Facts
The UK Anti-Doping limited (UKAD) charged Terry Newton (Player) with an anti-doping rule violation. On 24 November 2009, a blood sample was collected from the player. The laboratory detected the presence in the sample of human Growth Hormone (‘hGH’) and determined (by applying the positivity criteria established by WADA) that the hGH was of exogenous origin. By letter dated 18 February 2010 from his lawyers, the player admitted the presence of exogenous human Growth Hormone in the blood sample. No B-sample analysis or hearing is requested.

Decision
1. The player has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the RFL’s 2009 Anti-Doping Rules, in that a Prohibited Substance – exogenous human Growth Hormone – has been found to be present in a blood sample collected from him on 24 November 2009.
2. Consequences: Disqualification of Individual Results
2.1 ADR Article 10.8 provides that all individual results obtained since the date of commission of an anti-doping rule violation should be disqualified unless fairness requires otherwise.
2.2 The player has not argued that fairness requires otherwise in this case. Therefore, all of the individual results that he has obtained since 24 November 2009 are hereby disqualified.
3. Consequences: Imposition of a Period of Ineligibility
3.1 This is the first anti-doping rule violation that the player has been found to have committed.
3.2 ADR Article 10.2 provides that the sanction for an ADR Article 2.1 anti-doping rule violation that is a first offence is a period of Ineligibility of two years. The Anti-Doping Rules include various provisions that might be relied upon to mitigate that sanction if certain specified conditions are satisfied (see ADR Article 10.5), but the player has confirmed through his lawyers that he does not seek to rely on any of those provisions in mitigation of his sanction but rather accepts the ADR Article 2.1 period of Ineligibility. Accordingly, a period of Ineligibility of two years is imposed on the player.
3.3 In accordance with ADR Article 10.9, that period of Ineligibility would usually run from today’s date. However, the player prompt admission of his offence upon receipt of the notice of charge triggers a discretion under ADR Article 10.9.2 to backdate the commencement of his period of Ineligibility to the date of sample collection, i.e., to 24 November 2009. That discretion is hereby exercised, so that his period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced on 24 November 2009, and therefore will end at midnight on 23 November 2011.
3.4 During this period of Ineligibility, the player’s status shall be as set out at Article 10.10 of the RFL’s 2009 Anti-Doping Rules, i.e., he remains subject to testing, but he is not entitled to play, coach or otherwise participate in any capacity in any event or competition or other activity (other than authorised anti-doping education or rehabilitation programmes) organised, convened, authorised or recognised by the RFL or by any body that is a member of, or affiliated to, or licensed by the RFL (including Wakefield RLFC). Furthermore, the RFL shall take all steps within its power to have such period of Ineligibility recognised and enforced by other relevant authorities.
4. Appeal and Publication
4.1 In accordance with ADR Article 7.5.4, a copy of this decision is being sent to the player, the RFL, the Rugby League International Federation, and WADA, each of whom has a right of appeal against this decision under ADR Article 13.
4.2 Also in accordance with ADR Article 7.5.4, this decision shall be published on UK Anti-Doping’s website.

The International Basketball Federation (FIBA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance THC (cannabis). After the notification the Player was provisional suspended.
The Player filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the FIBA Disciplinary Panel. The Player stated he had smoked cannabis 10 days before the doping control at a party.
The Player expressed his regret and had no intention to enhance his performance.
Considering Player’s statement and the circumstances the FIBA Disciplinary Panel decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Player starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

The Colombian Authorities have reported in November 2011 an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). Hereafter the Player had returned to Venezuela because his contract ended with the Colombian basketball club.
The Player was not informed about the test result in November 2011 and January 2012 because the notifications from the Colombian authorities were sent to the wrong address.
The analysis of Player’s B sample was abandoned in December 2012 and the Colombian Basketball Federation (CBF) Disciplinary Committee decided to archived the case without imposing any disciplinary sanction to the Player in April 2012.

The FIBA notified the Player in June and October 2012.
The Player filed a statement in his defence and was heard twice, represented by his agent, for the FIBA Disciplinary Panel.
The Player argued that the B sample analysis was abandoned, he was not notified about the adverse analytical finding by the Colombian authorities and no sanction was imposed.
The Player stated he had used a supplement, purchased in a supplement store, and did not know it contained a prohibited substance. Other teammates bought it also, the team physiotherapist did not advise the Player of any possible dangers and the Player declared the supplement on the Doping Control Form.
After notification by the FIBA in November 2012 the Player requested the analysis of the B sample. Due to delays the B sample analysis was reported in February 2013 and confirmed the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) in Player’s sample.

The Panel finds the Player acted negligently in his responsibility that no prohibited substance enters his body because he did not research the ingredients of the supplement before using it.
Considering Player’s statement and the circumstances the FIBA Disciplinary Panel decides to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the Player starting on the date of the decision, i.e. on 5 April 2013.

Facts
The Rugby Football League (RFL) charges Amdrew Brocklehurst (player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The player provided an urine sample during an in-competition doping test on 28 June 2009. The examination of that sample showed the presence of ephedrine and benzoylecgonine (a metabolite of cocaine). Both are Prohibited Substances. This matter was determined on the documents without an oral hearing.

History
The operations manager of the RFL, explained by e-mail that the player had used cocaine socially but he has no idea how the ephedrine got into his system.

Considerations tribunal
The player didn't contest the charge, which entitles the tribunal to impose a period of two years of ineligibility.

Decision
1. A doping offence contrary to article 3.2.1 of the of the Anti-Doping Rules of the Rugby Football League has been established;
2. Mr Brocklehurst shall have imposed on him a period of ineligibility of 2 years, commencing on 21 July 2009 and expiring at midnight on 20 July 2011.

Appeal
An appeal can be made 21 days after receiving the decision.

In November 2011 the Colombian Administrative Department of Sports (COLDEPORTES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
The Player did not receive COLDEPORTES’ notification of the positive doping test because the Player had already returned to the Dominican Republic due to a physical injury and the termination of his contract with the Colombian club.
On 11 April 2012 the Colombian Basketball Federation (CBF) Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility, hereafter revised on 13 April 2012 to a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Player.

In July 2012 the FIBA notified the Player and ordered a provisional suspension. The Player filed a statement with supporting documentation in his defence and was heard for the FIBA Disciplinary Panel.
The Player argued that his right to defend himself was violated because he was not notified by COLDEPORTES of the positive doping test nor of his right to request the B sample analysis.
The Player stated that he was treated for a heel injury in the Dominican Republic and in Colombia. In October 2011 the Player received multiple injections in Columbia without its content explained to the Player.
In September 2012 the FIBA offered the Player the right to request the analysis of the B sample. Hereafter the Player requested the analysis of the B sample, but the laboratory did not perform the analysis due to non payment of the required costs by the Player.

The Panel finds the Player acted negligently in his responsibility that no prohibited substance enters his body, because the Player did not question the content of the multiple injections he received and failed to take any precaution to that effect.
Therefore on 5 November 2012 the FIBA Disciplinary Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Player starting on the date of the CBF decision, i.e. on 11 April 2012.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping organization (UKAD) charges Denis Catana (respondent) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The prohibited substance Metenolone was found to be present in a sample taking for Doping Control purposes from the Respondent and provided by him on 20 August 2010. The Respondent didn't sent in a written defence and was unrepresented at the hearing.

History
Respondent took various supplements as was common for weightlifters which he had sourced in various ways and from various sources. He bought some at specialist shops and had purchased some supplements in Moldova. In addition he had purchased supplements in gyms where he had been training. He had not asked for advice from his team doctor or coaches in relation to the supplements that he had been taking. the Alezon Gel which he took for a leg injury was a veterinary product for use with horses. He had the Alezon Gel massaged into his leg on 20 August 2010. He had not disclosed that he had used this gel or the other supplements prior to taking the doping test. He claimed that he thought he only had to disclose pills or the like that he had taken. The Respondent contested that the presence of Metenolone in his system must have been caused by it being present, without his knowledge, in one or more of the supplements taken by him since he had not intentionally consumed Metenolone and he could think of no other mechanism for it having entered his system.

Considerations UKAD
The athlete has not proven the source of the prohibited substance Metenolone. Without no significant fault or negligence or aggravating circumstances the period of ineligibility should be 2 years.

Decision
The tribunal determins:
1. in contravention of Article 2.2 of the Anti-Doping Rules there was present in a Bodily Sample given by the Respondent on 20 August 2010, Metenolone which is a Prohibited Substance falling within s1.1(a) (Anabolic Androgenic Steroids - Exogenous) on WADA's 2010 List of Prohibited Substances;
2 in respect that there was not, at the time the sample was taken, present a therapeutic use exemption granted to the respondent in accordance with Article 3 of the Anti-Doping Rules, an Anti-Doping Rule Violation was committed by the respondent;
3. the respondent has failed to establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system for the purposes of Articles 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 of the Anti-Doping Rules;
4. in any event, the Respondent has failed to establish that he bore No Fault or Negligence and/or that he bore no significant fault or negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation committed by him; and, accordingly,
5. in respect of the Anti-Doping Rule Violation committed, the Respondent is ineligible for a period of two years from 21 September 2010 until 20 September 2012 (both dates inclusive) with all the consequences provided for in Article 10.10.1 of the Anti-Doping Rules.

Costs
No application was made by either party in relation to costs and no order as to costs is made.

Appeal
The parties can appeal within 21 day after the receipt of a copy of this decision.

Facts
Patrick Kenny (appellant) appeals against the decision of the Football Association (FA) Regulatory Committee of 7 September 2009. In this decision related to his positive doping test on 11 May 2009 the Appellant should be suspended from all football and football activities for a period of 9 months from 22 July 2009.

Considerations appellant
Appellant appeals against the length of that suspension and not against the finding of a breach of rule E25. The 9 months suspension was excessive and the impact upon the Appellant's personal situation meant that the punishment was disproportionate to the offence admitted.

Considerations panel
The appellant didn't establish that there was no significant fault or negligence. He did establish that there was no intention to enhance sporting performance. Theres is nothing excessive or disproportionate in the 9 months suspension, the action of the appellant fell significant short in what is expected of a professional sportsman in his position. The consequences for his personal life are unavoidable and part of the purpose of suspension of doping offences.

Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The sanctions imposed by the Regulatory Commission, including the 9 months suspension are accordingly upheld.
3. The deposit paid by the appellant under 1.2(4) of the Regulations for Football Association Appeals is forfeited.
(4) The appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the Appeal Board.

Facts
The Football Association (FA) charges Patrick Kenny (Player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. A sample for doping control, taken on 11 May 2009, tested positive on the substance ephedrine which is a specified substance on the doping list.

History
The player used medication "Do Do Chestese" for chesty cough the night before the game, this medicine contains the ephedrine. The player was aware of the doping rules but didn't pay much attention to it.

Decision
1. The player committed a doping offence, namely the presence in his urine sample of ephedrine at a concentration of greater than 10ug/mL Thereby he is guilty of misconduct.
2. That Mr Kenny's use of ephedrine was not intended to enhance sporting performance,
3. The appropriate penalty imposed for this doping offence is a period of suspension from ail football and football activities for a period of nine months.
4. The suspension is to be effective (i.e. commence) from the date the FA suspended the player, namely 22nd July 2009,
5. Mr Kenny will be subject to 'target testing' for a period of two years with immediate effect.

Costs
The hearing fee is to be retained by the FA and the player is ordered to pay costs of the hearing.

The International Basketball Federation (FIBA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
Because of substantial delays between the various authorities involved the Player was notified by FIBA 5 months after the sample collection. Hereafter the Player filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the FIBA Disciplinary Committee.

The Player stated he had used a supplement Jack3D purchased in a local store shortly before the competition and the doping control. Afterwards the Player researched the ingredients on the label of the supplement about possible prohibited substances. The Player expressed his regret and had no intention to enhance his performance.

The Panel concludes that the Player acted negligently in his responsibility that no prohibited substance enters his body. He did not research the ingredients of the supplement before using it and did not consult a physician or doctor.

Considering Player’s statement the FIBA Disciplinary Panel decides a 6 month period of ineligibility. Because of the previous substantial delays the period of ineligibility shall start on 1 January 2012.

Federação Portuguesa de Basquetebol (FPB), The Portuguese Basketball Federation, has reported in February 2012 an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification the Player failed to respond to the FPB.
Therefore on 8 March 2012 the FPB Disciplinary Council decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Player.

Hereafter in July 2012 the Player appealed the FPB sanction to the FIBA. The Player filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the FIBA Disciplinary Panel.
Player stated he had used a supplement Jack3D and researched the ingredients of the supplement on the internet before using it. After the notification he researched again the internet and found out that dimethylamylamin HCI, contained in the supplement, is another name for the banned substance methylhexaneamine.
The player expressed his regret and had no intention to enhance performance.

The Panel finds the Player acted negligently in his responsibility that no prohibited substance enters his body. He did not properly research the ingredients of the supplement before using it and did not consult a doctor or sport physician about the supplement. Considering Player’s statement the FIBA Disciplinary Panel decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Player starting on the date of the FPB decision, i.e. on 8 March 2012.