In June 2019 USADA has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian MMA Athlete Bruno Arruda da Silva after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Boldenone. Further in January 2020 USADA charged the Athlete for Tampering. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the UFC Arbitration Panel. 

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied that the violation was intentional. He argued that the substance inadvertently had entered his system and that he was tested before without issues. He also suggested that meat contamination had caused the positive test. Analysis of the supplements and an injectable hair product he had used did not reveal prohibited substances. 

USADA rejected the arguments of the Athlete and deemed that he committed the violation intentionally. It contended that the Athlete failed to establish how the substance had entered his system and that he didn’t produce any corroborating evidence in his defence. It regards that the Athlete’s contention about meat contamination is mere speculation while in Brazil the use of growth promotants like Boldenone was prohibited in all beef production.  

Finally USADA asserted that the Athlete tampered becaused in the previous one year he failed to mention the use of any substance on the Onboarding Form for the USADA UFC Registered Testing Pool nor were declared the use of supplements.

The Arbitrator finds that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete’s samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation for presence but also an ADRV for tampering.

Because the Athlete only produced hypothesis and speculative explanations for his positive test, he does not mee the legally required standard of proof that would allow for any reduction of his sanction. The Arbitrator considers that the UCF ADR imposes far less stringent sanctions than the WADC by setting de default period of ineligibility at 2 years instead of 4 years. 

Therefore the UFC Arbitration Panel decides on 15 June 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 June 2019.

In November 2019 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the English MMA Athlete Chi Lewis-Parry after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Boldenone, Drostanolone, Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone and Stanozolol. In March 2020 USADA reported a second doping rule violation against the Athlete for Tampering with aggravating circumstances.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the UFC Arbitration Panel.

In this case there were delays in the proceedings attributed to the Athlete. He filed complaints against USADA; he requested for extentions; he failed timely to submit his supplements for testing; he requested again for a continuance of the hearing due to COVID-19.

Analysis of the Athlete's supplement USN Muscle Fuel in the London Lab in July 2020 showed no prohibited substances. However analysis of another container of USN Muscle Fuel in the London Lab in October 2020 revealed the presence of Stanozolol in an extreme high concentration.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and accepted the presence of these substances in his samples claiming that his use of a contaminated supplement had caused the positve test.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that USADA's charges for Presence and Tampering holds and that the Athlete's charges against USADA appeared to be mere allegations of positive misstatement.

The Sole Arbitrator establishes that there are indeed aggravating circumstances in this case due to the Athlete's conduct and because of the inconsistencies in the statements and evidence the he provided:

• he was granted several extensions;
• he failed timely to submit his supplements for testing to the London Lab;
• very late he submitted a second container to the London Lab in September 2020 two weeks before the scheduled hearing.
• he failed to explain the circumstances regarding the second container he had found and submitted for testing;
• the second container appeared to be manufactured after he was already tested positive;
• there wasn't any evidence that he he had purchased this  container;
• only manual manipulation could explain the extreme high concentraton of Stanozolol found in this second container;
• his negative COVID-19 tests in September 2020 appeared to be conducted before he claimed that he had contracted COVID-19.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that it is clear that the Athlete had provided false evidence and attempted to obstruct the Arbitration. Accordingly a proportionate and approprate sanction is justified due to these aggravating circumstances.

Therefore the Sole Arbitrator of the UFC Arbitration Panel decides on 4 December 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 1 November 2019.

The American MMA Athlete Gilbert Melendez was tested on 16 October 2019 but previously in late September or early October 2019 the UFC had decided to terminate the contracts of several athletes, including the contract of Gilbert Melendez.

Hereafter UFC failed to notify the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) that the Athlete should be removed from the UFC Registered Testing Pool (UFC RTP). The Athlete was also not notified that the UFC had terminated his contract. The Athlete believed that he was in the UFC RTP on 16 October 2019 when he agreed to provided a sample to USADA. 

In November 2019 USADA reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance GHRP-6. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the UFC Arbitration Panel. 

The Athlete did not challenge the test result but argued that the UFC, and consequently USADA, had no jurisdiction because at the time of the sample collection in October 2019 he was not subjected anymore to the UFC ADP as a result of the termination of his contract. 

USADA contended it had jurisdiction to collect the Athlete’s sample on 16 October 2019 because the Athlete’s contract as a fighter with the UFC was in effect, he was a member of the UFC RTP on this date, and neither he nor USADA was notified that the UFC terminated his contract before his sample was collected. 

Considering the evidence in this matter the Arbitrator establish that the UFC did not notify USADA until 5 December 2019 that the Athlete should be removed from the UFC RTP because it had terminated his contract. After this USADA removed the Athlete from the UFC RTP on 6 December 2019. 

The Arbitrator deems in his decision rendered of 1 May 2020 that USADA has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Athlete was still under contract with the UFC on 16 October 2019, which is supported by his compliance with his obligations under the UFC ADP. The Arbitrator concludes that USADA retains jurisdiction under the UFC ADR to complete results management process regarding the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation, although he ceased to be under contract with the UFC thereafter. 

Furthermore the Arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete’s sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The test result was undisputed by the Athlete and he failed to produce any evidence or to even deny that his positive test was caused by something other than his voluntary usage of a product containg it. 

Therefore the UFC Arbitration Panel decides on 7 July 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 1 November 2019.

In January 2021 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian MMA Athlete Geraldo de Freitas Júnior after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Androsterone, Etiocholanolone, Testosterone and its Adiols.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete file a statement in his defence and he was heard for the UFC Arbitration Panel. Analysis of the Athlete's 3 supplement products in the Rio Lab revealed no prohibited substances.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and supported by expert witnesses he disputed the reliability and validity of the Rio Lab and the test results because of established inconsistencies. Further the Athlete alleged that his use of prescribed Prednisolone and not Testosterone had caused the positive test results whereas he had no physical changes associated with the alleged use of anabolic steroids.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that there is sufficient evidence that the presence of prohibiteds substances has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Considering the evidence and testimonies in this case the Sole Arbitrator deems that:

• The Athlete's claim regarding sample contamination in the Rio Lab is rejected as it is not only speculative, but highly improbable.
• The fact that the accreditation of the Rio Lab had been temporarily suspended in 2016 does not mean that the sample analysis conducted in January and February 2021 was incorrect or flawed.
• Errors in the initial documentation package does not mean that there had been a departure of the ISL.
• The suggestion that the use of a heater in the Rio Lab may have caused the Adverse Analytica Finding is speculation, unsupported by any evidence.
• The testimony of USADA's expert witness is accepted that the Athlete's use of Prednisolone could not have caused the positive test result for presence of Testosterone while such erroneous result would not be possible.
• Because of the confirmed presence of a prohibited anabolic agent in the Athlete's sample is the claim of absence of observable performance enhancing benefits not relevant.

Therefore the UFC Arbitration Panel decides on 8 October 2021 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 January 2021.

In March 2017 the International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation (UIAA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete Pavel Atushev after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard in April 2017.

On 11 July 2017 the UIAA finds that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides to impose a 4 year period of inelibility starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 29 March 2017.

An interview with UK Anti-Doping CEO Andy Parkinson and Christiaan Bartlett from Drug Control Centre King's College on the world's first growth hormone anti-doping rule violation.

UK Anti-Doping is responsible for protecting sport from the threat of doping in the UK. This involves planning, implementing and monitoring the UK’s anti-doping policy and implementing effective anti-doping programmes.

Combatting Doping in Sport / Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (DCMS). - London : UK Parliament, 2018. - DCMS Fourth Report of Session 2017-19)

Summary

There is overwhelming evidence of the widespread use of performance enhancing drugs in sport. Some are illegal in any respect; others are legal, but are used in suspicious ways. Whether permitted for selective use or banned outright, performance enhancing drugs can have serious consequences for the integrity of sport and the wellbeing of individual athletes. The huge increase in financial rewards for successful sports men and women carries the increased risk of incentives to use drugs to cheat.

Our long inquiry has relied on detailed oral and written evidence, academic research, investigative journalism, and whistleblowers, to uncover this covert and pervasive activity across different sports. The inquiry studied both agencies responsible for policing the use of performance enhancing drugs, and the programmes that, as our report will demonstrate, have used them in questionable ways.

In particular, our inquiry has found acute failures in several different organisations in athletics and cycling: a failure to share appropriate medical records with anti-doping organisations; a failure to keep proper internal records of the medical substances given to athletes; and a failure to outlaw the use of potentially dangerous drugs in certain sports. All of these failures have occurred in an under-resourced national anti-doping infrastructure, which has had neither the financial means nor powers of enforcement. Some steps have been taken to alleviate this context and the failures it has permitted, but these measures have come too late. We call on those bodies identified in this report to pay serious attention to our recommendations; we cannot afford to allow these same failures to happen again.

Contents

1.) Knowledge and prevalence of doping in world athletics
- Investigations by The Sunday Times and German Broadcaster ARD
- The IAAF database
- Response of athletics authorities to the allegations
- WADA’s investigations into Russia
- Lord Coe’s evidence to the Committee
- Subsequent evidence regarding corruption at the IAAF
- Reaction of the IAAF to the IC Report
- The University of Tübingen Study
2.) British Cycling and Team Sky
- Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs)
- The 2011 Criterium du Dauphiné cycling road race
- Medicines policy at Team Sky
3.) UK athletics
- The Nike Oregon Project (NOP)
- L-carnitine
- UKAD
- Underfunding of UKAD
4.) Criminalisation of doping in sports

Know Your Supplements / UK Anti-Doping (UKAD)

All athletes are advised to be vigilant in using any supplement. No guarantee can be given that any particular supplement is free from prohibited substances.

An important principle of the Code is that of strict liability, which states that athletes are solely responsible for any prohibited substances they use, attempt to use or is found in their system regardless of how it got there and if there was an intention to cheat. Before taking supplements, athletes must therefore assess the need, risk and consequences to their careers.

Diet, lifestyle and training should all be optimised before athletes consider supplements and they should always consult a medical professional or nutritionist and seek advice.

Supplements may claim to be drug-free or safe for drug-tested athletes. It is not possible to guarantee that specific supplements will be free of prohibited substances and athletes can only reduce the risk of inadvertent doping by making informed decisions.

There is an array of supplements available for athletes to purchase that have no prohibited substances listed as ingredients. Despite this, there have been several cases whereby supplement products have been contaminated with prohibited substances as defined by the World Anti-Doping Code (the Code) Prohibited List.

In the UK, LGC has taken the initiative to create a scheme to support athletes in assessing the risk. The Informed-Sport programme is designed to evaluate supplement manufacturers for their process integrity and screening of supplements and raw ingredients for the presence of substances that are on the WADA Prohibited List. For further information, visit the Informed-Sport website.

UKAD believes this risk minimisation service to be a positive step and welcomes the approach being taken by industry and the LGC Informed-Sport programme.

However, we wish to remind athletes that strict liability will still apply and the appropriate sanctions imposed on any athlete returning an adverse analytical finding from any supplement product, as with all other cases of doping.

http://www.ukad.org.uk/supplements

The World Anti-Doping Code / UK Anti-Doping (UKAD)

Explanation of the World Anti-Doping Code, the five International Standards and the principle of Strict Liaibility by UK Anti-Doping.

100% me is UK Anti-Doping's education programme which aims to prevent doping in sport. 100% me is about being a true athlete. It's about being able to say my performance is 100% me. There is no secret to my success - just hard work, determination and talent.

UK Anti-Doping is responsible for protecting sport from the threat of doping in the UK. This involves planning, implementing and monitoring the UK’s anti-doping policy and implementing effective anti-doping programmes.

UKAD's 2015 World Anti-Doping Code Video / UK Anti-Doping (UKAD)

- NGBs and Partners : Information for NGBs and those impacted by the Anti-Doping Rules
- Athletes: What you need to know
- Athlete Support Personnel: How it applies to you
- Frequently Asked Questions: Information including the Code review process and the implementation timeline

http://www.ukad.org.uk/2015-code