Facts
The Sophie Tinklin appeals against the decision UK Anti-Doping committee dated May 28, 2014. The sanction was a period of ineligibility of four years.
History
On July 12, 2012 the police executed a search warrant at respondents house address. They got hold of the prohibited substances, documentation/papers a laptop linked to the ordering of the prohibited substances and the cellular phone of the second respondent. The laptop and cellular phone contained information about suppliers and clients of the prohibited substances. Sophie Tinklin was taking part in the distribution of the prohibited substances together with her father Philip Tinklin who had a leading role. Sophie Tinklin practices boxing (on a high level) and is a member of the Welsh Amateur Boxing Association (WABA).
The defence claims:
1. Presented facts where based on "an unsigned witness statement to the Anti-Doping Tribunal".
2.) The information about Money Laundering was based on hearsay and was otherwise unsatisfactory and incomplete;
3. There was no forensic evidence to support the alleged involvement of the Appellant;
4. The material on which UKAD relied was "merely an unsubstantiated biased opinion as a consequence of a frustrated criminal prosecution against the Appellant". It is said that this constituted a "vexatious attempt to violate the principles of natural justice"
5. Essentially, as we noted under Ground 1 above, the complaint is that there was no adequate evidence to support the finding that the Appellant was aiding and abetting or complicit in the dissemination of prohibited substances.
The penal doesn't support the claims.
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
