In June 2017 the UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the 60 year old cyclist Stephen Costello after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 1,3-Dimethylbutylamine, GW1516 and Ostarine.
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 admitted the presence of the substances in his sample and stated that he had consumed a drink, or drinks, prepared by his wife into which, without his knowledge, she had added a number of supplements containing the prohibited substances.
the Athlete argued that on the balance of probabilities, he can establish how the non-Specified Substances entered his system. In addition, the Athlete’s position was that he had no idea that the breakfast smoothies he was taking contained any of the Supplements and he therefore cannot have been deliberately engaging in conduct which he knew constituted an ADRV.

The Tribunal notes that the evidence to support the Athlete’s claim that his wife was spiking his smoothies was solely his word and that of his wife. The tubes that contained the Supplements had been discarded, there were no receipts or evidence that these supplements had ever been purchased, no replacements had been purchased and analysed.
The Tribunal noted there were also some potential discrepancies with the testimony of the Athlete’s wife. Ultimately, even after hearing both the Athlete and his wife, the Tribunal were not left feeling that this story was more likely true than not. As such, the Athlete has failed to satisfy his burden of proof to convince the Tribunal that the ingestion of these Prohibited Substances was not intentional.

The Tribunal finds that the anti-doping violation has been establish and that the Athlete could not establish how the prohibited substances entered his system. Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 16 October 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 June 2017.

Related case:
UKAD 2017 Thomas Curry vs UKAD - Appeal
May 22, 2018

In April 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Thomas Edward Curry 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 stated that he had used Cocaine out-of-competition, in a context unrelated to sport performance on different occasions during the week before the rugby match in the weekend. He denied that he used Cocaine on Thursday, on Friday or on Saturday, before or after the match.

Based on the test results UKAD contended that Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional and that his fault was significant.

The Panel finds that the Athlete’s ingestion of Cocaine on Thursday morning alone is not consistent with the scientific evidence of the London Lab. As a result the Panel concludes that the Athlete must have used more Cocaine and closer in time to the match. Accordingly the Panel is not satisfied that the Athlete has established how the anti-doping rule violation occurred nor that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the NADP decides on 26 September 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 28 April 2017.

In October 2017 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Zak Hardaker after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

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 (NADP).

The Athlete gave a prompt admission, denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that there are grounds for a reduced sanction. He testified that at the time in question he suffered a very distressing personal situation. As a result he went out with a friend drinking excessive quantities of alcohol, and then taking Cocaine at the end of the evening when he was completely intoxicated.

The Panel accepted the Athlete’s statement and evidence and concludes that the use of the Cocaine was out-of-competition in a context unrelated to sport performance.
Considering No Significant Fault or Negligence the NADP decides on 6 April 2018 to impose a 14 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 8 September 2017.

Related case:
UKAD 2017 UKAD vs Adam Fedorciow
February 8, 2018

On 8 February 2018 the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the weight lifter Adam Fedorciow after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Higenamine.

Here the NADP considered that the Athlete gave a prompt admission, that the violation was not intentional and that there were no grounds to reduce the period of ineligibility from 2 years. The Panel ruled that he failed in his core responsibility to acquaint himself with the substances on the Prohibited List.

Hereafter in February 2018 the Athlete appealed the NADP decision with the Appeal Tribunal.

The Athlete requested the Appeal Tribunal to annul the NADP decision of 8 February 2018 on the basis that the NADP erred to properly apply the criteria and the definition for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The Appeal Tribunal concludes that the NADP correctly considered and applied the definition of No Significant Fault or Negligence including the relevant jurisprudence. Also the NADP accurately did assess the evidence when rendering its decision that the Athlete failed to establish ‘No Significant Fault or Negligence’.

Therefore the Appeal Tribunal decides on 29 May 2018 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal and to uphold the NADP decision of 8 February 2018.

Related case:
UKAD 2017 UKAD vs Joanna Blair
February 23, 2018

On 23 February 2018 the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) decide to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Joanna Blair after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone.
In First Instance the Athlete admitted the violation and argued that the Metandienone entered her system through a contaminated creatine supplement as the London Lab had confirmed this fact after analysis of this supplement.

The First Instance Tribunal considered 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 Tribunal. Accordingly the First Instance Tribunal concluded that the Athlete failed to establish how the substance entered her system, nor that the violation was not intentional.

Hereafter in March 2018 the Athlete appealed the First Instance Tribunal decision with the Appeal Tribunal.

The Athlete argued that the decision of 23 February was erroneous because the evidence was rejected that showed that the creatine supplement had been contaminated during manufacturing. Also erroneous was the Athlete's requirement to prove how the creatine supplement became contaminated.

Considering the approach of the First Instance Tribunal the Appeal Panel concludes that this approach was not erroneous. Therefore the Appeal Panel decides on 30 July 2018 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal and to uphold the decision of 23 February 2018.

In March 2018 the Rugby Football Union (RFU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Ashley Johnson after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide. 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 a prompt admission, argued that the violation was not intentional and that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. Here the athlete demonstrated with evidence that by mistake had had used his wife’s Fat Burner pill containing the substance.

Considering the evidence in this case the Panel establish:
- The source of the Prohibited Substance was the Athlete’s consumption of pills which were, in fact, the Fat Burner pills that were his wife’s. The burden was on the Athlete to prove that and he has discharged that burden
- He took his wife’s pill, believing that he was taking his own Nutrilean supplement.
- As a result he has inadvertently consumed pills that have given rise to an Adverse Analytical Finding.
- The Athlete’s conduct was careless, even allowing for what was said to be the “generally chaotic” circumstances in which the family has its breakfast where the supplements in question were used.

Here the Panel regards the Athlete’s prompt admission, his conduct and his degree of fault to determine a proportional sanction. Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 23 July 2018 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 7 February 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.

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.

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.

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.