1. THE ANTI-DOPING RULES

The rules of the International Judo Federation (the ?IJF?) concerning doping are clear. The list of substances and procedures forbidden by the IJF is identical with the one drawn up by the Medical Commission and regularly sent to all international and continental sports federations.

The checks are normally carried out on the urine of the competitor.

Generally, according to the Anti-Doping Rules of the World Anti-Doping Code, it is each athlete?s personal duty to ensure that no prohibited susbstance enters his body or fluids. Athletes are warned that they are responsible for any prohibited substance found to be present in their bodies. It is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on an athlete?s part be demonstrated in order to establish and anti-doping rule violation.

On the other hand, the Anti Doping Rules of the IJF provide that if a person is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation and this is a first infraction, he shall have to return his medal and any other prize received and he shall also be suspended by the IJF for 24 months starting at the date the sample of urine has been taken from the competitor.

The Rules of the Mauritius Judo Federation and Allied Disciplines also provide for a ban from competitions for a period of not less than two years in cases where the result of doping test reveals that the Judoka has used a prohibited substance.

2. Ms Dolly Namaseevayen understands the purpose of anti-doping control and is aware that the use of prohibited substances leads to sanctions and disqualification. She does not challenge the findings of the test and has signified her acceptance of the results in writing. In accordance with the anti-doping rules and her own testimony, we are of the view that she has to bear the full responsability of the presence of furosemide in her urine, even though, in contracdiction to her above accptance, she denies voluntary consumption of the said substance, and tries to impute the blame on the medication given to her by her mother.

3. Furosemide, the prohibited product which has been detected in her urine, is a diuretic; in other words, it increases the passage of the urine. It is used in condition related to hypertension, oedemas (swelling) following congestive cardiac failure and renal insufficiency.

In the normal subject

(i) It leads to a transient loss of weight through forced fluid depletion.

(ii) The excess urine furthermore causes the dilution of any toxic products which are generally eliminated by the body through the kidneys. These which might have been detectable at high urine concentration, become traces under high urine production and diilution. Consequently toxic banned products may go undetected being masked by furosemide action.

4. In this particular case, we have noted that the athlete?s weight has been oscillating from 66 kg before her departure from Mauritius for the training in France in late November to 62.8 kg, 62.3 kg and 62.5 kg, prior to competition. Her weight was therefore dangerously near to her category maximum weight of 63 kg, above which she would be disqualified.

We are satisfied that Miss Namaseevayen was well acquainted with the effects of furosemide. After claiming ignorance of its effects intially, she literally proceeded to lecture the Committee on the use of the prohibited substance by other athletes with a view to control their weight.

5. She went even further, stating that in the heat of Niamey, the prohibited substance would dehydrate an athlete far too much, thus outlining once again that she was perfectly aware of its properties.

6. She also knew that any medication taken by an athlete should be disclosed to the relevant authorities in writing prior to the anti-dope test check. However when she presented herself for the said test check, accompanied by Delegation Cheif Gaëtan Janvier, she chose to divulge only the use of anti-inflammatory agents and vitamin supplements.

7. She informed the Committee that for a medical condition of heavy periods, she had been taking two tablets of lutenyl three times a day, since at least 4 December 2005 and up to 17 December 2005. This amounts to a total of six tablets per day for a period of fourteen days. These had been allegedly given to her by her mother for whom they had been prescribed. She did not disclose lutenyl at the anti-dope test check, and when questioned by the Committee as to why she had refrained from doing so, she declined to answer. Now, lutenyl (nomegestrol acetate) is a steroid derivative indicated for premenopausal and menopausal conditions. If taken in the doses alleged by Miss Namaseevayen, it would have necessarily been detected at urinalysis during the anti-dope test check with additional doping complications.

8. Although Miss Namaseevayen found in lutenyl a convenient excuse, unfortunately for her, lutenyl ingestion cannot scientifically justify a positive furosemide result.

Her defence of lutenyl treatment linked to a positive furosemide result is consequently rejected.

9. Miss Namaseevayen is cetainly a promising athlete with a future. Unfortunately she has failed to live up the country?s expectations. Whatever way we look at it, a positive result in an anti-dope test check casts a slur on both the relevant sport discipline and sport in general in Mauritius.

Consequently, we recommend that Miss Dolly Namaseevayen be disqualified from participating in all activities organised by the National Judo Federation and Allied Disciplines by the International Judo Federation for a period of not less than two years with effect from 9 December 2005, notwithstanding the application of other measures that are provided for in the rules of the association for the practical application of the sanction.

10. Furthermore, the Committee views with great concern the allegation made by Miss Namaseevayen to the effect that ther are several athletes in her field who were taking furosemide for weight control.

The National coach Mr Mounawah conceded that there were certain lacunae in information dissemination among his athletes concerning prescribed drugs/medication. We suggest some from of remedial at the judo federation level in this matter.

Finally, we wish to express our thanks and appreciation to the Mauritius Judo Federation for the way in which they have handled this matter.

Dated 11th day of January 2006.