Facts
The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) charges Atalelech Ketema Asfaw, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The athlete provided an urine specimen for an in-competition test that was administered at the Marathon Movistar Lima 42K in Lima, Peru on May 18, 2014. The sample showed the presence of ephedrine above the permissible threshold. Ephedrine is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The athlete admitted the use of the ephedrine within one day after the notification and accepted a voluntary suspension. The use of the allergy medication Benadryl was the cause for the positive test. Competing abroad she hadn't her own allergy pills and took medication from a drugstore from which the ingredients were written in the Chinese language.
Due to the fact that the athlete has a low understanding of the English language, she was unaware of her violation towards the use of this medication. Also she hadn't received any education towards prevention of doping.
Submission panel:
That Ms. Asfaw is an international athlete, having competed internationally for two different countries, and lacked any basic anti-doping education from any relevant organization, was considered by the Panel, but such factors do not outweigh her lack of overall diligence in her anti-doping obligations under the circumstances. While she may have lacked anti-doping training, she is neither young nor inexperienced. The panel finds it significant that Ms. Asfaw is an active international competitor and yet she undertook no fundamental protections or otherwise had any apparent consciousness of the anti-doping rules required of all competitors in sport. The Panel views this athlete's actions in this regard as grossly negligent or even reckless, though not intentional, but nonetheless there is no basis for a reduction in fault.

Decision
1. The athlete has committed her first doping violation according to the 2009 version of the WADA Code;
2. Respondent has not sustained her burden of proof under WADA Code to qualify for a reduction in the length of her sanction. Therefore, the Panel imposes a period of ineligibility starting from the date of the Sample collection of her adverse analytical finding, May 18, 2014 and continuing through May 17, 2016, a period of two years;
3. The parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this arbitration;
4. The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), and the compensation and expenses of the arbitrators and the Panel, shall be borne entirely by USADA and the United States Olympic Committee;
5 This Award shall be in full and final resolution of all claims and
counterclaims submitted to this Arbitration. All claims not expressly
granted herein are hereby denied; and
6 This Award may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall constitute together one and the same instrument.

Facts
The Ice Hockey UK (IHUK) charged Kyle Bochek, the athlete, for violations of the Anti-Doping Rules. On November 30, 2014, the athlete provided an In-Competition Sample for doping test purposes. His sample showed the presence of methylhexaneamine which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The Athlete admitted the charge and waived his right to have the B Sample analysed. The Athlete has explained that his ingestion of methylhexaneamine was caused by a dietary supplement.
The supplement concerned was marketed as a ‘pre-workout’ drink. The Athlete did not undertake any reasonable inquiries of any person who might have advised him as to the utility or efficacy of the supplement, nor did he undertake any steps to satisfy himself that the supplement was free of Prohibited Substances. The Athlete has, however, provided evidence to the effect the he did not intend to use methylhexaneamine to enhance his performance. The Athlete is significantly at fault. He failed to take any straightforward steps that he could have taken to avoid ingesting methylhexaneamine. Since receipt of the charge he has cooperated with the disciplinary process and promptly admitted the violation. He has been frank about the circumstances in which the violation arose. His prompt admission and cooperation have avoided the need to expend time and resources on a hearing.

Decision
The period of ineligibility is 18 months.

Facts
The Rugby Football Union (RFU) charges Phil Robinson, the player, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The athlete was selected on September 8, 2014, randomly for a in-competition doping test. The provided sample tested positive on a metabolite of cocaine which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The player explains he had taken a recreational drug on September 6, 2014, in a social setting, he had no intention to enhance his sport performance. An extra problem is that the player worked as an analyst which rises the question if the period of ineligibility also effects his employment. The status of ineligibility does not have an effect only upon playing and coaching; it includes participation in any capacity in an activity authorized or organised by the RFU including (but not limited to) administration of the Game or involvement in the Game in any other capacity.

Decision
The panel imposed a two year period of Ineligibility on the Player commencing on 27 September 2014. The period expires at midnight on 26 September 2016. [In this case Phil Robinson lost his job as an Analyst].

Related cases:

• UKAD 2014 IHUK vs Nicky Watt
  November 6, 2014
• UKAD vs Nicky Watt
  April 19, 2023
  
  

Facts
Nicky Watt, the athlete, appealed against the decision of the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) tribunal made on November 6, 2014 which determined that Mr. Watt had committed two anti-doping rule violations and should be ineligible for participation in competition, and other activity, in sport for a period of 8 years. In this case the parties have agreed that the appeal should be decided on the papers alone, without a hearing, and a sole arbitrator.

History
There are four issues raised on this appeal:
(1) Whether the athlete was subject to the Rules at the material time;
(2) Whetherthe athlete should be treated as bearing no significant fault or negligence, so that the period of ineligibility should be reduced;
(3) Whether the two violations should be treated as a single violation or as two violations for which the period of ineligibility is a minimum of 8 years;
(4) Whether the imposition of a period of ineligibility was, in the circumstances of this case, disproportionate so that a lesser period should be imposed.

Submissions arbitrator:
1 - On this appeal the argument advanced by the athlete that he was not subject to the rules because he was not at the material time actively participating in the sport and he had not intended to play in the league in the following season. However he was payed to play in this season which make it valid that he acted under the rules.
2 - The assumption of the athlete that he would not undergo a doping control during his suspension is not prejudicial to his position to take a substance containing steroids. His assumptions how the prohibited substance had entered his body doesn't count as evidence.
3 - The sole arbitrator rejected the opinion of the NADP tribunal that the athlete had proven when the prohibited substance had entered his body.
4 - Towards his claim of disproportionality. He made a deliberate decision to refuse to give a sample, to conceal the fact that he had taken cannabis, and then deliberately ingested Anavar which he knew to contain a prohibited steroid. This case is exceptional but not in a way which indicates that a mandatory imposition of 8 years' ineligibility is disproportionate.

Decision
For the reasons given above this appeal is dismissed. The decision made by the tribunal dated 6 November 2014 that there were two anti-doping rule violations and that the period of ineligibility must run for 8 years from 17 June 2014 must stand.

Related cases:

• UKAD 2014 Nicky Watt vs UKAD - Appeal
  March 10, 2015
• UKAD 2022 UKAD vs Nicky Watt
  April 19, 2023

Facts
The Ice Hockey UK (IHUK) charged Nicky Watt, the "athlete" for violations of the Anti-Doping Rules. The athlete had refused to provide an urine sample when requested to do so on May 27, 2014, and a metabolite of stanozolol, had been found in an urine sample provided by the athlete on June 17, 2014. He had not denied the allegations.

History
The athlete had refused to provide an out-of-competition urine sample because at that time it was out of season and he wasn't connected to any club. He later claimed that another important reason was the fact that he had smoked cannabis the previous evening. He was not unduly concerned about an ice hockey ban, since he might well not be playing the following season, but he was concerned about the effect on his business as personal trainer. He was unaware that cannabis is not an out-of-competition prohibited drug. For this he was provisionally suspended from June 13, 2014.
On June 17 2014 the athlete was again visited by a Doping Control Officer, the collected sample contained a metabolite of Stanozolol. The athlete declared he had taken several products in the last seven days.
But later he mentions the use of a fat-burner named Anavar during his vacation which must have been contaminated he had not mentioned on the doping control form.
The panel dealt with this case as two doping violations. The panel also took in consideration that the athlete was not frank is his evidence.

Decision
The period of ineligibility in his case is to be 8 years.; and the period of ineligibility is to run from June 17, 2014, to June 16, 2022.

Facts
The United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) charges Shaun Owens, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On November 24, 2014, UKAD collected an out-of-competition sample from the Athlete for doping test purposes. His sample tested positive on dehydrochlormethyltestosterone which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 prohibited list.

History
The Athlete admitted the charge and waived his right to have the B
Sample analysed.

Decision
The period of ineligibility imposed was two years commencing on the date of the decision, reduced by the time spent in voluntary suspension. The period of Ineligibility is therefore deemed to have commenced on December 18, 2014 and will expire at midnight on December 17, 2016.
During this period the athlete can not play competition or take part in activities (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) organized or authorized by the RFL or any other professional league or any international- or national-level event organisation.

Facts
The United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) charged Scott Turner, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an out-of-competition doping control a sample was take for doping control purposes. The sample showed the presence of methasterone and its metabolite and metabolites of desoxymethyltestosterone. These substances are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2014 prohibited list.

History
On 1 February 2015, Mr Turner informed the NADP and UKAD that he no longer wished to contest the charge of committing an Anti-Doping Rule Violation.

Decision
1. The period of ineligibility is two years starting from the date he was charged and provisionally suspended, it will therefore run from 6 November 2014 to 5 November 2016.
2. During this period the athlete can not take part in competition or activities organized or authorized by the Welsh Rugby Union.

Facts
The United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) charges Shaun Pick, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 19 November 2014, UKAD collected an out-of-competition sample from the Athlete for doping test purposes. His sample tested positive on metabolites of oxymetholone, these substances are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The Athlete admitted the charge and waived his right to have the B
Sample analysed.

Decision
The period of ineligibility imposed was two years commencing on the date of the decision, reduced by the time spent in voluntary suspension. The period of Ineligibility is therefore deemed to have commenced on December 11, 2014 and will expire at midnight on December 10, 2016.
During this period the athlete can not play competition or take part in activities (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) organized or authorized by the RFL.

Facts
The United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) charges Ashley Bateman, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On November 24, 2014, UKAD collected an out-of-competition sample from the Athlete for doping test purposes. His sample tested positive on oxandrolone and its metabolite, these substances are prohibited according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The Athlete admitted the charge and waived his right to have the B Sample analysed.

Decision
The period of ineligibility imposed was two years commencing on the date of the decision, reduced by the time spent in voluntary suspension. The period of Ineligibility is therefore deemed to have commenced on December 18, 2014 and will expire at midnight on December 17, 2016.

Facts
The United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) charges Lee Evans, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an out-of-competition doping control a sample was take for doping control purposes. The sample showed the presence of drostanolone and its metabolite. Drostanolone is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The athlete asserts that he must have taken a supplement contaminated with the prohibited substance. He had used various supplements and apparently didn't make any research if they contained prohibited substances. The panel sees no reason for any reduction of the period of ineligibility.

Decision
1. The period of ineligibility is two years starting from the date of sample collection July 28, 2014.
2. Any individual results obtained from July 28, 2014, shall be invalidated.
3. The athlete is permitted to return to his training two months before the period of ineligibility ends.