Related case:

UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Ellis Richards
February 24, 2020

On 24 February 2020 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his use of the prohibited substance Clenbuterol.

In First Instance the Panel deemed that the Athlete unequivocally had confirmed to UKAD in his interview that Clenbuterol was the substance he prior had admitted using to his coaches. Also the Panel was troubled that had he retracted his admissions and rather sought to rely upon a totally different version of events.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision of 24 February 2020 and the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel reviewed the First Instance case.

The Appeal Panel concludes that UKAD had indeed established that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation for use of Clenbuterol based on the evidence of the coaches combined with the Athlete's admissions.

Furthermore the Appeal Panel upholds the conclusion that there were no grounds for a reduced sanction, nor grounds for backdating the commencement of the suspension to the date of the sample collection.

Therefore the Appeal Panel decides on 5 May 2021 to dismiss the Athlete's Appeal and to confirm the Decision of 24 February 2020 of the National Anti-Doping Panel.

Related case:

UKAD 2019 RFU vs Greg Goodfellow
February 11, 2020

On 11 February 2019 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Methasterone as a result of the supplement he had used.

In first instance the Panel accepted that the violation was not intentional but it ruled that the Athlete had acted recklessly.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the decision of 11 February 2019 with the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal.

Considering the evidence in this case the Appeal Panel holds that the Athlete indeed had acted with a very high degree of fault. It finds that the information on the label of the supplement in question listed Superdrol as ingredient while the most straightforward internet search would have indicate that this was Methasterone.

The Appeal Panel upholds the conclusion in first instance that the violation was not inentional but it deems that the established recklessness of the Athlete does not justify the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibitlity.

Therefore the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel decides on 20 May 2020 to reduce the period of ineligibility imposed on the Athlete to a 2 year year period.

UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Mark Jones
February 7, 2020

On 7 February 2020 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the rugby player Mark Jones after he tested positive for Clenbuterol in a very low concentration.

In first instance the Panel concluded that the Athlete only provided a timely admission, he failed to establish how the substance had entered his system, nor that the positive test was the result of meat contamination.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the National  Anti-Doping Appeal Panel.

The Athlete argued that UKAD and WADA had failed to grant him a reduction of the sanction based on his prompt admission. He believed that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence due to the violation was not intentional and the result of meat contamination.

UKAD contended that the Athlete failed to produce corroborative evidence about his purchase of meat in bulk at a market in Cardiff nor was there any evidence of the existence of the trader who allegedly sold the meat. Also UKAD considered it implausible that contaminated meat from China might have been exported elsewhere, including to the UK, and thereafter causing an adverse finding particular in South Wales. Moreover the Athlete's social media records indicate that he had purchased supplement which were not all from necessarily reliable sources.

In its submission to the Appeal Panel WADA confirmed that there were no grounds to grant a significant reduction of the Athlete's sanction based on his prompt admission and No Significant Fault or Negligence. WADA found that the Athlete failed to establish how the substance had entered his system or established the source of the positive test.

Considering the evidence in this appeal and the arguments of the Parties the Appeal Panel concludes that UKAD and WADA were both entitled to exercise their discretion on the basis that this was a serious violation and that they were not satisfied by the Athlete's explanation that he had not been seriously at fault.

Therefore the Appeal Panel decides on 24 December 2020 to uphold the Decision of 7 February 2020 of the National Anti-Doping Commission, to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to confirm the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility.

In October 2019 the National Anti-Doping Panel in first instance decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the rugby player Mike Burgess after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

However the Athlete was granted an appeal since the Tribunal Chair Arbitrator due to health reasons was unable to act nor to deliver a full decision with his reasons. 
Hereafter in March 2020 the Athlete appealed the first instance decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel and the rehearing was conducted de novo. 

The Athlete gave a prompt admission and argued that the use was recreational and out-of-competion. Het stated that five or sixs days before the competition during the night out with friends he used a number of lines of Cocaine after he had consumed quantities of alcohol. He acknowledged that he was aware that the substance was prohibited and that he had searched on the internet how long the Cocaine would stay in his body and out of his system by the time of the next ruby match. In his defence the 22 years old Athlete explained at the time he coped with high concerns about his mother’s health and that his behavior was immature and inexperienced. 

UKAD accepted and the Appeal Panel agrees that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete gave a prompt admission. Although he explained how the substance entered his system he acted with a significant Fault. 

Therefore the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel decides on 29 April 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 20 October 2018.

Related case:

UKAD 2023 RFU vs Arran Lee Perry
September 19, 2023

In December 2019 the Rugby Football Union (RFU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Arran Lee Perry after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxandrolone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered, the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he waived his right for a hearing. The case was settled by the National Anti-Doping Panel based on the written submissions of the Parties.

The Athlete admitted the violation and later he withdrew his claim that the violation was not intentional. The Athlete believed that he would not be tested at his level and was unaware that he was using a prohibited substance. At first he acknowledged the purchase of the supplements RAD 140 and MK-677. Later he believed that the supplement Anavar was the source of the positive test.

Regarding the supplements RAD 140 and MK-677 the RFU contended that research on the internet would reveal that these substances are prohibited Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (SARM) but they could not explain the positive test for the presence of Oxandrolone. Furthermore the Athlete failed to provide any evidence that could confirm that the supplement Anavar he had used contained the substance Oxandrolone.

The Panel agrees that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction and decides on 10 September 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 December 2019.

In March 2020 the Rugby Football Union (RFU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Kurt Brown after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone). 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, accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that in 2019 he was retired from rugby due to a serious shoulder injury and surgery with no prospect of playing again. To recover from this injury he injected himself Deca-Durabolin (Nandrolone) as recommended by a friend in the gym. When recovered he stopped using the substance in September 2019 and resumed rugby in November 2019.

RFU contended that there are several inconsistencies in the Athlete's evidence, he never took steps to end his RFU registration and in 2019 he still sought to return to play rugby again in the period he was not competing.

The Panel concludes that the violation was intentional and that the Athlete acted with significant fault. It established that under the Rules in 2019 the Athlete was still a person who competed in sport as a RFU registered Athlete. Further the Panel deems that the Athlete was an uncredible witness because his evidence was incomplete and contained inconsistencies.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 28 September 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 March 2020.

In January 2020 the Rugby Football Union (RFU) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the player Max Drage after his sample tested positive for the prohibited stubstances Anastrozole, Clomifene, Etiocholanolone and Testosterone including its adiols.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete failed to respond to the RFU communications, he only posted a #UKAD #FuckYou message on Instagram. The case was settled by the RFU Anti-Doping Tribunal based on the written submissions of the parties.

RFU contends that the Athlete's Instagram post showed that he was aware of the notification but failed to respond to the communications. As a result he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional nor how the substances entered his system.

The Tribunal finds that the presence of prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. There are no grounds for a reduced sanction since the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor how the substances entered his system.

Therefore the RFU Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 19 May 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 January 2020.

In July 2018, UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) was informed that the UK Border Forced had intercepted and seized a package addressed to the rugby player Ralph Rainbow and contained Human Growth Hormone. In January 2020 in an interview with UKAD the Athlete admitted the purchase of this substance.

Hereafter in September 2018 the Rugby Football Union (RFU) reported 2 anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for Possession (by purchase) and Use or Attempted Use of the prohibited substance Human Growth Hormone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Because the Athlete indicated that he did not wish to contest the charges the National Anti-Doping Panel renders a Decision based on the written submissions of the Parties.

The RFU contends that the Athlete had admitted the violations and had not disputed the charges. There was no evidence that the violation was not intentional nor were there grounds for a reduced sanction.

The Panel finds that the Athlete has committed the anti-doping rule violations and as he has not disputed the charges, he is deemded to have admitted the violations and to have waived his right for a hearing.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 11 February 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 30 September 2020.

Related case:

UKAD 2020 Adam Carr vs UKAD - Appeal
December 3, 2020

In February 2020 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the young amateur rugby player Adam Carr after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that unrelated to rugby training he had privat gym sessions and that he had used a fat burner Clenox (Clenbuterol) recommended by his personal trainer and provided by a friend.

He had not been provided with anti-doping education and failed to research the product. He denied that he stopped using the product because rugby training was due to start in January 2020.

The Athlete's personal trainer testified that he only had recommended fat burner supplements and his friend confirmed that he had provided the product. He was unaware that the product was illegal nor that had he used it himself.

The Panel finds that under the Rules the Athlete's conduct was intentional although he had no intention to cheat and that he was unaware that using the product would lead to an anti-doping rule violation.

The Panel considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission and that he had received no anti-doping education. The Panel establishes that he failed to mention the product Clenox on the Doping Control Form, he ignored the side effects of the product and manifestly disregarded the risk of ingesting it.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 30 July 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 9 December 2019.

In February 2020 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Adam Hoskin 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 six nights before the Doping Control out drinking he had used the Cocaine.

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 19 June 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of sample collection, i.e. on 3 January 2020.