Related case:
NADDP 2017 ADC vs Kevin Moore
March 1, 2017

In July 2016 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Kevin Moore after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances 1,3-Dimethylbutylamine (1,3-DMBA), Tamoxifen and Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

In First Instance the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel ruled that the procedure conducted for the collection of the urine sample had been irregular. The Disciplinary Panel deemed that the Athlete proved by a balance of probability that such breach to the IST had a significant impact on the testing result since the DCO during his testimony did not manage to comfortably satisfy the Panel that the collection vessel was sealed and the form was filled in the presence of the Athlete.

Consequently the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel concluded on 1 March 2017 that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation, decided that his provisional suspension was revoked and that the Athlete was acquitted from the charges brought against him.

Hereafter in March 2017 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta appealed the First Instance decision of 1 March 2017 with the National Anti-Doping Appeals Panel. The ADC requested the Appeals Panel to set aside the decision of 1 March 2017 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The ADC argued that the alleged flaws or deviations (if any) were not sufficiently serous to have fatally underminded the sample collecting procedure to the extent that it warranted the setting aside of urine samples collected from the Athlete and to declare them invalid for the purpose they were collected for.

The Appeals Panels considered in this case the evidence and the Athlete’s conduct during the sample collection procedure and concludes that the Athlete failed to establish facts which the Panel can rationally infer a causative link - which must be more than merely hypothetical - between the alleged departures and the presence of the prohibited substance in his samples and/or which can persuade the Panel to invalidate the samples.

The Panel holds that it is amply clear that for deviations to have a significant impact on a testing result these deviations must be significant. Only departures which by their very nature will be considered as serious will undermine the fairness of the testing process. The Appeals Panel does not consider that this has been the case on the occasion of the Athlete’s doping test.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Appeals Panel decides to annul the First Instance decision of 1 March 2017 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The provisional suspension already served by the Athlete shall be credited against the 4 year period of Ineligibility.

Related case:
NADDP 2018 ADC vs Dylon Mula
October 17, 2018

On 17 October 2018 in First Instance the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the boxer Dylon Mula for his evasion of the Doping Control. Here the Disciplinary Panel was convinced and comfortably satisfied that the Athlete’s conduct resulted into an intentional conduct to evade sample collection notwithstanding that he was being warned that the test was not complete. The Disciplinary Panel deemed that there was insufficient proof of Tampering.

Hereafter in November 2018 the Athlete appealed the First Instance decision of 17 October 2018 with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel.

The Athlete confirmed the anti-doping rule violation and denied that it was intentional. He argued that the sanction was excessive and requested merely for a reduction of the period of ineligibility. He asserted that his conduct was caused due to his age and lack of maturity while in fact he did submit to the Doping Control but could not produce enough urine even though he provided three samples.

Considering all the evidence in this case the Appeal Panel concludes that the Athlete’s conduct during the Doping Control did lead to an evasion especially when he decided to throw away the sample into the toilet and therafter decided to leave the Doping Control Station without permission. However the Appeal Panel is not convinced that the Athlete acted with intent to evade the sample collection since the Athlete did provide not once or twice but also for a third time a sample.

The Appeal Panel deems that the Athlete’s decision to leave the Doping Control Station, though it can never be approved, was more the result of frustration combined with a dose of immaturity, than the result by an intentional decision made by the Athlete for the purpose of evading sample collection for some reason. Further the Appeal Panel established that the Athlete’s samples in question were analysed and had revealed a negative result demonstrating that the Athlete had no intention to cheat. Already had been ruled that the Athlete didn't try to tamper with any part of the Doping Control.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel decides on 9 January 2019 to reform the First Instance decision of 17 October 2018 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the First Instance decision.

Related case:
NADDP 2018 ADC vs Josiah Vella
October 17, 2018

On 17 October 2018 the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the boxer Josiah Vella after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. Here the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel nor did he file a statement in his defence.

Hereafter in November 2018 the Athlete appealed the First Instance decision of 17 October 2018 with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance. He explained that he failed to attend the hearing in First Instance due to he had not received the hearing notification despite the Anti-Doping Commission contended that this notification had been duly submitted.

The Athlete asserted that a fat burner he had used was the source of the positive test. He had sought professional assistance for his training and diet and had used this fat burner recommended by his nutritionist in order to lose weight for his upcoming match. He argued that the imposed sanction was excessive since he was unaware that it contained a prohibited substance and therefore that the violation was not intentional. He acknowledged that he didn’t research this supplement before using. In support he produced an empty container of the supplement he had used prior to the Doping Control indicating on the container the presence of Clenbuterol in Bulgarian.

The Appeal Panel considered the Athlete’s degree of fault in this case and that there are grounds for a proportional reduction of the imposed sanction. The Panel regarded that the Athlete established how the substance entered his system, failed to mention the supplements he used on the Doping Control Form, had limited anti-doping education and no familiarity with the doping regime.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel decides on 1 March 2019 to reform the First Instance Decision of 17 October 2018 and to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the First Instance decision.

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 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 September 2012 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine. After notification the Athlete was provisional suspended and heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel.

The Athlete stated that in a club he unintentionally sipped from a drink that was not his, yet the Panel deems that the Athlete failed to produce any corroborating evidence in this matter.

Further the Panel establish that the sample collection was valid although the Athlete during the proceedings made a wasted effort to withdraw his consent for providing a sample and raised the issue of ‘selfincrimination’ by providing a sample.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta decides on 29 November 2011 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 11 September 2012.

Related case:
NADAP 2012 Clayton Failla vs National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta – Appeal
October 11, 2012

In July 2012 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Clayton Failla after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance ephedrine.
After notification the Athlete was provisional suspended and heard fort the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta.
The Athlete stated that he suffered from cold and flu and used Dolvan tablets as medication as a remedy when he provided a sample. Also the Athlete argued that he had no intention to play in the competition when his coach choose to let him play although he was reported sick.

The Panel finds that the Athlete suffered from flue and cold at the time of the competition and had no intention to enhance his sport performance. The Panel concludes that the Athlete acted negligently due to using a medication without research of the ingredients, without consulting his doctor and failing to mention the medication on the doping control form.
Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta decides to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 20 July 2012.

In September 2012 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jessica Ghigo after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance bendroflumethiazide.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta.
The Athlete admitted she used bendroflumethiazide tablets to control a medical condition she was suffering from since 2009, and did not mention the diuretic medicine on the doping control form. In support the Athlete produced reports from medical consultants.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete had no intention to enhance her sport performance, but she failed to mention the medication on the doping control form and did not apply for a TUE.
Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of this decision, i.e. 19 March 2013.