Facts
UK Anti-Doping Organization (UKAD) who charged Dillian Whyte ("respondent") for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On the 13 October 2012 the Respondent participated in a professional heavyweight boxing match against Sandor Balogh staged at the Bluewater centre, Kent. The athlete provided a sample which showed the presence of methylhexaneamine (MHA). MHA is a prohibited substance listed under S6.b (specified stimulants) of the WADA 2012 prohibited list.

History
The participant took a supplement called Jack3d which contains MHA. He waived his right for a B sample analysis. He claims he wasn't aware of the prohibited substance and therefore had no intentio to enhance his sport performance.

Decision
1. A Doping Offence contrary to ADR Article 2.1 has been established.
2. The period of ineligibility imposed is two (2) years from 13 October 2012.
3. The Respondent’s results from the 13 October bout are disqualified.

Appeal
An appeal can be made within 21 days.

Facts
Dillian Whyte ("participant") appeals against the decision of the UK Anti-Doping Organization (UKAD) who charged him for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The athlete provided an in-competition sample which showed the presence of methylhexaneamine (MHA). MHA is a prohibited substance listed under S6.b (specified stimulants) of the WADA 2012 prohibited list. The participant took a supplement called Jack3d which contains MHA.

Considerations panel:
It is accepted by the UKAD that the participant has shown how the prohibited substance entered his body.
A reduction for the period of ineligibility for no significant fault or negligence doesn't compute because the participant failed to take all reasonable precautions before deciding to use a nutrional supplement.

On August 28th 2012 the Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency removed Jack3d containing MHA from the UK Market.

Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The period of ineligibility imposed is 2 years from October 13, 2012.
The appellant has no further right to appeal under the rules, the decision can be challenged by the International Federation or the WADA.

Related case:
- UKAD 2011 UKAD vs Bernice Wilson
September 13, 2011
- UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Georgios Skafidas
February 22, 2016
- UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Bernice wilson
March 8, 2016

Facts:
Bernice Wilson ("appellant") appeals against the decision of the UK Anti-Doping organization dated September 28, 2011. The player was issued a period of ineligibility of 4 years for aggravating circumstances (presence and use of prohibited substances).

Grounds of appeal
The appellant makes remarks against the decision: the decision was not based on a higher standard but only on a lower standard of proof. Their conclusion were assertions by the sample-collectors. The fact that the sample collectors failed to recall matters in detail did not weaken the case. Urine sample 2 was not taken following standard practice. The panel misdirected itself for not weighing the partial departure from the standard procedure. There was a wrong conclusion about a flawed test. The way that the appellant expressed herself to by satisfied with the testing process was neutral acceptance. The reaction of the news of the positive test has no evidential value.
The appellant makes remarks against the sanctions: the sanction imposed were too severe. There is no previous doping offence. The matters raised by the appellant should no be seen as aggravating factors.

It was considered to have a "de novo hearing".

Decision
The appeal tribunal dismiss the appeal: the tribunal concluded that all of the appellant's arguments were entirely without merit. The appellant was opportunistic and inconsistent in her defence, keen to advance any argument which might conceivably result in a dismissal of the charges framed against her. This appeal was considered to be hopeless.

Costs
The appellant bears the UKAD's costs of the costs of this appeal and the costs for the B sample analysis.

Related case:
- UKAD 2011 UKAD vs Bernice Wilson
September 13, 2011
- UKAD 2011 Bernice Wilson vs UKAD - Appeal
January 19, 2012
- UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Georgios Skafidas
February 22, 2016
- UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Bernice wilson
March 8, 2016

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping ("UKAD") charged Bernice Wilson ("player") for a vilation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The charges arise out of her participation in the Bedford International Games ("BIG") on June 12 2011. She provided an urine sample which, on later analysis, was found to contain two anabolic steroids, testosterone and clenbuterol, both of which are on the prohibited list of the World Anti-Doping Agency ("WADA") 2011 List. The hearings took place on September 12 and 13, 2011.

History
The player doesn't dispute the reliability of the findings but challenges the procedures of collection of the samples. The athlete claimed only to have used a multi-vitamin drink which will be tested for the prohibited substance. The athlete blamed other competitors for spiking food/drink before she was tested and implying or suggesting directly that the doping control officers ("DCO's") were so neglectful of their duties, that they allowed a situation to arise, in which there must have been an opportunity of contaminating the samples during the testing process.

Conclusions panel:
The collection of the samples was done in good order. There is no proof for tampering with her food or drinks.

Decision:
1. The player has committed anti-doping rule violations for the presence and use of prohibited substances
2. Disqualification of he player's results in the 100m at the 2011 Bedford International Games, any other results obtained at the 2011 Bedford International Games and any results obtained by player at any subsequent events up to the date she was provisionally suspended.
3. The aggravating circumstances ar in according with the provision of a 4 year period of ineligibility.
4. she is ordered to pay the costs of the B sample analysis: £848 plus VAT.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping organisation ("UKAD") charged Lanre Olubamiwo ("player") for a commission of the UK Anti-Doping Rules.
On February 29, 2012, UK Anti-Doping charged the player with having recombinant EPO present in his system on 13 January 2012, and with using recombinant EPO on or prior to January 13, 2012, in breach of Articles 2.1 and 2.2 respectively of the UK Anti-Doping Rules.

History
1. The player hereby admits the intentional and repeated use of the following Prohibited Substances in the period 2006 to January 2012, in violation of Article 2.2 of the ABAE Anti-Doping Rules (in relation to use prior to September 2008) and of Article 2.2 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules (in relation to use from September 2008 to January 2012):
1.1 Category S1 (anabolic agents): boldenone; fluoxymesterone; methandienone; metribolone (aka methyltrienolone); axymetholone: testosterone; and trenbolone.
1.2 Category S2 (peptide hormones, growth factors and related substances); erythropoietin (aka EPO); Growth Hormone; and insuline like Growth Factor.
1.3 Category S4 (hormone and metabolic Inhibitors): anastrozole; exemestane; letrozole; and tamoxifen.
2. As a consequence:
2.1 All of the Respondent's boxing results from 1 January 2006 are disqualified, and all medals, titles, points and prize money that the Respondent won are forfeited, in accordance with Article 9 of the ABAE Anti-Doping Rules and Articles 9.1 and 10.8 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules. That prize money amounts to £46,000 (the 'Prize Money'), In accordance with Article 10.11.3 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules, the Respondent will. not be entitled. to be reinstated at the end of the period of ineligibility set out below unless and until he has paid all of the Prize Money to UK Anti-Doping.
2.2 The Respondent ls ruled Ineligible for a period of four years, calculated as follows:
2.2.1 Two years of Ineligibility is imposed pursuant to Article 10.2 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules, on the basis that (further to Article 10.7.4 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules) all of the above violations are to be treated as one single violation for purposes of Article 1.0:2; due to each occurring prior to the player being charged with any Violation.
2.2.2 A further two years of ineligibility is imposed pursuant to Article 10.6 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules, due to the following aggravating circumstances:
2.2.2.1 The Respondent has committed multiple anti-doping rule violations, albeit that for purposes of Article 10.2 they are treated as one violation.
2.2.2.2 The Respondent has used multiple prohibited substances repeatedly and intentionally as part of a doping plan or scheme.
2.2.2.3 The Respondent engaged in deceptive conduct in an effort to avoid the adjudication of his anti-doping rule Violations, asserting that have yet to use this product i.e., methandienone' and 'have never take EPO', when he knew both statements were false.
The panel hereby orders:
1. The Respondent· hereby admits the intentional and repeated use of the following Prohibited Substances in the period 2006 to January 2012, in violation of Article 2.2 of the ABAE Anti-Doping Rules (in relation to use prior to September 2008) and of Article 2.2 of tbe UK Anti,Doping Rules (in relation to use from September 2008 to January 2012):
1.1 Category S1 (anabolic agents): boldenone; fluoxymesterone; methandienone; metribolone (aka metbyltrienolone); oxymetholone, testosterone; and trenbolone.
1.2 Category 82 (peptide hormones, growth factors and related substances); erythropoietin (aka EPO); Growth Hormone; and lnsulin·like Growth Factor-1.
1.3 Category S4 (hormone and metabolic inhibitors): anastrozole; exemestane; jetrozcle; and tamoxifen.
2. As a consequence:
2.1 All of the Respondent's boxing results from 1 January 2006 are disqualified, and all medals, titles, points and prize money that the player won are forfeited, in accordance with Article 9 of the ABAE Anti-Doping Rules and Articles 9.1 and 10.8 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules. That prize money amounts to £46,000 (the 'Prize Money'), in accordance with Article 10.11.3 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules, the player will. not be entitled. to be reinstated at the end of the period of ineligibility set out below unless and until he has paid all of the Prize Money to UK Anti-Doping.
2.2 The Respondent ls ruled Ineligible for a period of four years calculated as follows:
2 2.1 Two years of ineligibility is imposed pursuant to Article 10.2 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules, on the basis that (further to Article 10.7.4 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules) all of the above violations are to be treated as one single violation for purposes of Article 10.2; due to each occurring prior to the Respondent being charged with any Violation.
2.2.2 A further two years of ineligibility is imposed pursuant to Article 10.6 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules, due to the following aggravating circumstances:
2.2.2.1 The player has committed multiple anti-doping rule violations, albeit that for purposes of Article 10.2 they are treated as one violation.
2.2.2.2 The player has used multiple prohibited substances repeatedly and intentionally as part of a doping plan or scheme.
2.2.2.3 The player engaged in deceptive conduct in an effort to avoid the adjudication of his anti-doping rule violations, asserting
that "I have yet to use this product [i.e., methandienone' and 'I have never take EPO', when he knew both statements were false.
2.3 In accordance with Article 10.9.1 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules, the four year period of Ineligibility is deemed to have started running from the date that the player was provisionally suspended on account of his adverse analytical finding for EPO, i.e., from 29 February 2012.
2.4 During the four year period of Ineligibility:
2.4. 1 In accordance with Article 10.10.1 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules, the player - 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 Britisch Boxing Board of Control ("BBBoC") or the ABAE or any body that is a member of or affiliated lo or licensed by the BBBoC or the ABAE; (b) any signatory of the World Anti-Doping Code or 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 (c) any professional league or any international or national-level event organization. If the Respondent fails to abide by this prohibition, his results in any fights that he contests in breach of this prohibition will be disqualified and a new period of ineligibility will be imposed on him, in accordance with Article 10.10.5 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules. lf the Respondent has any doubt about the ambit of the prohibition, he must discuss with UK Anti-Doping.
2.4.2 The Respondent will remain subject to and bound to comply with the UK Anti-Doping Rules, including the obligation to submit to drug-testing under the UK Anti-Doping Rules. If requested, he will provide information as to his whereabouts to facilitate such testing, in accordance with Article 5.4.1 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules.
3. In accordance with Article 7.6.6 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules, the Respondent must pay the costs of analysis of his B Sample collected on January 13, 2012, in the amount of £846 (the 'B Sample Costs'). However, there shall be. no order as to the costs of these proceedings.
4. The Respondent has no further right of appeal against this Order, but each of the international Amateur Boxing Association, and the World Anti-Doping Agency has a right of appeal against this Order or any part of it in accordance with Article 13 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules.
5. The disposition of these proceedings on the terms set out above will be publicly announced (including via UK Anti-Doping's website) without delay.
6. Further provisions relating to the period of Ineligibility are set out in the Appendix to this Consent Order.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Organization ("UKAD") charged Sam Grammer ("the Athlete") for commission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation. The urine sample of the player, taken at the Loch Lomond Highland Games on July 16, 2011, tested positive for human chorionic gonadotrophin ("HCG"), anastrozole and furosemide. A telephone directions hearing took place on October 19, 2011. The player applied for a retrospective therapeutic use exemption ("TUE"). The TUE committee rejected the application for a retrospective TUE for all three prohibited substances.

History
The athlete participated in amateur sport at the time the medications were prescribed. The doctor said that medication would bring back the level of performance he would have been at had he not suffered from the medical conditions identified. He failed to make inquiries about the ingredients of the medications.

Costs
Each party shall bear their own costs of these proceedings.

Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation contrary to Article 2.1 has been established;
2. The period of Ineligibility imposed upon the Athlete shall be a period of two years commencing 9 am (BST) 27 August 2011 and ending at 9 am (BST) August 27, 2013.

Appeal
The following parties shall have the right to appeal against this decision to the National Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal: the Athlete, UKAD, SHGA and WADA.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping organization ("UKAD") charged Terry Duncan ("player") for the commission of a doping offence. He was selected for an in-competition doping control on July 2, 2001, during a professional boxing match in Hamburg. The sample he provided was found to contain ephedrine, in a concentration over the threshold limit. Ephedrine is a prohibited substance and a specified substance. A hearing regarding this charge was held on November 3, 2011.

History
The player used supplements and herbal tea. After examination the substance ephedrine was present in the herbal tea "Yogi Breathe Deep" , and a product "do do chesteze" against flew.

Decision
1. A Doping Offence has been established.
2. The period of ineligibility imposed is two (2) years from September 10, 2011.

Appeal
The player may appeal against this decision by lodging a notice of appeal within 21 days of receipt hereof.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping organization ("UKAD") charged Callum Priestly ("athlete") for a violation of the anti-doping rules. A prohibited substance (clenbuterol) was found to be present in the urine sample taken from the athlete in an out of competition test conducted at Stellenbosch South Africa on January 19, 2010. The athlete has waived his right to a hearing and requested that the panel deal with the case on the written submissions.

History
The athlete admits the presence of Clenbuterol he denies knowingly ingesting the substance and his case is that he bears “no fault or negligence” for the violation.

Decision
The tribunal makes the following decision:
1. A doping offence contrary to Rule 32.2(a) has been established;
2. The period of ineligibility to be imposed is 2 years from February 19, 2010, to February 18, 2012.

Appeal
The athlete has a right of appeal against this decision, as a national level athlete, any appeal must be filed within 45 days of the receipt of this decision.

Facts
UK Anti-Doping Limited (“UKAD") charged Dan Staite ("player") for an anti-doping rule violation. Two Prohibited Substances (as defined), erythropoietin and androsta-1,4,6-triene-3,17-dione, had been found in an urine sample provided by player on March 13, 2010. A hearing in the player's absence, to determine the charge and consequences, took place on June 28, 2010. At his home he refused a blood test on 18 March 2010.

History
The player is a cyclist and is bound by the Anti-Doping Rules adopted by the British Cycling Federation (“the Rules”). He admits the offence and by mail he made clear not to attend the hearing.

Decision
The sole arbiter rules:
1. an anti-doping rule violation was committed by the player;
2. the period of ineligibility in his case is to be two years;
3. the period of ineligibility is to run from 8 a.m. on 1 May 2010 to 8 a.m. on 1 May 2012.

Appeal
Either UKAD or Mr Staite (or any of the organisations specified in Article 13.4.1 of the Rules) may appeal against this decision.

Facts
UK Anti-Doping Limited ("UKAD") charges Ben Payne ("player") for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The prohibited substances, 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone, had been found in a urine sample provided by Mr Payne on 13 March 2010. The player indicated that he did not dispute the fact of the anti-doping rule violation but that he wished to put forward reasons why he should not be subjected to the usual 2 year suspension for such a violation. Unfortunately, the player did no more than say that he would explain to me at the hearing why this should be so. Eventually the player decides not to attend the oral hearing, but because everything was set it took place without the player.

History
The player explained that he had suffered severe facial injury during a game of hockey and, at the suggestion of a friend, had taken two substances called “Deca” and “Sustanon” in order to aid his recovery.

Conclusion
In summary the following decision has been made:
1. an anti-doping rule violation was committed by the player;
2. the period of ineligibility in his case is to be two years; and the period of ineligibility is to run from 8 a.m. on April 16, 2010 to 8 a.m. on April 16, 2012.

Appeal
Either UKAD or Mr Payne (or any of the organisations specified in Article 13.4.1 of the Rules) may appeal against this decision as set out in the preceding paragraph.