The rugby player Jack McIntosh has been convicted in 2012 for the criminal offence of supplying steroids and was therefore target tested on 15 May 2015 at his home by UK Anti-Doping (UKAD). However on 16 May 2015 the Athlete emailed UKAD that he withdrew his consent to analyse the samples he had provided because he had decided to retire from the sport of rugby.

As a consequence the Athlete was charged in June 2015 by the RFU for his breach of World Rugby Regulation (WRR) 21.2.1 (‘Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Player’s Sample’). On 9 February 2016 the RFU Anti-Doping Panel concluded that he was guilty of a violation of WRR 21.2.1 and decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the RFU decision regarding his breach of WRR 21.2.1. and an RFU Anti-Doping Post-Hearing Review Panel was convened to review the challenged decision of 9 February 2016.

Additional documentation provided to the Post-Hearing Review Panel detailed a proposal for an agreement supported by the RFU and the Athlete that he had breached WRR 21.2.5 (‘Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any part of Doping Control’) and moreover he should receive a four year ban for this violation.
In January 2017 the Athlete was charged by the RFU with an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under WRR 21.2.5, in the alternative to the previous charge under WRR 21.2.1. for the identical facts mentioned in the previous charge in respect of WRR 21.2.1.

The new charge under WRR 21.2.5 was brought as a result of a notification of a Case to Answer by UKAD, following consultation between UKAD and WADA as to the appropriate consequences under the WADA Code (and therefore the World Rugby Regulations) when an athlete communicates the withdrawal of his consent to the testing of a Sample provided by him but before testing has taken place.

UKAD and WADA's position was that the Athlete’s conduct subverted (or attempted to subvert) the Doping Control process and fell within the definition of 'tampering', namely, obstructing to prevent normal procedures from occurring.

The Athlete position was that the use of the term "tampering" or "alleged tampering", without additional qualification, did not accurately or fairly reflect the nature of his conduct. He requested that the decision recording his breach of WRR 21.2.5 set out that he "subverted or sought to subvert the Doping Control process by withdrawing consent to the processing of his Doping Control related data", rather than using the title of that provision. The RFU indicated its agreement to this position and the Post-Hearing Review Panel did in fact allow the Athlete’s appeal against WRR 21.2.1.

After referral the Sport Resolutions National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) confirms acceptance of the proposed agreement and rules that the Athlete had breached WRR 21.2.5 for subverting the Doping Control process by withdrawing his consent to the processing of his sample he had provided.

The NADP decides on 13 April 2017 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. This period is in accordance with the original imposed suspension.

In March 2017 the Rugby Football Union (RFU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Joseph Stokes 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 both parties requested for a decision rendered from the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) based on the written proceeding.

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the substance and stated that he was surprised that he had tested positive. He asserted that there was confusion and irregularities in the testing, labeling and completion of the Doping Control Form and there was the potential for the mixing of his sample with that of others. Also the Athlete suggested that he would have ingested cocaine through counting bank notes with possible containing traces of cocaine at a fundraising effort he attended.

The RFU accepted that the violation was not intentional and objected to the Athlete’s assertion that there has been a prompt admission.

The Panel agrees that the violation was not intentional and that a prompt admission wasn’t made by the Athlete under the Rules. Therefor the NADP decides on 3 November 2017 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 31 March 2017.

In April 2017 the Rugby Football Union (RFU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Michael Lowis after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances drostanolone and trenbolone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete did not contest the charge, filed no statement in his defence and waived his right to be heard.

Considering that the Athlete gave no explanation and without grounds for a reduced sanction the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 20 July 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 April 2017.

In November 2017 the Rugby Football Union (RFU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Patrick Hiller 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 (NADP).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He contended that the positive test was the result of consuming a drink at a party that was spiked with Cocaine two days before the sample collection. Here the scientific evidence of the London Lab confirmed that the administration more likely than not occurred more than 12 hours before the sample collection.

Based on the opinion of the London Lab the Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and Out-of-Competition, in a context unrelated to sport performance. The Panel concludes that the Athletes failed to support his assertion about spiking with any evidence. He also failed to give a prompt admission because the Athlete made his admission only after a significant period of time had elapsed attributed to the Athlete's conduct.

Therefore the NADP decides on 2 May 2018 to impose a 2 year period of ineligiblility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 17 November 2017.

In September 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Andrew Acton after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. The Athlete gave a prompt admission and without a hearing he accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction rendered by UKAD.

The Athlete admitted that he intentionally had injected himself the Product ‘testosuspensa’ containing ‘Testosterone suspension’ although he tested positive for Stanozolol, not Testosterone.
UKAD holds that the Athlete failed to establish how the prohibited substance entered his system because he could not provide UKAD a sample of the Product and as a result it could not be analysed to confirm it contained Stanozolol.

UKAD considers in this case the Athlete’s prompt admission and his apparent lack of anti-doping education since he commenced playing in the United Kingdom. WADA and UKAD agree that the Athlete should be afforded a reduction of the period of ineligibility based on his degree of fault.

Therefore UKAD decides on 19 January 2018 to impose a 3 year and 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 September 2017.

Related case:
UKAD 2017 UKAD vs Thomas Edward Curry
September 26, 2017

On 26 September 2017 the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the rugby player Thomas Edward Curry after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

In this case the NADP ruled that the Athlete’s ingestion of Cocaine was not consistent with the scientific evidence of the London Lab. As a result the Panel concluded that the Athlete must have used more Cocaine and closer in time to the match. Accordingly the Panel was not satisfied that the Athlete established how the admitted anti-doping rule violation occurred nor that the violation was not intentional.

Hereafter in October 2017 the Athlete appealed the NADP decision of 26 September 2017 with the Arbitral Appeal Tribunal. The Athlete requested for a reduced sanction and contended that the Panel erred in their finding that he had not established that he ingested Cocaine Out-of-Competition or how the violation occurred.

Considering the evidence in this case the Appeal Panel concludes that the NADP was not erroneous in their finding that the Athlete failed to establish that the anti-doping violation was not intentional. He failed to demonstrate that he had used Cocaine only Out-of-Competition nor that the use of Cocaine was unrelated to sport performance.

The Appeal Panel finds it clear, and in any event, that the Athlete bore considerable personal responsibility for the commission of the anti-doping rule violation because he consumed significant quantities of cocaine knowing of its Prohibited status shortly before a match.

Therefore the Arbitral Appeal Tribunal decides on 22 May 2018 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal and to uphold the NADP decision of 26 September 2017.

Related case:
UKAD 2018 Adam Fedorciow vs UKAD - Appeal
May 29, 2018

In August 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weight lifter Adam Fedorciow after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Higenamine. 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 (NADP).

The Athlete gave a prompt admission, denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that his Fault or Negligence was not significant. He stated that he had used the product Mentality, an over-the-counter supplement containing higenamine hydrocholoride, and that he mentioned this product on the Doping Control Form. He stated that he purchased the product in December 2016 and checked the ingredients on the full 2016 Prohibited List including the Summary of Changes for the 2017 Prohibited List.

UKAD contended that the Athlete knew about the rules and their importance, particularly given his background in junior international rugby. He could not therefore take 'refuge in naivety and ignorance'. UKAD argued that when Higenamine was clearly put on the 2017 List, the Athlete did not do all that he reasonably could have done to acquaint himself with which substances were prohibited. A reasonable Athlete would have checked the ingredients against the full list.

The Panel considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission, that the violation was not intentional and that there are no grounds to reduce the period of ineligibility from 2 years. The Panel holds that he failed in his core responsibility to acquaint himself with the substances on the Prohibited List due to his search regarding the contents of the 2017 List was insufficient.

Therefore the NADP decides on 8 February 2018 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 15 July 2017.

In August 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Adam Walker 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 explained that his use was Out-of-Competition in a contect unrelated to sporting performance as he consumed Cocaine some 3 days prior to the match. The Athlete produced medical evidence to explain that his consumption and addiction of Cocaine was due to a set of mental health problems he suffered. The London Lab confirmed that the concentration of Cocaine found in the Athlete’s sample was consistent with his out-of-competion use more than 12 hours before the match.

UKAD accepted the Athlete’s explanation and finds that the Athlete established, on a balance of probabilities, that the violation was not intentional with No Significant Fault or Negligence. UKAD considers in this case that the Athlete gave a prompt admission and that there were delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete or UKAD.

Therefore UKAD decides on 1 August 2018 to impose 20 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 14 July 2017.

In April 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American basketball player Anton Grady after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold. 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 (NADP).

The Athlete gave a prompt admission of the anti-doping violation and stated that he had used cannabis at home prior to the sample collection at the competition later that day.
The Athlete testified that he came from a significantly disadvantaged background and he was living in the United Kingdom in a poorly appointed hotel room. He had no or little income to spend on himself due to the need to support his family in the United States.
There was no or insuffiencient support from the Club, whether medically, pastorally or generally in circumstances where it appeared clear the he still needed help in fully recovering from injury het suffered months before. The Athlete was often paid late, the treatment by the Club was deficient on the point of being abusive and the head coach behaved aggressively to the Athlete. He didn’t know cannabis was a prohibited substance and the anti-doping education from his club was at best cursory.

The Tribunal finds the Athlete to be a credible and honest witness, it accepts the Athlete’s explanation and that the Athlete would have been subject to extreme mental stress leading to likely depression.

The Tribunal considered the evidence where UKAD used the note of a telephone conversation as an admission. The Tribunal finds that UKAD brings proceeding in the role of a quasi-prosecutor and, using a colloquial term from criminal jurisprudence, the admission might be viewed as the athlete having been “verballed” in circumstances where he was not legally represented, had not been warned as to the status of the conversation or the potential uses to which it might be put. The Tribunal was also not satisfied that the Club had given any, or sufficient guidance or training to the Athlete as to the anti-doping regime.

In the view of the Tribunal UKAD has not discharged the burden upon it and had not enable the Tribunal to feel satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Athlete had engaged in conduct that he knew constituted an ADRV or had manifestly disregarded the risk that he might have committed and anti-doping violation.

The Tribunal concludes, based on the unique and specific facts of this case, that the Athlete should be viewed as having acted with nog significant fault or negligence.
Therefore the NADP Tribunal decides on 1 November 2017 to impose a 15 month period starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 12 March 2017.

In April 2017 the UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Darren McCormack after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance metandienone. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete stated that he trained together at a boxing gym with a good friend. He usually took protein shakes at the end of a training session but had run out of own supply that particular week. His friend had then offered to make him shakes. He had not told him that he had inserted a fat burner into the shakes he provide until after the Athlete had been notified that he was tested positive. The Athlete’s friend testified that he had Dbol / Dianabol tablets (metandienone) from a bodybuilder. He understood that these tablets were just fat burners and he added these tablets to the shakes because he wanted to be in shape.

UKAD argued that the Athlete failed to establish that the had acted not intentional and that there were serious issues as to the credibility of the witnesses. In this regard UKAD pointed to a number of matters.

The Tribunal agrees that there are inconsistencies in the statements and it his has doubts about the overall credibility of the witnesses due to the notable lack of important details.
The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Athlete has established how the Prohibited Substance entered his system and finds that he intentionally committed the anti-doping violation.
Considering the prompt admission the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 28 September 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 8 April 2017.