In December 2018 and in January 2019 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and in March 2019 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) have reported anti-dopng rule violations against the swimmer Conor Dwyer after his samples - provided in November and in December 2018 - tested positive for the prohibitied substance Testosterone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the Tribunal of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). FINA referred the results management to USADA to consolidate with the existing proceedings.

The Athlete accepted the test results, argued that the violation was not intentional and requested for a reduced sanction. He testified that for many months, he had been suffering from health issues such as brain fog, low mental and physical energy, difficulty sleeping, depression and anxiety. As treatment for his diagnosed testosterone deficiency prescription BioTe pellets (in fact Testosterone) were surgically implanted by his physician in a short procedure in October 2018.

The Athlete asserted that he did not know that the insertion of the BioTE pellets would result in an anti-doping rule violation and that he was not concerned with his swimming performance, but rather his overall mental health and well-being.
The Athlete had assurances from his long-time trusted adviser and coach that the pellet therapy was not prohibited by the Code; the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee was consulted about this treatment by his physician; and he had no doubt what his adviser and physician told him about the treatment.

USADA accepts that the prescribed BioTe pellets were the source of the positive test and contended that the Athlete failed to establish that he bears No Significant Fault of Negligence.

In this case, the Panel considers that the Athlete took the primary step of consulting with a doctor, who reported getting the treatment approved. In his view, the doctor had the necessary expertise, as the Athlete understood it, the doctor was reliable based on his advisor’s experience, and the doctor was not consulted for performance enhancing reasons. However the Panel holds that he also failed to conduct other steps to ensure that the treatment is not prohibited.

The Panel finds that balancing all of the objective factors, both in favor of and against Athlete’s case, the Athlete’s level of fault falls within the “normal” degree of fault. When considering the subjective elements, they are not exceptional such as to change his level of fault, so his fault remains within the “normal” range, leading to a suspension in the 16-20 months range.

Therefore the Panel decides on 11 October 2019:

A.) Respondent has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the Code, for Use of a Prohibited Substance;
B.) The default period of ineligibility for the anti-doping rule violation under Article l 0.2.3 of the Code is two years, subject to further reduction;
C.) Respondent has sustained his burden of proofunder Article 10.5.2 of the Code that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence for the anti-doping rule violation, and the period of Ineligibility is reduced from two years to 20 months;
D.) The start date of Respondent's period of Ineligibility is the date of his provisional suspension, December 21, 2018, and the period of ineligibility expires on August 20, 2020;
E.) Respondent's competitive results from the date of his sample collection, November 15, 2018 through his acceptance of Provisional Suspension, on December 21, 2018, if any, are to be disqualified, and any medals, points and prizes earned during that period shall be forfeited;
F.) The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs associated with this Arbitration;
G.) The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association, and the compensation and expenses of the Panel, shall be borne by USADA and the United States Olympic Committee; and
H.) This Award shall be in full and final resolution of all claims and counterclaims submitted to this Arbitration, All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby denied.

On 16 June 2022 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete M.R. Poovamma after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) related to the supplement she had used.

Hereafter India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI). INADA requested the panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a more sever sanction on the Athlete.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that she had demonstrated that source of the positive test was an over-the-counter medication she had used. Analysis in a laboratory revealed that the supplement Bedtime Latte contained the prohibited substance.

INADA conteded that the Athlete had acted negligently with her supplements as an experienced athlete and had not established the source of the prohibited substance. She failed to mention all her supplements and medications on the Doping Control, nor made an appliciation for a TUE.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional although she had acted negligently.

The Panel considers that the Athlete had not mentioned all her supplements and medication on the Doping Control Form and had not produced corroborating evidence to establish the source of the prohibited substance.

The Panel deems that the laboratory in question was not accredited and their analysis report was insufficient. Moreover the Athlete's tested medication container was delivered open and suspicious and as an experience athlete she had failed to check ther medication before using.

Therefore ADAPI decides on 17 September to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

2018 Annual Statistical Report On Doping Control / Bulgarian Anti-Doping Centre (ADC). - Sofia : ADC, 2019

2019 Annual Statistical Report On Doping Control / Bulgarian Anti-Doping Centre (ADC). - Sofia : ADC, 2020

2021 Annual Statistical Report On Doping Control / Bulgarian Anti-Doping Centre (ADC). - Sofia : ADC, 2022

In January 2018 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jagtar Singh Kang after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete gave a prompt admission about the violation and provided substantial assistance to INADA. Here INADA argued that the Athlete’s substantial assistance was without success, that he failed in his duty that no prohibited substance entered his system, nor did he establish grounds for a reduced sanction.

The Panel finds that the test results establish the presence of a prohibited substance in the Athlete’s system and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel agrees that the Athlete’s assistance was insufficient and deems that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor did he demonstrated grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 5 April 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 28 June 2017.

In February 2018 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Simarjit Kaur after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete stated that she had used supplements during training and prescribed medication as treatment for her injury. She could not explain how the substance entered her system and when requested she could not produce the supplements in question because they were not available anymore.

The Panel finds that the Athlete had used supplements without any research or consultation of any expert before using. The Panel deems that she failed to establish how the substance entered her system nor that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 3 October 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on de date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 February 2018.

In December 2017 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the wrestler Shri Bhagwan after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone) and Meldonium.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete stated that he had used prescribed medication as treatment for his injury. Here he failed to apply for a TUE nor did he mention his medication on the Doping Control Form.

The Panel did not accept the Athlete’s statement and evidence as it does not explain the presence of Meldonium in his sample. The Panel deems that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor how the substance entered his system.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 15 October 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on de date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 December 2018.