Related case:
NADDP 2015 National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta vs Steve Camilleri
April 29, 2015

On 29 April 2015 the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Steve Camilleri for evading the sample collection.

Hereafter in May 2015 the Athlete appealed the decision of 29 April 2015 with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of Malta and filed several arguments in his defence against the previous decision.

In review of the evidence the Appeal Panel finds that under the Rules the Athlete was duly notified by the Doping Control Officers to provide a sample for drug testing and even if the Athlete is not in a testing pool or in ADAMS the Athlete has to comply after notification to provide a sample.

The Panel concludes that there were no serious departures from the International Standard for Testing. The Panel also rejects the Athlete’s argument for lex mitior to reduce the imposed sanction because the disciplinary proceedings against the Athlete were opened with the new Anti-Doping Regulations already in force since 9 January 2015.

Considering the Athlete’s negligence, with no intention to cheat and without tested positive before the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel decides to reduce the sanction and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension i.e. on 2 March 2015.

Related case:
NADAP 2015 Steve Camilleri vs National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta - Appeal
July 31, 2015

In December 2014 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violtion against the Athlete Steve Camilleri for evading the sample collection.
After notification of the violation a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta.

The Maltese Doping Control Officers (DCO) testified that the Athlete was notified on 15 January 2015 at the Sport Complex to provide a sample for drug testing. Hereafter the Athlete was on his mobile phone, walked away and left the sport complex without providing a sample. Other withnesses testified that the Athlete was approached by the DCO’s at the Sport Complex on that day.
The Athlete denied the violation and stated on that day at the Sport Complex no one had notified him to provide a sample and said that he didn’t recognize the two DCO’s.

Considering the statements and evidence the Panel concludes that on 15 January 2015 the Athlete was duly notified by the DCO’s to provide a sample for drug testing.
The Panel finds it very unlikely that the Athlete claimed that he didn’t recognize the two DCO’s in spite of he had contact before with these DCO’s when he provided a sample. Also the Panel finds that the Athlete failed to contact his coach after he had received serveral calls from his coach about the doping control.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel rules that the Athlete with intention evaded the sample collection and decides on 29 April 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

Related case:
NADDP 2015 National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta vs Eman Xuereb
September 29, 2015

On 29 April 2015 the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Eman Xuereb after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine.

Hereafter in May 2015 the Athlete appealed the decision of 29 April 2015 with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of Malta.
The Athlete requested the Appeal Panel for a reduced sanction and argued that he didn’t know that the cannabis cigarette he smoked at a party with friends also contained traces of cocaine; the use was out of completion; without intention to enhance performance; and days behore he provided a sample.

The Appeal Panel finds that the Athlete failed to prove how the prohibited substance entered his body and notes that the alleged use of cannabis wasn’t found in the Athlete’s sample.
Therefore on 20 September 2015 the Appeal Panel decides to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal and to uphold the decision of 29 April 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

NADAP 2015 Eman Xuereb vs National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta - Appeal
September 20, 2015

In December 2014 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violtion against the Athlete Eman Xuereb 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 was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he had smoked a cannabis cigarette with friends at a party and he didn’t know that it also contained cocaine. The Athlete argued that the use was out of competition 36 hours before he provided a sample and without intention to enhance his performance.

With strict liability and without mitigating circumstances the Panel decides on 29 April to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension i.e. on 2 December 2014.

In December 2013 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Simon Aquilina after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta.

The Athlete argued that there were departures from the International Standard for Testing (IST) due to the Athlete’s samples were not handled in a manner that protected its integrity, identity and security prior to transport from the Doping Control Station.
The National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel dismissed the Athlete’s arguments and decides on 13 March 2014 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 December 2013.

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

The Athlete admitted he had smoked cannabis the day before the doping test and stated he did not know it is a prohibited substance which in his opinion does not enhance sport performance.
Also the Malta Basketball Association had not started yet sessions to educate member clubs and Athletes about anti-doping regulations.

Without intention to enhance his sport performance 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 the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 December 2012.

In December 2012 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Walter Theuma for evading sample collection.
Before the Doping Control Officer could notify the Athlete after the competition, the Athlete immediately left the game room and the premises without even picking his cue and belongings.
At the hearing the Athlete stated he smoke marijuana (cannabis) and that the substance could be traced in his blood for six months after use.

The Panel regards an Athlete's refusal to submit (without compelling justification) to a doping control test, or to evade a sample collection or not to collaborate with doping control officials as a very serious violation of the anti-doping regulations. Therefore in such instances an Athlete should not benefit from any reduction from the period of ineligibility.

On these grounds 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 the provisional suspension if there was one. Otherwise the period of ineligibility begins from the date of this decision.

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.