Facts
Sebastian Kolasa, appellant, appeals against the decision of the UK respondent for an anti-doping rule violation. The appeal is against a two year period of ineligibility imposed on the appellant by the National Anti-Doping Tribunal in a decision dated February 24, 2014, imposed in respect of a charge of evading sample collection on August 31, 2013.

History
The reason for the evasion was that the appellant was afraid to be tested positive for the use of cannabis. The Appellant thinks his period of ineligibility should be shortened because of his early admission, this is in accordance with the ruling. However his admission was during interview. And evading his samplers by wearing a crash-helmet for not being recognized is difficult to prove and seen as circumstantial evidence.

The panel considers that the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and cooperated fully once he was confronted in interview with the facts known to UK Anti-Doping. His admissions saved UK Anti-Doping from proving the case against him from circumstantial evidence, a case that might have failed for reasons already given. His youth and inexperience are of some relevance. Nevertheless, this is not a case in which we feel able to reduce his ban by the maximum amount of one year. In all the circumstances, we have come to the conclusion that the appropriate period of ineligibility is 15 months.

Decision
1. The Appeal Tribunal accepts the contention of the appellant that he is entitled to a reduction of the period of ineligibility.
1.The period of ineligibility imposed by the Tribunal is replaced by a period of ineligibility of 15 months from 1 September 2013.

Facts
The British Weightlifting Association charged Vasyl Kruk, the "Athlete", for a violation of the Anti-Doping rules. On February 24, 2014, the Athlete provided an out-of-competition sample for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of the metabolites of drostanolone, nandrolone and metandienone which are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
A most important feature of this case is that the Athlete has previously been found guilty of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (“the First ADRV”) for which the Athlete received a two year period of Ineligibility beginning on May 26, 2012 and ending at midnight on 25 May 2014. He didn't attend the hearing and confirmed the use of steroids in period between Feb 2014 and May 2014 during his ban period. The genuine reason for it was not to cheat on competition but only bring fitness back. In this response the Athlete was alluding to his lack of fitness arising out of the period of Ineligibility imposed on the Athlete as a result of the First ADRV. It contains a frank admission that he was taking steroids during the period of Ineligibility.

Decision
The sanction is a period of Ineligibility of eight years commencing from 9 am (BST) 25 May 2014 and ending at 9 am (BST) 25 May 2022.

Costs
Each party will bear their own costs of these proceedings.

Appeal
No later than 21 days from the date of receipt of this decision.

Related cases:

• UKAD 2014 Nicky Watt vs UKAD - Appeal
  March 10, 2015
• UKAD 2022 UKAD vs Nicky Watt
  April 19, 2023

Facts
The Ice Hockey UK (IHUK) charged Nicky Watt, the "athlete" for violations of the Anti-Doping Rules. The athlete had refused to provide an urine sample when requested to do so on May 27, 2014, and a metabolite of stanozolol, had been found in an urine sample provided by the athlete on June 17, 2014. He had not denied the allegations.

History
The athlete had refused to provide an out-of-competition urine sample because at that time it was out of season and he wasn't connected to any club. He later claimed that another important reason was the fact that he had smoked cannabis the previous evening. He was not unduly concerned about an ice hockey ban, since he might well not be playing the following season, but he was concerned about the effect on his business as personal trainer. He was unaware that cannabis is not an out-of-competition prohibited drug. For this he was provisionally suspended from June 13, 2014.
On June 17 2014 the athlete was again visited by a Doping Control Officer, the collected sample contained a metabolite of Stanozolol. The athlete declared he had taken several products in the last seven days.
But later he mentions the use of a fat-burner named Anavar during his vacation which must have been contaminated he had not mentioned on the doping control form.
The panel dealt with this case as two doping violations. The panel also took in consideration that the athlete was not frank is his evidence.

Decision
The period of ineligibility in his case is to be 8 years.; and the period of ineligibility is to run from June 17, 2014, to June 16, 2022.

Related cases:

• UKAD 2014 IHUK vs Nicky Watt
  November 6, 2014
• UKAD vs Nicky Watt
  April 19, 2023
  
  

Facts
Nicky Watt, the athlete, appealed against the decision of the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) tribunal made on November 6, 2014 which determined that Mr. Watt had committed two anti-doping rule violations and should be ineligible for participation in competition, and other activity, in sport for a period of 8 years. In this case the parties have agreed that the appeal should be decided on the papers alone, without a hearing, and a sole arbitrator.

History
There are four issues raised on this appeal:
(1) Whether the athlete was subject to the Rules at the material time;
(2) Whetherthe athlete should be treated as bearing no significant fault or negligence, so that the period of ineligibility should be reduced;
(3) Whether the two violations should be treated as a single violation or as two violations for which the period of ineligibility is a minimum of 8 years;
(4) Whether the imposition of a period of ineligibility was, in the circumstances of this case, disproportionate so that a lesser period should be imposed.

Submissions arbitrator:
1 - On this appeal the argument advanced by the athlete that he was not subject to the rules because he was not at the material time actively participating in the sport and he had not intended to play in the league in the following season. However he was payed to play in this season which make it valid that he acted under the rules.
2 - The assumption of the athlete that he would not undergo a doping control during his suspension is not prejudicial to his position to take a substance containing steroids. His assumptions how the prohibited substance had entered his body doesn't count as evidence.
3 - The sole arbitrator rejected the opinion of the NADP tribunal that the athlete had proven when the prohibited substance had entered his body.
4 - Towards his claim of disproportionality. He made a deliberate decision to refuse to give a sample, to conceal the fact that he had taken cannabis, and then deliberately ingested Anavar which he knew to contain a prohibited steroid. This case is exceptional but not in a way which indicates that a mandatory imposition of 8 years' ineligibility is disproportionate.

Decision
For the reasons given above this appeal is dismissed. The decision made by the tribunal dated 6 November 2014 that there were two anti-doping rule violations and that the period of ineligibility must run for 8 years from 17 June 2014 must stand.

Facts
The United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) charges Ashley Bateman, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On November 24, 2014, UKAD collected an out-of-competition sample from the Athlete for doping test purposes. His sample tested positive on oxandrolone and its metabolite, these substances are prohibited according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The Athlete admitted the charge and waived his right to have the B Sample analysed.

Decision
The period of ineligibility imposed was two years commencing on the date of the decision, reduced by the time spent in voluntary suspension. The period of Ineligibility is therefore deemed to have commenced on December 18, 2014 and will expire at midnight on December 17, 2016.

Facts
The UK Anti Doping charges Frankie Foster, the player, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On July 13, 2014, the Athlete provided an sample to UKAD during a rugby match on July 13, 2014. The analysis of that sample showed the presence of clomiphene which is a prohibited substance according to the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The Athlete admitted the charge and waived his right to have the B sample analysed.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of Ineligibility of two years.
2. That period of Ineligibility starts from August 14, 2014 and will therefore end at midnight on August 13, 2016.

Facts
The UK Anti Doping charges Harry Cartwright, the player, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On July 5, 2014, the Athlete provided an In-Competition Sample to UKAD during a rugby match subject to the jurisdiction of the Rugby Football League (RFL). The examination of that sample showed the presence of Drostanolone which is a prohibited substance according to the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The Athlete admitted the charges and asserts that his level of
fault is not significant because:
1. he was not under the jurisdiction of the ADR at the time he ingested the Prohibited Substance (March 2014);
2. he was seeking no competitive advantage; and
3. he did not think the substance would still be in his system on July 5, 2014.
The panel however concludes he failed to take full responsibility for what he ingests and uses. There are no aggraveting cirumstances or reasons for reduction of the period of ineligibility.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of Ineligibility of two years.
2. That period of Ineligibility starts from 25 July 2014 and will therefore end at midnight on 24 July 2016.

Facts
The United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) charges Shaun Owens, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On November 24, 2014, UKAD collected an out-of-competition sample from the Athlete for doping test purposes. His sample tested positive on dehydrochlormethyltestosterone which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 prohibited list.

History
The Athlete admitted the charge and waived his right to have the B
Sample analysed.

Decision
The period of ineligibility imposed was two years commencing on the date of the decision, reduced by the time spent in voluntary suspension. The period of Ineligibility is therefore deemed to have commenced on December 18, 2014 and will expire at midnight on December 17, 2016.
During this period the athlete can not play competition or take part in activities (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) organized or authorized by the RFL or any other professional league or any international- or national-level event organisation.

Facts
The United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) charges Shaun Pick, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 19 November 2014, UKAD collected an out-of-competition sample from the Athlete for doping test purposes. His sample tested positive on metabolites of oxymetholone, these substances are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The Athlete admitted the charge and waived his right to have the B
Sample analysed.

Decision
The period of ineligibility imposed was two years commencing on the date of the decision, reduced by the time spent in voluntary suspension. The period of Ineligibility is therefore deemed to have commenced on December 11, 2014 and will expire at midnight on December 10, 2016.
During this period the athlete can not play competition or take part in activities (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) organized or authorized by the RFL.

Facts
The Rugby Football Union (RFU) charges Arfon Kendrick for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. He had admitted the attempted use of growth hormone which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
On 20 September 2013, UK Anti-Doping ("UKAD") received a seizure document from the UK Border Force ("UKBF"), informing them that a package from Hong Kong labelled Jintropin (Somatropin) had been intercepted and seized. The package was addressed to Mr Kendrick.
Mr Kendrick was provisionally suspended from June 19, 2014, pending the outcome of the investigation into his case, and was requested to respond by 28 July 2014 as to whether he accepted or denied the charge. On July 23, 2014, Mr Kendrick responded to the charge by letter, stating:
“…I would like to inform you that I will not be contesting this ban as I have accepted fault on my part and cooperated fully from the outset…”
Also he indicated he would not be seeking a hearing.

The Panel has not identified any aggravating factors in this case.

Decision
The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years commencing on the date of provisional suspension, 19 June 2014. The Player has a right of an appeal as provided by RFU Regulation 20.12. No order for costs was sought or made.