The United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Ryan Bailey for his refusal or failure to submit to a drug test. This occurred during his stay in Canada with his club the Toronto Wolfpack Rugby League Football Club, which plays in both Canada and England. 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).
On 30 May 2017 in Toronto the Athlete was notified by a Doping Control Officer (DCO) of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) that he was selected for testing. The Athlete was familiar with testing and to hydrate the Athlete used the water bottles provided by the DCO.
However the Athlete refused to provide a sample as he claimed that the water bottles provided by the DCOs were not sealed and the water potentially could have been contaminated. The Athlete also refused to provide a blood sample at the Doping Control Station, he signed the document and left despite warnings of the DCOs about the consequences of his refusal. A few days later the Athlete provided a sample without issues which tested negative.
The Athlete contended that during the Doping Control there were fundamental departures of the ISTI and that he had a compelling justification for his refusal. With medical evidence the Athlete explained his irrational behaviour during the Doping Control.
UKAD argued that the Athlete had been duly notified of the testing by de Canadian DCO and that there was an intentional refusal. Also the Athlete was repeatedly warned about the serious consequences of his refusal.
The Panel concludes that the Athlete was plainly notified and plainly did intend to refuse to provide a sample without a compelling justification. Considering the Athlete’s conduct and the alleged departures from the ISTI and Guidelines the Panel finds that the facts of any breaches had no causative effect on the Athlete’s refusal to provide a sample
The Panel holds that this is a truly exceptional case and has no doubt that the Athlete genuinely believed that the water might have been contaminated. Based on the filed psychiatric evidence the Panel accepts that the Athlete’s mind was quite unable to take in or process information that his refusal might be an anti-doping rule violation and that the consequences might be serious. Further the Panel accepts that the Athlete was not a cheater trying to cover up his drug use.
Therefore the NADP decides on 8 December 2017 that the Anti-Doping Rule Violation is established but in the truly exeptional circumstances of this case the Athlete bears No Fault or Negligence so that the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility is eliminated.
