Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Organization (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Belgian cyclist Marcel Six for his refusal to submit to sample collection in May 2012.

History
The Athlete admitted the violation and argued that his refusal was justified. He explained with evidence that due to the medical condition of his wife and kids he was unwillingly to comply, as his presence was urgently required. A statement of his wife was provided in support of the Athlete's explanation.

Decision
The Panel accepts that there was a compelling justification in this case and that the Athlete established No Significant Fault or Negligence.
1. The period of ineligibility will be 18 months from the date this decision is made.
2.The in-competition results on May 31, 2012, will be disqualified.

Costs
Each party shall bear it's own costs.

In July 2012 the UK Anti-Doping Organization (UKAD) has reported anti-doping rule violations against the rugby player  Terry Bridge for Possession and Trafficking / attempted trafficking of multiple prohibited substances:

• Boldenone;
• Clenbuterol;
• Drostanolone;
• Growth hormone (GH);
• Metandienone;
• Nandrolone;
• Oxandrolone;
• Oxymetholone;
• Stanozolol;
• Tamoxifen;
• Testosterone; and
• Trenbolone.

After notifcation the Athlete admitted the anti-doping rule violations.

Therefore UKAD decides on 26 September 2012 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 6 February 2012.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping (“UKAD”) charged (the “Athlete”) relating to an Anti-Doping Rule Violation arising from the Ice Hockey UK
On 18 February 2012, the Athlete competed in the Elite Ice Hockey League match between Dundee Stars and Edinburgh Capitals. Following competition, the Athlete provided a urine sample for Doping Control purposes. His sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide. On 27 June 2012, the Athlete admitted the Charge in writing and waived his right to have the B Sample tested.

History
The Athlete provided detailed medical evidence from his doctors that sets out his history of the use of furosemide. The Athlete suffers from a diagnosed under-active thyroid condition which results in fluid retention and causes swelling in his extremities. He was prescribed furosemide by his doctor as treatment for this condition. His doctor is also the doctor for his ice hockey club. The Athlete asserts that he did not ingest the Prohibited Substance with a view to enhancing his performance or mask the use of a performance enhancing substance. Following notification of the Adverse Analytical Finding, the Athlete made applications for a TUE on March 20, 2012, March 24, 2012 and 28 March 2012. The TUE applications and subsequent appeals were rejected.

Considerations UKAD
UK Anti-Doping accepts that the Athlete will have derived no performance-enhancing benefit from the use of the Prohibited Substance. The Prohibited Substance is not believed to be performance-enhancing for the sport of Ice Hockey.

Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation according to Article 2.1 been established;
2. A period of Ineligibility of one (1) month, commencing from the date of his provisional suspension, namely June 18, 2012 and therefore expiring at midnight on July 17, 2012 shall be the consequences imposed pursuant to Article 10.4.

Appeal
The Athlete, IHUK, the International Ice Hockey Federation and WADA have a right of appeal against this Decision

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Limited (“UK Anti-Doping”) charged Ali Adams (the “Athlete”) for commission relating to an Anti-Doping Rule Violation arising from the British Boxing Board of Control (“BBBofC”) Anti-Doping Rules (the “Anti-Doping Rules” or “ADR”). His sample showed the presence of 3-hydroxystanozolol, a metabolite of stanozolol, had been detected in the Sample. Stanozolol and its metabolites are Prohibited Substances and are included in the WADA 2012 Prohibited List. The Athlete was also provisionally suspended with immediate effect. On July 5, 2012, the Athlete admitted the violations.

History
By way of mitigation, the Athlete claimed that he had suffered from an ongoing neck injury for which he had received medical treatment and massage. The Athlete claimed that a massage therapist had injected him on two separate occasions with an unknown substance that he was told was an anti-inflammatory. The Athlete postulated that these injections must have been the cause of the positive test.

Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation in accordance with ADR 2.1 and ADR 2.2 has been established in relation to stanozolol;
2. A period of Ineligibility of two years shall be the consequences imposed pursuant to ADR 10.2;
3. That period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced as from June 13, 2012 and will expire at midnight on 12 June 2014; and
4. The Athlete’s status during this period of Ineligibility shall be as set out in ADR 10.10.
During the period of Ineligibility, in accordance with ADR 10.10.1, the Athlete shall not be permitted to participate in any capacity in a competition or other activity (other than authorised anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) related to his sport.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Organization (UKAD) charged Simon Carty (respondent) for a violation of the British Bobsleigh Association's (BBA) Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). On 28 February 2012, the Respondent provided sample for doping control purposes. His sample tested positive for for the prohibited substance clenbuterol. On 8 April 2012, the Respondent requested the matter be referred to the National Anti-Doping Panel ("NADP") for hearing and determination in accordance with the ADR and NADP procedural rules.

History
The Respondent hereby admits the use of the prohibited substance clenbuterol during January and February 2012. This use occurred via the respondent's intentional consumption of a tablet-form weight loss product that he understood to be a Chinese manufactured "fat burner", whilst recovering from surgery.

The parties have proposed a resolution of the matter, subject to the approval of the NADP Tribunal.

Decision
1. Respondent admits the use of the prohibited substance clenbutorol.
2. Respondent admits the violation of the BBA ADR.
3. As a consequence, a period of Ineligibility is imposed upon the Respondent of two years.
4. During tho two year period of ineligibility: the Respondent may not participate In any capacity in any Competition, Event or other activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) organized, convened, authorized or recognized by (a) the BBA or any body that is a member of, or affiliated to, or licensed by the BBA; (b) and Signatory; (c) any club or other body that is a member organixation; or (d) any professional league or any international or national level Event organization. In addition, save where the
Anti-Doping Rule Violation involved only a Specified Substance, some or all financial support or benefits (if any) that the BBA might have otherwise provided to the Participant shall be withheld. In addition, the BBA shall take all steps within its power to have the period of ineligibility recognized and enforced by all relevant parties, including other Signatories pursuant to Code Article 15.4; The Respondent shall remain subject to and bound to comply with the BBA ADR, including the obligation to submit to drug-testing under the rules. If requested, he will provide information as to his whereabouts to facilitate such testing.
5. There shall be no order as to the costs of these proceedings.
6. The disposition of these proceedings on the terms set out above will be publicly announced via UK Anti-Doping's website.
7. The Respondent has no further right of appeal against this order, but each of the International Bobsleigh and Tobogganing Federation (FIBT) and the World Anti-Doping Agency has a right of appeal against this Order or any part of it.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Organization ("UKAD") charged Lewis Gibbons (the "player") for a violation of the Anti-Doping rules. On May 27, 2012, the Player competed in the National Wheelchair Tennis Championships. Following competition, the Player provided a urine sample for doping control purposes. The analysis revealed the presence of 11-nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid (cannabis), this prohibited substance is included in the WADA 2012 Prohibited List.

History
On 13 July 2012, the player admitted the Charge in writing. On 5 August, he waived his right to have the B sample tested (also in writing). The Player has provided written and oral evidence as to the ingestion of the cannabis. He explained that he suffered a serious accident in 2008, resulting in lower limb paralysis. After extended treatment, the player began playing wheelchair tennis in 2009. He continued to suffer severe pain from his accident, despite the medication prescribed to him. He used cannabis to assist with the alleviation of pain. UK Anti-Doping accepts the Player’s explanation of how the Prohibited Substance entered his system. The Player asserts that he did not ingest cannabis with a view to enhancing his performance.

Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation according to Article C.1 has been established;
2. A period of Ineligibility of three months shall be the consequences imposed pursuant to Article M.4;
3. That period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced as from 13 July 2012, and will therefore end at midnight on 12 October 2012; and
4. The Player’s status during the period of Ineligibility shall be as provided in Article M.10.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Organization (UKAD) charged Mark Midlleton (the "athlete") for commision of the Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). On 26 May 2012, the Athlete provided an in-competition sample for doping control purposes. His sample tested positive on exogenous testosterone and methyltestosterone. The Athlete was also provisionally suspended with immediate effect.

History
On 16 July 2012, the Athlete confirmed in writing that he did not require analysis of the "B Sample" and did not wish to challenge the provisional suspension. On 23 July 2012, the Athlete confirmed that he did not require a hearing of the matter, and would accept a sanction in accordance with ADR 7.5.4.

Consideration
There is provision in ADR 10.6 for the Standard Sanction to be increased for aggravated circumstances, such as the presence of multiple prohibited substances in a sample. However, as the Athlete made a prompt admission in respect of the Adverse Analytical Findings, he avoids the application of ADR 10.6.1, and the Standard Sanction must be applied.

Decision
1. Anti-Doping Rule Violations in accordance with ADR 2.1 and 2.2 have been established in relation to methyltestosterone and exogenous testosterone;
2. A period of Ineligibility of two years shall be the Consequences imposed pursuant to ADR 10.2;
3. That period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced as from 12 July 2012 and will end at midnight on 11 July 2014; and
4. The Athlete’s status during this period of Ineligibility shall be as set out in ADR 10.10.

During the period of Ineligibility, in accordance with ADR 10.10.1, the Athlete shall not be permitted to participate in any capacity in a competition or other activity (other than authorised anti-doping education or rehabilitation programmes) organised, convened or authorised by:
1. the BWLA or by any body that is a member of, or affiliated to, or licensed by the BWLA;
2. any Signatory (as that term is defined in the Anti-Doping Rules);
3i. any club or other body that is a member of, or affiliated to, or licensed by, a Signatory or a Signatory’s member organisation; or
4. any professional league or any international- or national-level Event organisation

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) charged Myroslav Dykun (the “Athlete”) for an Anti-Doping rule(ADR) violation. On 24 March 2012, the Athlete provided an in-competition sample for doping control purposes at the British Senior Championships pursuant to the Anti-Doping Rules. On 30 April 2012, UK Anti-Doping issued a Notice of Charge to the Athlete for a violation of ADR 2.1 in relation to the Adverse Analytical Finding for methamphetamine. The Athlete was also provisionally suspended with immediate effect. The Athlete waived his right to B sample analysis. The Athlete also stated that: “I admit the charges and accept the sanction. I accordingly do not want this matter to be referred to the NADP for a hearing.”

History
By way of mitigation, the Athlete claimed that he accepted some tablets offered to him by a friend in order to relieve back pain. The Athlete surmised that these tablets must have been the cause of the Adverse Analytical Finding.

Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation in accordance with ADR 2.1 has been established in relation to methamphetamine;
2. A period of Ineligibility of two years shall be the consequences imposed pursuant to ADR 10.2;
3. That period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced as from 30 April 2012, and will end at midnight on 29 April 2014; and
4. The Athlete’s status during this period of Ineligibility shall be as set out in ADR 10.10.
During the period of Ineligibility, in accordance with ADR 10.10.1, the Athlete shall not be permitted to participate in any capacity in a competition or other activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programmes) organized, convened or
1. the BWA or by any body that is a member of, or affiliated to, or licensed by the BWA;
2. any Signatory (as that term is defined in the Anti-Doping Rules);
3. any club or other body that is a member of, or affiliated to, or licensed by, a Signatory or a Signatory’s member organization; or
4. any professional league or any international- or national-level Event organization.

Facts
Information obtained from the police, which was passed to UK Anti-Doping’s Legal team, was sufficient to charge Carl Fletscher ("athlete") on 8 November 2011. The Athlete was charged by UK Anti-Doping with having committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation for trafficking of substances on the Prohibited List: boldenone; clenbuterol; drostanolone propionate; human Growth Hormone; mesterolone; methandienone; methyl testosterone; nandrolone deconate; stanozolol; testosterone deconate; testosterone enthanate; testosterone propianate; trenbolone acetate; trenbolone enthanate; and trenbolone ester (the “Controlled Drugs”).

History
On 18 November 2011, the Athlete admitted the charge in writing.

Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation under IAAF Rule 32.2(g) has been established;
2. The Athlete’s results obtained between March 23, 2011 and November 8, 2011 are Disqualified;
3. A period of Ineligibility of four (4) years shall be imposed pursuant to IAAF Rule 40.3(b);
4. Pursuant to IAAF Rule 40.11 (a), during the period of Ineligibility, the Athlete may not participate in any competition or activity other than in authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs, which are authorized or organized by the IAAF, or any Area Association or Member (or any Club or other member organization of a Member) or Signatory (or Signatory’s member or a club or other member organization of a Signatory’s member) or in competitions authorized or organized by any professional league or any international or national level organization.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Organization charged Peter Howe ("the athlete") that he committed a doping offence. On 24 September 2008 he refused without compelling justification to provide a urine sample for testing
when requested to do so by a duly authorized UK Sport Doping Control Officer ("DCO"). An oral hearing was held on 20 April 2009.

History
In an Out-of-Competition test on 24 October 2007, a UK Sport Doping Control Officer ("DCO") collected a sample from the athlete at his home. Analysis of that sample revealed the presence of a prohibited substance (3-hydroxystanozolol). Subsequently he admitted an anti-doping charge contrary to Article 2.1 of the BBA Anti-Doping Rules. An Anti-Doping Tribunal convened under those Rules declared him ineligible for a period of two years from 15 November 2007. During his period of ineligibility he was asked for an out-of-competion doping test, which he refused due to obligations to arrive early at his job.

Decision
1. A doping offence contrary to Article 2.3 of the Rules has been established;
2. Under Article 10.7 of the 2009 Rules I impose a period of ineligibility of ten years; and
3. Under Article I 0.9 of the 2009 Rules the period of ineligibility shall
commence on 4 May 2009.