Britain's Moore handed four-year ban after CAS upholds ITIA appeal

CNA

a day ago

Britain's Tara Moore, who was previously cleared of an anti-doping rule violation, was handed a four-year ban on Tuesday after the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld an appeal filed by the International Tennis Integrity Agency.
Moore, Britain's former number one-ranked doubles player, was provisionally suspended in June 2022 due to the presence of prohibited anabolic steroids Nandrolone and boldenone.
Moore said she had never knowingly taken a banned substance in her career and an independent tribunal determined that contaminated meat consumed by her in the days before sample collection was the source of the prohibited substance.
Moore lost 19 months in the process before she was cleared of the ADRV but CAS upheld the ITIA's appeal against the first instance "No Fault or Negligence" ruling with respect to nandrolone.
"After reviewing the scientific and legal evidence, the majority of the CAS Panel considered that the player did not succeed in proving that the concentration of nandrolone in her sample was consistent with the ingestion of contaminated meat," CAS said in a statement.
"The panel concluded that Ms Moore failed to establish that the ADRV was not intentional. The appeal by the ITIA is therefore upheld and the decision rendered by the Independent Tribunal is set aside."
Moore had previously said how she saw her reputation, ranking and livelihood "slowly trickling away" for 19 months during her initial suspension.
The 32-year-old had also filed a cross-appeal at CAS "seeking to dismiss the ITIA appeal, dismiss the nandrolone result in the ADRV or alternatively confirm that she bears no fault or negligence".
However, CAS said the cross-appeal was declared inadmissible and her four-year period of ineligibility would start from July 15, with credit for any provisional suspension that has already been served.
"Our bar for appealing a first instance decision is high, and the decision is not taken lightly," ITIA CEO Karen Moorhouse said in a statement.
"In this case, our independent scientific advice was that the player did not adequately explain the high level of nandrolone present in their sample. Today's ruling is consistent with this position."