In October 2015 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Nur Nafuri after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.

After notification the Athlete failed to file a statement in his defence, nor did he attend the hearing of the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta.

Without the Athlete’s response the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 2 March 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Related case:
NADAP 2017 ADC vs Kevin Moore - Appeal
June 12, 2017

In July 2016 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta 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), Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) and Tamoxifen.
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 disputed the validity of the sample collection procedure. He asserted that irregularities resulted in erroneously attribute a urine sample collection to him which in reality does not belong to him and thus the result of a positive test is invalid.

Here the Athlete alleged that the collection vessel was not sealed and that the information relating to the urine sample was not written in his presence. Such allegation directly affects the requirements established under the WADC International Standards Testing (IST) and could impinge on the adverse analytical finding.

The Panel finds that the bone of contention between the parties concerns the chain of events that occurred between the time when the Athlete produced the required urine sample to when he returned from the 200m race. The two questions put forward are:
- 'Did the Athlete make sure that he closed the collection vessel and sealed it in front of the Doping Control Officer (DCO) before the Athlete left the room?'; and
- 'Did the DCO fill in the details relating to the collection vessel (the second part of the form) on the Doping Control Form in the presence of the Athlete before the athlete left the room?'

Having considered all the evidence produced, the Panel holds the opinion that the procedure conducted for the collection of the urine sample has been irregular. The Panel deems 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.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel concludes on 1 March 2017 that the Athlete has not committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides to revoke his provisional suspension and to acquitt him from the charges brought against him.

In March 2016 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Scott Dixon for his Refusal or failure to submit to sample collection.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta.

Here the Doping Control Officer (DCO) reported that when notified the Athlete refused to be tested despite he was warned about the consequences of his refusal.
The Athlete admitted the violation and testified that prior he underwent 28 doping tests and was familiar with the procedures. He asserted that he refused this doping test because of breaches in the procedures for testing as the notification was incorrect and the DCO failed to identify himself to the Athlete.

The Panel established that the Athlete had lost the match and that there was commotion about the result of this match. As a result the Athlete was upset and suspicious when the DCO notified the Athlete in de dressing room about the doping test.

Considering the evidence in this case the Panel is convinced and is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete was duly and correctly notified by the DCO to submit to sample collection for a doping test and the athlete's conduct does result into an intentional conduct to evade sample collection.
Further the Panel holds that there were delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete and that the Athlete participated in a boxing promotion during the ordered provisional suspension.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 17 February 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 March 2016.

In March 2018 the National Anti-Doping Commission (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Brandon Bartolo after his sample tested positive for the prohibited susbstance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel. The imposed provisional suspension was lifted by the Malta Boxing Association.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He claimed that a contaminated supplement he had used was the source of the positive test purchased in a well known sports shop in Malta. He acknowledged that he didn’t check his supplements for prohibited substances before using. The Athlete declined the opportunity to analyse his supplements in a WADA Accredited Laboratory because he was not in the financial position to pay for the costs of the test.

The Panel deems that analysis of the supplement in question in a WADA Accredited Laboratory is the best proof to establish contamination of this product. Since the Athlete declined to do this because of the costs the Panel settles this case based on the filed evidence and the Athlete’s testimony.

The Panel is willing to accept that the violation was not intentional but finds that there are no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence. Here the Panel considers that the Athlete didn’t check his supplements for prohibited substances before using because he simply relied on the sports shop reputation and guidance.
Further the Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the prohibited substance entered his system nor showed with sufficient evidence that the positive test was the result of a contaminated product.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 9 December 2018 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the first hearing, i.e. 26 October 2018.

In March 2018 the National Anti-Doping Commission (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the volleyball player Darko Mitrovic after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Cannabis and Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA).

After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use, accepted a provisional suspension and attended the hearing of the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Commission.

The National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and decides on 17 October 2018 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 20 March 2018.

Related case:
NADAP 2018 Dylon Mula vs ADC - Appeal
January 9, 2019

In July 2017 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Dylon Mula for his evasion, his refusal to sample collection including tampering during the Doping Control. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel.

The Doping Control Officer (DCO) reported that during the Doping Control the Athlete was very nervous; asked and drank several bottles of water; provided a partial sample; left without permission the Doping Control; when returned ignored requests to behave and to cooperate; threw the sample collection vessel in the toilet; finally left the Doping Control Station and refused to return.

The Athlete admitted that he left the doping room before the completion of the test, disregarded the notice from the DCO to complete the test and left the Doping Control with the intention not to return. He explained his action to the lack of cooperation from the DCOs entrusted to collect the urine sample and to the fact that he was at the doping room for a long time and could not produce more for a sample than that he already had provided.

The Panel established that the Athlete did not produce a full sample due to the fact that he decided to leave the doping control room. It was confirmed that the doping test was being carried out after the Athlete had finished his match and at that time there were other athletes who were also waiting to submit their urine sample. The sample collection was taking a long time and one can understand that the Athlete after the competition would be under the effect of the adrenaline of the competition leading to a nervous state. However, the Panel finds that this does not justify the Athletes antagonism and lack of cooperation.

Considering the evidence in this case the Panel is convinced and is 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 Panel cannot tolerate this attitude irrespective whether this was the first time or not but the regulations are there to be obeyed and the Athlete's conduct confirm that he did evade the test knowing the test was not complete. Finally the Panel deems in this case that there is insufficient proof of Tampering.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 17 October 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

In August 2018 the National Anti-Doping Commission (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Frankie Borg after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Fluoxymesterone, Mesterolone, Prednisolone and Prednisone.

After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, accepted a provisional suspension and explained that he had used medication as treatment for his condition.

The National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 17 October 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 24 August 2018.

In September 2018 the National Anti-Doping Commission (ADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rower Joseph Pace after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.

After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use and accepted a provisional suspension. He explained that he had used Cannabis out-of-competition recreationally and that he wasn’t aware that the substance was prohibited.

The National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel accepts the Athlete’s explanantion and decides on 15 November 2018 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 30 September 2018.