Win Clean / UK Anti-Doping (UKAD)

Win Clean is an international campaign aiming to alert athletes coming to the UK for the London 2012 Olympic Games of their rights and responsibilities surrounding anti-doping.

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.

http://www.wincleanuk.com/

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.

Facts
Matthew Duckworth (player) appeals against the decision of the National Anti-Doping panel dated October 12, 2010. The player had committed an anti-doping rule violation because of the positive result of a doping test taken on August 8, 2010. The prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (MHA) was detected.

history
The player was playing rugby league since the age of 16. Due to a car accident in 2008 he underwent physiotherapy rehabilitation. In 2009 he returned to the rugby league. He used the supplement Jack3d which, in his belief, helps him to wake up and get out in the morning. He doesn't use it on match days and he didn't write down the use of it on the form during the doping test. Jack3d is regarded to be the cause of the positive test, he took a provisional suspension on September 1, 2010.

considerations player
The substance MHA is with effect from January 1, 2011, a specified substance instead of a non-specified substance, which invokes the principle of "lex mitior".

considerations panel
There is no indication that the MHA was taken to enhance sport performance.
Warnings about the supplement Jack3d were issued in the summer of 2010.

decision
The panel allows the Appeal and substitutes a period of ineligibility of 6 months commencing at 9 am on 1 September 2010, the time on which the provisional suspension was imposed. This is a Decision on Appeal under Rule 13 of the National Anti-Doping Panel Procedural Rules, neither the athlete nor UK Anti-Doping has any further right of appeal.

facts
Nathan Jones (player) appealed the decision of an Anti-Doping Tribunal of the NADP dated April 9, 2010. The Arbitral Tribunal concluded that the Player had failed without compelling justification to submit to sample collection, after notification of testing and had thereby committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation contrary to Article 2.3 of the UKADR. A sanction of a period of Ineligibility for two years was imposed.

history
On 26 September 2009 after Welsh Premiership Rugby match for Ebbw Vale against Neath, the player was asked to attend the sample collection. He said he was unable to provide a sample. He explained that he had to travel to Bristol to work. It was therefore alleged that he had failed (the original charge indicated that he had “refused”) to provide a sample. The Player noted on the sample collection form that he was refusing because of “work commitments”.

decision
1. By a majority of 2-1, we find that the Player has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation, namely failing without compelling justification to submit to sample collection after notification of testing as authorized in the UKADR.
2. As a result of the Player’s Anti-Doping Rule Violation, the Player will be subject to a period of Ineligibility of two years.
3. In accordance with Article 10.9 of the UKADR, the period of Ineligibility shall run from 3 March 2010 and so shall end at midnight on 2 March 2012. During the period of Ineligibility, in accordance with Article 10.10.1 of the UKADR, the Player shall not be permitted to participate in any capacity in a Competition, Event or other activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs).

costs
Each party shall bear its own costs

Facts
The Rugby Football Union (RFU) charges Nathan Jones for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rule. During a rugby match on September 26, 2009, the player was selected for a doping control. However the player refused to provide a sample.

History
Jones was notified of his selection for testing at the conclusion of the match. However due to time pressure to travel to Bristol to work for his father's building contractors he left the Doping Control without providing a sample. As a semi-professional player, his main income came from his work as builder and the company was due to lose £5,000 if it did not complete this contract.

Decision
Two (2) year ban from rugby, including playing, training and acting in any official capacity within the sport.

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.

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
The UK Anti-Doping organization (UKAD) charges Denis Catana (respondent) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The prohibited substance Metenolone was found to be present in a sample taking for Doping Control purposes from the Respondent and provided by him on 20 August 2010. The Respondent didn't sent in a written defence and was unrepresented at the hearing.

History
Respondent took various supplements as was common for weightlifters which he had sourced in various ways and from various sources. He bought some at specialist shops and had purchased some supplements in Moldova. In addition he had purchased supplements in gyms where he had been training. He had not asked for advice from his team doctor or coaches in relation to the supplements that he had been taking. the Alezon Gel which he took for a leg injury was a veterinary product for use with horses. He had the Alezon Gel massaged into his leg on 20 August 2010. He had not disclosed that he had used this gel or the other supplements prior to taking the doping test. He claimed that he thought he only had to disclose pills or the like that he had taken. The Respondent contested that the presence of Metenolone in his system must have been caused by it being present, without his knowledge, in one or more of the supplements taken by him since he had not intentionally consumed Metenolone and he could think of no other mechanism for it having entered his system.

Considerations UKAD
The athlete has not proven the source of the prohibited substance Metenolone. Without no significant fault or negligence or aggravating circumstances the period of ineligibility should be 2 years.

Decision
The tribunal determins:
1. in contravention of Article 2.2 of the Anti-Doping Rules there was present in a Bodily Sample given by the Respondent on 20 August 2010, Metenolone which is a Prohibited Substance falling within s1.1(a) (Anabolic Androgenic Steroids - Exogenous) on WADA's 2010 List of Prohibited Substances;
2 in respect that there was not, at the time the sample was taken, present a therapeutic use exemption granted to the respondent in accordance with Article 3 of the Anti-Doping Rules, an Anti-Doping Rule Violation was committed by the respondent;
3. the respondent has failed to establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system for the purposes of Articles 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 of the Anti-Doping Rules;
4. in any event, the Respondent has failed to establish that he bore No Fault or Negligence and/or that he bore no significant fault or negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation committed by him; and, accordingly,
5. in respect of the Anti-Doping Rule Violation committed, the Respondent is ineligible for a period of two years from 21 September 2010 until 20 September 2012 (both dates inclusive) with all the consequences provided for in Article 10.10.1 of the Anti-Doping Rules.

Costs
No application was made by either party in relation to costs and no order as to costs is made.

Appeal
The parties can appeal within 21 day after the receipt of a copy of this decision.

Facts and history
The UK Anti-Doping Organization charges Jamie Stevenson(player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The player refused to undertake an out-of-competition test at Loughborough University on 9 January 2010. Refusing to commit to sample collection once notified that you are required to do so is prohibited under the World Anti-Doping Code. The player admitted the charge and accepted the consequences.

Decision
1. Jamie Stevenson is found to have committed a violation of Rule 32.2(c) of the Anti-Doping Rules, as incorporated into the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules on January 9, 2010 he did refuse without compelling justification to provide a sample for drug testing in accordance with the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules.
2. Jamie Stevenson is subject to a period of ineligibility from the sport of two (2) years, commencing as of February 8, 2010 and ending at midnight on February 7, 2012.
3. During the above period of ineligibility, in accordance with Rule 40.11 of the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules, as incorporated into the UK Anti-Doping Rules, Mr Stevenson may not participate in any capacity in any event or series of events or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized or organized by the IAAF or any area association or member of the IAAF or signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code (or signatory's member club or a club or other member organization of a signatory's member) or competition authorized or organized by any professional league or any international or national level organization.
4. In accordance with Rule 40.8 of the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules, as incorporated Into the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules, all competitive results achieved by Mr Stevenson in events since 9 January 2010 are disqualified, together with forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money obtained In such events. This includes (without limitation) the results achieved by Mr Stevenson at the Loughborough University Open, which took place on January 30, 2010.

Facts and History
United Kingdom Anti-Doping Limited charged Kieren Kelly (player) with a violation of Rule 32.2(c) of the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules, as incorporated Into the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules. The player refused to undergo an out-of-competition doping test on January 9, 2010. The player admitted this charge and acceded to the consequences specified for such violation in the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules incorporated in the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules.

Decision:
1. The player is found to have committed a violation of rule 32.2(c) of the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules, as incorporated into the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules, in that on January 9, 2012, refused without compelling justification to provide a sample for drug testing in accordance with the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules.
2. The player is subject to a period of ineligibility from the sport of two (2) years, commencing as of 8 February 2010 and ending at midnight on February 7, 2012.
3. During the above period of Ineligibility, In accordance with Rule 40.11 of the IAAF Doping Rules, as incorporated into the UK Anti-Doping Rules, The player may not participate In any capacity in any event or series of events or activity (other then authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized or organized by the IAAF or any area association or member of the IAAF or signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code (or signatory's member club or a club or other member organization or a signatory's member) or competition authorized or organized by any professional league or any International or national level organization.
4. In accordance with Rule 40.8 of the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules, as incorporated into the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules, all competitive results achieved by the player in events since January 9, 2010 are disqualified, together with forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money obtained in such events. Thls includes (without limitation) the results achieved by Mr Kelly at the Woodies DIY Indoor Championships of Ireland, which took place on February 7, 2010.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.