Agree Agree:  6
Likes Likes:  13
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28

Thread: Tennis Doping

  1. #1

    Tennis Doping

    Nicolas Jarry: Chilean suspended after testing positive at Davis Cup

    Chile's Nicolas Jarry has been provisionally suspended after testing positive for two banned substances during last year's Davis Cup.

    The International Tennis Federation (ITF) said the 24-year-old's sample contained anabolic agent ligandrol and anabolic steroid stanozolol.

    World number 78 Jarry said he had not "intentionally" taken any banned substance during his career.

    "It strongly looks like a cross-contamination case," he said.

    Jarry said he had taken "multi-vitamins made in Brazil" that his doctor recommended because they were "guaranteed to be free from banned substances".

    He added that he had undergone two urine tests during the Davis Cup in Madrid in November and that the first one was clean before the second detected "levels so low that neither substance could have provided me any performance-enhancing benefit".

    Jarry, who was beaten in Australian Open qualifying on Sunday, said he and his legal team will be "working strongly" to prove his innocence and will fully cooperate with the ITF.

    https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/51112173

  2. #2

    Re: Tennis Players Random, Random

    José Morgado
    @josemorgado
    Oh my god.

    Robert Farah, doubles world number one, also tested positive.

    And that's why he is missing the #AusOpen



    Rilès
    @AlgerianNavy
    ·
    2h
    He was tested positive to Boldenone in a test taken Oct 17th in Cali (Colombia), he defends himself by saying that he was always tested negative to dopping substances during his 15 tests last season (including Oct 7th in Shanghaï) and that Boldenone is in Colombian meat

    (As confirmed by Colombian olympic comitee)

    If I understand it's a test done in October 17th, so his titles in Wimbledon and US Open are not challenged right? He is probably going to miss the Olympics though, tough for him and Colombia
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  3. #3

    Re: Tennis Players Random, Random

    Fans are asking if the ATP Finals result will be negated.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  4. #4

    Re: Tennis Players Random, Random

    SPEARS CHARGED WITH ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATION
    NOV 10, 2019
    by Niko Vercelletto

    Another day, another doping allegation. This time, the charge comes against well-liked doubles expert Abigail Spears. The American was found to have been using testosterone and prasterone during the US Open, two banned substances listed by WADA.

    Spears is currently ranked No. 35 in doubles, has won 21 doubles WTA titles and captured the Australian Open mixed doubles crown in 2017.

    The 38-year-old may have a case in court. In an Instagram post, Spears laid out the situation in detail, explaining her prescribed supplements contained an illegal substance.

    Spears is the ninth doping violation this year (there were eight violations in 2018, and six in 2017). The most notable violation in recent years has been Maria Sharapova testing positive for meldonium.

    For now the suspension is only provisional, meaning that the ITF is still pending a case against Spears. Regardless of what happens next, the American will miss, at least the start of the 2020 season.

    Her last tournament was the China Open in September where she and her partner, Nadiia Kichenok, lost in the first round.


    http://baseline.tennis.com/article/8...pension-doping


    IG Post at the link
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  5. #5

    Tennis Doping

    With the current spate of doping announcements I thought there shoiuld be a thread for tennis players who are caught doping.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  6. #6

    Re: Tennis Doping

    Quote Originally Posted by Ti-Amie View Post
    With the current spate of doping announcements I thought there shoiuld be a thread for tennis players who are caught doping.
    Thread title does have a typo that needs a fixing please.
    Towel Avatar, do your thing!

  7. #7

    Re: Tennis Doping

    No. There should also be a thread for TENNIS DOPE-ING. It is a different issue
    Face it. It's the apocalypse.

  8. #8

    Re: Tennis Doping

    Quote Originally Posted by ponchi101 View Post
    No. There should also be a thread for TENNIS DOPE-ING. It is a different issue
    We have lots of threads that cover that topic, they just don't use that title. I believe the current one is called the Australian Open.

  9. #9

    Re: Tennis Doping

    Quote Originally Posted by skatingfan View Post
    We have lots of threads that cover that topic, they just don't use that title. I believe the current one is called the Australian Open.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  10. #10

    Re: Tennis Doping

    05 Feb 2020

    Decision in the case of Abigail Spears

    A decision has been issued under the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (the "Programme") that Abigail Spears has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.1. That decision imposed a period of ineligibility of twenty-two months, commencing on 7 November 2019.

    Ms. Spears, a 38-year-old player from United States, provided a urine sample on 31 August 2019 in association with her participation in the US Open held in New York, USA from 26 August to 8 September 2019. That sample was sent to the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) accredited laboratory in Montreal, Canada for analysis, and was found to contain prasterone (DHEA), testosterone and metabolites. Prasterone and testosterone are Non-Specified substances, which are prohibited under category S1 of the 2019 WADA Prohibited List (Anabolic Agents), and therefore are also prohibited under the Programme.

    Ms. Spears was charged with an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.1 of the Programme (presence of a Prohibited Substance in a Player’s Sample) and was provisionally suspended on 7 November 2019. The ITF accepted Ms. Spears’ explanation as to how the prasterone and testosterone entered her system and that her use was unconnected to sports performance and, therefore, that she bore No Significant Fault or Negligence for her violation, although her fault was deemed to be high. Ms. Spears was entitled, due to her prompt admission, to her period of ineligibility being back-dated to start on the date on which she was provisionally suspended.

    This is Ms. Spears’ first Anti-Doping Rule Violation. The decision determines that: (1) Ms. Spears has committed a violation of the Programme; (2) she must serve a period of ineligibility of twenty-two months; and (3) that period of ineligibility is back-dated to start on 7 November 2019, and so ending at midnight on 6 September 2021. In accordance with Programme articles 9.1 and 10.8, all ranking points and prize money obtained by Ms. Spears at the Event are disqualified, including the results of her doubles partner at the Event in accordance with Programme Article 9.2.2.

    https://antidoping.itftennis.com/news/314961.aspx
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  11. #11

    Re: Tennis Doping

    Tumaini Carayol
    @tumcarayol
    Abigail Spears (#37 doubles, career high #10) has been banned for 22 months after testing positive for DHEA.

    She says that a player recommended an Eastern Medicine doctor who prescribed her pills containing DHEA. The name of the pills: DHEA 25.



    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  12. #12

    Re: Tennis Doping

    More from the report on Abigail Spears doping suspension:

    II. The Player's commission of an anti-doping rule violation

    4. On 31 August 2019, while competing in the women's doubles main draw at the 2019 US Open in New York, United States of America (the Event), the Player was required to provide a urine sample for drug testing pursuant to the TADP. The sample she provided was given reference number 3144520 and was split into an A sample and a B sample, which were sealed in tamper- evident bottles and transported to the WADA-accredited laboratory in Montreal (the Laboratory) for analysis. The Laboratory detected the presence in the A sample of exogenous DHEA (prasterone) and exogenous testosterone. DHEA and testosterone are each anabolic agents prohibited at all times under Section S1.1 (Anabolic Androgenic Steroids) of the 2019 WADA Prohibited List. The Player does not have a therapeutic use exemption permitting use of DHEA or testosterone.

    5. The Adverse Analytical Finding reported by the Laboratory in respect of the A sample was considered by an independent Review Board in accordance with TADP Article 7.3. The Review Board did not identify any apparent departures from the applicable sample collection or sample analysis procedures that could have caused this Adverse Analytical Finding. It therefore decided that the Player had a case to answer for breach of TADP Article 2.1. Accordingly, on 28 October 2019 the ITF sent the Player a formal Notice of Charge, asserting that the presence of exogenous DHEA and exogenous testosterone in her sample collected on 31 August 2019 constitutes an anti-doping rule violation under TADP Article 2.1.

    (...)

    7. Given that DHEA and testosterone are not classified as Specified Substances under the TADP, the Player was subject to a mandatory provisional suspension under TADP Article 8.3.1, which came into effect on 7 November 2019.

    8. TADP Article 2.1 is a strict liability offence that is established simply by proof that a Prohibited Substance was present in the sample, i.e., the ITF does not have to prove how the substance got into the Player's system or that the Player took the substance intentionally (or even knowingly).

    9. TADP Article 2.1.2 provides that an adverse analytical finding in respect of an A sample that is confirmed by analysis of the B sample constitutes sufficient proof of an Article 2.1 ADRV. In addition, in her preliminary response dated 5 November 2019 the Player accepted that exogenous DHEA and exogenous testosterone were present in her sample, and therefore admitted that she had committed the Article 2.1 anti-doping rule violation charged.

    (...)

    13. When the Player's urine sample was collected on 31 August 2019, she was asked to declare on the Doping Control Form (DCF) 'any prescription/non-prescription medications or supplements, including vitamins and minerals, taken over the past 7 days'. The Player listed'Garden of life multi vitamin' on the DCF, but failed to declare the Supplement, even though she had taken it earlier that week. Clearly she should have done, but given all of the other evidence that she has provided, the ITF still accepts that she did in fact take the Supplement as she now claims. In all of the circumstances, it also accepts that this omission was not because she knew that the Supplement contained a prohibited substance and was seeking to conceal her use of it from the doping control officers.


    (...)

    25. The Player does not assert that she bears No Fault or Negligence for her violation. She asserts however that she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, so that a reduced suspension (in the range of 16 to 20 months) should be imposed, because: (i) she consulted an Eastern Medicine doctor who specialised in sports nutrition and who knew the Player was subject to anti-doping rules, (ii) that doctor was recommended to her by a fellow professional tennis player and had experience advising professional athletes subject to anti-doping rules, (iii) the Supplement was recommended and provided directly to the Player by the Eastern Medicine doctor, (iv) she only took the supplements that the doctor recommended and provided to her, which she was told were 'all natural' and would address her long term health concerns, and (v) the Player's level of awareness and focus on her anti-doping obligations was reduced by the fact that she was consulting the doctor not to assist with her sports performance but rather because of her concerns regarding her overall health and wellbeing and her impending retirement.

    26. The ITF accepts that these factors, so far as they go, weigh in favour of the Player. In particular, it accepts that this was a Supplement that she was taking for her general wellbeing, rather than specifically for sports-related (or performance-enhancing) reasons, which may have led to her being less cautious than she would be if the context of the treatment was sports-related. However:
    It has long been well-known that supplements may contain prohibited substances. Any player who takes a supplement assumes the risk that it may contain one or more prohibited substances.


    https://antidoping.itftennis.com/med...962/314962.pdf
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  13. #13

    Re: Tennis Doping

    Decision in the case of Beatriz Haddad Maia

    A decision has been issued under the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (the "Programme") that Beatriz Haddad Maia has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.1. That decision imposed a period of ineligibility of ten months, commencing on 22 July 2019.

    Ms. Maia, a 23-year-old player from Brazil, provided a urine sample on 4 June 2019 in association with her participation in the WTA Croatia Bol Open held in Bol, Croatia from 3 June to 9 June 2019. That sample was sent to the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) accredited laboratory in Montreal, Canada for analysis, and was found to contain SARM S-22 (Ostarine or Enobosarm) and SARM LGD-4033 (Ligandrol) metabolite. SARM S-22 and SARM LDG-4033 are Non-Specified substances, which are prohibited under category S1 of the 2019 WADA Prohibited List (Anabolic Agents), and therefore are also prohibited under the Programme.

    Ms. Maia was charged with an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.1 of the Programme (presence of a Prohibited Substance in a Player’s Sample) and was provisionally suspended on 22 July 2019. The ITF accepted Ms. Maia’s explanation as to how the SARM S-22 and SARM LDG-4033 entered her system and that she bore No Significant Fault or Negligence for her violation. Ms. Maia was entitled to her period of ineligibility being back-dated to start on the date on which she was provisionally suspended.

    This is Ms. Maia’s first Anti-Doping Rule Violation. The decision determines that: (1) Ms. Maia has committed a violation of the Programme; (2) she must serve a period of ineligibility of ten months; and (3) that period of ineligibility is back-dated to start on 22 July 2019, and so ending at midnight on 21 May 2020. In accordance with Programme articles 9.1 and 10.8, all ranking points and prize money obtained by Ms. Maia at the Event and subsequent events are disqualified.

    II. The Player's commission of an anti-doping rule violation

    4. On 4 June 2019, while competing in the singles main draw competition at the Croatia Bol Open held in Bol, Croatia, from 3 to 9 June 2019 (the Event), the Player was required to provide a urine sample for drug testing pursuant to the TADP. The sample she provided was given reference number 3139766 and was split into an A sample and a B sample, which were sealed in tamper-evident bottles and transported to the WADA-accredited laboratory in Montreal (the Laboratory) for analysis.

    5. The Laboratory detected the presence in the A sample of SARM S-22 (aka Ostarine or Enobosarm) at an estimated concentration of 40 pg/mL, and a metabolite of SARM LGD-4033 (aka Ligandrol) at an estimated concentration of 30 pg/mL. Both SARM S-22 and SARM LGD- 4033 are anabolic agents banned at all times under Section S1.2 (Other Anabolic Agents) of the 2019 WADA Prohibited List. The Player does not have a therapeutic use exemption permitting use of SARM S-22 and/or SARM LGD-4033.

    6. The Adverse Analytical Finding reported by the Laboratory in respect of the A sample was considered by an independent Review Board in accordance with TADP Article 7.3. The Review Board did not identify any apparent departures from the applicable sample collection or sample analysis procedures that could have caused this Adverse Analytical Finding. It therefore decided that the Player had a case to answer for breach of TADP Article 2.1.

    7. Accordingly, on 12 July 2019 the ITF sent the Player a formal Notice of Charge, asserting that the presence of SARM S-22 and a metabolite of SARM LGD-4033 in her sample collected on 4 June 2019 constitutes an anti-doping rule violation under TADP Article 2.1.

    8. The Laboratory subsequently analysed sample B3139766, and reported on 22 July 2019 that it had detected the presence of SARMS-22 and a metabolite of SARM LGD-4033, i.e., the B sample analysis confirmed the Adverse Analytical Finding reported following analysis of the A sample.

    9. Given that neither SARM S-22 nor SARM LGD-4033 is classified as a Specified Substance under the TADP, the Player was subject to a mandatory provisional suspension under TADP Article 8.3.1, which came into effect on 22 July 2019.

    10. TADP Article 2.1 is a strict liability offence that is established simply by proof that a prohibited substance was present in the Player's sample, i.e., the ITF does not have to prove how the substance got into the Player's system or that the Player took the substance intentionally (or even knowingly).

    11. In her preliminary response dated 26 July 2019, the Player initially denied that SARM S-22 and a metabolite of SARM LGD-4033 were present in her sample. Later, following testing of the Player's supplements that revealed those supplements to contain SARM S-22 and SARM LGD- 4033, the Player accepted that SARM S-22 and a metabolite of SARM LGD-4033 were present in her sample, and therefore admitted that she had committed the Article 2.1 anti-doping rule violation charged.

    III.A Period of Ineligibility

    (i) How the SARM S-22 and metabolite of SARM LGD-4033 got into the Player's system

    12. The Player has asserted that she did not intend to cheat. She asserts that her physicians (both sports medicine specialists) prescribed her five bespoke supplements (each containing different combinations of vitamins, minerals, and other compounds) that were specifically created to order by a compound pharmacy in São Paulo (the Bespoke Supplements), and that (unknown to her) those Bespoke Supplements were contaminated with SARM S-22 and SARM LGD-4033.

    13. In support of her explanation, the Player provided (among other things): (i) photographs of bottles of each of the five Bespoke Supplements she was prescribed, (ii) copies of prescriptions from the Player's physicians to the Player for the Bespoke Supplements (or combinations of compounds very similar to the Bespoke Supplements that had later been varied following further consultations to reflect the Player's needs) dating back to 2015, (iii) receipts from the compound pharmacy for the most recent batch of the Bespoke Supplements, (iv) copies of correspondence exchanged between the Player and International Doping Tests & Management (IDTM)2 between 2016 and 2019 in which the Player sought information about products she was taking or intended to take and IDTM replied with information regarding those products and whether or not their listed ingredients revealed any prohibited substances (including the correspondence that the Player sent to IDTM on 30 June 2019 that contained a list of the ingredients of each of the Bespoke Supplements purchased on 28 May 2019 and 8 June 2019 and by which the Player sought confirmation that none were prohibited, and IDTM's response confirming that none of the ingredients were prohibited), and (v) detailed explanations regarding the prescription and purchase of the Bespoke Supplements and a schedule detailing when and in what dosages the Player took the Bespoke Supplements.

    14. When the Player's urine sample was collected on 4 June 2019, she was asked to declare on the Doping Control Form (DCF) 'any prescription/non-prescription medications or supplements, including vitamins and minerals, taken over the past 7 days'. The Player listed on the DCF 'Tess', 'Vitaminas' and 'Tylenol', and explained subsequently to the ITF that 'Vitaminas' was a reference to the two Bespoke Supplements that she was taking in the week prior to the sample collection on 4 June 2019.

    15. Of the five bottles of the Bespoke Supplements that were still in the Player's possession, two of the bottles had been purchased on 23 May 2019 and were the same bottles from which the Player had been taking capsules in the week prior to sample collection on 4 June 2019. The other three bottles had been purchased on 3 June 2019 and the Player began taking capsules from those bottles from 8 June 2019 onwards.

    16. At the ITF’s request, the five bottles of the Bespoke Supplements were sent to the Laboratory for testing. The Laboratory detected SARM S-22 in capsules from all five of the bottles tested and SARM LGD-4033 in capsules from four of the five bottles tested (including both of the bottles from which the Player was taking capsules in the days leading up to 4 June 2019).

    17. The ITF consulted Prof. Christiane Ayotte, Director of the Laboratory, who explained that the analysis results of the sample collected on 4 June 2019 were caused by a previous ingestion of SARM S-22 and SARM LGD-4033 and acknowledged that the Bespoke Supplements all contained SARMs, which could explain the Adverse Analytical Finding.

    18. The Player also provided a urine sample for analysis on 4 July 2019, at which point she was taking daily capsules of all five of the Bespoke Supplements, but the 4 July sample tested negative for any prohibited substances. Prof. Ayotte's view was that while the negative result of the 4 July 2019 test was surprising given the Player's asserted ingestion of the Bespoke Supplements leading up to that sample collection, the negative result could feasibly be due to the variability of contamination between individual capsules of the Bespoke Supplements.

    19. Given all of the circumstances of this case, the ITF accepts the Player has established that it is more likely than not that the presence of the SARM S-22 and the metabolite of SARM LGD- 4033 found in her urine sample 3139766 was due to her ingestion of capsules of two of the Bespoke Supplements in the days prior to 4 June 2019 when her urine sample was collected.

    https://antidoping.itftennis.com/med...866/315866.pdf
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  14. #14

    Re: Tennis Doping

    PRESS RELEASE

    10 February 2020

    Decision in the case of Robert Farah

    A decision has been issued under the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (the "Programme") that Robert Farah has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.1 of the 2019 Programme. No period of ineligibility was imposed.

    Mr. Farah, a 32-year-old player from Colombia, provided a urine sample as part of an Out-of-Competition testing mission on 17 October 2019. That sample was sent to the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) accredited laboratory in Montreal, Canada for analysis, and was found to contain Boldenone and its metabolite. Boldenone is a Non-Specified substance, which is prohibited under category S1 of the 2019 WADA Prohibited List (Anabolic Agents), and therefore is also prohibited under the Programme. Positive tests for Non-Specified Substances carry a mandatory Provisional Suspension and Mr. Farah was provisionally suspended with effect from 21 January 2020.

    Mr. Farah was charged with an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.1 of the Programme (presence of a Prohibited Substance in a Player’s Sample) on 11 January 2020. Mr. Farah’s account of how the Boldenone entered his system was accepted and it was determined that he bears No Fault or Negligence for the violation within the meaning of Programme Article 10.4. Where a finding of No Fault or Negligence is made, Programme Article 10.4 provides that any otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated entirely. Therefore, the Player's provisional suspension (imposed on 21 January 2020) is lifted with immediate effect, and he will not serve any period of Ineligibility for his violation. For the avoidance of doubt, Mr. Farah is eligible to resume competition immediately.


    This is Mr. Farah’s first Anti-Doping Rule Violation. The decision determines that: (1) Mr. Farah has committed a violation of the Programme; (2) there is no period of ineligibility; and (3) Mr. Farah is eligible to compete with immediate effect. This decision is subject to appeal by WADA and NADO Colombia (COLDEPORTES) to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

    II. The Player's commission of an anti-doping rule violation

    4. On 17 October 2019, the Player was not competing. As a member of the ITF's International Registered Testing Pool, however, he had provided the ITF with information about his whereabouts while out of competition, so that he could be found for testing. IDTM (the company that collects samples for analysis under the Programme) sent a doping control officer to the address the Player had provided for that day (his mother's house in Cali, Columbia) to collect a urine sample from him for analysis under the Programme. The sample the Player provided was given reference number 3143779 and was split into an A sample and a B sample, which were sealed in tamper-evident bottles and transported to the WADA- accredited laboratory in Montreal (the Laboratory) for analysis.

    5. The Laboratory detected boldenone in sample A3143779 at an estimated concentration of 1.2 ng/mL, as well as a metabolite of boldenone at an estimated concentration of 1.8 ng/mL. Boldenone is listed in section S1.1b of the 2019 WADA Prohibited List as an anabolic steroid that is banned at all times. However, boldenone is produced endogenously. Its presence in a sample is only prohibited when it is exogenous, as determined (for example) by gas chromatography combustion isotope ratio mass spectrometry (GC-C-IRMS) testing. WADA Technical Document TD2019IRMS requires any laboratory that finds boldenone or boldenone metabolites in a sample at concentrations 'between 5 ng/mL and 30 ng/mL' to conduct 'GC-C- IRMS analysis for these compounds [...] before reporting an Adverse Analytical Finding'. It also states that findings of boldenone or boldenone metabolites at concentrations below 5 ng/mL (adjusted for specific gravity, if necessary) 'should be reported as Atypical Findings unless the results of the GC/C/IRMS analysis, if performed (depending on the Laboratory's analytical capacity and following consultation with the Testing Authority), conclusively establish the exogenous origin of the substance' (in which case an Adverse Analytical Finding should be reported). The Laboratory therefore reported the results of analysis of sample A3143779 as an Atypical Finding and consulted the ITF, which asked the Laboratory to conduct GC/C/IRMS analysis on the sample to try to determine (notwithstanding the low concentrations) whether the boldenone and boldenone metabolites detected in the sample were endogenous or exogenous. The Laboratory was able to confirm that they were exogenous, and therefore reported the results as an Adverse Analytical Finding.

    6. In accordance with TADP Article 7.3, the ITF referred the Adverse Analytical Finding reported by the Laboratory in respect of sample A3143779 to an independent Review Board. The Player did not have a therapeutic use exemption permitting use of boldenone, and the Review Board did not identify any departures from the sample collection procedures set out in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations or from the sample analysis procedures set out in the International Standard for Laboratories that could have caused the presence of boldenone and a boldenone metabolite in the sample. The independent Review Board therefore confirmed that the Player had a case to answer for breach of TADP Article 2.1.

    7. Accordingly, on 11 January 2020 the ITF sent the Player a formal notice of charge, asserting that the presence of boldenone and a boldenone metabolite in his sample collected on 17 October 2019 constitutes an anti-doping rule violation under TADP Article 2.1.

    8. On 25 January 2020, the Laboratory reported that analysis of sample B3143779 had detected the presence of exogenous boldenone and metabolite, i.e., it confirmed the Adverse Analytical Finding reported in respect of sample A3143779

    9. Given that boldenone is not classified as a Specified Substance under the TADP, the Player was subject to a mandatory provisional suspension under TADP Article 8.3.1, which came into effect on 21 January 2020.
    10. TADP Article 2.1 is a strict liability offence that is established simply by proof that a prohibited substance was present in the Player's sample, i.e., the ITF does not have to prove how the substance got into the Player's system or that the Player took the substance intentionally (or even knowingly).

    11. TADP Article 8.7.5 provides that '[s]ufficient proof of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.1 is established (a) by an Adverse Analytical Finding in respect of a Player's A Sample if [...] the Player's B Sample is analysed, and that analysis confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the Player's A Sample [...]'. Furthermore, the Player accepts the accuracy of the Adverse Analytical Findings reported by the Laboratory, i.e., he accepts that exogenous boldenone and a metabolite of exogenous boldenone were present in his sample 3143779. He therefore admits that he has committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to TADP Article 2.1.

    12. The question therefore becomes, what consequences apply under the Programme for this anti-doping rule violation (which is the Player's first doping violation)?

    III. Consequences

    III.A Period of Ineligibility

    (i) TADP Article 10.2
    13. TADP Article 10.2.1 mandates a four-year ban for a TADP Article 2.1 violation that is a first offence if it is 'intentional'. Where (as here) the prohibited substance in question is not a Specified Substance, the Player has the burden of proving (on the balance of probabilities2) that the violation was not 'intentional'. If the Player can do so, TADP Article 10.2.2 provides for a two-year period of ineligibility (subject to potential further mitigation). TADP Article 10.2.3 explains that in this context 'the term "intentional" is meant to identify those Participants who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the Participant engaged in conduct that he/she knew constituted an Anti-Doping Rule Violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an Anti-Doping Rule Violation and manifestly disregarded that risk'. In other words, he must have acted intentionally or recklessly. The jurisprudence is clear that what counts in this context is what the Player actually knew about the risks, not what he should have known.3

    14. It is also clear from the jurisprudence that (save in the most exceptional of cases) the Player will not be able to establish a lack of intent without first proving, again on the balance of probabilities, how the boldenone got into his system.4 To meet this burden, it is not enough to prove that meat contamination is a possible source of the boldenone found in his sample, or even that it is the most likely of all possible sources identified. Instead, the Player must show that meat contamination is more likely than not to be the source of the boldenone.5 On the other hand, the CAS has been clear that it is enough to prove that there is a 51% chance that meat contamination was the source.6

    (ii) How the boldenone got into the Player's system

    15. The Player has asserted that the boldenone found in his system came from beef that he ate the night before sample 3143779 was collected, which he says contained residue of boldenone injected into the cow as a growth promoter prior to slaughter. He insists that he did not intend to cheat, and that he did not engage in conduct that he knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation, nor did he know that there was a significant risk that eating the beef might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation.

    16. The Player has provided the following evidence to support his contention of meat contamination as the source of his Adverse Analytical Finding:

    16.1 Urine samples were collected from him on 2 October and 7 October 2019, and upon analysis neither of them was found to contain either boldenone or its metabolites (or any other Prohibited Substance).

    16.2 Flight documentation, photographs and other evidence establish he was in Cali, Colombia, on 16 and 17 October 2019, and that he visited his mother there, who cooked a meal for him, his fiancée and a family friend on the evening of 16 October 2019.

    16.3 In a sworn statement, the Player's mother explains that: (i) on 15 October 2019 she went shopping at her local branch of a major supermarket chain in Colombia (the Supermarket) and purchased (among other things) approximately one kilogram of 'solomillo' (the cut of beef equivalent to the 'sirloin' in English); (ii) she marinated the beef with other ingredients before cooking it, and ate it together with the Player and his fiancée and a family friend at around 8:00 to 8:30 pm on 16 October 2019; and (iii) the Player consumed approximately 500 to 600 grams of the total meat prepared, with the rest being consumed by the other diners, and none left over.

    16.4 A senior manager of food acquisition for the Supermarket chain has provided a statement explaining that: (i) the Supermarket tracks customer purchases against the customer's identification card number; (ii) the system recorded the purchases made on 15 October 2019 by the Player's mother, which included the purchase of 1.006 kilograms of solomillo beef; (iii) the Supermarket also maintains records of the source and distribution of the meat products it sells; and (iv) the meat sold in October 2019 in the branch of the Supermarket from which the Player's mother purchased the solomillo came from the Sinú meat processing plant in northern Colombia, and ultimately from one of 15 cattle ranches (which the manager listed by name) located in northern Colombia (the 15 Cattle Ranches).

    16.5 A senior official of the Colombian government responsible for agriculture and rural development provided a sworn statement confirming that: (i) the importation, distribution, sale and use of boldenone is permitted in Colombia; (ii) 59 products containing boldenone are commercially available in the country; (iii) boldenone is used in livestock farming as a growth promoter prior to slaughter; and (iv) 'some livestock farms in some of the regions [in which the 15 Cattle Ranches are located] have used boldenone in their cattle to increase their meat mass'.

    16.6 A senior representative of a Colombian cattle trade and lobbying organisation has provided a sworn statement confirming that: (i) cattle farmers in Colombia (in particular, cattle farmers in the northern regions of Colombia) 'commonly use products containing boldenone to increase the mass of their cattle and accelerate the fattening process'; (ii) there were 600,000 purchases of boldenone for cattle farming in Colombia in 2019; (iii) the cattle slaughtered at the Sinú meat processing plant at the relevant time would have come from the 15 Cattle Ranches; and (iv) 'some of these cattle breeders [i.e., the cattle breeders on the 15 Cattle Ranches] [...] purchased and used products with active agents that contain boldenone in their livestock breeding and fattening processes'.

    16.7 A cattle farmer in the municipality of San Martin, Cesar, northern Colombia (not one of the 15 Cattle Ranches, but in the same region) who has extensive experience of cattle- farming and who operates a significant cattle-farming operation has provided a sworn statement confirming that: (i) the distribution, sale and use of boldenone is authorised by the Colombian authorities to fatten cattle intended for human consumption; (ii) he has used boldenone (in accordance with all applicable regulations and veterinary guidelines) on his herd of 1,500 cattle for approximately 15 years; and (iii) he administers the boldenone by intramuscular injection into the cow's haunch.

    16.8 Víctor Alberto Delgado Jaramillo, a Colombian lawyer, has provided a sworn statement that: (i) provides a list of the 59 products containing boldenone that are available for sale in Colombia; (ii) provides a copy of a regulation issued by the Colombian Ministry of Health on 2 May 2013 that establishes the maximum limits of residues of veterinarian medications in food products intended for human consumption and imposes consequences for individuals or companies that sell food products containing residues of any of the listed substances in concentrations higher than those permitted; (iii) notes that boldenone is not listed in that regulation, and so under Colombian law there is no legal mechanism to ensure that boldenone concentration levels in beef sold for human consumption remain below a certain level, and there are no consequences for individuals or companies that provide beef for human consumption that still contains boldenone residue; and (iv) provides a copy of a 2011 report by the European Commission of an audit conducted in Colombia 'to evaluate the monitoring of residues and contaminants in live animals and animal products, including controls on veterinary medicinal products', which report noted that (a) 'there is no legal basis to determine that a sample is non-compliant unless the substance has been prohibited in Colombia and consequently it is not illegal to place bovine meat containing residues of authorised medicines on the market'; and (b) '[t]he mission team noted for bovines that: [...] residues of authorised hormonal growth promotants have been found in recent years for inter alia zeranol, trenbolone and boldenone'.

    16.9 Deyanira Barrera León, General Manager of the Colombian Agricultural Institute (the ICA), the entity responsible for agricultural health and food safety in Colombia, has provided a sworn statement confirming that although the Colombian government has implemented plans to monitor and control pathogens and residues of veterinary medications and chemical contaminants in meat products, and although the boldenone products available for sale in Colombia direct the user not to use the product on livestock within 30 days of slaughter, it 'may be possible that, even with the monitoring that the authorities conduct and the issuance of transversal protocols of good practices, some farmers do not comply with the withdrawal times (minimum of 30 days) before slaughter, creating the risk that meat with steroid residues reach the final consumer'.

    16.10 Professor Gonzalo Diaz, Professor of Toxicology at the Department of Sciences for Animal Health, College of Veterinary Medicine, National University of Colombia, has provided an expert report explaining that: (i) a study conducted in 2015-2016 by the ICA and Colombia's National Food and Drug Surveillance Institute reported that samples from 25 of 111 cattle farms surveyed contained 'unacceptable' levels of boldenone (meaning more than 1 ng/mL); (ii) the results of that study 'clearly show the widespread use of boldenone in cattle and suggest the potential presence of this compound in Colombian beef'; (iii) 'contrary to the situation in first-world countries, in Colombia it is common not to follow the withdrawal time for veterinary drugs, therefore cattle could be sent to the slaughter house prior to the 30-day withdrawal [period specified by the drug instructions]'; (iv) it is characteristic of Colombian cattle farming to inject the anabolic agent into the haunch of the cow, corresponding to the muscles close to the 'solomillo' cut (rather than into the neck, as done in many other countries); (v) boldenone concentrations would be expected to be higher in the muscles close to the injection site, because boldenone will distribute preferentially into fat and fatty tissues such as muscle and as a result of passive diffusion mechanisms; and (vi) in his view, 'eating a normal portion of meat contaminated with steroids (for instance boldenone) can express itself in urine sample values consistent with what we see in this case'.

    17. The ITF conducted its own review of open source material relating to the use of boldenone as a growth promoter for livestock in Colombia, and located a previous comment by Ms León, in November 2018, that no samples tested in Colombian slaughterhouses in 2015-2016 contained boldenone and that only two of 218 samples tested in Colombian slaughterhouses in 2016-2017 contained boldenone, which she said indicated 'that withdrawal times are being respected'.7 In addition, on 15 January 2020 the ICA issued a press release in which Ms León stated: 'It is important to clarify that the presence of Boldenone in cattle farms does not imply the presence of the substance in the meat for human consumption, if the withdrawal times established in the indications for the use of the products are applied. The withdrawal time for Boldenone is 30 days'.8 The ITF accepts that these statements are not inconsistent with the evidence that Ms León has provided in this matter, and do not establish that the meat eaten by the Player on 17 October 2019 could not have contained boldenone residue.

    18. The ITF consulted Professor Christiane Ayotte, Director of the Laboratory, who explained – consistent with the opinion she provided to the FISA Doping Hearing Panel in FISA v Arriaga Gomez9 – that:
    18.1 the fact that the Player's samples collected on 2 and 7 October 2019 did not contain any boldenone or boldenone metabolites10 rules out the possibility that the source of the boldenone and boldenone metabolite in the sample collected on 17 October 2019 was an injection of boldenone undecyclenate (because such an injection on or after 7 October 2019 would have resulted in higher levels of boldenone and its metabolite than were found in the 17 October sample);

    18.2 other possible sources of boldenone are a pro-hormone (i.e., a supplement that contains anabolic steroid precursors), a contaminated supplement, or meat containing boldenone residue; and

    18.3 it is not possible to determine from the analytical results alone which of those possible sources was the source of the boldenone and boldenone metabolite found in the Player's sample 3143779 other than to say that the boldenone was not produced in the Player's body. Assuming that the Player ate 500 to 600 grams of meat that was contaminated with 5 ng/g of boldenone (i.e., he consumed a total of 2,500 to 3,000 ng of boldenone), that could result in the presence of boldenone and its metabolite in the Player's relatively concentrated urine sample 3143779 (specific gravity: 1.026) approximately eleven hours later.

    19. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the Player, the ITF requested further information and documents from the Player, all of which was promptly provided. In particular, the Player provided a schedule detailing the supplements he was using between March and October 2019, and copies of the purchase receipts for those supplements. The supplements are 'off- the-shelf' supplements that are in many cases are 'Informed Sport' certified, none of them lists boldenone or any boldenone precursor as an ingredient, and the Player was tested ten times between March and October 2019, all of which tests were negative, which suggests that boldenone is unlikely to be an unlisted ingredient or contaminant of the supplements.

    20. The ITF considered whether the lack of other reported boldenone positives from consumption of Colombian meat weighed against the Player's explanation. However, WADA TD2019MRPL only requires WADA-accredited laboratories to be able to detect and identify boldenone at concentrations of 5 ng/mL and above. Laboratories are encouraged to develop the ability to detect concentrations of boldenone below that level, but they do not have to do so in order to maintain WADA accreditation. Therefore, the ITF does not consider that the lack of other reported cases of boldenone positives from consumption of Colombian meat weighs heavily against the Player's explanation in this case.

    21. Having carefully considered all of the above factors, the ITF accepts that the Player has established that it is at least 51% likely that the 500 to 600 grams of beef that he ate at his mother's house in Cali, Colombia, on 16 October 2019, approximately 11 hours prior to providing his urine sample on 17 October 2019, was the source of the very low concentrations of boldenone and its metabolite subsequently found in that sample.

    22. In a sworn statement, the Player attested that he did not know that there was a risk that the meat cooked for him by his mother might contain boldenone. In particular, he swore that he never saw the statement released by the Colombian Olympic Committee in November 2018 regarding the widespread use of boldenone in cattle farming in Colombia, the possibility that meat from Colombian farms might contain boldenone, and the consequences that could apply for athletes subject to anti-doping rules.11 Given that the Player does not live in Colombia, and spends most of the year travelling the globe on the professional tennis circuit, the ITF does not find that surprising.

    23. As a result, the ITF accepts that the Player has shown that his ingestion of boldenone on 17 October 2019 was not intentional, in that he did not know that the beef that his mother cooked and served him that evening contained boldenone, and nor were there any red flags that meant he knew there was a risk that it might contain boldenone, and manifestly disregarded that risk. He has therefore established that he did not intend to cheat, and that his commission of the violation was not 'intentional', as that term is defined in TADP Article 10.2.3. Therefore, the applicable period of ineligibility is two years (see TADP Article 10.2.2), subject to elimination pursuant to TADP Article 10.4 or reduction pursuant to TADP Article 10.5.


    https://antidoping.itftennis.com/med...3HH3O0,3BY2I,1

  15. #15

    Re: Tennis Doping

    When's the last time someone was found guilty but serves no suspension? Seems like it's a pretty rare result. Though he technically already served a costly penalty, but clearly it could've been worse.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •