The International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) today confirms that 22-year-old Chilean tennis player Felipe Hernández has been banned from the sport for three years after accepting a charge under the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP).
Hernández, who had an ATP Singles ranking of 1179 at the time of the test, provided a sample whilst competing at the WTT M15 tournament in Ecuador in June 2022. Subsequent analysis found that the sample contained Nandrolone and its metabolites, which were prohibited substances listed in the 2022 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List. The player was sent a pre-charge notice on 23 August 2022.
In December 2022, the player admitted to both presence and use / attempted use of Nandrolone and therefore breaches of Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the 2022 TADP.
TADP Article 10.2.1 specifies that a TADP Article 2.1 or 2.2 violation that is 'intentional' and is a first offence attracts a mandatory four-year ban. However, TADP Article 10.8.1 provides for a one-year reduction based on admission and acceptance of a sanction and the ITIA determined that the player should be subject to a three-year period of ineligibility. This is backdated to the date of the player’s provisional suspension, 22 July 2022 and will expire on 21 July 2025 (subject to the player meeting the testing requirements to return).
The ITIA is the delegated third party, under the World Anti-Doping Code, of the International Tennis Federation, the international governing body for the sport of tennis and signatory of the Code. The ITIA is responsible for the management and administration of anti-doping across professional tennis in accordance with the TADP.
End
Notes to editors:
The sections of the TADP that the player has been charged with are:
2.1 The presence of a Prohibited Substance or any of its Metabolites or Markers in a Player's Sample, unless the Player establishes that such presence is consistent with a TUE granted in accordance with Article 4.4.
2.1.1 It is each Player's personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their body. Players are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or any of its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary to demonstrate intent, Fault, Negligence, or knowing Use on the Player's part in order to establish an Article 2.1 Anti-Doping Rule Violation; nor is the Player's lack of intent, Fault, Negligence or knowledge a defence to an assertion that an Article 2.1 Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been committed.
2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.1 is established by any of the following: (a) the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the Player's A Sample where the Player waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analysed; or (b) where analysis of the Player's B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the Player's A Sample; or (c) where the Player's A or B Sample is split into two parts, the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the first part of the split Sample and the Player waives analysis of the confirmation part of the split Sample or analysis of the confirmation part of the split Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the first part of the split Sample.
2.1.3 Excepting those substances for which a Decision Limit is specifically identified in the Prohibited List or a Technical Document, the presence of any reported quantity of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Player's Sample constitutes an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.1, unless the Player establishes that such presence is consistent with a TUE granted in accordance with Article 4.4.
2.1.4 As an exception to the general rule of Article 2.1, the Prohibited List, International Standards or Technical Documents may establish special criteria for reporting or the evaluation of certain Prohibited Substances.
2.2 Use or Attempted Use by a Player of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method, unless the Player establishes that such Use or Attempted Use is consistent with a TUE granted in accordance with Article 4.4.
2.2.1 It is each Player's personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their body and that no Prohibited Method is Used. Accordingly, it is not necessary to demonstrate intent, Fault, Negligence, or knowing Use on the Player's part in order to establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method under Article 2.2; nor is the Player's lack of intent, Fault, Negligence or knowledge a defence to a charge that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation of Use has been committed under Article 2.2.
2.2.2 It is necessary to demonstrate intent on the Player's part in order to establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation of Attempted Use.
2.2.3 The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not material. For an Article 2.2 Anti-Doping Rule Violation to be committed, it is sufficient that the Player Used or Attempted to Use the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.
2.2.4 Out-of-Competition Use of a Prohibited Substance that is only prohibited In-Competition is not an Article 2.2 Anti-Doping Rule Violation. However, if that substance (or any of its Metabolites or Markers) is still present in a Sample collected In-Competition, that is an Article 2.1 Anti-Doping Rule Violation.
EDITED 6 JANUARY 2023 - Amended to remove an erroneous mention of the player's provisional suspension in relation to the charge letter.
Published 05 January 2023 18:00
