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.

Prohibited List January 2019 : The World Anti-Doping Code International Standard / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2018.

- The official text of the Prohibited List shall be maintained by WADA and shall be published in English and French. In the event of any conflict between the English and French versions, the English version shall prevail.
- This List shall come into effect on 1 January 2019

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.

Annual banned-substance review : analytical approaches in human sports drug testing / Mario Thevis, Tiia Kuuranne, Hans Geyer. - (Drug testing and analysis 10 (2018) 1 (January); p. 9-27)

• PMID: 29149502
• DOI: 10.1002/dta.2336

Contents:

• Introduction
• Non-Approved Substances
• Anabolic Agents
  • Anabolic-androgenic steroids
  • Initial testing procedures – metabolism studies and new target analytes
  • Steroid profiling
  • Confirmatory testing procedures - isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS)
  • Alternative test methods and approaches
  • Other anabolic agents
• Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, Related Substances, and mimetics
  • Erythropoietin-receptor agonists
  • Hypoxia-inducible factor stabilizers and activators
  • Growth hormone and its releasing factors
  • Insulin‐like growth factor‐1 (IGF‐1), chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), and corticotrophin releasing factors
• β2‐Agonists
• Hormone and Metabolic Modulators
• Diuretics and other Masking Agents
• Stimulants, Narcotics, Cannaboinoids, and Glucocorticoids
• Manipulation of Blood and Blood Components
• Gene Doping
• Conclusion
  
  

Abstract

Several high-profile revelations concerning anti-doping rule violations over the past 12 months have outlined the importance of tackling prevailing challenges and reducing the limitations of the current anti-doping system. At this time, the necessity to enhance, expand, and improve analytical test methods in response to the substances outlined in the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) Prohibited List represents an increasingly crucial task for modern sports drug-testing programs. The ability to improve analytical testing methods often relies on the expedient application of novel information regarding superior target analytes for sports drug-testing assays, drug elimination profiles, alternative test matrices, together with recent advances in instrumental developments. This annual banned-substance review evaluates literature published between October 2016 and September 2017 offering an in-depth evaluation of developments in these arenas and their potential application to substances reported in WADA's 2017 Prohibited List.

Bekendtgørelse om fremme af integritet i idrætten / Government of Denmark. - Copenhagen : Government of Denmark, 2017. - (BEK nr 1466, 11/12/2017)
Bilag 1: Dopinglisten 2018
Bilag 2: Det internationale kodeks for antidoping

https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=196510

In November 2017 the National Doping Control Commission of Chile (CNCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the canoeist Jeannaret Jazmin Valenzuela Soto 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 did not attend the hearing of the Disciplinary Panel of the Tribunal de Expertos en Dopaje (TED).

The Athlete requested to set aside the test results and contested the charges. The Athlete asserted that several irregularities occurred during the sample collection procedure as ground for invalidate the test results. She argued that she underwent not an official doping control as she was told that the sample collection was intended for sample analysis for the requirement for the accreditation process of the Doping Laboratory of the University of Chile. As a result when notified of the violation she became aware that she indeed underwent an official doping test. Finally she complained that the confidentiality was breached due to the CNCD had already issued a press release to the media about the alleged violation.

The Panel finds that the Athlete failed to provide evidence in support of her assertions, nor did she explain how the substance entered her system. The Panel holds that the violation was not intentional as the CNCD did not provide evidence to the contrary.

Therefore on 6 March 2018 the TED Disciplinary Panel rejectes the Athletes arguments and assertions and decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

2017 Anti-Doping Testing Figures / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2018

Contents:

- Executive Summary - pp. 2-9 (7 pages)
- Laboratory Report -– pp. 10-36 (26 pages)
- Sport Report - pp. 37-158 (121 pages)
- Testing Authority Report - pp. 159-298 (139 pages)
- ABP Report-Blood Analysis - pp. 299-336 (37 pages)

Related case:
CAS 2018_A_5768 Dylan Scott vs ITF
September 11, 2019

In August 2017 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American tennis player Dylan Scott for the use of the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (DHCMT) ‘Turinabol’ after the metabolite 4-chloro-18nor-17β-hydroxymethyl, 17α-methyl-5-andros-13-en3-ol was found in his sample. Later in March 2018 the Athlete also tested positive for DHCMT.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the ITF Independent Tribunal.

The Athlete argued - with an expert witness - that the metabolite found in his positive sample was not caused by the substance DHCMT but maybe caused by his use of the product Halodrol 22 months earlier. This product has a similar chemical structure to DHCMT and is not listed as a prohibited substance on the WADA List.

The ITF asserted that the Athlete’s theory about the ingestion of the supplement Quad (Halodrol) some 22 months earliers as the source was wholly speculative and unjustified by the scientific evidence. The IFT contended that the Athlete had not on the balance of probability proved the source of the prohibited substance. The ITF finds that undoubtedly the Athlete had been at fault as he deliberately had used a prohormone product Quad that also had an explicit warning on its label.

The Tribunal holds that it is clear from the evidence that the found metabolite is not exclusively and necessarily a metabolite of DHCMT. It may be produced in the body from the ingestion of other exogenous anabolic steroids. These include Halodrol, as relied upon by the Athlete. They also include the steroids known as Promagnon and Methylclostebol. It was noted that Methasterone, a steroid specifically named on the Prohibited List, might also produce this metabolite in question.

The Tribunal accepts the ITF scientific evidence and concludes that Halodrol, Promagnon and Methylclostebol are all substances with a similar chemical structure to DHCMT and that they all constitute Prohibited Substances for the purpose of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP).

The Tribunal holds that there was an Anti-Doping Rule Violation and that the Athlete failed to establish that the violaton was not intentional. He also failed to demonstrate that his consumption of Quad 22 months earlier was more likely than not the source of his positive test in July 2017. In addition the similar concentration found in his positive sample in March 2018 makes the Athlete’s theory more unlikely.

Therefore the ITF Independent Tribunal decides on 9 May 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension i.e. on 19 August 2017.