In April 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American basketball player Anton Grady after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold. 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 (NADP).
The Athlete gave a prompt admission of the anti-doping violation and stated that he had used cannabis at home prior to the sample collection at the competition later that day.
The Athlete testified that he came from a significantly disadvantaged background and he was living in the United Kingdom in a poorly appointed hotel room. He had no or little income to spend on himself due to the need to support his family in the United States.
There was no or insuffiencient support from the Club, whether medically, pastorally or generally in circumstances where it appeared clear the he still needed help in fully recovering from injury het suffered months before. The Athlete was often paid late, the treatment by the Club was deficient on the point of being abusive and the head coach behaved aggressively to the Athlete. He didn’t know cannabis was a prohibited substance and the anti-doping education from his club was at best cursory.
The Tribunal finds the Athlete to be a credible and honest witness, it accepts the Athlete’s explanation and that the Athlete would have been subject to extreme mental stress leading to likely depression.
The Tribunal considered the evidence where UKAD used the note of a telephone conversation as an admission. The Tribunal finds that UKAD brings proceeding in the role of a quasi-prosecutor and, using a colloquial term from criminal jurisprudence, the admission might be viewed as the athlete having been “verballed” in circumstances where he was not legally represented, had not been warned as to the status of the conversation or the potential uses to which it might be put. The Tribunal was also not satisfied that the Club had given any, or sufficient guidance or training to the Athlete as to the anti-doping regime.
In the view of the Tribunal UKAD has not discharged the burden upon it and had not enable the Tribunal to feel satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Athlete had engaged in conduct that he knew constituted an ADRV or had manifestly disregarded the risk that he might have committed and anti-doping violation.
The Tribunal concludes, based on the unique and specific facts of this case, that the Athlete should be viewed as having acted with nog significant fault or negligence.
Therefore the NADP Tribunal decides on 1 November 2017 to impose a 15 month period starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 12 March 2017.
