UKAD 2015 RFU vs Luke Willmott - Appeal

1.) UKAD 2014 RFU vs Luke Willmott
Decision RFU Anti-Doping Panel
April 13, 2015

2.) UKAD 2015 RFU vs Luke Willmott
Decision RFU Anti-Doping Panel on sanction
June 2, 2015

3.) UKAD 2015 RFU vs Luke Willmott - Appeal
Decision RFU Appeal Panel
January 11, 2016

Related case:
CAS 2016_A_4475 World Rugby vs Luke Willmott & RFU - Settlement
January 20, 2017


In June 2013, UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) received notification that the International Crime Team had seized a parcel addressed to the Athlete containing vials labelled Jintopirn (Human Growth Hormone, hGH). However analysis of the substance in the vials showed they did not contain hGH.
The Athlete was interviewed by UKAD one year later in July 2014 and hereafter charged for attempted use (later withdrawn) and attempted trafficking.

After notification of the anti-doping rule violation the Rugby Football Union (RFU) ordered a provisional suspension. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he waived his right to be heard for the RFU Anti-Doping Panel.
The Athlete denied the charge of attempted trafficking and admitted that he had provided the delivery address to a Person (Mr X) he knew from the gym they both used. The Person had asked the Athlete for an address to which he could have delivery parcels addressed and sent.

On 13 April 2015, the RFU Anti-Doping Panel ruled that the Athlete committed the anti-doping rule violation of Attempted Trafficking. On 2 June 2015 the RFU Anti-Doping Panel ruled about the sanction and decided to impose a 5 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the decision of the RFU Anti-Doping Panel with the RFU Appeal Panel.
The Athlete disputed with several arguments the analysis that he was involved in transporting, sending, delivering or distribution of a Prohibited Substance by the Athlete to the Person.
The Appeal Panel concludes that the facts admitted by the Athlete are consistent with attempted trafficking.

The Panel observes that the seizure of the parcel alone was not sufficient for the RFU to charge the Athlete with any violation. The RFU only charged him after the UKAD interview and, even then, it was in relation to an anti-doping rule violation that the RFU no longer pursues (i.e. “Use or Attempted Use”). It was only after the RFU received a witness statement from the Athlete reaffirming what he had already said in his UKAD interview that it decided to charge him with “Attempted Trafficking”. The RFU could not have charged the Athlete, less still secured a conviction against him, but for the Athlete’s candid Admission.

The Panel considers the facts and circumstances in this case and determines that the Athlete is entitled to a reduction of the imposed sanction. The RFU admitted that the Athlete complied fully with the proceedings and that there have been substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of Doping Control not attributable to the Athlete or other person.

Therefore on 11 january 2011 the RFU Appeal Panel decides that the appeal of the Athlete is partially granted and partially denied as follows:

1.) The Panel has determined that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rules violation pursuant to IRB Regulation 21.2.7;
2.) The Panel has determined to impose a two-year period of ineligibility on the Athlete pursuant to IRB Regulation 21.22.7;
3.) The start date for Mr. Willmott’s period of ineligibility shall commence at 12:01AM on 1 April 2014, and expires at midnight on 31 March 2016;
4.) The Athlete’s period of ineligibility shall be credited for the time he has served his provisional suspension since 23 July 2014 to the present in accordance with IRB 21.22.12(c); and
5.) The Athlete’s status during the period of ineligibility is as provided by IRB Regulation 21.22.13.
6.) (…)
7.) (…)

Original document

Parameters

Legal Source
National Decisions
Date
11 January 2016
Arbitrator
Benz, Jeffrey G.
Bowyer-Jones, Christine
Fraser, Peter
Lohn, Matthew
Morris, Julian
O'Driscoll, Barry
Original Source
UK Anti-Doping (UKAD)
Country
United Kingdom
Language
English
ADRV
Trafficking / attempted trafficking
Legal Terms
Admission
ADRV Notice
Burdens and standards of proof
Case law / jurisprudence
Circumstantial evidence
Commencement of ineligibility period
De novo hearing
Mitigating circumstances
Period of ineligibility
Rules & regulations International Sports Federations
Substantial delay / lapsed time limit
WADA Code, Guidelines, Protocols, Rules & Regulations
Waiver of "right to be heard"
Sport/IFs
Rugby (WR) - World Rugby
Other organisations
Rugby Football Union (RFU)
UK Anti-Doping (UKAD)
Laboratories
London, United Kingdom: Drug Control Centre
Doping classes
S2. Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors
Substances
Growth hormone (GH)
Various
Counterfeit drug
Document type
Pdf file
Date generated
30 January 2017
Date of last modification
8 January 2020
Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin