Facts
The Rugby Football Union ("RFU") charged James Comben (the "player") for an omission of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 26 November 2012 the player was selected after a match for a doping test. His urine sample tested positive for methylhexaneamine (MHA) a specified stimulant. The B sample analysis was not carried out because the player admitted the doping offence.

History
He said that he ingested a dose of Oxylean 1-3d at about 8 am on the morning of the match, but at the time he did not know he was to play that evening. By e-mail he disclosed he had used the medication. He had used the medication to control weight gain because he is a model for clothing.

Considerations panel
The panel agrees that the medication wasn't taken to enhance sport performance. However he failed to check the ingredient of the supplement and to disclose it during the doping test. Considering the personal circumstances of the player who is young and unexperienced to doping test the panel considers a reduction of the standard 2 years of ineligibility.

Decision
The player is ineligible to take part in any capacity in the game of Rugby Football Union for a period of six months from 21 December 2012 to 20 June 2013. He may participate again on 21 June 2013.

Cost
No applications for costs are made.

The Rugby Football Union ("RFU") charged John Freeman (the "player") for an omission of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 2 April 2013 the player was selected for a doping test. The sample tested positive on the presence of Benzoylecgonine a metabolite of cocaine and 11-nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol a metabolite of cannabis. Both substances are listed on the WADA prohibited list 2013 as non-specified stimulants and cannabinoids. The player did not request for a hearing in person.

History
The player is a non-professional player and was asked to replace a professional player. On 11 May 2013 the World Anti-Doping Agency increased the threshold level for cannabis to 150ng/mL. The player's level was 71.8ng/ml below the new threshold level. Because of the new threshold for cannabis the player can only be sanctioned for the metabolite of cocaine.

Decision
The sanction imposed is a period of ineligibility of two years for the player commencing on 18 April 2013 and concluding on 18 April 2015.

Costs
The RFU recognizes the player's amateur status and his position within the game and does not seek any award or costs against him.

Appeal
The decision can be appealed by the player or others according the RFU Anti-Doping regulation.

Facts
The Rugby Football Union (RFU) charged William Robinsen, "the Player", for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The player was selected, on 16th July 2013, for a doping control test during pre-season training, which was an out of competition test. The analysis of the sample he provided showed the presence of clomiphene. Clomiphene is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Code prohibited list.

History
The positive test was the result of the ingestion of Klomen tablets to increase his levels of testosterone. He got the information about this product on the internet and purchased a packet of about 20 pills during may 2013. After taking the tablets his relationship difficulties resolved and he stopped taking the Klomen tablets. This case was handled without a hearing.

Decision
The sanction is a period of Ineligibility upon the Player of two years, starting upon the date on which his suspension commenced namely 13th August 2013. For avoidance of doubt, the period of Ineligibility expires on the 13th August 2015 and the player is free to play again on the 14th August 2015.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Limited (UKAD) had charged Abdul Barry Awad, the athlete, for an omission of the Anti-Doping Rules. The Athlete competed in a bout on September 20, 2014, under jurisdiction of the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBofC). After the bout a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of stanozolol. Stanozolol is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The athlete admitted the violation. The Athlete had been provisionally suspended since 10 October 2014. The Athlete contends that a supplement which he ingested and which was supplied by his coach and had been used by him for a considerable period was spiked by his own brother following an argument they had and for which the brother has now provided an admission. For this he applies for a reduction in the period of ineligibility.
However in the present case there was no evidence of spiking directly from the alleged spiker. The spiker has not attended the hearing and his evidence has not been tested in cross-examination. He was unable to do so because he was at prison for criminal offences.
Because the athlete admitted promptly the panel counts the period of ineligibility from the date of the sample collection.
The Tribunal also applies the provision of the new 2015 Code in respect of the Athlete's return to training as an application of the lex mitior principle no longer than two months before the expiry of this period of ineligibility.

Decision
- The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years commencing on September 18, 2014.
- The lex mitior principle of the 2015 Code shall be applied to the present case and the Athlete shall be allowed to return to training no longer than two months before the expiry of this period of ineligibility.
- The results of the bout are disqualified. Medals, points and prices are withdrawn.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Limited ("UKAD") charged Brian Magee (the "athlete") for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules ("ADR"). On December 9, 2012, the Athlete competed for the World Boxing Association Super Middleweight Championship against Mikkel Kessler in Denmark. Following the competition, he provided an In-Competition sample for doping control purposes. His sample tested positive on oxilofrine (methylsynephrine) and beta-methylphenethylamine. The Athlete did not request analysis of his B sample. The Athlete did not disclose the use of the Supplement on his Doping Control Form.

History
In October 2012, the Athlete suffered from a heavy cold and was forced to take a short break from his training regime. This resulted in increased fatigue. To counteract this, the Athlete began drinking coffee and Red Bull; however, the consumption of both caused the Athlete stomach discomfort. Whilst at a gym in Belfast, the Athlete purchased the supplement to replace the coffee and Red Bull. He used the supplement in the course of his training as he prepared for the bout in December 2012. He did not seek any advice regarding the use of the Supplement.

Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation pursuant to ADR Article 2.1 has been committed;
2. A period of Ineligibility of six months shall be the Consequences imposed pursuant to ADR Article 10.4;
3. That period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced on January 30, 2013 and will expire on July 29, 2013;
4. The Athlete’s status during this period of Ineligibility shall be as set out in ADR Article 10.10;
5. The Athlete’s results at the Event are Disqualified, along with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, points and prizes; and
6. Pursuant to ADR Article 10.10.4, during the period of Ineligibility the Athlete shall remain subject to the Anti-Doping Rules.

Appeal
This decision may be appealed by the Athlete, the BBBOC or the World Anti-Doping Agency.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Limited (“UKAD”) charged Ceri Davies (the “Athlete”) for a omission of the Anti-Doping Rules. On October 1, 2011, during a competition match the Athlete provided an urine sample for analysis. The analysis revealed the presence of 2-alpha-methyl-5-alpha-androstan-3-alpha-ol-17-one, a metabolite of drostanolone which is a prohibited substance on the WADA list 2011. On November 14, 2011, the Athlete admitted the charge in writing and acceded to the consequences specified in the charge.

Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation contrary to Article 2.1 has been established;
2. A period of Ineligibility of two years is imposed;
3. That period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced as from November 3, 2011, and therefore will end at midnight on November 2, 2013.
d. The Athlete’s status during this period of Ineligibility shall be as set out in Article 10.10:

Appeal
The athlete, the WRU (Welsh Rugby Union), the International Rugby Board and the World Anti-Doping Agency have a right of appeal.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Limited ("UKAD") charged Craig Windsor Jnr (the "athlete") for an omission of the Anti-Doping Rules ("ADR"). The athlete was charged with three anti-doping rule violations: on a number of occasions in January 2013 he used or attempted to use oxandrolone; sometime in December 2012 and/or January 2013 he possessed oxandrolone; on or about January 9, 2013, he possessed stanozolol. The athlete admitted the violations but doens't agree with a period of ineligibility of four years. The facts are unusual and based on messages he sent using his facebook account.

Decision
1. The Anti-Doping rule violations have been established.
2. The period of ineligibility imposed is three years nine months from March 6, 2013 (the four years are corrected with the period of voluntary suspension).

Appeal
An appeal can be made within 21 days of receipt hereof.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Limited ("UKAD") charged Daniel Maloney (the "Athlete") for an omission of the Anti-Doping Rules ("ADR"). On November 24, 2012, the Athlete competed at the British Weightlifting Association ("BWLA") Northern Open. He placed first position in the 105 kilogram class of the Event and was notified that he would be required to provide a urine sample for Doping Control purposes. He initially sought to leave without providing such a sample, but was advised by the Doping Control Personnel that he was obliged to do so. He then provided a sample. His sample tested positive on epitrenbolone (as trimethylsilyl derivative dehydro-product) and 17-epitrenbolone (as trimethylsilyl derivative oxidation product) (both metabolites of trenbolone) and methandienone and 17-epimethandienone (a metabolite of methandienone). On December 18, 2012, UK Anti-Doping issued a Notice of Charge to the Athlete, charging him with violations of both ADR 2.1 and 2.2 in respect of each of the Prohibited Substances (the “Charges”). The Athlete was also provisionally suspended, effective from 18 December 2012. The Athlete has made a prompt admission in respect of the Charges, and therefore avoids the application of ADR 10.6.1.

Decision
1. Anti-Doping Rule Violations in accordance with ADR 2.1 and 2.2 have been established in relation to the Prohibited Substances;
2. A period of Ineligibility of two years shall be the consequences imposed pursuant to Anti-Doping Rule 10.2;
3. That period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced as from 18 December 2012, and will end at midnight on December 17, 2014;
2. The Athlete’s status during this period of Ineligibility shall be as set out in Article 10.10:

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Organisation ("UKAD") charged David Cookson (the "Athlete") for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 12 August 2012, the Athlete provided an in-competition sample for doping control purposes. His sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (“MHA”), MHA is a specified substance. On September 4, 2012, the Athlete admitted the Charge in writing. He also waived his right to have the B Sample tested.

Consideration panel
The Athlete has a degree of fault, but it is less than a well-educated athlete with access to a support network of doctors and nutritionists. Accordingly, UK Anti-Doping believes that a period of Ineligibility of six (6) months is the appropriate Consequence. The Athlete accepts this.

Decision
UK Anti-Doping has issued this Decision, pursuant to ADR 7.5.4, which records that:
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation in accordance with ADR 2.1 has been established;
2. A period of Ineligibility of six months shall be the Consequences imposed pursuant to Anti-Doping Rule 10.4;
3. That period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced on 31 August 2012 and will expire at midnight on February 28, 2013; and
4. The Athlete’s status during this period of Ineligibility shall be as set out in Article 10.10:

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.