UKAD 2020 UKAD vs Adam Machaj

4 Sep 2020

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.

FA 2020 Football Association vs Bambo Diaby

10 Sep 2020

In January 2020 the Football Association has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Senegalese Spanish football player Bambo Diaby after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Higenamine. Ater notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the football player was heard for the FA Regulatory Commission. 

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance but could not explain the source of the positive test. FA accepts that the violation was not intention and that the player failed to establish how the substance entered his system. 

After a number of discussions and deliberations the Parties reached an agreement and accordingly de Regulatory Commission decides on 10 September 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the football player starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 17 Januar 2020.

UKAD 2020 WRU vs Jesse Patton

11 Jun 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 Methandienone. 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 Methandienone 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 Methandienone, 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.

UKAD 2019 RFU vs Joseph Stafford & Rupert Kay

14 Jul 2020

In September 2019 the Rugby Football Union (RFU) has reported two anti-doping rule violations against the rugby players Joseph Stafford and Rupert Kay.

  • Joseph Stafford was charged for evading sample collection in February 2019.
  • Rupert Kay was charged for complicity because he assisted Joseph Stafford to leave the training ground in order to avoid sample collection.

In the Consent Orders signed by the Parties in this case and  approaved by the National Anti-Doping Panel both Athletes admitted the violations, accepted the provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the RFU.

  • Considering Joseph Stafford's prompt admission the RFU decides on 14 July 2020 to impose a 3 year and 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
  • Considering Rubert Kay's admission and degree of fault the RFU decides on 14 July 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The period of ineligibility for both athletes start on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 July 2019.

UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Bradley Watson

13 Jul 2020

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.

UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Roseanna Cox

22 Jun 2020

In May 2020 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Roseanna Cox after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substancd Furosemide.

After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by UKAD.

The Athlete explained that in December 2018 a cyst in her brain was diagnosed which could be fatal when she continues  professional boxing. She ended her boxing career and when tested she mistakenly believed that she was not registered anymore with England Boxing. She took the prescribed Furosemide in March 2019 prior to a photoshoot, in connection with her medical condition and her career as a fitness model.

UKAD accepts that the violation was not intentional and that she mistakenly believed she was not subject to and bound by the ADR.

Without grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence UKAD decides on 22 June 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 May 2019.

UKAD 2020 UKAD vs Adam Hoskins

19 Jun 2020

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.

WADA International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information (ISPPPI) 2021 (2)

24 Sep 2020

Protection of Privacy and Personal Information : the World Anti-Doping Code International Standard / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2020. - (International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information (ISPPPI) further revised version effective on 1 January 2021)


The World Anti-Doping Code International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information is a mandatory International Standard developed as part of the World Anti-Doping Program. It was developed in consultation with Signatories, public authorities, and other relevant stakeholders.

A revised version to come into force on 1 January 2021 was approved by the WADA Executive Committee at the World Conference on Doping in Sport in Katowice on 7 November 2019. Following a limited supplementary consultation period, a further revised version was approved by the WADA Executive Committee on 15 September 2020 and is effective as of 1 January 2021.

The purpose of the International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information is to ensure that Anti-Doping Organizations apply appropriate, sufficient and effective privacy protections to the Personal Information they Process when conducting anti-doping programs, in recognition of the fact that Personal Information gathered in the anti-doping context can impinge upon and implicate the privacy rights of Persons involved in and associated with organized sport.

The Code, in particular, requires Athletes to furnish a significant amount of Personal Information to Anti-Doping Organizations. As a result, it is essential that Anti-Doping Organizations appropriately protect the Personal Information that they Process both to meet legal standards and to ensure the continued confidence and trust of those involved in organized sport.

The Code recognizes and affirms the importance of ensuring that the privacy rights of Persons subject to anti-doping programs based on the Code are fully respected. In support of this commitment, this International Standard sets forth a minimum, common set of rules to which Anti-Doping Organizations must conform when Processing Personal Information pursuant to the Code. In some cases, Anti-Doping Organizations may be required by applicable laws to apply rules or standards that exceed those set forth in this International Standard.

Qualitative and Hierarchical Analysis of Protective Factors against Illicit Use of Doping Substances in Athletes Calling a National Anti-Doping Phone-Help Service

5 May 2013

Qualitative and Hierarchical Analysis of Protective Factors against Illicit Use of Doping Substances in Athletes Calling
a National Anti-Doping Phone-Help Service / Sara A. Mohamed, Jean Bilard, Denis Hauw. - (Montenegrin Journal of Sport Science and Medicine / 2 (2013) 2; p. 21-25)



Abstract


Evidence of a sport-specific hierarchy of protective factors against doping would thus be a powerful aid in adapting information and prevention campaigns to target the characteristics of specific athlete groups, and especially those athletes most vulnerable for doping control. The contents of phone calls to a free and anonymous national anti-doping service called ‘ecoute dopage’ were analysed (192 bodybuilders, 124 cyclists and 44 footballers). The results showed that the protective factors that emerged from analysis could be categorised into two groups. The first comprised ‘Health concerns’, ‘Respect for the law’ and ‘Doping controls from the environment’ and the second comprised ‘Doubts about the effectiveness of illicit products, ‘Thinking skills’ and ‘Doubts about doctors’. The ranking of the factors for the cyclists differed from that of the other athletes. The ordering of factors was 1) respect for the law, 2) doping controls from the environment, 3) health concerns 4) doubts about doctors, and 5) doubts about the effectiveness illicit products. The results are analysed in terms of the ranking in each athlete group and the consequences on the athletes’ experience and relationship to doping. Specific prevention campaigns are proposed to limit doping behaviour in general and for each sport.

The Whereabouts Rule: Implications on Privacy and Data Protection Rights

1 Jan 2009

The Whereabouts Rule : Implications on Privacy and Data Protection Rights / Kelvin C. Omuojine. - 2009



Contents:


Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 The Zeal To Win

1.2 The Integrity Of Sport

1.3 The Commercial Angle

1.4 Striking A Balance

Chapter 2 Doping In Sports And The Emergence Of The Whereabouts Rule

2.1 What Is Doping?

2.2 Brief History Of Doping

2.3 WADA: The Need For More Effective Anti-Doping Strategy

2.4 The WADA Code

2.5 The Whereabouts Rule

Chapter 3 Implication On Privacy Rights

3.1 Privacy Right For Athletes/Sportspersons

3.2 Possible Areas Of Conflict

3.3 The Belgian Challenge

Chapter 4 Implication On Data Protection Rights

4.1 Sport Globalisation And Data Protection Regimes

4.2 Article 29 Working Party Opinion And Related Issues

Chapter 5 Other Issues

5.1 The Principle Of Proportionality

5.2 Strict Liability

5.3 The Missed Tests Ban

Chapter 6 Recommendations And Conclusion

6.1 Recommendations

6.2 Conclusion

Bibliography

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin