The Anti-Doping Infringement Commission on 8 February this year. I. Adomavičiūtė was awarded a two-year disqualification.
Its period shall run from 2020. September 15, when temporary exclusion was initiated following a positive doping test. This decision canceled all the results of the rower’s competition from sampling to temporary suspension of the athlete.
The banned athlete’s body was found to have a banned drug, hygiene. Its content in the rower’s body was twice the allowable level. Hygiene is a natural stimulant found in either stimulant supplements or supplements for weight loss.
“Any party to the proceedings who considers that a decision at first instance has been rendered incorrectly shall have the right to appeal to the International Court of Arbitration for Sport.
The CAS case will be substantially re-examined. Therefore, both the athlete and the Lithuanian Anti-Doping Agency can provide new evidence in the case, which will be taken into account, says Rūta Banytė, Director of the Lithuanian Anti-Doping Agency. – The Agency made every effort to explain to the athlete how the banned substance, hygiene, was formed in her body.
The agency itself initiated a meeting with the rower to find out how the hygiene got into the body. She did not specify any supplement in the Doping Control Form, although she had such an obligation. Only later did the athlete provide many of the supplements she was taking or could have taken before testing.
There have also been supplements or medications that have been written in Thai and their composition is completely unknown. It is the Athlete’s responsibility to identify the source and the Athlete’s statement that I do not know how the Prohibited Substance entered the body is not considered a valid argument.
Only if the Athlete proves that the substance came from food or supplements will the extent of the Athlete’s negligence and fault be determined. These circumstances may vary the duration of the disqualification, but not the fact of the disqualification itself. ‘
I. Adomavičiūtė’s trial lasted as long as 5 months. The athlete herself asked for the deadline to be postponed as she waited for the supplements she had indicated to be examined and she could prepare properly for the hearing. The Anti-Doping Infringement Commission granted the rower’s request.
The defensive position of the athlete and her representatives was that the prohibited drug hygiene entered the body together with food or supplements. However, no prohibited substances were found in the supplements, food or tea that were being studied.
“The athlete claims that the decision made is wrong and the two-year disqualification is too severe because she did not intentionally use anything prohibited. We want to emphasize that the Agency did not intentionally blame her. If intentional guilt were proved, I. Adomavičiūtė would face even 4 years of disqualification.
The decision was made on the basis of the Anti-Doping Rules Code and CAS practice, as it did not indicate the source of how the Prohibited Substances entered its body, R. Banytė claims. – The Agency helped as much as possible both the athlete to explain where the substance could be banned. It was claimed that the positive doping test was due to a Chinese dish eaten because the hygiene was found in a wild ginger.
The agency contacted the restaurant and received an assurance that the suppliers of wild ginger do not even transport it to Lithuania and the usual ginger is added to the dishes. In addition, there is no scientific evidence that doping can be tested positive after eating food. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has confirmed to us that supplements, but not food, are commonly contaminated with hygiene. “
WADA on the possibility for athletes to use various herbal creams, balms or the like through negligence. to obtain a positive doping control result with hygiene, raised the tolerance limit for hygiene to 10 ng / mL. This helps athletes avoid the risk of obtaining a positive doping control test when using certain products. The laboratory does not even report the presence of hygiene and this is not a positive doping control result if its concentration is less than 10 ng / mL.
“During the meeting, both I. Adomavičiūtė and the doctor working with her stated that all the supplements used by the rower were combined with him and bought in the specified specialized store. However, when asked about the specific supplements that were listed, the doctor replied that the use of some supplements was still not coordinated with it.
It also turned out that some of the supplements listed do not even sell. Some of the supplements from the specified store were sent to the laboratory for testing on the initiative of the athlete, but no traces of hygiene were found in them, – says the director of the Lithuanian Anti-Doping Agency. – The obligation to indicate the source lies with the Athlete.
Neither the Code nor the case law of the International Court of Arbitration for Sport says that most athletes say “I don’t know how the substance got into the body” is considered a justifiable argument for reducing the sentence.
If the athlete had proved on a more probable basis that the substance was due to food, supplements or other, then it was possible to consider the absence of guilt or negligence and therefore reduce the sentence. The athlete did not prove this to the commission and the commission made such a decision. “