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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In November 2018 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bobsleigh Athlete Nathan Togun after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, accepted a provisional suspension and without a hearing accepted the sanction proposed by UKAD.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and testified that he had used Naproxen, Diclofenac and Winstrol as medication provided by a friend as treatment for his swelling and inflammation while he was unaware that Stanozolol was a prohibited substance.

UKAD did not accept the Athlete's explanation and deems that he failed to establish that the violation was not intentional.
Without grounds for a reduced sanction UKAD decides on 5 August 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 13 November 2018.

In December 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Nigel Levin after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol.
The Athlete admitted the violation and without a hearing he accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction rendered by UKAD.

The Athlete accepted the test result and suggested that it was caused as a result of his use of a supplement contaminated with Clenbuterol.
The Athlete was not able to demonstrate this contamination because he was unable to obtain samples from the correct batches of these products and he had not the money to have analysed any supplements by a laboratory.

UKAD concludes that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction as the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor how the substance entered his system.

Therefore UKAD decides on 23 October 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 December 2017.

Related case:
UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Paul Bird
November 23, 2015

In July 2018 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the driver Paul Bird for his refusal to submit to sample collection. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.
Previously on 23 November 2015 a 2 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Cocaine and Furosemide.

The Doping Control Officer (DCO) at the rally in question reported that after the Athlete was notified about the sample collection he stated that he had no time, signed the Doping Control Form and left the rally.

The Athlete submitted that he did not refuse to provide a sample and that there was no evidence that he had. He asserted that there was evidence that he offered to give it on antother day, but that was not the same as a refusal. He stated that he couldn’t provide a sample at the time as his helicopter was waiting and his father was ill, but he would be happy for the DCO to make any alternative arrangements. The DCO wished for him to provide a sample within the next few days. He believed it was okay to leave and so was not significant at Fault or Negligent for the purpose of the sanction.

The Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete was properly notified that he was required to provide a sample for the purpose of testing. The Panel established that the Athlete said that he was leaving; did not have time for the process; gave a reason as why he said he was leaving; and used words to the effect that the DCO can see or visit him the following week.

Based on the evidence the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete did refuse to submit to sample collection and that his conduct in refusing was deliberate and done in full knowledge that such refusal might be deemed an anti-doping rule violation for which he could be sanctioned.
Since this is the Athlete’s second anti-doping rule violation the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 8 January 2019 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 July 2018.

On 7 November 2017 a 4 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the weightlifter Sonny Webster after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Ostarine. In Adition the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) reported that the Mr Webster in October 2017 had breached the terms of the provisional suspension. However here the verdict was that training at a gym with another BWLA athlete was not a breach of his provisional suspension.

Hereafter in June 2018 UKAD reported that Mr Webster had been assisting Athletes as an Athlete Support Person during the imposed period of ineligibility. In addition UKAD issued Prohibited Association Letters to 3 weightlifters on the basis that they had been receiving coaching assistance during this period.

When interviewed Mr Webster admitted that he had provided assistance to a number of Athletes and asserted that he did not personally attend any competitions or events with the Athletes he assisted. Mr Webster acknowledged that he failed to inform any of the Athletes that he was prohibited from providing coaching assistance during his period of ineligibility.

Therefore UKAD decides on 26 February 2019 that Mr Webster has committed a violation of the prohibition from assisting Athletes. Consequently a new period of ineligibility of 3 years is imposed starting on 14 June 2021.