Facts
The UK Anti-Doping organization ("UKAD") charged Callum Priestly ("athlete") for a violation of the anti-doping rules. A prohibited substance (clenbuterol) was found to be present in the urine sample taken from the athlete in an out of competition test conducted at Stellenbosch South Africa on January 19, 2010. The athlete has waived his right to a hearing and requested that the panel deal with the case on the written submissions.

History
The athlete admits the presence of Clenbuterol he denies knowingly ingesting the substance and his case is that he bears “no fault or negligence” for the violation.

Decision
The tribunal makes the following decision:
1. A doping offence contrary to Rule 32.2(a) has been established;
2. The period of ineligibility to be imposed is 2 years from February 19, 2010, to February 18, 2012.

Appeal
The athlete has a right of appeal against this decision, as a national level athlete, any appeal must be filed within 45 days of the receipt of this decision.

Facts
UK Anti-Doping Limited (“UKAD") charged Dan Staite ("player") for an anti-doping rule violation. Two Prohibited Substances (as defined), erythropoietin and androsta-1,4,6-triene-3,17-dione, had been found in an urine sample provided by player on March 13, 2010. A hearing in the player's absence, to determine the charge and consequences, took place on June 28, 2010. At his home he refused a blood test on 18 March 2010.

History
The player is a cyclist and is bound by the Anti-Doping Rules adopted by the British Cycling Federation (“the Rules”). He admits the offence and by mail he made clear not to attend the hearing.

Decision
The sole arbiter rules:
1. an anti-doping rule violation was committed by the player;
2. the period of ineligibility in his case is to be two years;
3. the period of ineligibility is to run from 8 a.m. on 1 May 2010 to 8 a.m. on 1 May 2012.

Appeal
Either UKAD or Mr Staite (or any of the organisations specified in Article 13.4.1 of the Rules) may appeal against this decision.

Facts
UK Anti-Doping Limited ("UKAD") charges Ben Payne ("player") for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The prohibited substances, 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone, had been found in a urine sample provided by Mr Payne on 13 March 2010. The player indicated that he did not dispute the fact of the anti-doping rule violation but that he wished to put forward reasons why he should not be subjected to the usual 2 year suspension for such a violation. Unfortunately, the player did no more than say that he would explain to me at the hearing why this should be so. Eventually the player decides not to attend the oral hearing, but because everything was set it took place without the player.

History
The player explained that he had suffered severe facial injury during a game of hockey and, at the suggestion of a friend, had taken two substances called “Deca” and “Sustanon” in order to aid his recovery.

Conclusion
In summary the following decision has been made:
1. an anti-doping rule violation was committed by the player;
2. the period of ineligibility in his case is to be two years; and the period of ineligibility is to run from 8 a.m. on April 16, 2010 to 8 a.m. on April 16, 2012.

Appeal
Either UKAD or Mr Payne (or any of the organisations specified in Article 13.4.1 of the Rules) may appeal against this decision as set out in the preceding paragraph.

Facts and History
United Kingdom Anti-Doping Limited charged Kieren Kelly (player) with a violation of Rule 32.2(c) of the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules, as incorporated Into the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules. The player refused to undergo an out-of-competition doping test on January 9, 2010. The player admitted this charge and acceded to the consequences specified for such violation in the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules incorporated in the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules.

Decision:
1. The player is found to have committed a violation of rule 32.2(c) of the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules, as incorporated into the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules, in that on January 9, 2012, refused without compelling justification to provide a sample for drug testing in accordance with the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules.
2. The player is subject to a period of ineligibility from the sport of two (2) years, commencing as of 8 February 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 Doping Rules, as incorporated into the UK Anti-Doping Rules, The player may not participate In any capacity in any event or series of events or activity (other then 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 or 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 the player in events since January 9, 2010 are disqualified, together with forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money obtained in such events. Thls includes (without limitation) the results achieved by Mr Kelly at the Woodies DIY Indoor Championships of Ireland, which took place on February 7, 2010.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.

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.