Adam Machaj is a retired boxer and ceased to hold a licence from the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBoC) from November 2018. Since 2015 he underwent medical treatment for his diagnosed low libido problem. Initially he had used prescribed Clomifene and Anastrozole but later used Testosterone by injection regularly which improved his Testosterone levels significantly.

In a Channel 4 TV Programme he participated and was broadcasted in Januay 2018, he was interviewed about tablets of Clomifene found in his possession. Hereafter the Athlete made three retrospective TUE applications for the use of the substances which were all rejected by the TUE Committee. 

As a result in December 2019 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported multipe anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for the use the prohibited substances Clomifene, Anastrozole and Testosterone. 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 these substances. He demonstrated with medical evidence that theses prescribed substances were used as treatment for his medical condition. The Athlete acknowledged that he previously had lied to the BBBoC medical practitioners about the use of Clomifene and Anastrozole because this was an embarrassing topic for him. 

Considering the evidence the Panel agrees that the substances were used by the Athlete for medical reasons. However the Panel considers that undoubtedly the Athlete had concealed his use of Clomifene and Anastrozole in 2016 during the medical examination for the renewal of his BBBoC licence.

Furthermore the Panel deems that the Athlete took no steps at all to check the compatibility of these substances with professional boxing in circumstances he knew that there was at least a significant risk that they were prohibited and manifestly disregarded that risk. As a result he failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. 

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides 4 September 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date the Athlete ceased to hold a professional licence, i.e. on 14 November 2018. All the Athlete’s results in contests since September 2015, when he started using Clomifene, are disqualified.

In April 2020 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Andrew Lea after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Drostanolone and Trenbolone. 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 stated that he had use the product TTM to improve his physical appearance and he was unaware that thist product contained steroids. He accepts that he was unable to demonstrate that his violation was not intentional.

Therefore UKAD decides on 22 September 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of sample collection, i.e. on 9 January 2020.

In October 2020 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Carl Hone after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Boldenone in a low concentration. 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 explained that the only possible source of the Boldenone was horse waste with which he must have come into contact when doing carpentry work at a barn adjacent to some stabling.

The London Lab confirmed that the concentration found in the Athlete's system was very low and it could no exclude the possibility of the Athlete's theory being correct.

UKAD contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional on the balance of probability based on the contamination with horse waste theory.

The Panel considers it very unlikely that the Athlete as a low level amateur player had injected himself with the substance for performance enhancing. Nevertheless the Panel concludes that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and that he failed to provide sufficient evidence that on the balance of probability horse waste was in fact the source of the prohibited substance in his system.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 6 May 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 6 February 2020.

In April 2020 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Daniel Bridge after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaïne.

Following 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 two days before the doping control he had consumed alcohol with a friend in a pub and used Cocaine recreationally. UKAD accepts that the violation was not intentional and occurred out-of-competition in a context unrelated to sport performance.

Further UKAD considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission and that he has not established that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore UKAD decides on 4 December 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 16 February 2020.

Hereafter in January 2021 the Athlete requested UKAD to reduce his sanction on the basis of lex mitior in the 2021 ADR regarding the classification of Cocaine as a Substance of Abuse. UKAD agrees that the Athlete had used Cocaine out-of-competition in a context unrelated to sport performance.

Therefore in accordance with Article 1.6.2(e) and 10.2.4 and lex mitior in the 2021 ADR UKAD decides on 8 January 2021 to reduce the Athlete's period of ineligibility from 2 years to 3 months.

Because the Athlete already had served 10 months of his sanction his period of ineligibility expires forthwith on 8 January 2021.

Related cases:

• UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Mark Dry
  October 8, 2019
• UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Mark Dry - Appeal
  February 25, 2020
• UKAD 2021 Mark Dry vs UKAD - Appeal
  August 2, 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.

The Appeal Panel concluded that the deliberate provision of false information was committed by the Athlete with the intention of evading the operation of the Rules and it disagreed with the conclusion of the Tribunal in First Instance.

Hereafter 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.

UKAD considers that the Appeal Panel's comment, and the Athletics Integrity Unit's (AIU) agreement with that comment, constitute exceptional circumstances that trigger a discretion to reduce the Athlete's period of ineligibility to between 2 and 4 years, depending on his degree of Fault.

In view of the Athlete's conduct UKAD deems that the Athlete's Fault lies in the middel of the light degree of Fault, corresponding to a period of ineligibility of 28 months. Yet UKAD holds that there are no grounds to start the sanction backdated to the date of the Doping Control.

Therefore UKAD decides on 7 May 2021 to reduce the Athlete's period of ineligibility from 4 years to 28 months.

In March 2020 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Morgan Jones 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 admitted the violation and testified with evidence that he was coping with his personal circumstances and sought release through alcohol and drugs. He is still under care of a consultant in substance misuse and psychiatry. He acknowledged that he had used Cocaine 3 times that night and had consumed a considerable amount of alcohol.

In this case there were deliberations between the Parties about the applicability of lex mitior since the WADC 2021 and the 2021 ADR had come into force with the option for the imposition of a 3 month period of ineligibility when the ingestion of the substance occurred Out-Of-Competition and was unrelated to sport performance.

UKAD accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete bears No Significant Fault of Negligence. However UKAD denied the applicability of lex mitior. It contended that the use of Cocaine occurred not Out-Of-Competition since the Athlete had admitted that he had used the substance between 00:00 and 01:00 on the day of the competition while he knew he was due to be playing there.

The Panel established that the Athlete had admitted the violation and that the use of the Cocaine was unrelated to sport performance. The Panel rejected UKAD's contentions and considered that UKAD already had accepted the applicability of lex mitior in respect of six other cases.

Based on lex mitior the Panel deems that the Athlete should be able to benefit from a lower sanction that had become available. Further the Panel regards that there were delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete and that he had respected the imposed provisional suspension.

Therefore on 12 April 2021 the National Anti-Doping Panel decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete which he has already served during the provisional suspension. Accordingly the Athlete is free to resume alle sporting activities with immediate effect.

On 17 October 2019 the cyclist Shaun Leonard was convicted and fined in Switzerland before the Criminal Court of the Canton of Ticino after Swiss customs in August 2018 had found and seized multiple prohibited substances in his possession:

• Amiloride
• Clenbuterol
• Dexamphetamine (d-amphetamine, dextroamphetamine)
• Furosemide
• Modafinil
• Morphine
• Testosterone

When the Athlete was interviewed by the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) in July 2019 the Athlete admitted the possession and use of the substances. Prior in February 2018 the Athlete had made a TUE application for Testosterone, Dexamfetame, Lisdexamfetamine, Morphine and Modafinil. Yet, the Athlete was advised by UKAD to apply a retroactive TUE when he was subject to a doping control test, which the Athlete failed to make.

Hereafter in June 2020 UKAD reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for the use and possession of multiple prohibited substances seized in Switzerland in August 2018.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete failed to file a response to the charges, nor attended the hearing of the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete instead disputed the jurisdiction of UKAD and subject to the ADR. He asserted that following a serious accident he suffered in May 2018, he did not participate in events and was retired. His civil proceedings against UKAD's jurisdiction delayed the proceedings in this case.

In the Athlete's absence the Panel establishes that UKAD has jurisdiction; the Athlete was duly notified; and at the material time he was subject to and bound by the ADR.

Considering the evidence in this case the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete has possessed and used the prohibited substances Testosterone, Amiloride, Furosemide and Clenbuterol.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 11 August 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 24 June 2020.

n November 2019 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Jesse Patton after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone. 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 substance, accepted the test result and asserted that an unprescribed medication was the source of the positive test. He had used this medication prior to the testing obtained from a friend after he had caught a sexually transmitted disease from a woman he had been dating.

UKAD contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor demonstrated with any evidence how the prohibited substance entered his system.

The Panel finds that presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel deems that the Athlete failed to establish how the Metandienone had entered his system because he did not produce any documentary of physical evidence in support of his explanation.

The Panel holds that even if the Athlete did not deliberately ingest Metandienone, he acted recklessly since he did not seek medical advice for his condition and did not check this medication, supplements or drinks for prohibited substances before using.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 11 June 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 November 2019.

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.