Case Number: 2017-005
Athlete Name: Moeno Nakamura
Sport: Athletics
Based on the decision of the Japan Anti-Doping Agency (JADA) Hearing Panel, the Disciplinary Panel has made the following ruling in the case described below.
Hearing Panel Decision
The JADA Hearing Panel is comprised of members selected by the Disciplinary Panel chairperson in accordance with JADA Rule 8.3.2. In the case in question, the Hearing Panel made the recommendations below based on a hearing session held on May 30, 2018, and on supplementary evidentiary documentation received thereafter.
Decision
- A violation of Rule 2.1 was found to have occurred.
- In accordance with Rules 9 and 10.8, all individual results from the period covering the date the testing sample was taken and the beginning of the provisional suspension period, including those at the 37th National Corporate Women's Ekiden, will be annulled. Additionally, all medals, points, prizes and money won during that period will be forfeited.
- In accordance with Rules 10.2.2, 10.5.2 and 10.11.2, the athlete will be suspended from competition for 1 year and 3 months beginning on November 26, 2017.
Reasons for Decision
- In an in-competition test on November 26, 2017 the sample obtained from the athlete returned a positive result for the presence of metenolone and its metabolites, both listed as prohibited substances (an anabolic steroid as defined in Rule S1.1.a) in the 2017 WADA list of prohibited substances and methods. This substance is defined as a prohibited substance under Rule 2.1. The athlete did not request B sample testing or appeal the finding at the preliminary hearing session.
- The athlete was found to have violated Rule 2.1 (presence of a prohibited substance, its metabolites or markers in a sample obtained from an athlete). We feel that this constitutes a reasonable justification for the annulment of all the athlete's competition results (including those at the 37th National Corporate Women's Ekiden) from the date of testing to the beginning of the provisional suspension period under Rules 9 and 10.8, as well as the loss of all medals, points, prizes and money won during that period.
- Although the substance detected is prohibited, it is not specifically included in the published list of prohibited substances. Regarding this, taking into account the testimony by JADA representatives and the athlete, as well as documentation submitted by the athlete's representative (the athlete's statement submitted May 25, 2018 and supplementary documentation submitted on June 12, 2018 following the hearing) and documentation submitted by JADA (the doping control form, JADA TUE committee determination form, the athlete's TUE application form), as per the purpose of this committee we find the following facts:
- The metenolone and its metabolites detected in this case were ingredients included in a 100 mg Premobolan-Depot intramuscular injection that the athlete received following surgery she underwent for a gynecological condition two months before the date of competition. On this point, the athlete stated that the injection was a standard treatment following the type of surgery she underwent, that she only received the injection once following the surgery, that as such it did not constitute deliberate usage of a prohibited substance as defined in Rule 10.2.3, and that these facts can be rationally determined by the supporting related evidence.
- At the same time, the athlete admits that when she underwent the surgery and treatment she did not inform her doctor that she was an athlete who may be subject to anti-doping testing, and that when she received the injection she did not ask if it included prohibited substances. It is ultimately the athlete's responsibility to prevent the introduction of prohibited substances to their body, to choose a doctor who is reliable in an anti-doping context, and to actively determine whether any treatment includes prohibited substances if the athlete does not inform a doctor that they are an athlete subject to anti-doping testing. On this point the athlete said that she never received any training, education, printed material or informational sessions on anti-doping or preventing unintentional positive tests from her coach or corporate team management, that despite having competed in various national-level events she never received any instruction regarding anti-doping or received information that there were anti-doping seminars organized by outside organizations, and was never told that she had the opportunity to attend such seminars or received information on how to attend them. However, the athlete is a high-level adult competitor with a 16-year competitive career and has previously experienced two anti-doping tests. Therefore the athlete should be reasonably expected to have a sufficient understanding of anti-doping regulations at least to the level of knowing that it is her obligation to inform her doctor that she may be subject to anti-doping testing. As a result, we cannot say that the athlete bears no fault for the usage of a prohibited substance during the process of a medical treatment.
- On the other hand, there are circumstances to be considered in establishing the relationship between how the athlete wound up taking a prohibited substance and the degree of fault to be assigned.
- The athlete did not inform her doctor that she was an athlete subject to anti-doping testing because of embarrassment over her condition and its symptoms, the desire to keep others from knowing that she was consulting a gynecologist, and the fear that telling her doctor she was an athlete would lead to her being identified as a well-known track and field athlete with a famous local team. The team to which she belonged had a regular medical staff, but because of those doctors' areas of professional expertise she instead opted to go to the gynecological clinic mentioned above.
- The injection that was the direct cause of the athlete's intake of a prohibited substance was, as previously mentioned, performed as part of post-surgical treatment for a gynecological condition. This treatment itself is a standard method at this clinic following this variety of surgery and the athlete did not actively select its usage. At the time of the surgery there was no explanation by the clinic that the injection would be performed following the surgery. When the injection was being performed, the athlete was told that it was a normal, standard treatment done to accelerate the healing process for the surgical incision, and the injection itself was completed almost immediately. At the point in time of the injection the athlete's level of understanding of anti-doping issues was that you have to be careful with energy drinks, for example, because there was no way to guarantee what might be in them, but that medicine prescribed by a doctor is safe. This injection took place two months before the competition for purposes of legitimate treatment and was not taken orally, so the athlete never considered the possibility that she may have taken in a prohibited substance via the injection.
- The athlete did not inform her coach or team management about her condition, but considering the nature of the condition her wish to maintain her privacy about obtaining treatment for it is understandable, and the entire series of events surrounding this "omission" cannot be considered a serious violation.
- Considering the above circumstances and the fact that this was the athlete's first violation, based on Rule 10.5.2 and the comprehensive examination of the athlete's degree of fault above, we find that it is appropriate to suspend the athlete from competition for 1 year and 3 months.
- In this case, under Rule 7.9.1 the athlete was provisionally suspended by JADA effective January 12, 2018 (the hearing regarding this provisional suspension was held May 30, 2018). However, because the athlete admitted that she had taken the prohibited substance at the time she was initially informed of her adverse test result and JADA did not appeal, under Rule 10.11.2 the date the sample was taken, November 26, 2017, was set as the start date for the athlete's suspension.
The decision detailed was reached based on the details presented above.
source article:
https://www.playtruejapan.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/3ba9b0c270e888bce6bd24208fdb9926.pdf
translated by Mika Tokairin
Comments