In October 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete David Paul Burrell for his refusal to submit to sample collection.
After notification of the violation 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 UKAD Doping Control Officer (DCO) reported that during an Out-of-Competition test in August 2017 the Athlete had refused to provide a sample because he was in a hurry to get to his work. After been notified the Athlete ignored warnings from the DCO and he also declined to sign the Doping Control Form. UKAD contended that the Athlete had been properly notified by the DCO at his home and that the Athlete intentionally had refused to provide a sample without compelling justification.

The Athlete argued that there had been a failure, not a refusal, to submit to sample collection and that such failure had been negligent rather than intentional. In this regard he explained that he had been solely and genuinely concerned about losing his job. He also asserted that the DCO refused to test at an alternative time.

In the view of the Panel the Athlete was aware that he was liable to be tested, knew there were consequences for not providing a Sample and was expecting to be targeted. The Panel accordingly finds that the Athlete, at the very least, knew that there was a significant risk that, by leaving his home without providing a Sample, his conduct might constitute or result in an Anti-Doping Rule Violation, and that he then manifestly disregarded that risk.

The Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete had intentionally refused to submit to sample collection and rejects the Athlete’s arguments that the anti-doping violation should be characterised as a failure.
Therefore the NADP decides on 7 February 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 October 2017.

In October 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Eric Molina after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dexamethasone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete submitted a statement in his defence and he failed to be heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP).

The Athlete admitted the violation and accepted the test results. He explained that the positive test was caused through the administration to him of the product Tribedoce DX by way of intramuscular injection by one of his team on the day of the event.

UKAD accepted in this case that the violation was not intentional and contended that he also was very significantly at fault and as an experienced athlete clearly failed to exercise utmost caution with his supplements.

The Panel finds that the Athlete established how the prohibited substance entered his system through an intramuscular injection as prohibited route and that the starting sanction is a 2 year period of ineligibility.
Here the Panel determines that the Boxer simply ignored all risks, failed to act with the utmost caution and shows “a significant degree of or considerable fault”. The Panel holds that an experienced athlete wanting to take vitamin B12 could take it in a number of ways. He chose to take it through an intermuscular injection, from a new source bought in Mexico and made absolutely no checks whatsoever as to what was in that supplement. There are no grounds for a further reduction of the period of ineligibility

Therefore the NADP decides on 27 April 2018 to impose the standard sanction of a 2 year period of inelibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 28 October 2017.

In March 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jamie Insall after his A and B samples 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 Sport Resolutions National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP).

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that the use of the substance was not intentional in a social situation and out-of-competition. The Athlete provided witness evidence demonstrating that the cocaine was dissolved in bottles of beer by his friends at the party in his home in order to ingest it without his knowledge the day before the match.
UKAD accepted that the ingested cocaine by the Athlete was not intentionally consumed out-of-competition, and in a context unrelated to sporting performance as ground for a reduced sanction.

The Tribunal considers in detail the withness evidence in this case and finds that the Athlete has failed to discharge the burden on him establishing on the balance of probabilities No Fault or Negligence and No Significant Fault or Negligence on his part. Further, in fact, the Tribunal finds that the Athlete was, if he did ingest the cocaine by inadvertently picking up a contaminated bottle or bottles of beer at his party, substantially at fault for consuming the cocaine contained in such bottle or bottles.

The Tribunal rules that the Athlete’s degree of Fault was at the highest level below “Significant” as ground for a reduction of the sanction by no more than 3 months. Therefore the NADP decides on 3 October 2017 to impose a 21 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 31 March 2017.

Related case:
UKAD 2018 Joanna Blair vs UKAD - Appeal
July 30, 2018

In July 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Joanna Blair after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone. 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.

Analysis of the Athlete’s supplements in the London Lab revealed that the Metandienone had been detected in the creatine powder ‘PhD creatine’.
The Athlete accepted the test result of her sample, admitted the violation, argued that the violation was not intentional and that she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence. She asserted that the creatine supplement, unknown to her, was contaminated with Methandienon.

UKAD reported that the PhD creatine from the same batch had been obtained but analysis of this batch product in the London Lab did not reveal the presence of the substance Metandienone. Accordingly UKAD deemed that the Athlete failed to establish how the substance entered her system, nor that the violation was not intentional.

The Panel considered in this case four possible explanations for how the prohibited substance came into this supplement:
- contamination during manufacture;
- introduction after the adverse analytical finding;
- introduction before the adverse analytical finding by a third party; and
- introduction before the adverse analytical finding by the Athlete.
After assessment these explanations were rejected by the Panel. Accordingly the Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to establish how the substance entered her system, nor that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 23 February 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 July 2017.

In December 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the darts player Kevin McDine 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 asserted that his use not intentional. He explained that 2 days before the match he had consumed a significant amount of alcohol throughout the evening with friends where he used the Cocaine. 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 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 13 August 2018 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 27 November 2017.

Related cases:

• UKAD 2021 UKAD vs Rangi Chase
  February 14, 2022
• UKAD 2022 UKAD vs Rangi Chase
  January 6, 2023

In August 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Rangi Chase after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission and stated that he had used cocaine out-of-competition in a context unrelated to sports performance.
UKAD accepted the Athlete’s explanation and decides on 1 November 2017 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 14 July 2017.

In May 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Robbie Turley after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide in a small concentration. 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 prompt admission and he accepted the test results. He acknowledged that he should have been more careful and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that at the home of his grandfather he mistakenly had consumed two tablets of Furosemide with the intention of taking Ibuprofen for his bruised knuckles. His grandfather used the Furosemide for his high blood pressure and he inadvertently had used the wrong tablets due to the fact that there was a mix up of different loose medication packs and blister packs in his grandfather’s medicine basket.
UKAD accepted that there was a mix up of medication and contended that the Athlete’s degree of fault was significant.

The Panel finds that the Athlete established how the prohibited substance entered his system and that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence in this case with grounds for a reduced sanction.
Therefore the NADP decides on 29 January 2018 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 7 April 2017.

In February 2017, UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) was informed that the UK Border Forced had intercepted and seized a package addressed to the Athlete Robert Myring-Thomson and contained about 100 tablets of Stanozolol.

After notification in March 2017 a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard by UKAD. The Athlete gave a prompt admission and without a hearing he accepted a 4 year period of ineligibility.

The Athlete stated that he ordered the product contained in the package for his own personal use, knowing that the product was or contained a Prohibited Substance. WADA, UKAD and the IAAF agree that he should not be afforded a reduction in the period of Ineligibility based on his degree of fault.

Therefor UKAD decides on 12 September 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligiblility on the Athlete starting on the date of the interception and seizure of the Athlete’s package, i.e. on 20 February 2017.

The United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Ryan Bailey for his refusal or failure to submit to a drug test. This occurred during his stay in Canada with his club the Toronto Wolfpack Rugby League Football Club, which plays in both Canada and England. 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).

On 30 May 2017 in Toronto the Athlete was notified by a Doping Control Officer (DCO) of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) that he was selected for testing. The Athlete was familiar with testing and to hydrate the Athlete used the water bottles provided by the DCO.

However the Athlete refused to provide a sample as he claimed that the water bottles provided by the DCOs were not sealed and the water potentially could have been contaminated. The Athlete also refused to provide a blood sample at the Doping Control Station, he signed the document and left despite warnings of the DCOs about the consequences of his refusal. A few days later the Athlete provided a sample without issues which tested negative.

The Athlete contended that during the Doping Control there were fundamental departures of the ISTI and that he had a compelling justification for his refusal. With medical evidence the Athlete explained his irrational behaviour during the Doping Control.

UKAD argued that the Athlete had been duly notified of the testing by de Canadian DCO and that there was an intentional refusal. Also the Athlete was repeatedly warned about the serious consequences of his refusal.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete was plainly notified and plainly did intend to refuse to provide a sample without a compelling justification. Considering the Athlete’s conduct and the alleged departures from the ISTI and Guidelines the Panel finds that the facts of any breaches had no causative effect on the Athlete’s refusal to provide a sample

The Panel holds that this is a truly exceptional case and has no doubt that the Athlete genuinely believed that the water might have been contaminated. Based on the filed psychiatric evidence the Panel accepts that the Athlete’s mind was quite unable to take in or process information that his refusal might be an anti-doping rule violation and that the consequences might be serious. Further the Panel accepts that the Athlete was not a cheater trying to cover up his drug use.

Therefore the NADP decides on 8 December 2017 that the Anti-Doping Rule Violation is established but in the truly exeptional circumstances of this case the Athlete bears No Fault or Negligence so that the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility is eliminated.

UKAD 2018 UKAD vs Sonny Webster
February 26, 2019

In June 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Weightlifter Sonny Webster after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Ostarine, an Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator (SARM).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.
In addition UKAD reported in October 2017 that the Athlete had breached the terms of the ordered provisional suspension.
The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Sport Resolutions National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP).

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied intentional use and stated that he could not explaine how the prohibited substance entered his system, probably caused by contaminated supplements. The Athlete conducted tests of six supplements by a laboratory in order to find the source of the substance. However analysis showed that none of these supplements contained Ostarine.

The NADP Tribunal concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, how the substance came into his system, nor that he bore No Significant Fault or Negligence.
The Tribunal finds that training at a gym with another BWLA athlete was not a breach of his provisional suspension.

Therefore the NADP Tribunal decides on 7 November 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 June 2017.