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:
NADDP 2012 National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta vs Clayton Failla
September 27, 2012

On 27 September 2012 the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta decided to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete Clayton after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance ephedrine.
The Athlete stated that he suffered from cold and flu and used Dolvan tablets as medication as a remedy, without intention to enhance his sport performance.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the National Anti-Doping Commission decision of 27 September 2012 with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of Malta.

The Appeal Panel finds that the penalty consisting of a period of ineligibility of 4 months imposed on the Athlete Clayton Failla should be reformulated so as to be more equitable and fair, in view of the particular circumstances as stated during the hearing of the case before the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel, which are not being challenged by the Anti-Doping Commission.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of Malta decides to set aside the decision of the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel as far as the period of ineligibility is concerned, and instead impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 20 July 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 May 2012 the National Anti-Doping Commission of Malta has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Joseph Flask after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance clenbuterol.
After notification the Athlete was provisional suspended and heard for the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta.
The Athlete stated that he suffered from asthma and used the medications cataflam and salbutamol which he declared on the doping control form. He admitted he used another substance as pill in between races instead of his usual medication and without a doctor’s prescription.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete consciously made use of a prohibited substance in competition.
Therefore the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Malta decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

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.