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 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 (“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
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.

By letter dated 14 May 2012 the UK Anti-Doping ("UKAD") charged Ian Burns (the "respondent") with: Possession of: testosterone (Sustanon and/or Cidotestin) and/or nandrolone (Deca) between September 2010 and September 2011; and/or testosterone (Sustanon), nandrolone (Deca), stanozolol, methandienone (aka Dianabol), human growth hormone, HCG and/or tamoxifen, on or around September 22, 2011; and/or use or Attempted Use of: testosterone (Sustanon and/or Cidotestin) and/or nandrolone (Deca) between September 2010 and September 2011; and/or stanozolol and/or methandienone (Dianabol) during or about August 2011; and/or 6.2.3.testosterone, nandrolone, stanozolol, methandienone, hGH, HCG and/or tamoxifen.

History
Unusually the Panel has been provided with evidence from the police. The evidence relied on by UK Anti-Doping in this case is set out in the witness statements of PC Christopher Woollett, of the Durham Constabulary. On 21 September 2011, PC Woollett obtained a warrant from the North Durham Magistrates’ Court pursuant to section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, to search for controlled drugs at (the Respondent’s home address). PC Woollett and seven other police officers went to execute that search warrant the next day, September 22, 2011. Boxes with prohibited substances were found. At first the respondent admits that the prohibited substances found in his,house are his later he claims that they belong to someone else.

Decision
1. The Respondent has committed the following anti-doping rule violations;
2. Possession, in violation of IAAF Rule 32.2(f), of: testosterone and/or nandrolone between September 2010 and September 2011; and/or methandienone, stanozolol, testosterone, nandrolone, hGH, HCG and/or tamoxifen on or around September 22, 2011; and/or
48.1.2. Use or Attempted Use, in violation of IAAF Rule 32.2(b), of:
testosterone and/or nandrolone between September 2010 and September 2011; and/or methandienone (aka Dianabol) and/or stanozolol during or about August 2011; and/or methandienone, stanozolol, testosterone, nandrolone, hGH, HCG and/or tamoxifen on or around 22 September 2011;
3 The Respondent’s results obtained by the Respondent from September 1, 2010 to 31 August 31, 2011 are hereby disqualified, in accordance with IAAF Rule 40.8;
4. the Respondent is hereby made the subject of a period of ineligibility of four years deemed to have started to run on 19 May 2012. This extended period is imposed by the Panel in the exercise of its discretion under IAAF Rule 40.6. The period of Ineligibility shall run from 00:01 am 19 May 2012 being the time and date of the Athlete’s provisional suspension and so shall end at 00:01 am 19 May 2016.
During the period of Ineligibility the Respondent must not participate in any Competition or activity, including coaching, 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 Signatory or in competitions authorized or organized by his sport.The Respondent will remain subject to Testing during the period of Ineligibility.

Rights of Appeal
In accordance with IAAF Rule 42 the following shall have the right to appeal against this decision to the National Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal: the Athlete, UK Anti-Doping, UK Athletics and WADA. Any party that wishes to exercise such rights must file a Notice of Appeal with the National Anti-Doping Panel Secretariat no later than 21 days from the date of receipt of this decision, in accordance with the NADP.

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) 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.

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
The UK Anti-Doping Limited ("UKAD") charged Ryan Llewellyn (the "Athlete") for the commission of a Doping Offence. On March 30, 2012, the athlete was, pursuant to the UKAD Rules, selected for an In-Competition Doping Control at the Welsh Senior Boxing Championships. His sample tested positive on methylhexaneamine, (“MHA”), which is a prohibited substance included in the WADA 2012 Prohibited List. It is a “Specified Substance”. By e-mail dated May 16, 2012, and a letter of the same date, the Respondent notified UKAD that he did not require his B sample to be analyzed as he accepted the accuracy of the Adverse Analytical Finding in relation to his A sample, and waived his right to analysis of his B sample.

History
The Athlete used the product “Rocket Fuel”, described as a Dietary Supplement with the purpose to lose weight for his match.

Consideration tribunal
The Tribunal has a discretion to backdate the imposition of any period of ineligibility to the date of the provisional suspension. The Tribunal agrees with that approach and the period of ineligibility in this case is one of 12 months backdated to March 31, 2012.

Decision
1. A Doping Offence contrary to Article 2.1 of the UKAD Rules has been established.
2. The Respondent shall not, until midnight on March 30, 2013 be permitted to participate in any capacity in a competition or other activity (other than authorized Anti-Doping Education or Rehabilitation programs) organized, convened or authorized by his sport.