Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Limited (“UKAD”) Charged Jack Gibbs (the “Athlete”) for an omission of the Anti-Doping Rules. On December 8, 2012, the Athlete competed a competition match. After the competition, the Athlete was notified that he would be required to provide a urine sample for Doping Control purposes. He did not comply with this request for sample provision, citing medical and personal reasons.

On January 23, 2013, the Athlete, via email, admitted that he refused to provide a sample for fear that he would test positive for cannabis. The Athlete did not seek any mitigation of sanction for that reason the standard sanction must therefore be imposed.

Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation in accordance with ADR 2.3 has been established;
2. A period of Ineligibility of two years shall be the consequence imposed pursuant to Anti-Doping Rule 10.3;
3. That period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced as from January 8, 2013, and will end at midnight on January 7, 2015;
4. The Athlete’s status during this period of Ineligibility shall be as set out in Article 10.10:

Appeal
The Athlete, GBWBA, the International Wheelchair Basketball Federation and the World Anti-Doping Agency have a right of appeal against this decision.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Limited charged Jami Mirwaise (the Athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 16 June 2013, he competed in the 96 kilogram Greco-Roman category at the BWA British Senior Championships (the “Event”). Following the competition, he provided an In-Competition sample for doping control purposes, pursuant to the Anti-Doping Rules (the “Sample”). The Laboratory reported that an Adverse Analytical Finding in respect of oxandrolone had been made in respect of the Sample. The athlete admits the doping offence, no B-sample analysis is requested and no hearing is demanded.

The two doping violations: presence of a prohibited substance in the sample and the use of a prohibted substance will be considered as one violation.

Decision
1 An Anti-Doping Rule Violations pursuant to ADR Articles 2.1 and 2.2 have been committed;
2 A period of Ineligibility of two years shall be the Consequences imposed pursuant to ADR Article 10.2. That period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced as from 2 July 2013, and will end at midnight on 1 July 2015;
3. The Athlete’s status during this period of Ineligibility shall be as set out in ADR Article 10.10;
4. The Athlete’s results at the Event are Disqualified, along with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, points and prizes; and
5. 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 BWA, the Fédération International de Lutes Associées and WADA.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Organization ("UKAD") charged John Donnelly (the "Athlete") for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules ("ADR")
On 9 November 2012, the Athlete provided an in-competition sample for doping control. His sample showed the presence of benzoylecgonine (a metabolite of cocaine) which is a prohibited substance. The Athlete was also provisionally suspended, effective from November 27, 2012. The Charge notified the Athlete that he had until Friday December 7, 2012, to respond to the Charge. No response was received. On February 4, 2013, the Athlete verbally confirmed that he accepted the charge and acceded to the consequences specified by UK Anti-Doping.

Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation in accordance with ADR 2.1 has been established in relation to the prohibited substance;
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 November 27, 2012, and will end at midnight on November 26, 2014; and
4. The Athlete’s status during this period of Ineligibility shall be as set out in Article 10.10.
During the period of Ineligibility, the athlete can't participate in any capacity in a Competition, Event or other activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) organized, convened, authorized or recognized by his sport.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping limited ("UKAD") charged Jonathan Bollough (the "athlete") for an omission of the Anti-Doping Rules ("ADR"). On November 24, 2012, the Athlete provided an In-Competition sample for doping control purposes. His sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (“MHA”).

History
The athlete used supplements during training, one of these supplements "warrior blaze" contains the prohibited substance. He did not disclose the use of the Supplement. He explained that this
was because he did not perceive his use of the supplement posed a doping risk.

Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation in accordance with ADR Article 2.1 has been committed;
2. A period of Ineligibility of one year shall be the Consequences imposed pursuant to ADR Article 10.4;
3. That period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced on November 24, 2012 and will expire on November 23, 2013; and
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 Championships 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; and
The disposition of these proceedings on the terms set out above will be publicly announced via UK Anti-Doping’s website.

Appeal
This decision may be appealed by the Athlete, the ("BWLA"), the International Weightlifting Federation or the World Anti-Doping Agency.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Limited (UKAD) charged Kenneth Anderson, the athlete, for an omission of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on October 20, 2012, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of amphetamine, which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The athlete denies knowingly ingesting amphetamine or any other
banned substance before the fight. He said he would regard amphetamine as more of a hindrance than a help to his performance since he needs to be calm and collected when he fights, and understands amphetamine has the opposite effect. He recalled having been offered speed by his sister at the night club after the fight and began to wonder if the positive test result had anything to do with his sister who uses drugs. Someone confessed putting speed in Mr Anderson's coffee the night before the fight. The athlete made an official complaint of criminal conduct at the police station.
However the police station didn't provide any report related to this case.
The scientific evidence is inconclusive, the tribunal cannot know the time and date of ingestion, nor the dose, thus having no positive scientific evidence to corroborate the spiking claim.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years from 9 November 2012, the date with effect from which the Athlete was provisionally suspended.
2. The Athlete's results from the bout on 20 October 2012 are disqualified.
3. The prize money of £15,000 must be repaid to the British Boxing Board of Control.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Organization ("UKAD") charged Laurent Irish (the "Athlete") for an omission of the Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). On November 13, 2012, the Athlete provided an in-competition sample. His sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 11-nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid (cannabis). On December 11, 2012, the Athlete admitted the Charge in writing. He also waived his right to have the B sample tested. On December 19, 2012, the Athlete was interviewed by UK Anti-Doping. The Athlete sought mitigation for elimination or reduction of the Period of Ineligibility for specified substances under specified circumstances.

History
The Athlete asserted that he ingested the cannabis at a time when he was out-of-competition. UK Anti-Doping accepts this assertion and in particular accepts that the explanation is consistent with the concentration of cannabis detected in the Sample. UK Anti-Doping notes that cannabis is not believed to be of performance-enhancing benefit for the sport of basketball.

Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation in accordance with ADR 2.1 has been established;
2. A period of ineligibility of ten weeks shall be the Consequence imposed pursuant to Anti-Doping Rule 10.4;
3. That period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced on November 26, 2012 and will expire at midnight on 3 February 2013; and
4. The Athlete’s status during this period of Ineligibility shall be as set out in Article 10.10:

Facts
The UKAD charges Paul Supple for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 4 July 2013, he provided an Out-of-Competition sample for doping control purposes, pursuant to the Anti Doping Rules.
His sample tested positive on 2-hydroxymethyl-17-alpha-methyl-5-alpha-androstan-3,xi,17-beta-triol, 2-hydroxymethyl-17-methyl-5-alpha-androstan-3,17-diol and 3-alpha,17-beta-dihydroxy-17-alpha-methyl-5-alpha-androstane, all of which are metabolites of the prohibited substance oxymetholone.

History
Allthough letters were sent and telephone calls were made it was not possible to be n contact with the athlete, also note were left to inform the athlete about the deathline for a reaction. In the event no such response is received by that deadline, the Participant will be deemed to have admitted the Anti-Doping Rule Violation(s) charged, and have acceded to the Consequences specified in the Notice of Charge. which is 2 years of ineligibility.

Decision
1 Anti-Doping Rule Violations pursuant to ADR Articles 2.1 and 2.2 have been committed;
2 A period of Ineligibility of two (2) years shall be the Consequence imposed pursuant to ADR Article 10.2;
3 That period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced on 29 July 2013, and will end at midnight on 28 July 2015;
4 The Athlete’s status during this period of Ineligibility shall be as set out in ADR Article 10.10; and
5 Pursuant to ADR Article 10.10.4, during the period of Ineligibility the Athlete shall remain subject to the Anti-Doping Rules.

The UK Anti-Doping Limited ("UKAD") appeals against the desicon of the UK Antii-Doping Panel dated November 27, 2012. In this decision Ryan Llewellyn (the "Athlete") received an award of one year ineligibility for the use of the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine, (“MHA”).

Issues at the hearing
The appeal committee is surprised that the UKAD makes a distinction between the use of a specified substance out-of-competition or in-competition.
It has to be determined if the specified prohibited substance was taken to enhance sport performance.

Decision
1. The UKAD's appeal is dismissed
2. An appeal can be made by the relevant international federation or by WADA by appeal to CAS.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Limited (UKAD) charged Tomasz Bielinski (the "athlete") for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On February 3, 2013 the athlete competed in a 74 kilogram Greco-Roman competition and provided a sample for doping control. His sample tested positive on methylhexaneamine which is a prohibited substance. On March 1, 2013, the Athlete admitted the Charge in writing and on March 19, 2013 waived his right to have the B sample tested.

History
The Athlete used the supplement Jack3d assuming it was creatine. The Athlete did not disclose the use of the Supplement on his Doping Control Form, he was injured and needed medical treatment for this he let his girl-friend fill in the form. He has never had any formal anti-doping education. He says that when completing the online registration for the BWA, he believes there may have been some reference to anti-doping, but says he was never sent any information or educational material on anti-doping once registered with the BWA. He was wholly inexperienced when it came to anti-doping matters generally. He did not know that supplements could cause a doping risk and indeed was naive when it came to their use generally.

Considerations panel
Jack3d is the likely cause of the contamination.
The panel believes that the use of the supplement was for use during training and not for enhancing sport performance in competition.

Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation pursuant to ADR Article 2.1 has been committed;
2. A period of Ineligibility of fifteen months shall be the Consequences imposed pursuant to ADR Article 10.4;
3. That period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced on 3 February 2013 and will expire on 2 May 2014;
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.
The disposition of these proceedings on the terms set out above will be publicly announced via UK Anti-Doping’s website.

Appeal
This decision may be appealed by the Athlete, the BWA, the International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles or the World Anti-Doping Agency.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Limited (“UKAD”) and William Rees Hole (the “Athlete”) relating to an Anti-Doping Rule Violation. On February 9, 2012, the Athlete was selected to provide a sample during a squad test of Newport RFC. The analysis revealed the presence of clenbuterol which is a prohibited substance on the WADA list 2012. The athlete waived his right to B sample analysis, and asked for a hearing, but later withdrew his request. The Athlete has been provisionally suspended since February 29, 2012.

Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation according to Article 2.1 been established;
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 29 February 2012, and will end at midnight on February 28, 2014.
4. The Athlete’s status during this period of Ineligibility shall be as set out in Article 10.10.