Athletes still test positive for Methylhexaneamine (MHA)

The CAS has confirmed that the tennis player, Robert Kendrick, was guilty of a doping offence but has reduced his suspension to eight months. Kendrick tested positive for MHA at the French Open 2011.

He was subsequently sanctioned with a twelve month suspension by the ITF Anti Doping Tribunal, starting from the date of the sample collection. The CAS Panel decided to partially uphold the appeal by Kendrick who explained that the specified substance MHA was the result of the ingestion of a “Zija XM3” pill intended to counteract the effect of jet lag.

Kendrick explained that he relied on the information given by a blog on the internet which represented that “Zija XM3” was approved by WADA. He did not consult a doctor or other appropriately qualified person, he did not check the composition of the product or use the anti-doping resources provided by the ITF. The CAS Panel noted that it was not disputed by the parties that there was no intent to enhance sporting performance. It held that the eight month suspension was appropriate to the degree of
fault borne by the player.

In contrast, Christian Laing, a rugby union player was suspended for two years after testing positive for MHA. Christian argued that he could establish how the specified substance, MHA, entered his body and that it was not intended to enhance sporting performance (further it was his first offence) in accordance with Article 10.4. The athlete did not check his supplements with the club doctor or physiotherapist. The tribunal confirmed that MHA was a specified substance, was satisfied that the MHA entered the athlete’s system by his ingestion of “Nox Pump” and was comfortably satisfied that he did not intend to mask the use of a performing enhancing substance.

As the athlete took the supplement in private, did not declare it on the supplement form and had not told anyone that he had purchased or intended to or did take it as he said; there was no evidence anyone knew that he possessed it. The panel concluded that there was no independent evidence of his intention when he ingested the substance. As the athlete had not produced corroborating evidence which established to the panel’s comfortable satisfaction the absence of intent to enhance sport performance he was unable to invoke Article 10.4.

The athlete did not expressly rely upon Article 10.5.2 “no significant fault or negligence” however the Panel took into account this article and found that; the athlete did not check the supplement with any of the club’s staff, the WRU website, any anti doping internet resource and did not make any further enquiries or research into the supplement, its ingredients, or with the suppliers. The panel concluded that the athlete had not established that he bore no significant fault or negligence.

For more information or specific advice, please contact our legal specialists using the details below:

Call Mark Hovell on +44 (0) 161 234 8810 or send an email

Call Matthew Chantler on +44 (0) 161 234 7819 or send an email