We explain the ‘unintentional’ steroid use that got a GAA player a two-year ban

Serious investigation

The GAA and the Irish Sports Council may sometimes get a lot of negative press in relation to drug testing of athletes, but the level of analysis and investigation put into a failed test by a GAA player is  very impressive.

It was announced earlier this evening that Monaghan footballer Thomas Connolly has been hit with a two year ban after the steroid Stanozolol was found in an out of competition test, and the full report into how he ingested an anabolic steroid, albeit inadvertently, is fascinating.

The report also explains why the Lattan clubman is facing a two-year and not a four-year suspension.

The full report is available on the Irish Sports Council website but we’ve distilled the best bits for you here.

Connolly took tablets given to him by a work colleague

The Monaghan man’s defence was based partially on the circumstances of having taken the illegal substance.

In his evidence he described why he had ingested the tablets containing the anabolic steroid unbeknownst to him on the advice of a workmate.

The player was struggling with the demands of his first few months of training with an inter-country squad, and his colleague told him that the tablets would help with his symptoms of soreness,

‘He said the colleague gave him these tablets because he, the Athlete,(Connolly) was complaining of pain and stiffness as a result of the training he had undertaken with the County Panel.’

‘He took 4 tablets per day – 2 in the morning and 2 with his dinner for 4 or 5 days and stopped using the tablets a day or two before he was tested because they were of no benefit to him and he continued to feel the pain.’

‘He asserts that he did not take the product with a view to enhancing performance but hoped that it would 19 relieve his pain.’

‘He says he was not aware that the product he took was a prohibited substance. When he took the drug test on the 13 February 2015 he had no inclination at all that he might test positive and he made no effort to avoid testing.’

‘The work colleague who provided the tablets had no medical training or qualifications. He never thought for one minute that they were anabolic steroids.’

Connolly claimed that he was never made aware of anti-doping rules when drafted into the panel 

The player was only invited onto the panel at the end of 2014, and featured in just a handful of the county’s McKenna cup games in the early part of 2015, while he was also named as part of the panel for a league game.

However he asserted in his evidence that at no stage did the county board or management let him know what he could or could not take,

‘The Athlete asserted in his evidence, supported by Mr O’Rourke (Malachy, the Monaghan manager)and Mr Sherry (Padraig,the Monaghan chairman) that throughout the time he was training with the Monaghan Senior Team he was never told about the existence of the Anti-doping Rules; about their applicability to him or of the sanctions which flowed from a breach of the Rules.’

‘He alleged that he was never advised of sources of information about anti-doping or given any instruction or education as to his obligations under the Rules.’

Emails from the GAA on new anti-doping were not seen by the county chairman or the county manager 

In the case against Connolly, the GAA Anti-Doping Hearings Committee called upon evidence by a former GAA Player Welfare Administrator Mr Ruairi Harvey.

He noted that the GAA had advised all counties, including Monaghan, of increased penalties for doping violations from New Year’s Day.

However the emails were not passed along to the county board or senior management,

‘He (Harvey) drew specific attention to e-mails sent to the Monaghan County doctor on the 8 December 2014 and to the Monaghan County Secretary on the 12 January 2015 drawing their attention to changes in the Anti-doping Rules which came into effect on the 1 January 2015.’

‘The e-mail specifically drew attention to the increased sanctions for anti-doping violations. The e-mail to the County Secretary asks that the e-mail with the booklet in relation to anti-doping which was attached be circulated to members of management teams within the County and to anyone involved with them.’

‘Mr Padraig Sherry, the Monaghan Chairman, indicated that he had never seen this e-mail and that the information had not been circulated as requested.’

The GAA Anti-Doping Hearings Committee  criticised the lack of education for players, but also stated that ultimately players must take responsibility for their actions

‘We simply do not accept that lack of knowledge by an Inter-county player would justify him/her being excluded from Anti-doping Rules which are so well established.’

‘Whilst there is undoubtedly an obligation on a National Governing Body such as the GAA to educate and inform its Members, the fundamental principle remains that the primary obligation to ensure that an athlete complies with Anti-doping Rules rests with the athlete himself.’

‘It is each athlete’s personal duty and responsibility to ensure that he/she does not permit a prohibited substance to enter his/her body.’

The committee also wants better education from the GAA for its players

Not withstanding this finding the Committee is seriously concerned about the apparent lack of understanding and application of the anti-doping rules and processes at County Level in this case.

Whilst we were impressed by the evidence of Messers McGill and Harvey in respect of anti-doping education at central level, we would urge the GAA to intensify its work to ensure that all players, county officers, coaches, managers, medical and allied sports science personnel and players representatives are fully cognisant of their obligations under the Association’s anti-doping rules.

The players naievity meant a reduction in his sentence 

Connolly was looking at a four year ban but the GAA Anti-Doping Hearings Committee  took a number of factors into account when reducing the ban from a possible four to two years. They felt there was three grounds for allowing a reduction because the violation of doping rules was unintentional,

‘Having considered the matter carefully and having regard to all the evidence and submissions, we have come to the view that the Athlete has established the Anti-doping Rule Violation was not intentional. Implicit in this is that we do not consider that he was reckless:

(1) He promptly admitted the presence of the prohibited substance and did not insist on his ‘B’ sample being tested.

(2) The report from Dr Geyer (medical expert) which was obtained between the two hearings, gave support to the account he gave in his correspondence and to the Committee. This was so not only in terms of the actual substance itself, but also the extent of the use of the substance which was also consistent with Dr Geyer’s analysis of the sample. We consider that this finding added considerably to his credibility;

(3) Whilst his apparent lack of knowledge of the Anti-doping Rules could not operate as a defence to the violation itself, we do consider that it is relevant in terms of assessing his state of mind when he agreed to take the tablets in question and could well explain, what we consider to be, his naivety in the matter.

(4) Most importantly of all we had the opportunity to hear Mr Connolly in person and form a view as to the truth of his evidence.

Connolly has 21 days to appeal the decision.

The FootballJOE quiz: Were you paying attention? – episode 10