In February 2016 UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Nathan Darby after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Nandrolone, Oxandrolone and Trenbolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission for the intentional use of these substances and with a high level of fault UKAD decides on 24 May 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 February 2016.

Related case:
UKAD 2015 RFU vs Dan Lancaster
September 8, 2015

On 8 September 2015 the Rugby Football Union Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 42 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete Dan Lancaster after a consignment was seized by the UK Border Force addressed to the Athlete containing ampules of anabolic steroids and he had promptly admitted to having ordered and used prohibited substances.

Hereafter UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) appealed the decision of 8 September 2015 with the Rugby Football Union Appeal Panel. UKAD requested the RFU Appeal Panel, sustained by WADA and World Rugby, to impose a 4 year ban because no reduction was appropriate considering the Athlete’s very high fault. UKAD argued that WADA had te be asked for their approval for the application of the Regulation at all, and the proposed reduction of the ban in this case.

The Appeal Panel agrees that the RFU Anti-Doping Panel had no power to reduce the period below the minimum, in the absence of the approval of WADA.
Therefore on 9 February 2016 the RFU Appeal Panel decides to annul the decision of 8 September 2015 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 June 2015.

Related case:
UKAD 2014 RFL vs Rhys Pugsley
July 7, 2014

In March 2016 UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Rhys Pugsley after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Nandrolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission for the intentional use of the substance without providing any further information. Considering this is his second anti-doping rule violation and with his level of fault UKAD decides on 16 June 2016 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 3 March 2016.

Related case:
UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Robin Townsend
December 22, 2015

On 22 December 2015 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Robin Townsend after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance modafinil.

In February 2016 UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) reported a second anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after reanalysis of his sample, provided in September 2015, tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence to this second charge and he waived his right to be heard.
The Athlete denied the use of EPO and he disputed the external chain of custody and the integrity of the samples with departures from the ISTI.

Considering the evidence the Tribunal concludes that no departure occured from the ISTI and UKAD has established that the Athlete committed an anti-doping violation by the presence of EPO is his A sample.

The Tribunal also 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.

Related case:
UKAD 2015 RFL vs Ross Bevan
May 27, 2015

On 27 May 2015 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Ross Bevan after his sample tested positive for the prohibited susbstance drostanolon. During the period of ineligiblility the Athlete remained subject to testing.

In October 2016 UKAD reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for his refusing, without compelling justification, to submit to sample collection after notification.

In September 2016 at his house the Athlete refused to provide a sample and to sign a Doping Control Form after he had told the UKAD Doping Control Officer (DCO) that he had to take his sick child to his mother’s house and the DCO had confirmed that he was unable to return the following day.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. The Athlete at first denied the charge against him but in November 2016 the Athlete admitted the violation and he wanted to seek a reduction of the period of ineligibility.

UKAD considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission and that he committed a second anti-doping rule violation as significant serious breach of his responsibilities. UKAD does not accept the Athlete’s circumstances as exceptional but acknowledged that his refusal to provide a sample is explicable.

Therefore UKAD decides on 16 December 2016 to grant a reduction of the sanction and to impose a 7 year and 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 October 2016.

Related case:
UKAD 2016 Sam Barlow vs UKAD – Appeal
September 6, 2016

In July 2015 an UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) doping control officer (DCO) attended the house of the Athlete Sam Barlow for an out-of-competition test which changed into an altercation and common assault against the DCO.

Hereafter the Athlete pleaded guilty to the Court to common assault on the 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.

Because the out-of-competition test was aborted by the DCO UKAD reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for tampering the doping control process.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The National Anti-Doping Panel did not accept the statements of the Athlete and his partner that the DCO was a burglar rather than a doping control officer.
Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 27 June 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 November 2015.

UKAD 2016 UKAD vs Shila Panjavi
March 2, 2017

In July 2016 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Shila Panjavi after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that she had acquired approximately 100 free samples of supplements and she ingested approximately 20 of those supplements. She also acquired vitamin B and vitamin E vials from Iran when she visited and she injected herself with these vitamins. She stated that previously on her trip in Iran in 2015 she suffered from a foot swelling which was treated by a local Kurdish doctor with prescribed stanozolol. In April 2016, two months before the sample collection, she suffered again in Iran from a foot swelling. Assisted by her father to translate she revisited the Kurdish doctor and the same medication was prescribed. Here she realized that stanozolol was prescribed and that it was a prohibited substance.

However Professor Cowan of the WADA accredited laboratory in London stated that the Athlete’s explanation is not consistent with the test results from her samples collected in June 2016.
Apart from Prof. Cowan’s evidence the Panel is not satisfied that the Athlete’s explanation was true and it leads the Panel to reject the Athlete’s explanantion for the presence of stanozolol in her system.

In addition UKAD reported that during the provisional suspension the Athlete was training in the weightling club owned by her father. The Panel considered the evidence in this matter and concludes, by a small margin, that the allegation of the Athlete’s breach of the provisional suspension is not proved.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 2 March 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 July 2016.

Related case:
UKAD 2014 UKAD vs Vahid Hosseinpoor
August 6, 2014

On 6 August 2014 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Vahid Hosseinpoor - starting on 3 June 2014 until 3 June 2016 - after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Tamoxifen.

In 2015 and 2016 UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) received reports that the Athlete trained several times at a Wrestling Club despite being banned. After igonoring several warnings UKAD submitted on 12 August to the Athlete the decision to impose a new 2 year period of ineligibility starting on the date that the first sanction will end, i.e. on 2 June 2016 until 2 June 2018.

Hereafter in August 2016 the Athlete appealed the UKAD decision to impose a new sanction with the National Anti-Doping Panel.
The Athlete admitted and accepted that by training he was in breach of the initial decision but in circumstances where he did not know that he was not allowed to train at Club affiliated to the Britisch Wrestling Associaton (BWA). The Athlete stated that he acted with some degree of fault and he argued that some circumstances mitigated the level of fault shown by him.

The Panel establish that the Wrestling Club was an affiliated member of the BWA at the time the Athlete trainined there in 2015 despite being banned. Also the Panel finds that the Athlete’s fault is no reason to reduce the imposed 2 year sanction.
However the Panel determine that the Athlete’s previous admission to UKAD in an interview in June 2016 is a significant circumstance as reason for reduction of the standard sanction by half.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 13 January 2017 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete in addition to the original period of ineligibility, starting on 2 June 2016 until 2 June 2017.

In September 2016 the Athlete Graham Hale failed to provide a sample in spite of numerous genuine attempts. The Athlete was adamant that he could not provide a sample in his decision to leave the doping control station while his was warned about potential consequences.

In October 2016 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for his failure to provide a sample for drug testing. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete admitted the charge, filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete argued that the violation was not intentional and that his failure to provide a sample amounted to compelling justification with truly exceptional circumstances.
UKAD requested the Panel to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete and contended that the Athlete had accepted that he had failed to provide a sample when requested without compelling justification for his failure and without grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete had not discharged the burden, on the balance of probabilities, of satisfying the Panel that he had compelling justification for failing to submit to Sample collection. In these circumstances the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the charged anti-doping violation was not intentionally committed by the Athlete.

Considering the Athlete’s degree of fault in this case the Panel decides on 17 August 2017 to impose on the Athlete a reduced sanction of a 1 year period of ineligibility starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 October 2016.

Related case:
UKAD 2017 RFU vs Brandon Staples
November 30, 2017

On 30 November 2017 the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Metandienone, Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone and Stanozolol.

Here the Athlete denied the intentional use of the prohibited substances and stated that the substances must haven been in the whey protein shake that he purchased from a Xtreme Nutrion shop in May 2017 while on holiday in South Africa.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the decision with the NADP Appeal Tribunal. The Athlete introduced new evidence in this case and argued:
- The Panel erred in drawing advers inferences in respect of evidence that was not before it.
- The Panel erred (in principle) in finding that the Athlete had adduced ‘no evidence’ to demonstrate that the supplement he described was the source of the positive test.
- The Panel applied the wrong standard of proof in their decision.

The Appeal Panel considers the Athlete’s arguments and finds that the Tribunal made no error of principle in commenting on the lack of any corroborative evidence to bolster the Athlete’s evidence. Despite reservations over the deployment of the concentration levels without any expert evidence, they do not affect the Appeal Panel’s overall conclusion that there was here no error of principle by the Tribunal. It reached a conclusion which was undoubtedly open to it on the totality of the evidence.

Therefore the Appeal Panel decides on 16 April 2018 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal.