UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Jeremy Wilson

17 Feb 2016

In December 2015 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Jeremy Wilson after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.
After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission and without a hearing accepted the provisional suspension and the sanction rendered by UKAD.

The Athlete stated that he had used a supplement recommended by a friend. He was led to believe that the supplement was a mixture of vitamin C powder and a caffeine-based herbal diuretic and he failed to research the ingredients of the supplement before using.

Considering that the Athlete was significantly at fault and acting without intention UKAD decides on 17 February 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 December 2015.

UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Jordan McMillan

15 Apr 2015

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping organization (UKAD) charges Jordan McMillan, the player, for an anti-doping rule (ADR) violation. On December 3, 2014, UKAD collected an in-competition sample for a doping test. Analysis of the sample did show the presence of benzoylecgonine a metabolite of cocaine. Cocaine is a prohibited substance according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 prohibited list.

History
The player accepts the results of the test but denies that he had any knowledge of its ingestion nor had any intent to ingest such a substance at any time. It was alleged, that he had been consuming cocaine as a recreational substance but that such consumption on November 30, 2014, was unknown to the Athlete. A friend of the family made the statement that he had mixed his drink with cocaine and was used by the athlete unintentionally because he drank from the wrong glass. The athlete is against the use of drugs, especially because his own brother died of an overdose.
The Tribunal did not consider the evidence to be reliable and credible as regards how the prohibited substance had entered the system of the athlete.

Decision
- The player is ruled ineligible for a period of two (2) years in accordance. The period of ineligibility is deemed to have started running from the date that he was charged and provisionally suspended. It will therefore run from December 18, 2014, to December 17, 2016 (inclusive).

UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Joseph Phelps

19 Oct 2015

In June 2015 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Joseph Phelps after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance nandrolone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel Arbitral Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he acted without intention to enhance his performance. The Athlete argued that he suffered from erectile dysfunction and used viagra and other supplements to “boost” bedroom performance because he had been to embarrassed to go to the doctor to receive treatment. When he had experienced erectile difficulties again he purchased the drug in a nutrition store that was recommended to him and hereafter injecting the drug.

The Tribunal did not accept the Athlete’s explanation and concluded that the Athlete knew he had taken an illegal substance and had injected this into his body.
Therefore on 19 October 2015 the National Anti-Doping Panel Arbitral Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of inegligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 2 July 2015.

In March 2016 the Athlete appealed the decision of the Tribunal. However this appeal was dismissed on 1 April 2016 due to the Athlete failed to file copies of any witness or documentary evidence in his defence.
Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel Arbitral Tribunal decided to publish the decision of 19 October 2015 without delay.

UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Lewis Graham

27 Aug 2015

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping organization (UKAD) charges Lewis Graham, the player, for an Anti-Doping rule (ADR) violation. On February 17, 2015, UKAD collected an out-of-competition sample for a doping test. Analysis of the sample did show the presence of nandrolone. Nandrolone is a prohibited substance according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 prohibited list.

History
The player does not dispute that he committed the ADRV and no issue of jurisdiction arises. However, he argues that the otherwise applicable four year period of ineligibility should be reduced on the basis that there was no intent to commit the ADRV and furthermore that there was no significant fault or negligence. After beings tested positive he did his own research and determined the following probabilities:
- contaminated supplements that he had taken along with a high quantity of coconut oil;
- the fact that he had been tested directly after High Intensity Interval Training; and
- his use of pure coconut oil on his skin, on his food and as an additive.
The panel concludes that the player had no satisfactory explanation how the prohibited substance had entered his body. He had not mentioned all the supplements he had taken on the doping control form. Also the manner in which he had checked the ingredients was doubtful. The player had not established that his positive test was unintentionally.

Decision
- The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 4 years.
- The period of ineligibility is adapted to his provisional suspension which commenced on March 11, 2015. Accordingly, the period of ineligibility will run until March 10, 2019.

UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Owen Morgan

23 Oct 2015

Facts
The United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) had charged Owen Morgan, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On March 7, 2015, UKAD collected an in-competition sample from the athlete for doping test purposes. The sample of the athlete showed the presence of drostanolone and its metabolite also benzoylecgonine a metabolite of cocaïne. These substances are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2015 prohibited list. Drostanolone is prohibited at all times and cocaïne only in-competition.

History
The athlete admitted the violation and waived his right for a hearing. He explained that he had used medication containing the prohibited substance methyl-drostanolone in order to cure a hamstring injury. He had failed to do any research if this medication contained prohibited substances.
The cocaïne was used out-of-competition, in a context unrelated to sports performance, this was accepted by the UKAD.
However an expert asserted that the medication he took does not contain the prohibited substance drostanolone.

Decision
- The sanction is a period of ineligibility of four years commencing on April 2, 2015 and will end at midnight on April 1, 2019.
- There will be no reduction of the sanction despite the prompt admission.
- Two months before the end of the sanction the athlete is allowed to use the training facilities.

UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Paul Bird

23 Nov 2015

In July 2015 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Paul Bird after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances cocaine and furosemide.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. With consent of the parties the Athlete admitted the violation and the non intentional use of the two substances.
Therefore the NADP Anti-Doping Panel Arbitral Tribunal decides on 23 November 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 July 2015.

UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Paul Songhurst

8 Jun 2015

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping organization (UKAD) charges Paul Songhurst, the athlete, for an anti-doping rule violation. During a training february 23, 2015, the athlete provided a sample for doping test purposes. His sample tested positive for drostanolone and its metabolite. Drostanolone is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2015 Prohibited List. It is regarded as a non specified substance.

History
The athlete is a member of the Rugby Football League (RFL). He claims that the positive finding came from the use of a supplements especially one called "monster mix". However experts proved that drostanolone only appears in the body if administered by intra-muscular injection. UKAD not surprisingly submitted that in such circumstances, the athlete had failed to satisfy the burden of proof which was on him.

Decision
- The period of ineligibility is 4 years with effect from February 23, 2015 to expire on 22 February 2019.

UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Rhys Williams

12 Jan 2015

Facts
The United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) had charged Rhys Williams, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On June 17, 2014, during an out-of-competition doping control samples were taken for doping test purposes. The samples of the athlete showed the presence of a metabolite of several exogenous anabolic steroids including methyltestosterone and metandienone. These exogenous steroids are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 prohibited list.

History
The athlete used supplements for which he had checked the manufacturers, unfamiliar ingredients were checked on the Global Drug References website. When checking for the supplement that caused the positive test the manufacturer didn't want to pay the fee for other batches to be tested, the original batch had been tested with negative results. The manufacturer was surprised about the positive result of the doping test, his logical explanation was that something must have gone wrong during the blending, manufacturing or package process.
Because of the fact that his sanction was reached after 1 january 2015 Lex mitior was applied because the new ruling of the WADA has a lesser severe penalty for this violation.

Decision
- The period of Ineligibility imposed is four months commencing on 24 July 2014.
- The athlete is disqualified from the race he ran on July 11 2014,

UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Richard Burnett

10 Jun 2015

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping organization (UKAD) charges Richard Burnett, the player, for an Anti-Doping rule (ADR) violation. On November 3, 2014, UKAD collected a sample, during a dart tournament, for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample did show the presence of benzoylecgonine a metabolite of cocaine. Cocaine is a prohibited substance according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 prohibited list, it is a non-specified substance.

History
The player only indicated that he had taken gout tablets and pain killers.
The panel does take exceptional circumstances into consideration and allows a reduction of the penalty.

Decision
- The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 18 months.
- The period of ineligibility is adapted to his provisional suspension commencing on November 3, 2014, and ending on May 2, 2016.
- His results obtained on November 3, 2014, will be annulled. Medals, points and prizes will be withdrawn.

UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Robin Townsend

22 Dec 2015

Related case:
UKAD 2016 UKAD vs Robin Townsend
October 3, 2016

In October 2015 UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Robin Townsed after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance modafinil.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete accepted the test results and the anti-doping violation. He denied the intentional use of the substance and that the result of fault or negligence on his part. The “only possible explanation” he could provide was that his sample was “spiked at the event”.

The Tribunal did not accept the Athlete’s ‘spiking’ explanation without evidence and finds that none of the Athlete’s supplements had been analysed to exclude contamination by modafinil.
Without grounds for eliminating or reducing the period of ineligibility the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 22 december 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 October 2015.


Hereafter in February 2016 reanalysis of the Athlete's sample also tested positive for EPO resulting in a second charge against the Athlete. Considering the evidence the Tribunal concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping violation by the presence of EPO is his A sample.

The Tribunal rules that this second charge is not a second anti-doping rule violation because it was committed on 5 September 2015 before the Athlete received notice of the first charge. For the purpose of determining the appropriate sanction, this anti-doping rule violation is to be treated as though it were the first.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 3 October 2016:

1.) The anti-doping rule violation (the second charge) has been established.
2.) The period of ineligiblility imposed is 4 years, commencing on 8 October 2015, concurrent with the sanction imposed in respect of the first charge.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin