In November 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping violation against the Indian Athlete Kumari Rachna after her A and B samples - collected in September 2023 - tested positive for the prohibited substances Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone, Metandienone and Stanozolol.

Additionally in December 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete when her sample - collected in November 2023 - tested positive for Clenbuterol. Thereupon this case was transferred by INADA to the AIU.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered by the AIU. Hereafter the Athlete failed to respond at all or to provide any information to the AIU.

The AIU establishes that this is the Athlete's second anti-doping rule violation as she had served a sanction of 4 years until 17 March 2019 for the presence of Metenolone in her sample. Furthermore the AIU determines that there are aggravating circumstances in this case since the Athlete had used multiple prohibited substances on multiple occasions.

Because the Athlete failed to respond in February 2024 the AIU finds that she is deemed to have waived her right for a hearing, admitted the anti-doping rule violations and accepted the consequences.

Therefore the AIU decides on 13 February 2024 to impose a 12 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 24 November 2023.

Related case:

IAAF 2019 IAAF vs Sarah Chepchirchir
November 28, 2019

In December 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Sarah Chepchirchir after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone.

Previously the Athlete had served a sanction of 4 years, until 9 February 2023, because of the abnormalities in her Athlete Biological Passport.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The AIU established that this is the Athlete's second anti-doping rule violation and that she failed at all to respond at all or to provide any information to the AIU.

Because of the Athlete's failure to respond within the set deadline the AIU in February 2024 determines that she was deemed to have waived her right to a hearing, to have admitted the anti-doping rule violation and to have accepted the consequences.

Therefor the AIU decides on 13 February 2024 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 22 December 2023.

In June 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kabaddi Athlete Durgesh Kumar after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI). The Athlete denied the use of the prohibited substance and could not explain how it had entered his system.

The Panel finds that the presence of prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 10 January 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 9 June 2023.

In June 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rower Malak Singh after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Mephentermine and Phentermine.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI). The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and could not explain how the substances had entered into his system.

The Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel deems that he failed to demonstrate how these substances had entered his system.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 11 January 2024 to impose a 4 year period of inelgibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 27 June 2023.

In June 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the judoka Mohsin Gulab Ali after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine).

Following 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 denied the intentional use of the substance and he argued that he had succesfully participated in competitions for mayy years. He also had been tested many times without issues.

The Athlete stated that he was involved in an altercation with another athlete and his entourage. After the positive test he alleged that he was the victim of sabotage and that he had filed criminal charges against these persons.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Panel deems that he failed to demonstrate with corroboration evidence that the violation was not intentional, nor grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 10 January 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 June 2023.

In June 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the judoka Rahul Sevta after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Oxandrolone and Stanozolol.

Following 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 denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He could not explain how the substance had entered his system.

He alleged that the source of the prohibited substances were the supplements or food provided by the coaches at the training camp. He further claimed that the meat he consumed in the camp might have been spiked.

The Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substances had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Panel determines that in the camp 9 athletes had been,  tested, of which 3 athletes tested positive. The Athlete himself tested positive for Oxandrolone and Stanozolol, yet the other two athletes for completely other prohibited substances.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate with evidence that the supplements and food in the camp were the source of the prohibited substances. The Panel did not accept his explanations and deems that he had used these substances intentionally.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 21 December 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 June 2023.

In June 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Parathlete Ranjeet Bhati after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone.

Following 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 admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that he had used the substance as prescribed medication and that he was unware of the anti-doping rules and prohibited substances.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. He failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Furthermore the Panel considers that the Athlete had not checked this medication, failed to mention this medication on the Doping Control Form, nor made an application for a TUE. Also he did not show with corroborating evidence that he indeed had informed his doctor that was an athlete subjected to doping control.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 9 January 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 June 2023.

In April 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Sanjeet after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance GW1516.

Following 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 Panel establishes that the Athlete admitted the violation, yet failed to sign and submit the Acceptance of Consequences Form within the set deadline. Further the Panel considers that this is the Athlete's second anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 27 December 2023 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 April 2023.

On 18 March 2023 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Richa Bhadauriya for her evasion of doping control at a competition in August 2022.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI). She requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete denied that she had acted intentionally and stated that she was unaware that she had been selected for sample collection. She explained that at the competition she suffered from her Asthma, left the venue after finishing the race and underwent medical treatment in a hospital.

INADA contended that the Athlete deliberately had evaded doping control. The Agency argued that the Athlete with her Asthma would be unable to perform a 10 km race within 38 minutes.

Furthermore there was no corroborating evidence that she suffered from her Asthma near the finish line. She indeed went to a hospitial, yet not because of her Asthma.

In view of the evidence the Appeal Panel concludes that the Athlete clearly and deliberately had evaded doping control. Also the Panel determines that there were several inconsistencies in the evidence and explanations provided by the Athlete.

Therefore the Appeal Panel decides on 31 January 2024 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal, to uphold the Appealed Decision and to confirm the imposed 4 year period of ineligibility.

In August 2015 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Prednisolone and Prednisone. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substances. She explained with evidence that she underwent medical treatment for her Asthma and that she had used Solupred tablets (Prednisone) prescribed by her doctor.

The AFLD determines that:

• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• She underwent legitimate medical treatment for her condition;
• There was a medical justification for the prescribed substance;
• Her use of the prescribed medication was consistent with the concentration found in her sample;

Therefore the AFLD decides on 3 February 2016 for the acquittal of the Athlete.