In April 2022 NADOMALTA reported an anti-doping rule violation against the hockey player Steve Portelli after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

Following notification the Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the Authority for Integrity in Maltese Sports (AIMS).

Although the Parties went into a case resolution agreement the Athlete did not respond to the opportunity to establish that his use of Cannabis was a case of Substance of Abuse. Consequently he failed to demonstrate that his use occurred out-of-competition and was unrelated to sport performance.

The AIMS rejected the Athlete's request for an exemption to be permitted to coach. Further the AIMS considers that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the AIMS decides on 18 May 2023 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 13 March 2022.

In November 2020 the National Anti-Doping Commission (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the hockey player Simon Baldacchino Barthet after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

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

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that two days before the match he had used recreationally Cocaine, Cannabis and Alcohol, which he mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

The Panel accepts that the use of Cocaine was recreational and that the violation was not intentional. Further the Panel considers that Athlete gave a prompt admission and mentioned his use on the Doping Control Form.

Therefore the Disciplinary Panel decides on 8 March 2021 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 24 November 2020.

Related case:

NADDP 2020 ADC vs Isabel Grech
January 4, 2021

On 4 January 2021 the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decided on 4 January 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the volleyball player Isabel Grech for her refusal to submit to sample collection.

In first instance the Panel established that the Athlete was duly warned by the Doping Control Officer of the consequences for her refusal. Further she failed to be aware of the anti-doping rules and that she could apply for a TUE regarding her prescribed medication she used.

Hereafter In January 2021 the Athlete appealed the Decision with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel. She requested to set aside the Appealed Decision and for a reduced sanction.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied that she acted intentionally. She asserted that there were mittigating circumstances for the imposition of an reduced sanction.

In view of the Athlete's conduct the Appeal Panel holds that it is undisputed that the Athlete had refused to submit to sample collection and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Appeal Panel concludes that the Athlete was fully aware of the consequences of her refusal to submit to sample collection. The Appeal Panel also did not accept that an experienced Athlete, for 20 years involved in Volleybal, was unaware of the anti-doping rules and the necessity to apply for a TUE.

Therefore the Appeal Panel decides on 28 February 2021 to dismiss the Athlete's Appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision for the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 3 February 2020.

In November 2020 the National Anti-Doping Commission (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the badminton player Aldo Polidano after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Indapamide.

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

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained with evidence that for years he used prescribed medication to control his high blood pressure whereas this medication was mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

The Athlete asserted that he had less awareness of the anti-doping rules, neither that he had to apply for a TUE. He acknowledged that he failed to check his medication and he was unaware that his medication could contain a prohibited substance.

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 accepts that the violation was not intentional and concludes that the Athlete had acted negligently with his prescribed medication.

Therefore the Disciplinary Panel decides on 22 February 2021 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 January 2021.

Related case:

NADDP 2019 ADC vs Alwyn Cassar
November 24, 2020

On 24 November 2020 the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the powerlifter after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone.

In first instance the Disciplinairy Panel accepted that the prescribed Testosterone was used for a legitimate medical treatment. However the Athlete and his doctor failed in their responsibility to apply in advance for a TUE. Also the Panel dismissed the Athlete's request not to disclose his identity.

Hereafter in December 2020 the Athlete appealed this Decision with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel. The appeal was settled by the Appeal Panel based on the written submissions of the Parties.

The Appeal Panel establishes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and that the imposed sanction was undisputed. However the Athlete requested again prohibition of disclosure of his personal details due to the sensitive nature of the case.

Following assessment of the Anti-Doping Regulations the Appeal Panel concludes that public disclosure of the anti-doping rule violation and the name of the Athlete is mandatory and not discretionary. Further the Panel deems that there are insufficient grounds to prohibit public disclosure of his identity.

Therefore the Appeal Panel decides on 8 February 2021 to dismiss the Athlete's Appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision regarding public disclosure of the anti-doping rule violation and the name of the Athlete.

Related cases:

• NADAP 2016 Charlton Abela vs National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta - Appeal
  August 31, 2016
• NADDP 2016 National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta vs Charlton Abela
  March 24, 2016

In October 2020 the National Anti-Doping Commission (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rower Charlton Abela after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Drostanolone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel. Previously in March 2016 the Athlete was sanctioned for 4 years after he tested positive for the substance Cocaine.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He could not explain how the substance had entered his system whereas he only had used prescribed medication which he had mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

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 failed to explain how the prohibited substance had entered his system, whereas his medication could not explain the presence of Drostanolone in his sample.

Because this is the Athlete's second anti-doping rule violation the Disciplinary Panel decides on 25 January 2021 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 9 October 2020.

Related case:

NADAP Isabel Grech vs ADC - Appeal
January 4, 2021

In February 2020 the National Anti-Doping Commission (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the volleyball player Isabel Grech for her refusal to submit to sample collection.

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

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied that she acted intentionally. She requested for a reduced sanction and stated that she refused sample collection because of the prescribed medication she had used. Fear and ignorance of the applicable regulations were the reason for her refusal and she was unaware that could have requested for a TUE.

In view of the evidence the Disciplinary Panel finds that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation following her refusal to sample collection. The Panel did not accept that she acted with ignorance and concludes that she willingly disregarded her oblication to submit to sample collection.

The Panel deems that the Athlete was duly warned by the Doping Control Officer of the consequences of her refusal. Further she failed to be aware of the anti-doping rules and that she could apply for a TUE for her prescribed medication.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 4 January 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 3 February 2020.

Related case:

NADAP 2020 Alwyn Cassar vs ADC - Appeal
February 8, 2021

In Mei 2019 the National Anti-Doping Commission (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter Alwyn Cassar after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone.

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

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained with evidence that the Testosterone was used as prescribed medication by his doctor. Previously the Athlete made an application for a retroactive TUE which was denied in June 2019 and again in October 2019 following his appeal.

The Panel 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. Considering the Athlete's request the Panel concludes that there are no grounds not to disclose the Athlete's identity.

The Disciplinairy Panel accepts that the prescribed Testosterone was used for a legitimate medical treatment because of the Athlete's condition. However the Panel deems that the Athlete and his doctor failed in their responsibility to apply in advance for a TUE.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 24 November 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 June 2019.