In March 2016 the Malta Football Association (MFA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Jake Farrugia after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Nandrolone and Boldenone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The MFA Control and Disciplinary Board finds that the test result showed the presence of the prohibited substances and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Considering the evidence the Board accepts that the violation was not intentional because the Athlete was injured and recovering since April 2015, and not capable to play competitive football. The Board also deems that the Athlete was aware that he was using these prohibited substances and that there are no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board decides on 3 May 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 March 2016.

On 10 January 2017 the Malta Football Federation (MFA) Control and Disciplinary Board decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the football player Dean Camilleri for his refusal or failure to submit to sample collection. Here the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the MFA Disciplinary Board.

Hereafter in January 2017 the Athlete appealed the MFA decision at the MFA Board of Appeal.

The Athlete argued that he had not received the Notification and therefore failed to attend the First Instance Hearing while he wished the make a statement in his defence. The Athlete asserted that he is a waterpolo player for 24 years and only a football player in the winter season. He testified that as a waterpolo player he was tested several times without issues and had never before refused to provide a sample.

The Athlete explained that during the competition in question he had permission from his coach to leave because he had problems at home when he was told that he was selected for a sample collection. Because of the problems at home he decided to leave. Considering the circumstances the Athlete requested the Board of Appeal for a reduced sanction.

The Board of Appeal accepts the Athlete’s explanation, as supported by evidence, that he had to leave because of urgent problems at home and that there was no evidence that he refused because he had used doping. The Board concludes that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete established No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the MFA Board of Appeal decides 23 March 2017 to reduce the sanction and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the Notification, i.e. 12 December 2016.

On 18 August 2015 the Malta Football (MFA) Control and Disciplinary Board decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the football player Nigel Rizzo after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Cannabis and Cocaine. Here the Board accepted that the violation was no intentional and that the substances were used out-of-competition. The Board rejected the Athlete’s assertation that the Cocaine came into his system through passive ingestion.

Hereafter in August 2015 the Athlete appealed the MFA decision of 18 August 2015 with the MFA Board of Appeal.

The Athlete admitted the use of Cannabis but denied the use of Cocaine. He claimed that the substance came into his system out-of-competiton at a club through passive inhalation when people in his vicinity inhaled the powder. The Athlete argued that in First Instance his assertion about passive inhalation was ignored, that the imposed sanction was too severe and he requested the Board of Appeal for a reduced sanction.

The MFA Board of Appeal finds that already had been established that the violation was not intentional and believes that the Athlete had been involved before in circumstances that these substances were used. Further the Board holds that the Athlete failed to produce evidence in support of his assertion. Also the Board considers that the concentration Cocaine found in the Athlete’s sample was not consistent with the passive inhalation of the substance.

Therefore the MFA Board of Appeal deems that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction, dismisses the Athlete’s appeal and decides on 18 September 2015 to uphold the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board decision of 18 August 2015.

1.) MFA 2015 Malta Football Association vs Larson Mallia (18 August 2015)
2.) MFA 2015 Larson Mallia vs Malta Football Association - Appeal (19 September 2015)

On 18 August 2015 the Malta Football Association (MFA) Control and Disciplinary Board decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the football player Larson Mallia after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. Here the Board accepted that the violation was no intentional and that the substance was used out-of-competition.

Hereafter in August 2015 the Athlete appealed the MFA decision of 18 August 2015 at the MFA Board of Appeal.

The Athlete admitted the violation and asserted that his use of Cocaine was not intentional en out-of-competition. He argued that the imposed sanction in First Instance was too severe and requested the Board of Appeal for a reduced sanction.

The MFA Appeal Board finds that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction, dismisses the Athlete’s appeal and decides on 19 September 2015 to uphold the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board decision of 18 August 2015.

In April 2016 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ishmael Grech after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel of Malta.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that the substance was used two days before the competition when he was out for drinks with his friends. He asserted that after some amounts of alcohol he had used cocaine without intention to enhance his performance.

The Panel accepts the Athlete’s explanation and that the violation wasn’t intentional. Considering the circumstances the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 27 July 2016 to impose a 1 year and 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 29 April 2016.

Related cases:

• NADDP 2016 National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta vs Charlton Abela
  March 24, 2016
• NADDP 2020 ADC vs Charlton Abela
  January 25, 2021

On 24 March 2016 the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Charlton Abela after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the NADDP decision of 24 March 2016 with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of Malta. The Athlete disputed the Appealed Decision on several grounds and requested for a reduced sanction.

Considering the test results the Appeal Panel has no doubt that the Athlete committed an anti-doping violation. The Panel finds that the Athlete failed to explain the presence of the substance in his system nor did he produce evidence that the substance was ingested unintentionally.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Appeal Commission of Malta decided on 31 August 2016 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the imposed 4 year period of ineligibility, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 November 2015.

Related cases:

• NADAP 2016 Charlton Abela vs National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta - Appeal
  August 31, 2016
• NADDP 2020 ADC vs Charlton Abela
  January 25, 2021

In October 2015 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Charlton Abela after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta.

The Athlete denied the use of cocaine and stated that he only had used an over the counter medication for tooth-aching and argued that the sample container wasn’t properly sealed during the sample collection procedure.

The Panel deems that the sample collection procedure, the chain of custody and the test results were valid whereas the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 24 March 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In October 2015 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Gordon Dimitri after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances nandrolone, drostanolone and cocaine. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he has used at the gym the substances nandrolone and drostanlone about 2 months prior to the competition where he was tested and without intention to enhance his performance for the Regatta. He did not admit the use of cocaine.

The Panel did not accept the Athlete’s statement and concludes that the test results establish the anti-doping violation without grounds for a reduced sanction.
Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 24 March 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.