UKAD 2018 RFU vs Daniel Wells

28 Sep 2018

In May 2018 the Rugby Football Union (RFU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Daniel Well after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Ostarine and Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). 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, denied the intentional use and asserted that he researched the ingredients of this supplement before using. He believed that only his use of contaminated supplement must have caused the positive test result. However he could not demonstrate this with evidence due to he could not afford the costs of analysis of this supplement in a WADA Accredited laboratory. Here the Rugby Football Union (RFU) declined to pay for laboratory testing of this supplement.

The RFU contended that the Athlete failed to establish with evidence that the supplement in question was the source of the positive test, nor that the violation was not intentional and neither how the prohibited substance entered his system.

The Panel points to several unsatisfactorily features of the Athlete’s evidence and that only the supplement in question was the source. The Panel finds that the Athlete is not a cheat but concludes that he failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. Nor did he demonstrate with evidence that the source of the prohibited substances was a contaminated supplement. The Panel considers the Athlete’s conduct and his degree of fault in this case and deems that there are no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 28 September 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 May 2018.

UKAD 2018 UKAD vs Craig Russel

21 Feb 2018

In November 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Craig Russe after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clomiphene.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right to be heard and accepted the sanction proposed by UKAD. Here UKAD accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete gave a prompt admission.

The parties in this case reached an agreement and accordingly the National Anti-Doping Panel decided on 21 February 2018 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 14 October 2017.

UKAD 2018 UKAD vs Daniel Matthews

10 Oct 2018

In April 2018 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Maredydd Francis after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.
The Athlete gave a prompt admission and without a hearing he accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction rendered by UKAD.

The Athlete admitted the violation and explained that he came in contact inadvertently with a cocaine user through the course of his employment as a doorman the day before the competition.
The London Lab confirmed that the concentration of Cocaine found in the Athlete’s sample was consistent with his assertion that his use of Cocaine was out-of-competion.

UKAD accepts the Athlete’s explanation that the violation was not intentional in a context unrelated to sport performance and considers that he gave a prompt admission.
Therefore UKAD decides on 10 October 2018 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 24 March 2018.

UKAD 2018 UKAD vs Harry Reardon

15 May 2018

In December 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Harry Reardon after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone) and Drostanolone.

After notification and after a provisional suspension was ordered the Athlete gave a promp admission to UKAD, requested to be heard and argued that he was not signed to a club at the time of the Out-of-Competition test. Hereafter the Athlete failed to respond to any of the communications from UKAD and the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP), neither did he attend the hearing.

The Panel establish that when the Athlete provided a sample on 30 November 2017 he was still under contract to his rugby club and therefore subject to doping control under the RFL Rules. Also during a period of 12 months following the end of his contract the Athlete is still subject to the RFL Rules including the UK Anti-Doping Rules.

The Panel notes that the Athlete initially gave a prompt admission but failed to file any evidence in his defence as to reduce the sanction. Without the Athlete’s response the NADP concludes that the Athlete committed the anti-doping rule violation and decides on 15 May 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 30 November 2017.

UKAD 2018 UKAD vs Ivica Bačurin

30 Sep 2019

In September 2018 and in March 2019 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported 2 anti-doping rule violations against the Croatian boxer Ivica Bačurin after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Cannabis, Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone, Metandienone, Testosterone and Trenbolone. 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 denied the intentional use of the prohibited substances and assumed that the positive test was the result of his use of contaminated water or the use of contaminated supplements. He argued that he was tested before in his career without issues but failed to provide evidence in support of his assumptions. The Athlete later admitted the use of Cannabis since the age of 17 and his trainer produced a written statement admitting he had supplied ‘products’ to the Athlete.

UKAD did not accept the Athlete’s explanations and contended that the Athlete failed to provide any evidence in support. Further the London Lab concluded, based on the test results, that the Athlete was a long-term user of Cannabis and considered it highly unlikely that either a contaminated drink or a contaminated supplement were the source of the positive test. The London Lab reported that the Athlete had probably consumed anabolic steroids on more than one occasion (i.e. not in a single administration).

The Panel concludes that the strong probability is that at least some part of the presence of prohibited substances in his sample is most probably explained by deliberate administration other than orally. Whether the administration was orally or by (for example) injection is unimportant in the present case neither that the ‘products’ were supplied by his trainer. The Panel deems that the overwhelming probability is that the Athlete either intended to cheat or, at the very least, conducted himself in a way as to manifestly disregard the risk of an anti-doping violation.

Further the Panel holds that the two reported anti-doping violations against the Athlete are considered as one single violation and establish that the he failed to provide a timely admission nor did he respect his provisional suspension as he participated in a boxing bout in September 2018 in Zagreb.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 30 September 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 9 September 2018.

UKAD 2018 UKAD vs James Duerden

24 Dec 2018

In February 2018 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player James Duerden after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone) and Drostanolone. The Athlete gave a prompt admission and without a hearing he accepted the test results, a provisional suspension, and the sanction rendered by UKAD.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances but he could not explain how these entered his system. He suggested that it occurred in November 2017 when a substance provided by a friend was administered via an injection. Without evidence he believed that this substance was a non-steriodal anti-inflammatory that was contaminated or otherwise contained Nandrolone and Drostanolone.

UKAD did not accept the Athlete’s statement and finds that he failed to establish how the substances entered his system or that the violation was not intentional. UKAD considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission and decides on 24 December 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 14 December 2017.

UKAD 2018 UKAD vs Joe Mullender

9 Aug 2018

In January 2018 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Joe Mullender after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 1,3-Dimethylbutylamine (DMBA). 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 gave an admission and argued with evidence that the violation was not intentional as a result of his use of a contaminated supplement. On the label of this product “Intra MD Ultra peri workout formula” the DMBA was not mentioned. The Athlete explained that he suffered from dyslexia and that he used the product on the advice of his nutritionist. The Athlete believed that his nutritionist checked all details before advising him, or any other athlete, to ingest any product.

Analysis in the London Lab confirmed the presence of the Stimulant in this product. The manufacturer had since ceased trading and it was not possible to test a further sample from an unopened tube of this product from the same batch. Also it was common ground that the manufacturer was involved in issues in the USA in relation to a product which had contained DMBA within its ingredients.

UKAD accepts that the Athlete’s violation was not intentional and contended that the Athlete had been significantly at fault with mitigating factors.

The Panel deems that the Athlete gave an admission, that he established that the violation was not intentional and demonstrated how the DMBA entered his system. Considering the Athlete’s conduct in this case and his degree of fault the Panel concludes that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 9 August 2018 to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 January 2018.

UKAD 2018 UKAD vs Kyle Perry

6 Aug 2019

In February 2019 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Kyle Perry after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Boldenone. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted a provisional suspension and without a hearing accepted the sanction proposed by UKAD.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and could not explain how the substance entered his system.
UKAD deems that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor how the substance entered his system.

Considering the Athlete's prompt admission UKAD decides on 6 August 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 24 November 2018.

UKAD 2018 UKAD vs Liam Cameron

19 Dec 2018

Related case:
CAS 2019_A_6110 Liam Cameron vs UKAD
December 30, 2019

In May 2018 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Liam Cameron 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 he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied that he knowlingly had used Cocaine either recreationally or otherwise. He testified that inadvertently Cocaine came into his system through handling a large amount of banknotes which he was in possession of having been selling tickets for the fight. He asserted that these bank notes are always contaminated with Cocaine and this contamination of his hands via bank notes and surfaces happened at various neighbourhoods where drug use is rife. Due to he is a habitual nail-biter this resulted in the transfer and oral ingestion of Cocaine into his system.

The London Lab reported that the concentration of Cocaine found in the Athlete’s sample was too high and unlikely to be the result of bank notes contamination because scientific studies showed that the concentrations of Cocaine found on bank notes are far too low as source of the positive test.

UKAD dismissed the Athlete’s explanation, pointed to inconsistenties in the Athlete’s statemens and contended that he failed to establish how the prohibited substance entered his system.

In addition UKAD sought the admission of the Athlete’s 2017 sample as evidence that also showed the presence of Cocaine, although the concentration was below the threshold and accordingly the sample was reported negative. UKAD argued that this 2017 sample showed that the Athlete previously had used Cocaine for either recreational or sporting purposes.

The Panel rejected UKAD’s argument regarding the Athlete’s 2017 sample and holds that it would not be admitted as evidence in the proceedings because this sample was not reported as an Adverse Anlytical Finding.

The Panel deems that the Athlete was not a credible or convincing witness and finds that his explanation as to the ingestion of Cocaine was purely speculative. Accordingly the Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor demonstrated on the balance of probabilities how the prohibited substance entered his system.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 19 December 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 25 May 2018.

UKAD 2018 UKAD vs Maredydd Francis

26 Sep 2018

In April 2018 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Maredydd Francis after his sample tested positive for multiple prohibited substances:
- Androsterone;
- 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol;
- 5β-androstane-3α,17β-diol;
- Etiocholanolone;
- Nandrolone;
- Testosterone;
- Trenbolone.
The Athlete gave a prompt admission and without a hearing he accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction rendered by UKAD.

The Athlete admitted the intentional use of the substances and stated that he used these in July 2017 to improve his recovery after he underwent surgery. UKAD did not accept the Athlete's statement because the test results establish that the Athlete's use of the substances was more recently than he has admitted.

UKAD considers the Athlete's prompt admission and his degree of fault and decides on 26 September 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 10 March 2018.

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