Related case:
UKAD 2016 UKAD vs Sam Barlow
June 27, 2016
In July 2015 an an out-of-competition test at the house of the Athlete changed into an altercation and common assault against the doping control officer (DCO). The Athlete stated that he did not commit the assault with intent to avoid a doping test but because he thought de DCO was a burglar.
On 27 June 2016 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for tampering the doping control process.
Hereafter the Athlete appealed the decision of 27 June 2016 with the Appeal Tribunal of the National Anti-Doping Panel. The Athlete argued that the factual findings of which he complains were induced by errors of reasoning and, but for those errors, could not have been made.
The Appeal Tribunal finds that the Tribunal was intitled to accept the statement of the DCO and to dismiss the evidence of the Athlete and his partner that he thought dat the DCO was a burglar.
Also the Appeal Tribunal concludes that the Tribunal made a careful assessment of the facts and evidence, including the CCTV footage and that no error of law or misapplication of principle can be shown.
Therefore the Appeal Tribunal decides on 6 September 2016 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal because no ground has been shown for enterfering with the factual findings of the Tribunal.
