News 6th October 2021

Nesta Carter to answer AAF at 14 October hearing

Nesta Carter’s lawyer has confirmed to The Sports Integrity Initiative that the Jamaican sprinter has returned an adverse analytical finding (AAF – or ‘positive test’) for an unnamed prohibited substance. Carter will attend a hearing on 14 October, where the Jamaican Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) will consider Carter’s explanation for his AAF, and will decide whether to charge him with a second anti-doping rule violation (ADRV). 

In January 2017, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) disqualified the Jamaican 4x100m team’s Beijing 2008 Gold Medals, after reanalysis of Carter’s sample returned an AAF for methylhexanamine. Carter didn’t accept the AAF, and argued that its source could have been the supplements he indicated on the 2008 Doping Control Form (DCF): Cell Tech and Nitro Tech. Cell Tech doesn’t feature methylhexanamine in its list of ingredients; nor does Nitro Tech. 

The IOC Decision (PDF below) mentioned that Carter couldn’t prove the source of his AAF. This is hardly surprising, given that the IOC’s 2016 reanalysis related to a test taken eight years earlier. It also emerged that the reason the Beijing Laboratory didn’t detect methylhexanamine was because it hadn’t been searching for it, as it didn’t specifically feature on the 2008 Prohibited List. It was not specifically named until the 2010 Prohibited List was issued, two years after Carter’s sample was taken.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) dismissed Carter’s appeal against the IOC sanction in May 2018. As a result, his Beijing 2008 Gold Medal in the 4x100m relay was cancelled, as were those of his teammates Michael Frater, Usain Bolt, and Asafa Powell. 

‘The WADA 2008 Prohibited List included “all stimulants” as substances prohibited in competition at section S6, including the stimulants identified at that section “and other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)”’, reads the full CAS Decision (PDF below) ‘MHA was not specifically listed in section S6 of the Prohibited List […] While not mentioned by name during 2008, MHA was nevertheless already covered under class S6 Stimulants, as a substance with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s) to an expressly listed stimulant (tuaminoheptane), and it was therefore already prohibited as a stimulant.’

You may also like...

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This