Related cases:

• UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Mark Dry
  October 8, 2019
• UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Mark Dry - Appeal
  February 25, 2020
• UKAD 2020 UKAD vs Mark Dry - Revision
  May 7, 2021

On 25 February 2020 the Appeal Panel of the National Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Mark Dry for Tampering. The Athlete had provided a false account to United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) as to why he was not at the address at the time after a missed test in October 2018.

In December 2020 the Athlete requested UKAD for reconsideration of his sanction in light of the 2021 World-Anti-Doping Code.

The Athlete invoked the principle of lex mitior and the provisions in the UK ADR Article 10.3.1(b) regarding  exceptional circumstances for the imposition of a reduced sanction. In addition the Athlete requested UKAD to start the sanction backdated to the date of the Doping Control, i.e on 15 October 2018.

Based on exceptional circumstances and the Athlete's light degree of Fault UKAD decided on 7 May 2021 to reduce the Athlete's period of ineligibility from 4 years to 28 months. Yet UKAD deemed that there were no grounds to start the sanction backdated to the date of the Doping Control.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the UKAD decision of 7 May 2021 with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel. The Athlete argued that the imposed sanction was completely disproportionate, that there was a lack of fraudulent behaviour on the part of the Athlete, and the sanction should have been backdated to the date of the Doping Control.

Considering the submissions of the Parties the Appeal Panel finds that there is no reason to conclude that the Appealed Decision was erroneous in the imposition of a sanction of 28 months. Also the Appeal Panel deems that there are no grounds to start the sanction backdated to the date of the Doping Control.

Therefore on 2 August 2021 the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel decides to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to confirm in full UKAD's Decision of 7 May 2021.

Related case:

UKAD 2021 UKAD vs Philip Bowes|
August 5, 2021

On 5 August 2021 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the boxer Philip Bowes after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Ostarine in a low concentration.

In first instance the Athlete denied the intential use of the substance and attempted to prove that a contaminated product was the source. However the Panel deemed that he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the NADP Appeal Tribunal and requested for a review and not a rehearing. He introduced new evidence and provided character statements in his behalf.

The Appeal Panel assessed 4 grounds of appeal and finds that:

• the Athlete gave a different and inconsistent account by reference to his new version of what supplements he had used;
• he failed to establish that he was an extremely careful user of supplements as he claimed;
• he failed to prove his absence of intention;
• despite character evidence and assessment of his credibility he still had not established an absence of intention.

Therefore the Appeal Tribunal decides on 14 April 2022 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision of 5 August 2021 for the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility.

In September 2019, United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) was informed by Law Enforcement that the rugby player Christopher Mayor was involved in the use and traffic of 72iu Lilly Pen, i.e. Human Growth Hormone (hGH).

After notification in November 2019 a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard by UKAD. The Athlete confirmed that in the captured Facebook messages he had been interested in the purchase of hGH. Thereupon the case was referred to the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP).

The Athlete denied that he ever had possessed, used or trafficked any prohibited substance. He only acknowledged that in the Facebook messages he had shown his interest in the purchase of hGH to assist his father suffering from a knee injury. He was aware that hGH is a prohibited substance whereas he alleged that this attempt occurred in a context unrelated to sport enhancement.

The RFU acknowledged that there was no evidence that the Athlete indeed had purchased hGH. Yet, the Athlete's Facebook messages addressed to the other person showed that he attempted to purchase hGH. He asked for a specific product 72iu Lilly Pen that won't easy surface in a brief internet research. Further he had a longstanding relationship with the other person and he had just started pre-season training with a new club while he had to improve his level of fitness.

In view of the Facebook messages the Panel does not accept that the Athlete indeed had purchased 72iu Lilly Pen nor that the trafficking of the substance had been established. The Panel however concludes that the Athlete took substantial steps in his attempts to use and traffick the prohibited substance.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel deems on 20 May 2022 that the Athlete had committed anti-doping rule violations in his attempt to use and traffick a prohibited substance.

Following the written submissions of the parties on sanction the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 22 June 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 November 2021.

Related case:

MPTS 2854524 Dr Richard Freeman
March 19, 2021

Dr Richard Freeman is a former sports physician known for his work with British Cycling and Team Sky.

Following investigations United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) established that Dr Freeman in May 2011 had ordered 30 sachets of Testogel (Testosterone gel). These 30 sachets had been delivered to the National Cycling Centre in Manchester and were addressed to Dr Freeman.

Thereupon UKAD established that Dr Freeman had provided false statements about the purpose of the Testogel. Dr Freeman claimed that the Testogel was used as treatment for a 'non-rider' patient and that the Testogel had been returned to the supplier for destruction.

Consequently in December 2020 UKAD reported two anti-doping rule violations against Dr Freeman for possession of Testogel in 2011 and for Tampering in 2017 by providing false statements to UKAD in respect of ordering the Testogel.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. In April 2017 UKAD made a referral to the General Medical Council (GMC) in respect of UKAD's concerns relating to Dr Freeman's conduct and fitness to practise.

On 12 March 2021 the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) determined that Dr Freeman had ordered Testogel and had lied to UKAD whilst under investigation. As a result the MPTS decided to erase Dr Freeman from the General Medical Council's Medical register.

Hereafter the High Court dismissed on 16 January 2023 Dr Freeman's Appeal and confirmed the Appealed MPTS Decision. Thereupon UKAD could resume its investigations and the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) could conclude its proceedings against Dr Freeman.

The Panel is comfortably satisfied that the evidence establishes that Dr Freeman intended to make available to one or more of his athletes the Testogel delivered to the National Cycling Centre in Manchester. Also the evidence established that Dr Freeman committed the second Tampering charge by conduct that subverted Doping Control.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 20 July 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on Dr Freeman, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 22 December 2020.

In April 2021 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the visually impaired para-cyclist Erin McBride after her A and B sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Ostarine.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her 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 she could not demonstrate with any evidence that the violation was not intentional in order to receive a reduced sanction.

The Athlete testified that due to her visual impairment she had considerable difficulties in finding the source of the positive test results. She lacked the assistance of her boy friend during her investigations into her supplements whereas had she had  financial limitations that prevented her to test her supplements and to find the possible source of contamination.

UKAD finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. UKAD considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission as ground for a reduced sanction and that she failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore UKAD decides on 23 September to impose a reduced 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 April 2021.

In April 2021 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Jamie Acton after reanalysis of his sample, provided in December 2014, revealed the presence of the prohibited substance GHRP-6. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

At first the Athlete stated that he was retired from rugby since April 2019, yet he failed to provide an explanation for the positive test result. Hereafter in July 2021 the Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing and accepted the sanction proposed by UKAD.

UKAD deems that the Athlete had committed one single first anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the 2009 ADR without grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore UKAD decides on 27 Decemer 2021 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 April 2021.

In December 2021 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Jamie Dallimore after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol in a estimated concentration of approximately 1 ng/mL.

In view of potential meat contamination WADA accredited laboratories are permitted to report af finding of Clenbuterol at a concentration below 5 ng/mL as an Atypical Finding (ATF).

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 fully admitted the violation and stated that the likely source was a tablet he had accepted in October 2021 from a friend to help boost energy and burn fat.

Because the Athlete signed and submitted the Early Admission and Acceptance Form the Athlete received a 1 year reduction from UKAD.

Therefore UKAD decides on 31 May 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 December 2021.

In October 2021 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Marc Shackley after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. 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 violation, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He asserted that he genuinely believed that he had retired since Austus 2021 and was no longer subject to the Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). He explained that due to his knee injuries he was scheduled for surgery and had purchased and used a fat metaboliser in September 2021 to assist with weight loss in anticipation of surgery.

UKAD contended that the Athlete was subject to the ADR while at the material time the Athlete nor his club had requested the Rugby Football League (RFL) to remove him from the register of players. His Employment Contract with his Club was not terminated and when the Athlete provided the sample he neither informed the Doping Control Officer (DCO) about his retirement.

The Tribunal finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Tribunal determines that UKAD has jurisdiction and that at all material times the Athlete was subject to the ADR. Further the Tribunal had serious doubts as to whether the Athlete thought he had retired before the ingestion of the fat burner.

Considering the Athlete's conduct in this case the Tribunal deems that the Athlete manifestly disregarded the risk that taking the fat burner could lead to and anti-doping rule violation, carrying out no checks whatsoever. Finally he provided no evidence to the contrary and is simply relying upon the claim that he mistakenly believed he was not bound by the ADR.

Therefore the Tribunal decides on 10 May 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 October 2022.

In November 2018 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.

Consequently UKAD decided 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 until 12 November 2022.

During the Athlete's period of ineligibility UKAD reported 2 separate new anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete:

• In February 2020 for his breach of ineligibility;
• In June 2021 for tampering with any part of the doping control process.

After an investigation UKAD established in late 2019 that the Athlete had assisted a professional boxer in preparation for a bout. Thereupon UKAD's second investigation established in November 2022 that the Athlete previously had produced a false medical statement for his Stanazolol prescription.

Following notification of these separate anti-doping rule violations UKAD imposed a new provisional suspension, starting on the date the Athlete's current period of ineligibility expired.

In February 2020 the Athlete admitted that he had sparring sessions with the boxer and had assisted him with strenght and conditions sessions. The Athlete believed that his ban prohibited him from assisting athletes in bobsleigh and athletics only, as he prior had competed in these two sports.

In November 2021 the Athlete asserted that the medical statement for the prescription of Stanazolol was genuine when he presented this to UKAD. Ultimately in February 2023 he admitted that this medical statement was a falsification.

In view of the Athlete's conduct UKAD accepts that the Athlete's breach of ban was not intentional. As a result the Athlete accepts a 1 year period of ineligibility proposed by UKAD.

In the matter of the Tampering violation UKAD deems that the Athlete had committed a seconds anti-doping rule violation without grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore UKAD decides on 2 August 2023 that:

• a.) Mr Togun has committed an ADRV pursuant to 2015 ADR Article 2.5;
• b.) This constitutes Mr Togun’s second ADRV. In accordance with 2015 ADR Article 10.7.1 the applicable period of Ineligibility is eight (8) years;
• c.) Separately, Mr Togun has committed a violation of the prohibition against assisting Athletes pursuant to 2019 ADR Article 10.12.1;
• d.) A further period of Ineligibility of one (1) year shall be imposed pursuant to 2019 ADR Article 10.12.5;
• e.) The total further period of Ineligibility to be applied in respect of Mr Togun’s 2015 ADR Article 2.5 violation and 2019 ADR Article 10.12.1 violation is therefore nine (9) years;
• f.) Acknowledging Mr Togun’s Provisional Suspension, the period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced on 13 November 2022 and will expire at 11:59pm on 12 November 2031; and
• g.) Mr Togun’s status during the period of Ineligibility shall be as detailed in 2021 ADR Article 10.14.

Related case:

UKAD 2021 Philip Bowes vs UKAD - Appeal
April 14, 2022

In October 2020 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Philip Bowes after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Ostarine in a low 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.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He asserted that positive test was the result of a contaminated product, yet analysis of his supplements and products he had used revealed no prohibited substances. Supported by expert witnesses he argued that the violation was not intentional and that the analysis of his fingernail and toenail must be allowed by UKAD.

Although the Athlete gave a prompt admission UKAD contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substance.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 5 August 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 2 September 2020.