Facts and history
The UK Anti-Doping Organization charges Jamie Stevenson(player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The player refused to undertake an out-of-competition test at Loughborough University on 9 January 2010. Refusing to commit to sample collection once notified that you are required to do so is prohibited under the World Anti-Doping Code. The player admitted the charge and accepted the consequences.

Decision
1. Jamie Stevenson is found to have committed a violation of Rule 32.2(c) of the Anti-Doping Rules, as incorporated into the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules on January 9, 2010 he did refuse without compelling justification to provide a sample for drug testing in accordance with the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules.
2. Jamie Stevenson is subject to a period of ineligibility from the sport of two (2) years, commencing as of February 8, 2010 and ending at midnight on February 7, 2012.
3. During the above period of ineligibility, in accordance with Rule 40.11 of the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules, as incorporated into the UK Anti-Doping Rules, Mr Stevenson may not participate in any capacity in any event or series of events or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized or organized by the IAAF or any area association or member of the IAAF or signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code (or signatory's member club or a club or other member organization of a signatory's member) or competition authorized or organized by any professional league or any international or national level organization.
4. In accordance with Rule 40.8 of the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules, as incorporated Into the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules, all competitive results achieved by Mr Stevenson in events since 9 January 2010 are disqualified, together with forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money obtained In such events. This includes (without limitation) the results achieved by Mr Stevenson at the Loughborough University Open, which took place on January 30, 2010.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping organization ("UKAD") charges Samuel Thompson ("player") for an anti-doping rule violation. The player was tested on December 10, 2009. The urine sample he provided was found to contain 2-alpha-methyl-5-alpha-androstan-3-alpha-ol-17-one, a metabolite of drostanolone. By e-mail the player admits having used the prohibited substance which made the B-sample analyses unnecessary. The oral hearing was held on April 29, 2010.

History
By e-mail the player made clear that he will not attend an oral hearing due to work obligations. He sees the substance drostanolone as a mild form of steroid which in many cases wouldn't improve his performance. He took this substance solely down to joint pain and with an insight to correcting old injuries.

Decision
1. Doping Offence contrary to Article 2.1 of the Rules has been established.
2. The period of ineligibility imposed is two years starting on January 30, 2010, and ending at midnight on January 29, 2012.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping (“UKAD”) charges Roderick Attard ("player") for commission of a Doping Offence in breach of Article 2.1 of the Anti-Doping Rules. The player provided a sample of urine on January 19, 2010. Analysis of that sample revealed the presence of 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone, the metabolites of the prohibited substance nandrolone.

History
The player is a Maltese national who was born in, and who has lived almost all his life in Malta. Since about 2007 the player had suffered from a shoulder injury. Following investigations, in November 2008, surgical stabilization of the shoulder was performed. The player frankly said that he knew that what was being recommended was a prescription drug, and that although he did not know the precise substance he knew that it was some form of steroid or steroid based drug. After the sample had been given the player declared in Box 25 on the sample form the following use of a drug – injection in shoulder in Nov 2009 as part of rehab pro as part of shoulder reconstruction.
the player raised the following arguments:
1. He should be granted a retrospective Therapeutic Use Exemption (“TUE”).
2. He had acted without fault or negligence.
3. He had acted without significant fault or negligence.
4. He had admitted the violation in the absence of other evidence.

Conclusion
1. The tribunal finds that the breach charged by the UKAD is made out and dismiss each of the mitigating arguments advanced by the player. The consequence is that the mandatory period of 2 years ineligibility for a first violation prescribed by Article 10.2 of the Anti-Doping Rules must be imposed.
2. The effect of Article 10.9.3 of the Anti-Doping Rules is that period of ineligibility shall commence on the date of the player’s provisional suspension, namely March 2, 2010. The player’s plea that the period should commence on January 19, 2010, cannot be entertained because he did not give written notice of any voluntary provisional suspension from the date: the fact that he may not have played since then is not in itself sufficient.
3. Accordingly, the tribunal declares that the player shall be subject to a period of ineligibility of two years commencing on March 2, 2010. During that period the player shall not be permitted to participate in any capacity in a competition or in any other capacity (other than authorized Anti-Doping education or rehabilitation programs) organized, convened, or authorized by the RFL or by any body that is a member or, or affiliated to, or licensed by the RFL.

facts and history
Kofi Danso and Chiedozie Offiah (players) were selected for a doping test during a basketball match on January 6. Kofi Danso in fact was not selected but he impersonated the person who was selected for the doping control. Chiedozo Offiah was taking care of the player's licenses, and signed the team sheet. Also he identified Kofi Danso as the player selected for the doping test. When the original selected player was charged with an anti-doping rule violation the truth came out.
The result of this was: Kofi Danso was reported for an anti-doping rule violation for testing positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis and tampering or attempted tampering with any part of doping control.
Chiedozie Offiah was reported for an anti-doping rule violation for tampering or attempted tampering in connection with the collection of the sample collected from Mr Danso.
The hearing took place at the offices of Sport Resolutions (UK) in London on 26 June 2012.

Decision
Accordingly the Tribunal makes the following decision:
1. In the case of Mr Danso, the doping offences under Article 2.1 and 2.5 of the Anti-Doping Rules have been established.
2. In the case of Mr Danso the period of ineligibility is two years from the date of this decision.
3. In the case of Mr Offiah the doping offence under Article 2.5 of the Anti-Doping Rules has been established.
4. In the case of Mr Offiah the period of ineligibility is one year from 12 April 2012.

facts
Nathan Jones (player) appealed the decision of an Anti-Doping Tribunal of the NADP dated April 9, 2010. The Arbitral Tribunal concluded that the Player had failed without compelling justification to submit to sample collection, after notification of testing and had thereby committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation contrary to Article 2.3 of the UKADR. A sanction of a period of Ineligibility for two years was imposed.

history
On 26 September 2009 after Welsh Premiership Rugby match for Ebbw Vale against Neath, the player was asked to attend the sample collection. He said he was unable to provide a sample. He explained that he had to travel to Bristol to work. It was therefore alleged that he had failed (the original charge indicated that he had “refused”) to provide a sample. The Player noted on the sample collection form that he was refusing because of “work commitments”.

decision
1. By a majority of 2-1, we find that the Player has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation, namely failing without compelling justification to submit to sample collection after notification of testing as authorized in the UKADR.
2. As a result of the Player’s Anti-Doping Rule Violation, the Player will be subject to a period of Ineligibility of two years.
3. In accordance with Article 10.9 of the UKADR, the period of Ineligibility shall run from 3 March 2010 and so shall end at midnight on 2 March 2012. During the period of Ineligibility, in accordance with Article 10.10.1 of the UKADR, the Player shall not be permitted to participate in any capacity in a Competition, Event or other activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs).

costs
Each party shall bear its own costs

facts
Respondent Simon Gibbs was reported by UK Anti-doping for a violation of the Anti-Doping Code. Respondent provided an urine sample during an in competition doping control on 21 February 2010. The prohibited substance mephedrone (4-methylmethcathinone) was found to be present in his sample.

history
The respondent has failed to establish how the prohibited substance entered his body. He suggests that someone must have been spiking his drink with the prohibited substance or he has used a contaminated supplement.

decision
The Tribunal has determined that:
1. in contravention of the Anti-Doping Rules there was present in a bodily sample given by the Respondent on February 21, 2010, 4-methylmethcathinone (mephedrone) which is a Prohibited Substance: Specified Substance on the 2010 Prohibited list and is thereby a specified substance;
2. in respect that there wasn't a Therapeutic Use Exemption granted to the Respondent in accordance with the Anti-Doping Rules that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation was committed by the Respondent;
3. the Respondent has failed to establish how the Prohibited Substance / Specified Substance entered his/her body/system for the purposes of the Anti-Doping Rules;
4. and in respect of the Anti-Doping Rule Violation committed, the Respondent is ineligibility for a period of two years from 26 March 2010 until 25 March 2012 (both dates indusive) with all of the consequences provided for in the Anti-Doping Rules.

Facts
UK Anti-doping reports Sam Walsh (player) for anti-doping rule violation. He was tested during a training session at the Club on December 9, 2009.The urine sample he provided was found to contain 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone, metabolites of anabolic steroids, which are prohibited substances. The Tribunal held a hearing of the charge on 29 April 2010.

History
The player explained by letter he used steroids because of an operation on his eye. He did not exercise his right to have the B sample tested. But later it was established he had used supplements with the banned substances.

Decision
the Tribunal makes the following decision:
1. A Doping Offence has been established.
2. The period of ineligibility imposed is two years starting on January 30,
2010 and ending at midnight on January 29, 2012.

Appeal
The respondent may appeal against this decision by lodging a Notice of Appeal within 21 days of receipt hereof.

Facts
Matthew Duckworth (player) appeals against the decision of the National Anti-Doping panel dated October 12, 2010. The player had committed an anti-doping rule violation because of the positive result of a doping test taken on August 8, 2010. The prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (MHA) was detected.

history
The player was playing rugby league since the age of 16. Due to a car accident in 2008 he underwent physiotherapy rehabilitation. In 2009 he returned to the rugby league. He used the supplement Jack3d which, in his belief, helps him to wake up and get out in the morning. He doesn't use it on match days and he didn't write down the use of it on the form during the doping test. Jack3d is regarded to be the cause of the positive test, he took a provisional suspension on September 1, 2010.

considerations player
The substance MHA is with effect from January 1, 2011, a specified substance instead of a non-specified substance, which invokes the principle of "lex mitior".

considerations panel
There is no indication that the MHA was taken to enhance sport performance.
Warnings about the supplement Jack3d were issued in the summer of 2010.

decision
The panel allows the Appeal and substitutes a period of ineligibility of 6 months commencing at 9 am on 1 September 2010, the time on which the provisional suspension was imposed. This is a Decision on Appeal under Rule 13 of the National Anti-Doping Panel Procedural Rules, neither the athlete nor UK Anti-Doping has any further right of appeal.

by Nenad Dikic, Michael McNamee, Bojan Vajgic [et all] in British Journal of Sports Medicine, 07/17/2013

Recent positive doping cases and a series of mistakes of medical doctors of the International Federation of Basketball have reopened the debate about the role of medical doctor in elite sport. This study shows that some sports physicians involved in recent positive doping cases are insufficiently aware of the nuances of doping regulations and, most importantly, of the list of prohibited substances. Moreover, several team doctors are shown to have exercised poor judgment in relation to these matters with the consequence that athletes are punished for doping offences on the basis of doctors’ negligence. In such circumstances, athletes’ rights are jeopardized by a failure of the duty of care that (sports) physicians owe their athlete patients. We argue that, with respect to the World Anti Doping Code, anti-doping governance fails to define, with sufficient clarity, the role of medical doctors. There is a need for a new approach emphasizing urgent educational and training of medical doctors in this domain, which should be considered prior to the revision of the next World Anti Doping Code in 2013 in order to better regulate doctor's conduct especially in relation to professional errors, whether negligent or intentional.

CAS 98/211 B. / Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA)

Related case:

FINA 1998 FINA vs Michelle Smith de Bruin
August 6, 1998

• Swimming
• Doping (testosterone)
• Hearing de novo
• Compliance with the testing procedure
• Burden of proof

1. The virtue of an appeal system which allows for a full rehearing before an appellate body is that issues relating to the fairness of the hearing before the tribunal of first instance fade to the periphery. The CAS appeals procedure allows any defects in the hearing before the first instance tribunal to be cured by the hearing before CAS.

2. The standard of proof required of the federation is high: less than the criminal standard, but more than the ordinary civil standard. To adopt a criminal standard (at any rate, where the disciplinary charge is not a criminal offence) is to confuse the public law of the state with the private law of an association.

In April 1998 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Irish swimmer Michelle Smith de Bruin.

The Athlete's sample was taken for a out-of-competition doping test at the her home in January 1998 and analysis of the urine samples showed the presence of alcohol. The concentration of alcohol (whiskey odor) was too high to be produced naturally and indicated physical manipulation. As a result the FINA Doping Panel decided on 6 August 1998 to impose 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in September 1998 the Athlete appealed the FINA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete disputed the validity of the chain of custody of her sample and asserted that the sample tested at the Barcelona Lab was in fact not her sample.Further the Athlete claimed that, if the sample tested was her sample, it had been manipulated by a person other than the Athlete herself.

Following assessment of the evidence regarding the process of collecting, transporting and testing of the Athlete’s samples the Panel establishes that there was no breach in the chain of custody. Accordingly the Panel concludes that in fact it was the Athlete’s sample that had been tested.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete had the opportunity to manipulate her sample and had the motive to do so if she was in fact engaged in the use of illicit substances. In this matter the Panel’s addressed the conclusion of the Barcelona Lab about the analysis of the Athlete’s A and B samples:

“Additional laboratory results obtained with the sample (especially, steroid profile and isotope ratio mass spectrometry measurements) suggest the administration of some metabolic precursor of testosterone. Longitudinal follow up is recommended.”

The Panel holds that there is unchallenged evidence that what was, even at the date of the testing, a banned substance (because it fell within the general category of substances related to those specifically listed) was found in the Athlete's urine; there is, therefore, actual evidence before the Panel that there was something to conceal. Not only was the manipulation not wholly successful, but there was an obvious motive for it.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport hereby decides on 7 June 1999:

1.) The Appeal filed by Michelle Smith de Bruin on 2 September 1998 is dismissed.

2.) The decision issued by the FINA Doping Panel on 6 August 1998 is confirmed.

(...)