In June 2016 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported anti-doping rule violations against the boxers Tyson Fury and his cousin Hughie Fury after each of their samples, provided in February 2015, tested positive for the prohibited substance nandrolone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.
Also in September 2016 UKAD reported an anti-doping rule violations against the boxer Tyson Fury because he refused or failed without compelling justification to submit to sample collection.
Both Athletes denied the intentional use of nandrolone and Tyson Fury also denied the anti-doping rule violation regarding the Refusal. He alleges (among other things) that the incident in question would never have happened (1) had it not been for UKAD bringing the Nandrolone Proceedings against him in June 2016, after having led him to believe that no charges would be brought against him or Hughie Fury in relation to the elevated levels of nandrolone metabolites reported to be present in their February 2015 urine samples; and (2) if he had been expressly warned at the time of the incident that if he refused or failed to provide a sample he could be banned for four years.
The National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) rejected the request to dismiss the charges against the Athletes. However the Panel did uphold the Athletes arguments that no violation had been established, or (in the alternative) UKAD’s delay in bringing the Nandrolone Proceedings. They contended that UKAD failed to warn the Athletes that they may be required to account for the nandrolone metabolites reportedly detected in their systems had caused them prejudice in their defence of the charges.
The Athletes argued that these charges should be dismissed or (in the alternative) the normal rules on burden and standard of proof of source should be reversed (such that UKAD should bear the burden of proving that the source of the reported nandrolone metabolites was a knowing and deliberate administration of a synthetic nandrolone preparation) or varied (such that the Athletes' argument that the source of the reported nandrolone metabolites was offal of uncastrated wild boar or pig or contaminated supplements should be accepted at face value).
UKAD's position is that the anti-doping rule violations it has asserted have been committed and the consequences set out in the UK Anti-Doping Rules should apply. Tyson and Hughie Fury's position is that they have never knowingly or deliberately committed any anti-doping rule violation. In recognition of the counter-arguments and the risks inherent in the dispute resolution process, each of UKAD and the Athletes (the Parties) recognizes that it/he will have to compromise its/his claims to some degree.
In accordance with UK ADR Article 7.7.4 and section 51 of the Arbitration Act 1996, at the request of the parties the NADP Tribunal has issued an order terminating the proceedings before it without making any substantive award. This decision is not an order or award of the NADP Tribunal.
UKAD accepts that Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury were not put on notice before they were charged for their violations in June 2016 that they may have to account for the presence of the elevated levels of nandrolone metabolites in their February 2015 samples, and that as a result there is an argument that the normal rules on burden and standard of proving source should be varied, and Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury should be found to have proved source to the required standard, or else UKAD should be found not to have proved intentional ingestion to the required standard, and as a result the presumption arising under UK ADR Article 10.2 that Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury acted intentionally should be deemed rebutted.
On the other hand, Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury accept that the normal rules on burden and standard of proof may be held applicable, in which case they may be found not to have proved source to the requisite standard, and as a result they may not be able to get the presumptive four year period of ineligibility reduced. In such circumstances, the Parties compromise by accepting that the period of ineligibility to be imposed on the Athletes for the violations asserted in the Nandrolone Proceedings shall be a 2 year period of ineligibility.
Both Tyson Fury and Hughie Fury had already served periods of provisional suspension since the notices of charge were served.
Given further the delays in results management that are not attributable to the Athletes, the period of ineligibility will be back-dated to start from 13 December 2015, so that it ends at midnight on 12 December 2017.
