The rugby player Jack McIntosh has been convicted in 2012 for the criminal offence of supplying steroids and was therefore target tested on 15 May 2015 at his home by UK Anti-Doping (UKAD). However on 16 May 2015 the Athlete emailed UKAD that he withdrew his consent to analyse the samples he had provided because he had decided to retire from the sport of rugby.
As a consequence the Athlete was charged in June 2015 by the RFU for his breach of World Rugby Regulation (WRR) 21.2.1 (‘Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Player’s Sample’). On 9 February 2016 the RFU Anti-Doping Panel concluded that he was guilty of a violation of WRR 21.2.1 and decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
Hereafter the Athlete appealed the RFU decision regarding his breach of WRR 21.2.1. and an RFU Anti-Doping Post-Hearing Review Panel was convened to review the challenged decision of 9 February 2016.
Additional documentation provided to the Post-Hearing Review Panel detailed a proposal for an agreement supported by the RFU and the Athlete that he had breached WRR 21.2.5 (‘Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any part of Doping Control’) and moreover he should receive a four year ban for this violation.
In January 2017 the Athlete was charged by the RFU with an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under WRR 21.2.5, in the alternative to the previous charge under WRR 21.2.1. for the identical facts mentioned in the previous charge in respect of WRR 21.2.1.
The new charge under WRR 21.2.5 was brought as a result of a notification of a Case to Answer by UKAD, following consultation between UKAD and WADA as to the appropriate consequences under the WADA Code (and therefore the World Rugby Regulations) when an athlete communicates the withdrawal of his consent to the testing of a Sample provided by him but before testing has taken place.
UKAD and WADA's position was that the Athlete’s conduct subverted (or attempted to subvert) the Doping Control process and fell within the definition of 'tampering', namely, obstructing to prevent normal procedures from occurring.
The Athlete position was that the use of the term "tampering" or "alleged tampering", without additional qualification, did not accurately or fairly reflect the nature of his conduct. He requested that the decision recording his breach of WRR 21.2.5 set out that he "subverted or sought to subvert the Doping Control process by withdrawing consent to the processing of his Doping Control related data", rather than using the title of that provision. The RFU indicated its agreement to this position and the Post-Hearing Review Panel did in fact allow the Athlete’s appeal against WRR 21.2.1.
After referral the Sport Resolutions National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) confirms acceptance of the proposed agreement and rules that the Athlete had breached WRR 21.2.5 for subverting the Doping Control process by withdrawing his consent to the processing of his sample he had provided.
The NADP decides on 13 April 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 June 2015. This period is in accordance with the original imposed suspension.
