2017
  • CAS 2017_A_4984 Nesta Carter vs IOC
    May 31, 2018

Previously in January 2017 the Jamaican Athlete Nesta Carter was sanctioned by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) after reanalysis of his samples, collected during the 2008 Olympic Games, revealed the presence of a prohibited substance. Thereupon the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld this IOC sanction in May 2018.

In April 2021 the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clomifene.

After notification in April 2021 the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Jamaica Independent Anti-Doping Panel. The Athlete accepted the test result, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for the imposition of a reprimand.

The Athlete explained with evidence that he underwent medical treatment for his condition with prescribed medication whereas he was retiring from athletics because of this condition. In addition he applied in May 2021 for a TUE which was dismissed by the TUE Committee in June 2021.

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 holds that the Athlete's TUE application was dismissed and prior that he was sanctioned for an anti-doping rule violation committed in August 2008. Yet the Panel regards that this violation was not committed within the statue of limitation of 10 years for the determination of a second anti-doping rule violation in this case.

Therefore the Jamaica Independent Anti-Doping Panel decides on 25 November 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

iNADO Update #2021-12

7 Dec 2021

iNADO Update (2021) 12 (7 December)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)



Contents:

iNADO Community

  • iNADO Acknowledges the Approval of Further Governance Reforms by the WADA Foundation
    Board
  • AMADA Annual Report
  • iNADO Live Chat - Gobi Nair
  • Antidoping Switzerland Foundation to become the Swiss Sport Integrity Foundation in 2022
  • World Rugby's "Keep Rugby Clean" Campaign
  • Sport Integrity Australia – Victories and Challenges after 18 Months of Creation

Bulletin Board

  • INADO Intervention at the Foundation Board Meeting of Paris
  • INADO Live Member Only Teleconference:
    "Challenges and Opportunities for INADO in 2022" with Nick Paterson
  • iNADO Webinar: Delivering Education with the support of your country sport system with NADA Austria and
    Slovak Anti-Doping Agency
  • Update on iNADO Workshop 2022: New Possibilities to Use Anti-Doping Capacity

Athlete's Voice

  • Establishment of the Athlete Committee in Drug Free Sport New Zealand

People

  • Pavel Christian Balaj steps down

Science

  • Study confirms Presence of Undeclared Prohibited Substances in Nutrition Supplements

Practical Development in Anti-Doping

  • Social Sciences Researchers Propose a Doping Prevention Research Agenda 

Feature of the Month

  • iNADO Live Chat Celebration
  • Visit to the Doping Authority Netherlands & Anti Doping Denmark

iNADO Partners & Sponsors

  • New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

Amphetamine use and its associated factors in body builders: a study from Tehran, Iran

9 May 2012

Amphetamine use and its associated factors in body builders: a study from Tehran, Iran / Hooman Angoorani, Hooman Narenjiha, Behnoosh Tayyebi, Akhgar Ghassabian, Gelareh Ahmadi, Shervin Assari

  • Archives of Medical Science 8 (2012) 2; p. 362-367
  • PMID: 22662012
  • PMCID: PMC3361051
  • DOI: 10.5114/aoms.2012.28566


Abstract

Introduction: Epidemiological studies on all types of illicit drug use among athletes are essential for both the sport community and drug control achievements. Here, we investigated the prevalence and associated factors of amphetamine use in body builders in Tehran, Iran, 2007.

Material and methods: This study is a secondary analysis of a substance use survey done in 103 randomly selected gymnasia in Tehran (capital city of Iran). The survey was conducted from November 2007 to January 2008 and included 843 randomly selected bodybuilders (aged 40 years or less). By interviews via questionnaires the following data were obtained: age, job, marital status, education level, housing status, average monthly family income, number of family members, gymnasium area (m(2)), number of trainers, number of gymnasium members, initiation time (months), weekly duration of the sporting activity (h), monthly cost of the sporting activity, purpose of participating in sporting activity, and history of anabolic steroid and amphetamine use.

Results: One hundred twenty (13.3%) body builders reported a history of amphetamine use. According to the results of regression analysis, being married (risk ratio - RR = 0.540), and participating in body building to enhance self-esteem (RR = 0.423) or to enhance sport performance (RR = 0.545) had protective effects on amphetamine use. However, having university qualifications (RR = 1.843), using anabolic steroids (RR = 1.803) and participating in sport to maintain fitness (RR = 2.472) were linked to increased risk of amphetamine use.

Conclusions: Well-educated bodybuilders were more likely to use amphetamines, and why this is so needs to be discovered. If further studies show that they are not aware of the dangers associated with amphetamine use, providing them with information should be considered.

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