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.

In April 2018 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Thomas Minns 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 denied the intentional use of the substance. He stated that the use of Cocaine Out-of-Competition in a context unrelated to sport persformce. He explained with evidence that he had used the substance because he was suffering from three conditions including a depressive illness leading to cognitive impairment.

At UKAD’s request a psychiatrist confirmed the medical diagnoses and the London Lab reported that the test results showed that the Athlete’s use of Cocaine was more likely than not to have occurred more than 12 hours before the match, i.e. Out-of-Competition. As a result UKAD accepts the Athlete’s explanation that the violation was not intentional.

Further UKAD holds that the Athlete gave a promt admission in this case and that there were delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete. UKAD considers the Athlete’s degree of fault and that he established No Significant Fault or Negligence with grounds for a reduced sanction. Therefore UKAD decides on 24 December 2018 to impose a 16 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 15 March 2018.

In February 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Tyrell Wilson after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete submitted a statement in his defence. Hereafter the Athlete’s council ceased to represent him in this case as the Athlete failed to respond to the communications from UKAD and refused to attend the hearing of the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted the test result and submitted that the violation was not intentional as he had used the MDMA as a recreational drug out-of-competition.

UKAD submitted that the test result establish the presence of the prohibited substance in the Athlete’s sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. UKAD contended that the Athlete's use of the MDMA was intentional and during in-competition as sustained by the conclusion of the London Doping Lab.

The Panel acknowledge that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation but it was not convinced that the Athlete did so to cheat. Also the Panel finds that UKAD did not establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that the violation was intentional.

Considering the Athlete’s prompt admission the National Anti-Doping Panel 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 13 January 2018.

Related case:

UKAD 2020 Greg Goodfellow vs RFU - Appeal
May 20, 2020

In March 2019 the Rugby Football Union (RFU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Greg Goodfellow after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methasterone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel. 

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that the recommended supplement he had purchased and used was the source of the positive test. At the gym where he trained he accepted the reassurances from “some of the guys” and “confirmed that it was legal”. He demonstrated with evidence that the prohibited substance Methasterone was not listed on the label of this product. He confirmed that the label did mention the presence of Superdrol and the ingredient 2α,17α-dimethyl-4-androstadeine-3-one, 17β-ol 12mg. 

The Panel finds that the violation was not intentional and the result of the supplement in question he had purchased and used. The Panel does not accept that, on a balance of probability, the Athlete established that he conducted an intenet seach into the supplement in advance of purchasing or in advance of using the supplement. The Panel holds that even the most cursory internet search into two references mentioned on the label of the product would have lead to the prohibited substance Methasterone. 

Although the violation was not intentional the Panel deems that the Athlete acted recklessly since he failed to do what he could and should have done if deciding to take a supplement.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 11 February 2020 to impose 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 29 March 2019.

In June 2019 the Rugby Football Union (RFU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the amateur rugby player Henry Hadfiel 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.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission and denied the intentional use of the substance. He stated that the source of the positive test was the supplement Black Magic BZRK which was recommended by a close friend who run a supplement business. He had mentioned this supplement on the Doping Control Form and acknowledged that he didn’t read the label of this product that clearly indicated the substance Higenamine as ingredient. If he had done so, the ingredient would have meant nothing to him since his knowledge about performance enhancing drugs was minimal and had never received anti-doping education.

The Athlete’s friend testified and confirmed that he had provided this supplement and was unaware the it contained a prohibited substance. If he had known this, he would never have recommended it to the Athlete.

The RFU concluded that the violation was not intentional and that there are no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence because the Athlete had taken no steps at all to check that what he was using did not contain a prohibited substance.

The Panel establish that the Athlete gave a prompt admission, that the violation was not intentional and that there are no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence. The Panel considers that the Athlete made no check at all on the supplement in question. He didn’t even read the label or take any step at all to check whether the supplement contained a prohibited substance.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 25 October 2019 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 17 April 2019.

In September 2019 the Rugby Football Union (RFU) has reported two anti-doping rule violations against the rugby players Joseph Stafford and Rupert Kay.

• Joseph Stafford was charged for evading sample collection in February 2019.
• Rupert Kay was charged for complicity because he assisted Joseph Stafford to leave the training ground in order to avoid sample collection.

In the Consent Orders signed by the Parties in this case and  approved by the National Anti-Doping Panel both Athletes admitted the violations, accepted the provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the RFU.

• Considering Joseph Stafford's prompt admission the RFU decides on 14 July 2020 to impose a 3 year and 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
• Considering Rubert Kay's admission and degree of fault the RFU decides on 14 July 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The period of ineligibility for both athletes start on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 July 2019.

In May 2019 the Rugby Football Union (RFU) has reported an anti-doping rule violaton against the rugby player Kieron Scutt after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, denied the intentional use and could not explain how the substance entered his system. The RFU accepts that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete gave a prompt admission.

The parties in this case reached an agreement and in the final resolution of the proceedings the RFU National Anti-Doping Panel decided on 26 May 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 30 March 2019.

In May 2019 the Rugby Football Union (RFU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Leigh Dearden after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Cocaine, Drostanolone and Oxymetholone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

In his submissions to the RFU the Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substances. He submitted that he had used medication from an associate outside of rugby. Hereafter he failed to respond to the RFU communications nor did he attend the hearing of the National Anti-Doping Panel.

Without the Athlete's response the Panel deems that the Athlete was duly informed about the proceedings, that he has admitted the anti-doping rule violation and has waived his right to be heard.

Considering the written submissions of the parties the Panel holds that the Athlete's test results established the presence of the prohibited substances and accordingly that he has committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the substances entered his system nor that the violation was not intentional and without grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 16 September 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 31 May 2019.

In June 2019 the Rugby Football Union (RFU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Stephen Hihetah after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Metandienone, Stanozolol and Tamoxifen. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the prohibited substances and accepted that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation. He stated that at a gym in December 2018 were he trained he had used pre-workout drinks prepared by a friend. He believed that these pre-workout drinks were the source of his positive test.

The Athlete’s friend testified that he had used a white powder supplied to him by a fellow weightlifter and he was only told later that this white powder contained prohibited substances that would lead to a positive test. The Athlete asserted that as evidence he had provided this white powder to the RFU for testing and criticized the RFU for their failure not to analyse this hereafter.

The RFU contended that there were inconsistencies in the statements of the Athlete and his friend and that he failed to provide any documentary evidence in support of these statements. There was no evidence that the pre-workout drink from the Athlete’s friend actually contained prohibited substances. Based on the findings of the London Lab the consumption of these prohibited substances in December 2018 could not have led to a positive test in the relevant concentrations more than 7 week later on 21 February 2019 when the Athlete provided a sample.

The Panel finds that the Athlete failed to provide a credible explanation as to how the prohibited substances had been ingested and rejected the Athlete’s suggestion that the RFU should have analysed the white powder provided by the Athlete. The Panel holds that the RFU’s scientific evidence was wholly inconsistent with the Athlete’s statements and showed that the time of ingestion had been significantly later than as claimed by the Athlete.

Accordingly the Panel deems that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor was he able to establish how the prohibited substances entered his system.
Therefore the National Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 25 November 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 June 2019.

In June 2019 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the basketball player Alfredie Roberts after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by UKAD.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the Cannabis and explained that a week before the sample collection he had consumed some chocolate brownies out-of-competition while he was aware that they likely contained an illegal substance. He believed these brownies would not have an impact on his performance and did not expect to provide a positive sample.

UKAD holds the Athlete gave a prompt admission and that the London Lab considers it entirely possible that the Athlete’s ingestion of Cannabis occurred out-of-competition as stated.
UKAD accepts that the violation was not intentional and finds that the Athlete acted with significant fault in this matter without grounds for a further reduction of the sanction.

Therefore UKAD decides on 19 December 2019 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 19 May 2019.