Related case:
- UKAD 2011 UKAD vs Bernice Wilson
September 13, 2011
- UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Georgios Skafidas
February 22, 2016
- UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Bernice wilson
March 8, 2016
Facts:
Bernice Wilson ("appellant") appeals against the decision of the UK Anti-Doping organization dated September 28, 2011. The player was issued a period of ineligibility of 4 years for aggravating circumstances (presence and use of prohibited substances).
Grounds of appeal
The appellant makes remarks against the decision: the decision was not based on a higher standard but only on a lower standard of proof. Their conclusion were assertions by the sample-collectors. The fact that the sample collectors failed to recall matters in detail did not weaken the case. Urine sample 2 was not taken following standard practice. The panel misdirected itself for not weighing the partial departure from the standard procedure. There was a wrong conclusion about a flawed test. The way that the appellant expressed herself to by satisfied with the testing process was neutral acceptance. The reaction of the news of the positive test has no evidential value.
The appellant makes remarks against the sanctions: the sanction imposed were too severe. There is no previous doping offence. The matters raised by the appellant should no be seen as aggravating factors.
It was considered to have a "de novo hearing".
Decision
The appeal tribunal dismiss the appeal: the tribunal concluded that all of the appellant's arguments were entirely without merit. The appellant was opportunistic and inconsistent in her defence, keen to advance any argument which might conceivably result in a dismissal of the charges framed against her. This appeal was considered to be hopeless.
Costs
The appellant bears the UKAD's costs of the costs of this appeal and the costs for the B sample analysis.
