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.

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.

In March 2019 NADO Italia has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Maltese boxer Steve Martin after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Heptaminol and
Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Italian National Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substances. He explained that he had used a fatburner for weight loss needed to relief his injured meniscus.

The prosecutor finds that the violation was intentional due to the inconsistencies in the evidence and statements provided by the Athlete. He contended that the filed medical information was brief and produced after the Athlete was tested positive. The Athlete failed to apply for a TUE and the fat burner was already used by the Athlete before the alleged meniscus injury occurred.

The prosecutor further finds that the Athlete's weight loss made it possible for him to participate in the 67 kg weight category matches. Also he had admitted the use of the product 19 Anabol Testo to preserve mussle power during weight loss. Finally the prosecutor holds that the used fat burner could not explain the presence of the other prohibited substance Heptaminol found in his sample.

The Tribunal dismissed the Athlete’s explanation and finds that he failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. The Tribunal deems that the medical information was produced only afterwards in support of the Athlete’s defence and his use of the substances in question were not for the recovery of the alleged meniscus injury.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 15 July 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ingeligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping (“UKAD”) charges Roderick Attard ("player") for commission of a Doping Offence in breach of Article 2.1 of the Anti-Doping Rules. The player provided a sample of urine on January 19, 2010. Analysis of that sample revealed the presence of 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone, the metabolites of the prohibited substance nandrolone.

History
The player is a Maltese national who was born in, and who has lived almost all his life in Malta. Since about 2007 the player had suffered from a shoulder injury. Following investigations, in November 2008, surgical stabilization of the shoulder was performed. The player frankly said that he knew that what was being recommended was a prescription drug, and that although he did not know the precise substance he knew that it was some form of steroid or steroid based drug. After the sample had been given the player declared in Box 25 on the sample form the following use of a drug – injection in shoulder in Nov 2009 as part of rehab pro as part of shoulder reconstruction.
the player raised the following arguments:
1. He should be granted a retrospective Therapeutic Use Exemption (“TUE”).
2. He had acted without fault or negligence.
3. He had acted without significant fault or negligence.
4. He had admitted the violation in the absence of other evidence.

Conclusion
1. The tribunal finds that the breach charged by the UKAD is made out and dismiss each of the mitigating arguments advanced by the player. The consequence is that the mandatory period of 2 years ineligibility for a first violation prescribed by Article 10.2 of the Anti-Doping Rules must be imposed.
2. The effect of Article 10.9.3 of the Anti-Doping Rules is that period of ineligibility shall commence on the date of the player’s provisional suspension, namely March 2, 2010. The player’s plea that the period should commence on January 19, 2010, cannot be entertained because he did not give written notice of any voluntary provisional suspension from the date: the fact that he may not have played since then is not in itself sufficient.
3. Accordingly, the tribunal declares that the player shall be subject to a period of ineligibility of two years commencing on March 2, 2010. During that period the player shall not be permitted to participate in any capacity in a competition or in any other capacity (other than authorized Anti-Doping education or rehabilitation programs) organized, convened, or authorized by the RFL or by any body that is a member or, or affiliated to, or licensed by the RFL.