British tennis star hit with a FOUR-YEAR ban for doping - 18 months after being cleared by an independent tribunal for eating contaminated meat
The 32-year-old was first sanctioned three years ago after banned substances nandrolone and boldenone were found in positive tests Moore underwent during a tournament in Bogota, Colombia in April 2022.
After receiving an immediate ban following month, Moore - a former British No1 doubles player - was forced to wait for 19 months for the tribunal to rule that the anabolic steroids had entered her bloodstream via contaminated meats eaten in the days before her initial urine test.
Moore shared a heartfelt statement in the wake of the decision as she decried the '19 months of lost time' that waiting for the hearing's verdict that she 'bore no fault or negligence' had stolen from her.
Since returning to the tour in April 2024, Moore has frequently spoken out against what she believed was preferential treatment shown to Iga Swiatek, who was handed a one-month suspension after she tested positive for trimetazidine via contaminated melatonin.
But Moore will now face an extended spell on the sidelines which could bring a premature end to her career after the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld the International Tennis Integrity Agency's appeal into the initial hearing verdict.
'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,' a Cas statement read.
'The panel concluded that Ms Moore failed to establish that the ADRV (Anti-Doping Rule Violation) was not intentional. The appeal by the ITIA is therefore upheld and the decision rendered by the Independent Tribunal is set aside.'
Moore's second suspension will be effective immediately, but reduced to 19 months due to previous time served.
The verdict from Cas' March hearing into the appeal now means that the British player will be unable to return to competition until the start of the 2028 season.
ITIA chief executive Karen Moorhouse stressed that the decision to appeal the initial verdict was 'not taken lightly'.
'In this case, our independent scientific advice was that the player did not adequately explain the high level of nandrolone present in their sample,' she continued. 'Today's ruling is consistent with this position.
'We understand that players and their support teams may have questions about this decision, and we will answer these fully once we have reviewed the details of the ruling.'
Moore is believed to have filed a cross-appeal at Cas in a bid to dismiss the ITIA appeal, but this was declared inadmissible by the Swiss court.
Moore's 'no fault or negligence' verdict is not without precedent, with Colombian doubles star Robert Farah successfully arguing that he had been contaminated by meat eaten in his home country after returning a positive result for boldenone.
But Moore's second verdict will continue to keep anti-doping measures and the process of handling doping cases at the top of the tennis agenda after months of debate around both Swiatek and world No1 Jannik Sinner's positive tests.
Sinner was handed a three-month suspension earlier this year after the World Anti-Doping Agency appealed the initial verdict that Sinner bore 'no fault or negligence' after clostebol entered his body via a cut on the hand of his physio that had been treated with the banned substance.
Debate swirled over the perceived leniency of his punishment, which for Sinner to return in time to compete at the French Open - where he reached the final - without missing any Grand Slam tournaments.
Swiatek was similarly subject to debate over special treatment after the former world No1 was handed her month-long suspension in November 2024 - having competed in tournaments after August's positive test.
Both Sinner and Swiatek were victorious in SW19 last weekend, with the Italian claiming his first Wimbledon Championship and Swiatek her sixth Grand Slam title.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
Two former traders have rate rigging convictions quashed at Supreme Court
Two financial market traders who were jailed for manipulating benchmark interest rates have had their convictions quashed at the Supreme Court. Former Citigroup and UBS trader Tom Hayes was found guilty of multiple counts of conspiracy to defraud over manipulating the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (Libor) between 2006 and 2010. Carlo Palombo, ex-vice president of euro rates at Barclays bank, was found guilty of conspiring with others to submit false or misleading Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor) submissions between 2005 and 2009. The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals from both men in March last year. They then took their cases to the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the panel of five justices found there was 'ample evidence' for a jury to convict the two men had it been properly directed, but they had not. In an 82-page judgment, with which Supreme Court president Lord Reed, Lords Hodge and Lloyd-Jones and Lady Simler agreed, Lord Leggatt said: 'That misdirection undermined the fairness of the trial.' The jury direction errors made both convictions unsafe, Lord Leggatt said. He added: 'Mr Hayes was entitled to have his defence to the allegation that he agreed to procure false submissions as well as his denial that he had acted dishonestly left fairly to the jury. 'He was deprived of that opportunity by directions which were legally inaccurate and unfair. 'It is not possible to say that, if the jury had been properly directed, they would have been bound to return verdicts of guilty. 'The convictions are therefore unsafe and cannot stand.' Mr Hayes was jailed for 14 years after his conviction in 2015, which was later lowered to 11 years after an appeal, while Mr Palombo was jailed for four years in 2019. Lord Leggatt continued: 'When the flaws in the directions given at Mr Palombo's trial are considered in combination, it cannot safely be assumed that, without them, the jury would still have been bound to convict Mr Palombo. 'Thus, his conviction also cannot stand.' He added: 'Accordingly, both appeals should be allowed.' The Libor rate was previously used as a reference point around the world for setting millions of pounds worth of financial deals, including car loans and mortgages. It was an interest rate average calculated from figures submitted by a panel of leading banks in London, with each one reporting what it would be charged were it to borrow from other institutions. Euribor was created along with the euro currency in 1999 as a benchmark rate of interest for transactions in euros. In 2012, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) began criminal investigations into traders it suspected of manipulating Libor and Euribor. Mr Hayes was the first person to be prosecuted by the SFO, who opposed his and Mr Palombo's appeals at the Supreme Court. The SFO brought prosecutions against 20 individuals between 2013 and 2019, seven of whom were convicted at trial, two pleaded guilty and 11 were acquitted. Mr Hayes had also been facing criminal charges in the United States but these were dismissed after two other men involved in a similar case had their convictions reversed in 2022.
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
Traders found guilty of rigging interest rates have convictions quashed by Supreme Court
Former financial market traders Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, who were found guilty of benchmark interest rate rigging, have had their convictions quashed at the Supreme Court. Former Citigroup and UBS trader Tom Hayes was found guilty of multiple counts of conspiracy to defraud over manipulating the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (Libor) between 2006 and 2010. Carlo Palombo, the ex-vice president of euro rates at Barclays bank, was found guilty of conspiring with others to submit false or misleading Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor) submissions between 2005 and 2009. After the Court of Appeal dismissed appeals from both men in March 2024, they took their cases to the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the panel of five justices found there was 'ample evidence' for a jury to convict the two men had it been properly directed – but they had not. In an 82-page judgment, with which Supreme Court president Lord Reed, Lords Hodge and Lloyd-Jones and Lady Simler agreed, Lord Leggatt said: 'That misdirection undermined the fairness of the trial.' The jury direction errors made both convictions unsafe, Lord Leggatt said. He added: 'Mr Hayes was entitled to have his defence to the allegation that he agreed to procure false submissions as well as his denial that he had acted dishonestly left fairly to the jury. 'He was deprived of that opportunity by directions which were legally inaccurate and unfair. 'It is not possible to say that, if the jury had been properly directed, they would have been bound to return verdicts of guilty. 'The convictions are therefore unsafe and cannot stand.' Mr Hayes was jailed for 14 years after his conviction in 2015, which was later lowered to 11 years after an appeal, while Mr Palombo was jailed for four years in 2019. Lord Leggatt continued: 'When the flaws in the directions given at Mr Palombo's trial are considered in combination, it cannot safely be assumed that, without them, the jury would still have been bound to convict Mr Palombo. 'Thus, his conviction also cannot stand.' He added: 'Accordingly, both appeals should be allowed.' A spokesperson for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) said it would not be seeking a retrial. In a statement issued after the judgment, it said: 'Our investigation led to nine convictions of senior bankers for fraud offences, with two of these individuals pleading guilty and seven found guilty by juries. 'This judgment has determined that the legal directions given to the jury at the conclusion of trial were incorrect in Hayes' and Palombo's trials and for that reason their convictions have today been found unsafe. 'We have considered this judgment and the full circumstances carefully and determined it would not be in the public interest for us to seek a retrial.' The investigations The Libor rate was previously used as a reference point around the world for setting millions of pounds worth of financial deals, including car loans and mortgages. It was an interest rate average calculated from figures submitted by a panel of leading banks in London, with each one reporting what it would be charged were it to borrow from other institutions. Euribor was created along with the euro currency in 1999 as a benchmark rate of interest for transactions in euros. In 2012, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) began criminal investigations into traders it suspected of manipulating Libor and Euribor. Mr Hayes was the first person to be prosecuted by the SFO, which opposed his and Mr Palombo's appeals at the Supreme Court. The SFO brought prosecutions against 20 individuals between 2013 and 2019, seven of whom were convicted at trial, two pleaded guilty and 11 were acquitted. Mr Hayes had also been facing criminal charges in the United States but these were dismissed after two other men involved in a similar case had their convictions reversed in 2022.
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
British families of Air India crash victims ‘received wrong bodies' in bungled repatriation
Grieving British families of the Air India crash victims have received the wrong bodies to bury in a bungled repatriation scheme. A lawyer acting for the bereaved said that the remains of several victims had been wrongly identified, with one family forced to abandon funeral plans after allegedly being told the coffin contained a different, unidentified body. Only one passenger survived when the Air India flight 171 lost power and crashed into a building, seconds after departing Ahmedabad for London Gatwick. Cockpit audio recovered from the flight recorders shows the plane's junior first officer, Clive Kunder, asking its captain, Sumeet Sabharwal, why he had flipped the switches, starving the engines of fuel, according to a number of international media reports citing sources in the investigation. Of the 261 passengers and crew members who died, 52 were Britons. James Healy-Pratt, a lawyer representing several British families, said that the remains of at least 12 British victims had been repatriated. He told the Daily Mail: 'I've been sitting down in the homes of these lovely British families over the last month, and the first thing they want is their loved ones back. But some of them have got the wrong remains and they are clearly distraught over this. 'It has been going on for a couple of weeks and I think these families deserve an explanation.' In another instance, it has been reported that the remains of more than one person were put into a single coffin, and had to be separated before the funeral. Many of those killed were buried or cremated shortly afterwards in line with Hindu, Muslim and other religious customs. Due to the nature of the crash, which saw temperatures reach 1,500C as a large fireball engulfed the area, many of the victims had been burnt beyond recognition. This meant that many families received their loved one's remains from the Civil Hospital in a plastic container, after being asked to supply DNA samples to help with the identification process. However, the mishandling of repatriations was only uncovered when Dr Fiona Wilcox, the senior coroner for inner west London, sought to verify their identities by matching them with DNA from their families. Mr Healy-Pratt continued: 'If [it] isn't their relative, the question is, who is it in that coffin? Presumably, it's another passenger, and their relatives have been given the wrong remains. 'The coroner also has a problem because she has an unidentified person in her jurisdiction.' As a result, Sir Keir Starmer is expected to raise concerns over the errors during a meeting with his Indian counterpart, Narendra Modi, during his state visit to the UK this week.
