Facts
The UK Anti-Doping organization (UKAD) charges Sean Penkywicz, the player, for an anti-doping rule (ADR) violation. On December 5, 2014, the player provided a sample for an out-of-competition doping test. Analysis of the samples did not show an adverse analytical finding, however on January 27, 2015, the A sample was retested for Growth Hormone Releasing Factor, this analysis returned an adverse analytical finding for Growth Hormone Releasing Peptide-6 (GHRP-6). The athlete requested a B sample analysis which confirmed the earlier finding.

History
The player, via his representative, informs that he no longer wished to contest the charge of committing an ADR Violation. He confirmed that he accepted the imposition of the applicable Consequences of the Anti-Doping Rule Violation.

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 9 April 2015 to 8 April 2017 (inclusive).
- During the period of ineligibility the player may not participate in any capacity in a Competition, Event or other activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) organised, convened, authorized or recognized by the Rugby Football League (RFL) or any body that is a member of or affiliated to or licensed by the RFL; 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 any professional league or any international or national level Event organisation; and
- The player will remain subject to and bound to comply with the RFL ADR, including the obligation to submit to testing. If requested, he will provide information as to his whereabouts to facilitate such testing.

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

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that on the Saturday evening before the match on Tuesday he had consumed alcohol and cocaine for recreational purposes. He argued that he didn’t know that the training session was converted into a match because he normally trains on Tuesday evenings and plays matches on Saturdays. Also for the Athlete’s rugby club it was the first time that there had ever been a drug test carried out and the players at the club had never received any anti-doping education.

Considering the circumstances and without intention to enhance sport performance the National Anti-Doping Panel Arbitral Tribunal decides on 5 January 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 September 2015.

Facts
The United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) had charged Sybren Hoogland, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On May 9, 2015, the athlete provided an in-competition sample for doping test purposes, during a rowing event in Belgium. The sample of the athlete showed the presence of cocaine which is a prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2015 prohibited list. It is regarded as a non-specified substance.

History
The athlete admitted the charge. The athlete explained that he had used cocaine at a party on May 7, 2015. He had not been expecting to race, however he was needed to race after all. He had used the cocaine after consuming a large quantity of alcohol.
The panel considers the use of the cocaine as unintentional because is was used out-of-competition.

Decision
- The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years commencing on March 9, 2015 until March 8, 2017.

Facts
The United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) had charged Timothy Grant, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On May 9, 2015, the athlete provided an in-competition sample for doping test purposes during a rowing event in Belgium. The sample of the athlete showed the presence of modafinil which is a prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2015 prohibited list. It is regarded as a non-specified substance.

History
The athlete accepted the charge but indicated that he had acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. Due to coursework for his exams he was advised to take Modalert pills to keep him awake and alert. It is considered as a central nervous stimulant. These pills were the cause for the positive test.
The panel had accepted that the athlete had taken modafinil for reasons unrelated to rowing, but to assist in his studies. His actions were unintentionally.
However the panel concludes that the athlete had not taken adequate steps to ensure he was not competing with a prohibited substance in his system. The violation was unintentional but without No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Decision
- The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years commencing on July 21, 2015 until July 20, 2017.
- 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.

In June 2016 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported anti-doping rule violations against the boxers Tyson Fury and his cousin Hughie Fury after each of their samples, provided in February 2015, tested positive for the prohibited substance nandrolone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.
Also in September 2016 UKAD reported an anti-doping rule violations against the boxer Tyson Fury because he refused or failed without compelling justification to submit to sample collection.

Both Athletes denied the intentional use of nandrolone and Tyson Fury also denied the anti-doping rule violation regarding the Refusal. He alleges (among other things) that the incident in question would never have happened (1) had it not been for UKAD bringing the Nandrolone Proceedings against him in June 2016, after having led him to believe that no charges would be brought against him or Hughie Fury in relation to the elevated levels of nandrolone metabolites reported to be present in their February 2015 urine samples; and (2) if he had been expressly warned at the time of the incident that if he refused or failed to provide a sample he could be banned for four years.

The National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) rejected the request to dismiss the charges against the Athletes. However the Panel did uphold the Athletes arguments that no violation had been established, or (in the alternative) UKAD’s delay in bringing the Nandrolone Proceedings. They contended that UKAD failed to warn the Athletes that they may be required to account for the nandrolone metabolites reportedly detected in their systems had caused them prejudice in their defence of the charges.

The Athletes argued that these charges should be dismissed or (in the alternative) the normal rules on burden and standard of proof of source should be reversed (such that UKAD should bear the burden of proving that the source of the reported nandrolone metabolites was a knowing and deliberate administration of a synthetic nandrolone preparation) or varied (such that the Athletes' argument that the source of the reported nandrolone metabolites was offal of uncastrated wild boar or pig or contaminated supplements should be accepted at face value).

UKAD's position is that the anti-doping rule violations it has asserted have been committed and the consequences set out in the UK Anti-Doping Rules should apply. Tyson and Hughie Fury's position is that they have never knowingly or deliberately committed any anti-doping rule violation. In recognition of the counter-arguments and the risks inherent in the dispute resolution process, each of UKAD and the Athletes (the Parties) recognizes that it/he will have to compromise its/his claims to some degree.

In accordance with UK ADR Article 7.7.4 and section 51 of the Arbitration Act 1996, at the request of the parties the NADP Tribunal has issued an order terminating the proceedings before it without making any substantive award. This decision is not an order or award of the NADP Tribunal.

UKAD accepts that Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury were not put on notice before they were charged for their violations in June 2016 that they may have to account for the presence of the elevated levels of nandrolone metabolites in their February 2015 samples, and that as a result there is an argument that the normal rules on burden and standard of proving source should be varied, and Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury should be found to have proved source to the required standard, or else UKAD should be found not to have proved intentional ingestion to the required standard, and as a result the presumption arising under UK ADR Article 10.2 that Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury acted intentionally should be deemed rebutted.

On the other hand, Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury accept that the normal rules on burden and standard of proof may be held applicable, in which case they may be found not to have proved source to the requisite standard, and as a result they may not be able to get the presumptive four year period of ineligibility reduced. In such circumstances, the Parties compromise by accepting that the period of ineligibility to be imposed on the Athletes for the violations asserted in the Nandrolone Proceedings shall be a 2 year period of ineligibility.

Both Tyson Fury and Hughie Fury had already served periods of provisional suspension since the notices of charge were served.
Given further the delays in results management that are not attributable to the Athletes, the period of ineligibility will be back-dated to start from 13 December 2015, so that it ends at midnight on 12 December 2017.

Facts
The United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) charges Lee Evans, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an out-of-competition doping control a sample was take for doping control purposes. The sample showed the presence of drostanolone and its metabolite. Drostanolone is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The athlete asserts that he must have taken a supplement contaminated with the prohibited substance. He had used various supplements and apparently didn't make any research if they contained prohibited substances. The panel sees no reason for any reduction of the period of ineligibility.

Decision
1. The period of ineligibility is two years starting from the date of sample collection July 28, 2014.
2. Any individual results obtained from July 28, 2014, shall be invalidated.
3. The athlete is permitted to return to his training two months before the period of ineligibility ends.

Facts
The Welch Rugby Union (WRU) charged Oliver Bilton, the athlete, for violations of the Anti-Doping Rules. On December 13, 2014 an in-competition urine sample was collected for doping control purposes. His sample showed the presence of oxandrolone and its metabolite epioxandrolone which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The athlete requested to determine this case on the papers. The Tribunal acceded to that request by the Athlete and the Tribunal met by telephone conference on 29 April 2015 to consider the papers. The athlete had used protein supplements from his housemates. The Athlete did not carry out any checks on his housemates’ supplements before he used them.
Although two prohibited substances were detected, the panel regards this case as one Anti-Doping Rule Violation. The athlete had made a prompt admission. The Athlete’s two year period of suspension should be backdated to the date of the sample collection namely December 13, 2014. The Athlete should receive the benefit of the lex mitior principle as the WADA Code 2015 provides that the Athlete may return to training no longer than 2 months before the expiry of his period of ineligibility.

Decision
The sanction imposed by this Tribunal for the ADRV’s is a period of Ineligibility of two years commencing on December 13, 2014. The Athlete shall be permitted to return to training no earlier than two months prior to the expiry of the period of Ineligibility, namely October 13, 2016.

In October 2016 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Drew Priday after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance metenolone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete gave a prompt admission of the violation and filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete stated that he had used a purchased product Parabolon 100 as recommended by a friend and he injected the substance on separate occasions for a total of three weeks without intention to enhance his sport performance.
However the analysis report of the product Parabolon 100 showed that it contained the prohibited substance trenbolone and not the substance metenolone.
UKAD rejected the Athlete’s explanation about how the prohibited substance entered his system and that the violation was not intentional.

Considering the Athlete’s prompt admission UKAD decides on 21 April 2017 to impose a 3 year and 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 October 2016.

Related case:
UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Gabriel Evans
December 18, 2015

On 18 December 2015 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) imposed a 3 year and 6 month period of ineligiblity on the Athlete Gabriel Evans for the use and possession of the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

Hereafter in May 2016 the Athlete appealed the UKAD decision of 18 December 2015 with the National Anti-Doping Panel Arbitral Tribunal.
The Athlete requested the Panel for a reduced sanction and asserted that the violation was not intending to improve his performance in competition, he was experimenting, and was in any case taking it only during training. In relation to his degree of fault the Athlete mentioned the absence of any formal anti-doping training, his age, inexperience and immaturity. The Athlete also argued that the sanction effects his full participation in sporting activities at the university.

The Panel finds that notwithstanding the Athlete’s age at the time and relative inexperience, he was an intelligent and well-educated young man who committed a very serious ant-doping violation in circumstances in which he must have known that what he was doing was wrong at every imaginable level. Far from thinking that he has been dealt with harshly, the view of the Panel is that he has been dealt with leniently.

Therefore on 5 July 2016 the National Anti-Doping Panel Arbitral Tribunal decides to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal and to uphold the UKAD decision of 18 December 2015.

Related case:
UKAD 2016 UKAD vs Sam Barlow
June 27, 2016

In July 2015 an an out-of-competition test at the house of the Athlete changed into an altercation and common assault against the doping control officer (DCO). The Athlete stated that he did not commit the assault with intent to avoid a doping test but because he thought de DCO was a burglar.
On 27 June 2016 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for tampering the doping control process.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the decision of 27 June 2016 with the Appeal Tribunal of the National Anti-Doping Panel. The Athlete argued that the factual findings of which he complains were induced by errors of reasoning and, but for those errors, could not have been made.

The Appeal Tribunal finds that the Tribunal was intitled to accept the statement of the DCO and to dismiss the evidence of the Athlete and his partner that he thought dat the DCO was a burglar.
Also the Appeal Tribunal concludes that the Tribunal made a careful assessment of the facts and evidence, including the CCTV footage and that no error of law or misapplication of principle can be shown.

Therefore the Appeal Tribunal decides on 6 September 2016 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal because no ground has been shown for enterfering with the factual findings of the Tribunal.