Related case:
UKAD 2016 UKAD vs Robin Townsend
October 3, 2016
In October 2015 UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Robin Townsed after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance modafinil.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.
The Athlete accepted the test results and the anti-doping violation. He denied the intentional use of the substance and that the result of fault or negligence on his part. The “only possible explanation” he could provide was that his sample was “spiked at the event”.
The Tribunal did not accept the Athlete’s ‘spiking’ explanation without evidence and finds that none of the Athlete’s supplements had been analysed to exclude contamination by modafinil.
Without grounds for eliminating or reducing the period of ineligibility the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 22 december 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 October 2015.
Hereafter in February 2016 reanalysis of the Athlete's sample also tested positive for EPO resulting in a second charge against the Athlete. Considering the evidence the Tribunal concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping violation by the presence of EPO is his A sample.
The Tribunal rules that this second charge is not a second anti-doping rule violation because it was committed on 5 September 2015 before the Athlete received notice of the first charge. For the purpose of determining the appropriate sanction, this anti-doping rule violation is to be treated as though it were the first.
Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 3 October 2016:
1.) The anti-doping rule violation (the second charge) has been established.
2.) The period of ineligiblility imposed is 4 years, commencing on 8 October 2015, concurrent with the sanction imposed in respect of the first charge.
