In June 2015 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Joseph Phelps after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 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 Arbitral Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he acted without intention to enhance his performance. The Athlete argued that he suffered from erectile dysfunction and used viagra and other supplements to “boost” bedroom performance because he had been to embarrassed to go to the doctor to receive treatment. When he had experienced erectile difficulties again he purchased the drug in a nutrition store that was recommended to him and hereafter injecting the drug.

The Tribunal did not accept the Athlete’s explanation and concluded that the Athlete knew he had taken an illegal substance and had injected this into his body.
Therefore on 19 October 2015 the National Anti-Doping Panel Arbitral Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of inegligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 2 July 2015.

In March 2016 the Athlete appealed the decision of the Tribunal. However this appeal was dismissed on 1 April 2016 due to the Athlete failed to file copies of any witness or documentary evidence in his defence.
Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel Arbitral Tribunal decided to publish the decision of 19 October 2015 without delay.

In December 2015 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Jeremy Wilson after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.
After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission and without a hearing accepted the provisional suspension and the sanction rendered by UKAD.

The Athlete stated that he had used a supplement recommended by a friend. He was led to believe that the supplement was a mixture of vitamin C powder and a caffeine-based herbal diuretic and he failed to research the ingredients of the supplement before using.

Considering that the Athlete was significantly at fault and acting without intention UKAD decides on 17 February 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 December 2015.

In November 2015 the Rugby Football Union (RFU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for refusing to provide a sample for drug testing. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Rugby Football Union (RFU) Independent Panel.

The Athlete argued that the DCO’s refusal to have a shower was a failure to follow the procedures; his refusal to provide a sample was not intentional because he suffered from slipped discs and had to take codeine and tramadol with urinary retention as side effect for him.

Considering the statements and arguments the Panel concludes that the Athlete simply and intentionally refused to provide a sample for drug testing. The Panel finds that the DCO’s refusal to the Athlete to have a shower was in the circumstances not unreasonable; the DCO’s gave the Athlete the opportunity to change into dry warm clothes; he was offered the opportunity to take painkillers and told that they would wait as long as it took for him to provide the sample.
Therefore on 10 March 2016 the RFU Indepent Panel decides to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 November 2015.

UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Bernice Wilson
March 8, 2016

Related cases:
- UKAD 2011 UKAD vs Bernice Wilson
September 13, 2011
- UKAD 2011 Bernice Wilson vs UKAD - Appeal
January 19, 2012
- UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Georgios Skafidas
February 22, 2016

In 13 September 2011 the National Anti-Doping Panel Arbitral Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Bernice Wilson after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances testosterone and clenbuterol. The Athlete’s appeal was dismissed on 19 January 2012 because all of her arguments were entirely without merit.

In February 2015 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported a second anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance clomiphen. The sample was provided out-of-competition in her period of inegligibility she already served until 8 July 2015 as sanction for her first violation. After notification UKAD ordered a provisional suspension starting on 8 July 2015.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission including substantial assistance to UKAD and accepted a reduced sanction. The Tribunal had to rule whether the period of ineligibility for the second anti-doping rule violation should be a period of 10 months starting on 12 February 2015 (date of the sample collection) or 8 July 2015 (start of the provisional suspension).

The Athlete argued that the IAAF Rules have no separate provision specifically for a situation such as has arisen in the present case. Accordingly the IAAF Rules should be applied in the context of the sanction being imposed regardless of some other sanction (for the first violation). If there is an anomaly in the IAAF Rules, that is something for the rule makers to cure by amendments of the rules. If there is an ambiguity or an anomaly, then the IAAF Rules should be applied contra proferentem and hence in favour of the Athlete.

The Tribunal accepts the Athlete’s argument and concludes that there is no alternative but to apply the IAAF Rules as it stands without the contra proferentem principle.

Therefore on 8 March 2016 the National Anti-Doping Panel Arbitral Tribunal decides to impose a 10 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 12 February 2015 until 12 December 2015.
The Athlete is free to compete since 12 December 2015.

Related cases:
- UKAD 2011 UKAD vs Bernice Wilson
September 13, 2011
- UKAD 2011 Bernice Wilson vs UKAD - Appeal
January 19, 2012
- UKAD 2015 UKAD vs Bernice wilson
March 8, 2016

Dr. Georgios Skafidas previously was a UK Athletics licensed coach and ran a training group for young athletes at the Princess Royal Sports Arena in Lincolnshire.
In November 2015 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported 9 anti-doping rule violations against dr. Georgios Skafidas related to his conduct:
- Administration of testosterone, clenbuterol, stanozolol, ephedrine to the Athlete Bernice Wilson in.
- Possession of testosterone, clenbuterol, stanozolol and ephedrine by an athlete support person.
- Trafficking testosterone, clenbuterol, stanozolol and ephedrine.
- Tampering by knowingly providing false information in a disciplinary hearing.
- Administration clomiphene and stanozolol to the Athlete Bernice Wilson.
- Possession of clomiphene and stanozolol by an athlete support person.
- Trafficking of clomiphene and stanozolol.
- Tampering by knowingly removing a letter addressed to the Athlete Bernice Wilson.
- Tampering by providing a false account in an interview.

In May and June 2011 Dr Skafidas administered testosterone and other Prohibited Substances to Bernice Wilson, which resulted in the athlete testing positive following an in-competition test at the Bedford International Games on 12 June 2011.
At a hearing before a National Anti-Doping Panel on 12 and 13 September 2011, Dr Skafidas represented Ms Wilson and knowingly provided false information to the Panel. Following that hearing Ms Wilson was banned from all sport for four years.

In January and February 2015, before Ms Wilson’s return to sport, Dr Skafidas again administered Prohibited Substances to her. Despite not being eligible to compete, Ms Wilson was still subject to Anti-Doping Regulations and following an out-of-competition test on 12 February 2015 Ms Wilson tested positive for clomiphene.
Dr Skafidas then proceeded to subvert the doping control process by removing and concealing a Notice of Charge sent to Ms Wilson by UKAD and knowingly provided a false account to UKAD during his interview in Greece on 10 June 2015 thus further contravening the rules against tampering.

After notification of the violations in December 2015 Dr. Skafidas submitted an admission for all reported charges and waived his right to be heard. UKAD filed witness statements from the athletes Bernice Wilson, Graeme Simpson, David Brown, Joseph White and Stacey Shevill and a transcript of the NADP hearing on 12 and 13 September 2011, interviews with Bernice Wilson and with Dr. Skafidas.

Considering the admitted charges and established on the evidence the Tribunal unanimously finds that the right, proportionate and necessary sanction for this misconduct is a ban for life.

Therefore on 22 February 2016 the National Anti-Doping Panel Arbitral Tribunal decides to impose the following period of ineligibility on Dr. Skafidas:
- 2 years from 23 November 2015 for possession and tampering in 2011.
- 4 years from 23 November 2015 for possession and tampering in 2015.
- For life for administration and trafficking in 2011 and 2015.

In June 2015 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Adam Buttifant after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel Arbitral Tribunal.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission for using the product M-Sten purchased on the internet as treatment for a chronic inflammation of the heel. Because of the side effects of the product the Athlete had stopped taking the product M-Sten 40 days before he provided a sample for drug testing. The Athlete stated, sustained by witnesses, that his diagnosed disabilities dyslexia and dyspraxia made it difficult for him to read.
After he was tested he received help from his mother to research the ingredients of M-Sten. The research on the internet showed that the Athlete had used a product containing a derivative of methylstenbolone although his sample tested positive for dehydrochlormethyltestosterone. Because his mother disposed the remaining capsules and the packaging of the product this action had the consequence of preventing testing of the product.

Significant evidential points for the Tribunal were a number of articles showing that mislabeling of products sold on the internet containing anabolic steroids was rife and that the manufacturer or supplier in China of M-Sten had provided mislabeled products before. Considering these points with other evidence the Tribunal finds that the ingestion of dehydrochlormethyltestosterone was caused by the product M-Sten and concludes that the Athlete’s conduct was not intentional.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel Arbitral Tribunal decides on 14 december 2014 to impose a 2 year period of inegligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 June 2015.

Related case:
UKAD 2015 RFU vs Dan Lancaster
September 8, 2015

On 8 September 2015 the Rugby Football Union Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 42 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete Dan Lancaster after a consignment was seized by the UK Border Force addressed to the Athlete containing ampules of anabolic steroids and he had promptly admitted to having ordered and used prohibited substances.

Hereafter UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) appealed the decision of 8 September 2015 with the Rugby Football Union Appeal Panel. UKAD requested the RFU Appeal Panel, sustained by WADA and World Rugby, to impose a 4 year ban because no reduction was appropriate considering the Athlete’s very high fault. UKAD argued that WADA had te be asked for their approval for the application of the Regulation at all, and the proposed reduction of the ban in this case.

The Appeal Panel agrees that the RFU Anti-Doping Panel had no power to reduce the period below the minimum, in the absence of the approval of WADA.
Therefore on 9 February 2016 the RFU Appeal Panel decides to annul the decision of 8 September 2015 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 June 2015.

Related case:
UKAD 2016 UKAD vs RFU & Dan Lancaster – Appeal
February 9, 2016

In April 2015, UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) received notification from the International Crime Team at the National Crime Agency that they had received a Border Force seizure notification. UKAD was advised that the consignment seized was addressed to the Athlete Dan Lancaster and contained 300 ampoules of anabolic steroids (300 x Testapron Testosterone Propionate 100mg/1ml injection ampoules).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard by UKAD.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he had given up playing rugby due to an injury and had ordered the substance for the purposes of bodybuilding. The Athlete also admitted to having ordered and used prohibited substances previously; including ordering and using testosterone propionate, testosterone enanthate and boldenone. When questioned about the amount of steroids he had ordered, he denied selling the substances to anyone else.

Considering the evidence and the Athlete’s statement the Rugby Football Union Anti-Doping Panel decides on 8 September 2015 to impose a 42 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 June 2015.

In September 2015 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ryan Watkins after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances nandrolone and methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.
The Athlete admitted that he deliberately had ingested the prohibited substances.

With the Athlete’s prompt admission and with a high level of fault UKAD decides on 6 January 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 September 2015.

In September 2015 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Shaun Cleary 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 was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel Arbitral Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that on the Saturday evening before the match on Tuesday he had consumed alcohol and cocaine for recreational purposes. He argued that he didn’t know that the training session was converted into a match because he normally trains on Tuesday evenings and plays matches on Saturdays. Also for the Athlete’s rugby club it was the first time that there had ever been a drug test carried out and the players at the club had never received any anti-doping education.

Considering the circumstances and without intention to enhance sport performance the National Anti-Doping Panel Arbitral Tribunal decides on 5 January 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 September 2015.