British tennis player Tara Moore handed four-year doping ban despite being cleared
The ban has been upheld by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) following an appeal filed by the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA).
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."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Daniel Dubois has transformed into Superman ahead of Oleksandr Usyk rematch at Wembley, writes JEFF POWELL
Daniel Dubois has never been so hard-wired and vociferous at a public work out as he was in the trailer clip of a prelude to Saturday nights sold out Wembley battle with Olkeksandr Usyk for the undisputed heavyweight championship of the world. The Clarke Kent of Dynamite Daniel's younger years has transitioned into Superman. He nigh on flew into the temporary ring in the packed Boxpark fun and booze hub on Wembley Way. He bounced about the canvas like that cat on a hot tin roof and had the crowd a-jumping to his yells of confidence that he will end Usyk's unbeaten reign as the heavyweight of the century. The Ukrainian ring master was buzzing too but used the burst of exercise to re-rehearse in shadow boxing the upward punching he used to great effect in defeating the three British giants; Anthony Joshua twice, Tyson Fury twice and Dubois in their first fight. For Usyk that was enough said. Maybe take it a tad easier on the energy Daniel. There are still two days, a media conference and the weigh in to go before the biggest night of his life.
The Sun
20 minutes ago
- The Sun
BBC's refusal to properly describe Hamas stems from its institutional anti-Israel bias
Beeb's bias EVEN after a run of avoidable scandals, senior BBC execs still don't get it. Yesterday they were dancing on the head of a pin over accepted editorial breaches in its Gaza documentary. 2 Viewers weren't told of any links between a 13-year-old Palestinian child narrator and his Hamas father. But in a video to all staff, the BBC claims the dad was only a member of the 'political wing'. Except it is British government policy that no such distinction exists. And to normal people outside Auntie's bubble, Hamas members are ALL terrorists. The BBC's refusal to properly describe those responsible for the October 7 massacre stems from its seemingly unending institutional anti-Israel bias. Viewers deserve the truth, not squirming excuses. Prevent what? THE Government's anti-terror Prevent strategy already focuses too much on tackling far-right terrorism — despite Islamists posing a greater threat. Now a report says it is also failing to deal with suspects fixated on violence because their views don't fit into any recognised terror ideology. 2 Southport monster Axel Rudakubana had repeatedly searched online for shootings, terror attacks and Gaza war videos. But despite three referrals, Prevent did nothing because he wasn't deemed a terrorist. Three little girls died. Ali Harbi Ali, who murdered MP David Amess, was let go after one session and described as a 'great person.' Those obsessed with extreme violence shouldn't need an ideological label attached to them before they're stopped. The clue to Prevent's role is in its name. Keep It Down WE hope the Chancellor took note of the fact that the painful inflation spike was caused in part by rising fuel prices. It's why Rachel Reeves should rule out any idea of ending the fuel duty freeze. That would only clobber the hard-working people the Government insists it wants to protect. The Sun's 15-year Keep It Down campaign has saved Brits almost £100billion which has been ploughed back into the economy by grateful motorists. Helping drivers also helps to drive growth, Chancellor. Whip round WE welcome Keir Starmer getting tough and suspending self-indulgent leftie MP s. It's just a pity he didn't act before their fantasy student politics derailed welfare reforms and cost the country £5billion. That dithering means we all now face paying more tax.
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Thanks for saving us, now we'll sue you: Afghan data disaster takes bleakly predictable twist as ambulance-chasing lawyers cash in
Taxpayers face a potential £1billion bill as law firms race to cash in following the Afghan data disaster. Legal companies have begun signing up thousands of claimants who could, it is claimed, pocket up to £250,000 each in compensation. The Government admitted 100,000 Afghans had been left 'at risk of death' from the Taliban by a catastrophic leak of a database of those who had applied to the UK for sanctuary. There were fears it would be used as a 'kill list'. As exclusively discovered by the Daily Mail, but kept hidden by a super- injunction, ministers launched one of the biggest peacetime evacuations in modern British history to rescue thousands and airlift them here in secret. Last October, ministers in charge of the scheme agreed to spend £7billion, with taxpayers neither asked nor told, the High Court heard. Now the compensation bonanza could send costs soaring as law firms plan class action court cases for damages. The floodgates will also open to thousands of legal challenges on behalf of Afghans previously refused sanctuary in Britain, lawyers believe. The Mail has established Manchester-based Barings Law intends to carve off 25 per cent of the value of each successful claim and hopes to bank in excess of £100million. The huge potential bounty for the law firm is an industry standard figure and is capped under UK law. Barings has already signed up approaching 1,000 Afghans included on the database, according to a legal source. Tonight Adnan Malik, the firm's head of data protection, insisted: 'This is about more than just money. 'It is about accountability. Barings Law is giving a voice to people who have lost their homes, livelihoods and liberties as a result of this debacle.' The Ministry of Defence has vowed to 'fight hard' any compensation claims from Afghans. The data blunder happened when a British soldier accidentally emailed out a database with details of 18,800 people who had applied to a UK scheme to reward loyal Afghans who had worked with UK forces or officials and now feared reprisals from the Taliban. British military and government officials were also named on the database, which has been seen by the Mail. Today, commons defence committee chairman Tan Dhesi MP told the BBC: 'This email could be one of the most costly email blunders in history'. The Government is facing mounting pressure to explain its unprecedented super-injunction – which meant for two years Mail journalists faced jail if they breathed a word of the scandal. Prime Minister Keir Starmer was today said to be 'angry' when he discovered the programme – and the secrecy around it – on taking power. Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, meanwhile, said the whole episode 'raises significant constitutional issues' after MPs were also kept completely in the dark. Two Parliamentary probes were launched today, after the super-injunction was lifted after 683 days enabling the Daily Mail to finally reveal its astonishing exclusive story. Cloaked by the news blackout, the ministers' secret resettlement scheme has seen thousands smuggled out of Afghanistan and flown to Britain at vast cost. Every few weeks, unmarked government charter planes are landing at airports including Stansted and RAF Brize Norton packed with hundreds of Afghans. So far 18,500 Afghans whose data was breached have been flown to Britain or are on their way in taxpayer-funded jets. A total of 23,900 are earmarked for arrival. The MoD said some of them would have come anyway regardless of the data leak. But those whose personal details were breached can expect to win damages. The Mail has seen a WhatsApp message being widely circulated around Afghanistan, Pakistan and the UK encouraging people to sign up to claims against the MoD being brought by Barings. Specialists have been drawing up scales for case values, based on a claimant's whereabouts, the extent of the data breach and the threat to their lives. Mr Malik said: 'We have a long history of successfully pursuing data breach cases. This is perhaps our most significant to date. The victims have been exposed to not just financial harm, but the real threat of violence and death. 'In some cases, these threats have been tragically carried out.' He added: 'We would expect sums upwards of five figures for each person affected.' Some claims are anticipated to be substantially higher, and once the Government's costs accrued in processing the claims are included, the overall exposure to taxpayers is put at be between £500million and £1billion. Claimants can apply for compensation on the basis of a threat to their livelihood, even if they have moved to Britain. This is because they could claim they face reprisals from the Afghan community in this country. Other companies expected to join the race include Leigh Day, a firm known for helping hundreds of Afghans in other cases. The data leak also means a previous decision to turn down an Afghan's application could be appealed, which could lead to years of further legal challenges. The Mail already knows of several cases where a rejected Afghan mounted a legal challenge only for ministers to mysteriously, and suddenly, concede the case without giving a reason why – the suspicion being that the Government secretly knew that the Afghan concerned was on the dataset. Lawyers are set to mount a series of legal challenges known as Judicial Reviews. The first, they say, is likely to be against the Government's closure earlier this month of the flagship Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy without warning. They will claim the scheme was 'cynically closed' just days before the data leak was revealed – to prevent an expected 'deluge' of fresh relocation applications. Thousands have been rejected for ARAP and the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme, which has also closed. Lawyers say they will review all the rejections. A spokesman for the MoD said tonight: 'We will do everything possible to defend against any compensation claims. 'We have taken appropriate action in line with the level of risk these individuals faced. Any claims we do get, we will fight them hard.'
