Related cases:
- UKAD 2014 IHUK vs Nicky Watt
November 6, 2014 - UKAD vs Nicky Watt
April 19, 2023
Facts
Nicky Watt, the athlete, appealed against the decision of the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) tribunal made on November 6, 2014 which determined that Mr. Watt had committed two anti-doping rule violations and should be ineligible for participation in competition, and other activity, in sport for a period of 8 years. In this case the parties have agreed that the appeal should be decided on the papers alone, without a hearing, and a sole arbitrator.
History
There are four issues raised on this appeal:
(1) Whether the athlete was subject to the Rules at the material time;
(2) Whetherthe athlete should be treated as bearing no significant fault or negligence, so that the period of ineligibility should be reduced;
(3) Whether the two violations should be treated as a single violation or as two violations for which the period of ineligibility is a minimum of 8 years;
(4) Whether the imposition of a period of ineligibility was, in the circumstances of this case, disproportionate so that a lesser period should be imposed.
Submissions arbitrator:
1 - On this appeal the argument advanced by the athlete that he was not subject to the rules because he was not at the material time actively participating in the sport and he had not intended to play in the league in the following season. However he was payed to play in this season which make it valid that he acted under the rules.
2 - The assumption of the athlete that he would not undergo a doping control during his suspension is not prejudicial to his position to take a substance containing steroids. His assumptions how the prohibited substance had entered his body doesn't count as evidence.
3 - The sole arbitrator rejected the opinion of the NADP tribunal that the athlete had proven when the prohibited substance had entered his body.
4 - Towards his claim of disproportionality. He made a deliberate decision to refuse to give a sample, to conceal the fact that he had taken cannabis, and then deliberately ingested Anavar which he knew to contain a prohibited steroid. This case is exceptional but not in a way which indicates that a mandatory imposition of 8 years' ineligibility is disproportionate.
Decision
For the reasons given above this appeal is dismissed. The decision made by the tribunal dated 6 November 2014 that there were two anti-doping rule violations and that the period of ineligibility must run for 8 years from 17 June 2014 must stand.
