Related case:
UKAD 2016 UKAD vs Adrian Canaveral
June 27, 2017

In February 2019 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Adrian Canaveral for this refusal or failing to submit to sample collection after notification in September 2018. Here the Athlete already served a 4 year period of ineligibility, imposed on 27 June 2017, after he tested positive for multiple prohibited substances.

The Athlete stated in his submissions that he already had signed and submitted his retirement letter several months back in order not to be eligble for testing. In this matter the Athlete refused the repeated invitations from UKAD to an interview, failed to respond to the charge nor provided any evidence in his defence. The case was settled by a sole arbitrator based on the written submissions of the parties.

The Sole Arbitrator is not satisfied on a balance of probabilities the Athlete had notified the 'sport' of his retirement. Not his letter to his 'sport' was located nor the confirmation from his 'sport' that he had retired. The absence of this evidence leads to the inevitable conclusion that the Athlete had not retired from sport at the time of the attempted sample collection in September 2018. Accordingly the Athlete remained subject to the obligation in respect of providing a sample under the Rules.

The Arbitrator established that in September 2018 the Athlete was properly notified and that he had signed the Doping Control Form to confirm that he refused and failed to provide a sample. Accordingly the Arbitrator deems that the Athlete committed intentionally a new anti-doping rule violation and failed to demonstrate "compelling justification" as he believed that he had retired.

Therefore the Sole Arbitrator decides on 7 October 2019 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his second anti-doping rule violation. This sanction is running consecutively to the current period of ineligibility, starting on 9 October 2020 and ending on 8 October 2028.

In December 2019 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Boxer Bradley Watson after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substancd Clomifene. 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 explained that he had used the substance for the purpose of self-medicating as treatment for his medical condition. UKAD accepts that the Athlete’s violation was not intentional and considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission.

Without grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence UKAD decides on 13 July 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of sample collection, i.e. on 28 September 2019.

In May 2019 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the ruby player Conner Duthie 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 and accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by UKAD.

The Athlete stated that he had smoked Cannabis the day before the sample collection in order to cope with his personal circumstances at the time. UKAD accepted that the violation was not intentional and considers that there were no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence in this case.

Therefore UKAD decides on 16 January 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 16 March 2019.

Related case:

UKAD 2015 SRU vs Darren Eales
June 19, 2015

In July 2019 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Darren Eales after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

Previously in June 2015 a 2 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete after he tested positive for multiple prohibited substances.

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. Serious health problems effected the Athlete's ability to participate in the proceedings resulting in extentions and postponements of the hearings. Ultimately the Panel decided to press on and to settled the case based on the written submissions of the parties.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission and denied the intentional use of Stanozolol. He claimed that the positive test was the result of a contaminated supplement he had used.

UKAD contended that the Athlete had committed a second anti-doping rule violation and had failed to provide any submissions and/or evidence to substantiate his claims relating to a lack of intention and the consumption of a contaminated product.

The Panel establishes that after delays in the proceedings the Athlete failed to produce any evidence that demonstrates that the prohibited substance was in a contaminated product, that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. Further the Panel considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission and that this was his second anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 11 November 2020 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 23 February 2019.

Related case:

UKAD 2020 Ellis Richards vs UKAD - Appeal
May 5, 2021

After sample collection in August 2018 the rugby player Ellis Richards told his condition coach and his head coach that he had taken a sip of a pre-workout drink immediately before the test. When interviewed by United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) they could not remember exactly what substance the Athlete had named in this matter.

Analysis of the Athlete's sample in October 2018 revealed not the presence of any prohibited substances. The Athlete was interviewed by UKAD in November 2018 where he accepted that he had made an admission to the coaches of taking the prohibited substance Clenbuterol.

Consequently the Athlete was removed of the rugby team and hereafter in May 2019 the UKAD reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for the use of the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete denied the use of Clenbuterol although he acknowledged that he made an admission about his use to his coaches. The Athlete asserted that he had used some tablets that he had found in the changing room of a gym. After having experienced chest pains and conducting some online research his speculative conclusion was that it must have been Clenbuterol.

UKAD contended that the Athlete had made a clear and unambiguous admission in this case which he has subsequently attempted to retract. As a result the reliability of the Athlete's initial admission against the reliability of the subsequent retraction needed to be considered by the Panel.

The Panel holds that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Also the Panel was troubled about the Athlete's "gym" explanation since he had retracted his 2 part admission and rather sought to rely upon a totally different version of events.

By contrast the Panel is willing to accept the statements of the coaches with their version of events. Also the Athlete had unequivocally confirmed to UKAD in his interview that Clenbuterol was the substance he admitted using to his coaches.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 24 February 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 May 2019.

In March 2019 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Australian ruby player Gabriel Hamlin after his A and B sample tested positive for the prohibited substancd Cocaïne in a low concentration. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing and accepted the sanction proposed by UKAD.

The Athlete denied the intentional use and asserted that the ingestion occurred out-of-competition in a context unrelated to sport performance. He explained that the night before the sample collection he had contact with a women and that through kissing the substance came into his system since he was unaware that she had used Cocaine that evening.

The London Lab did not confirm the Athlete’s explanation but stated that the low concentration found in the Athlete’s samples was consistent with out-of-competition ingestion in the days leading up to the competition which is an earlier period of time than given in the account by the Athlete. Accordingly that UKAD did not accept the Athlete’s explanation but deems that the Athlete’s violation was not intentional, out-of-competition and unrelated to sport performance.

Without grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence UKAD decides on 7 January 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of sample collection, i.e. on 8 February 2019.

In November 2019 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Lance Randall after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substancd Cocaïne. 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 substance and asserted that the ingestion occurred out-of-competition in a context unrelated to sport performance. He stated that two nights before the Doping Control out drinking he had used the Cocaine to cope with his personal circumstances at that time.

UKAD accepts that the Athlete’s violation was not intentional and considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission.

Without grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence UKAD decides on 1 June 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of sample collection, i.e. on 26 October 2019.

In July 2019 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Luke Trayno after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substancd Cocaïne. 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 substance  and asserted that the ingestion occurred out-of-competition in a context unrelated to sport performance. He stated that two days before the Doping Control out drinking he had used the Cocaine on one occasion.

UKAD accepts that the Athlete’s violation was not intentional and considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission.

Without grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence UKAD decides on 29 May 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of sample collection, i.e. on 27 May 2019.

Related cases:

• UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Mark Dry - Appeal
  February 25, 2020
• UKAD 2020 UKAD vs Mark Dry - Revision
  May 7, 2021
• UKAD 2021 Mark Dry vs UKAD - Appeal
  August 2, 2021
  
  

In May 2019 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Mark Dry for tampering through providing a false account to UKAD as to why he was not at the address at the time after a missed test in October 2018.

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 he initially gave a false statement but asserted that the lie had no effect on the operation of the Rules since he was in the Domestic Testing Pool and not in the Registered Testing Pool. The Domestic Testing Pool operated separately, and outside the IAAF Doping Control Arrangements.

The National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) accepts the Athlete’s assertion that a filing failure under the Domestic Testing Pool involved no sanction and that there was no Anti-Doping Rule violation.

Therefore on 8 October 2019 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to dismiss the charge against the Athlete.

Related cases:

• UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Mark Dry
  October 8, 2019
• UKAD 2020 UKAD vs Mark Dry - Revision
  May 7, 2021
• UKAD 2021 Mark Dry vs UKAD - Appeal
  August 2, 2021
  
  

In May 2019 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Mark Dry for tampering through providing a false account to UKAD as to why he was not at the address at the time after a missed test in October 2018.

The Athlete admitted he initially gave a false statement but asserted that the lie had no effect on the operation of the Rules since he was in the Domestic Testing Pool and not in the Registered Testing Pool. The Domestic Testing Pool operated separately, and outside the IAAF Doping Control Arrangements.

The National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) accepted the Athlete’s assertion that a filing failure under the Domestic Testing Pool involved no sanction and that there was no Anti-Doping Rule violation. As a result on 8 October 2019 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to dismiss the charge against the Athlete.

Hereafter UKAD appealed the First Instance Decision and the NADP Appeal Panel considered the applicable Rules and the structure of Testing Pools in the UK.

The Appeal Panel deems that the distinction drawn by the Tribunal in First Instance between the Domestic Testing Pool and the National Registered Testing Pool is not correctly drawn. The different pools are not separate in the way that the Tribunal had regarded. The Domestic Testing Pool is a lower level pool with less onerous requirements but it is part of the same pyramid structure, and a filing failure has the consequence, if there are two further failures, for the athlete of him being transferred to the National Registered Testing Pool with more onerous requirements and potentially serous consequences for non-compliance.

The Appeal Panel concludes that the deliberate provision of false information was committed by the Athlete with the intention of evading the operation of the Rules and disagrees with the conclusion of the Tribunal in First Instance. The Appeal Panel finds the charge against the Athlete has been proven and is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete committed and Anti-Doping Rule Violation.

The Appeal Panel finds that the appeal filed by UKAD is admissible and decides on 25 February 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision. The provisional suspension already served by the Athlete shall be credited.