Follow Us

UKAD v Peter Newman

August 12, 2019 | Motorsport | Arbitration

Spacer

Summary

  • Sport: Motorsport
  • Issue: Arbitration
  • Type: Anti-Doping
  • Tribunal: Jeremy Summers, Dr Terry Crystal , Michelle Duncan
  • Decision date: 19 July 2019
  • Outcome: The Tribunal imposed a period of ineligibility of 2 years

A decision in the case of the UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) v Peter Newman has been published by the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP).  On 30 September 2018 Peter Newman, a licenced competitor of Motorsport UK, was selected for In-Competition testing following the final round of the 2018 Tuto Money Super One British Karting Championships at the PF International Kart Circuit, Grantham.

The urine sample returned an Adverse Analytical Finding for the presence of carboxy-THC, a metabolite of cannabis, which is a Specified substance prohibited In-Competition only.  Mr Newman was subsequently charged with a breach of Anti-Doping Rule Article 2.1 for the Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers.

Mr Newman admitted the Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) and the NADP Tribunal, consisting of Jeremy Summers, Michelle Duncan and Dr Terry Crystal were tasked with determining sanction.

The Tribunal found that UKAD did not establish, to the required burden of proof, that the Athlete had acted intentionally in committing the ADRV.  Although the Tribunal found that the ADRV was not intentional, they concluded that Mr Newman had acted with a high degree of Fault, and was not entitled to any reduction in the period of Ineligibility.

The Tribunal imposed a period of ineligibility of 2 years, running from 30 September 2018, the date of Sample collection, until midnight on 29 September 2020.

Should you require Sport Resolutions to conduct and manage an investigation, review or inquiry, please contact us.

UKAD v Todd James

August 09, 2019 | Rugby Union | Arbitration

Spacer

Summary

  • Sport: Rugby Union
  • Issue: Arbitration
  • Type: Anti-Doping
  • Tribunal: Matthew Lohn
  • Decision date: 10 July 2019
  • Outcome: 4 years ineligibility

A decision in the case of the UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) v Todd James has been published by the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP). 

On 27 October 2018 Todd James, a registered player of Welsh Rugby Union, was selected for In-Competition testing following the WRU Premiership match between Pontypridd RFC and Cross Keys RFC.  The urine sample returned an Adverse Analytical Finding for the presence of ostarine, a non-Specified substance listed on the WADA Prohibited List under section S1.2 ‘Other Anabolic Agents’ and prohibited at all times.  Mr James was subsequently charged with a breach of Anti-Doping Rule Article 2.1 for the Presence of a Prohibited Substance.  Mr James admitted the Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV), but was unable to provide the required evidence to establish the route of ingestion and therefore show the Tribunal that ingestion had not been intentional. 

The Tribunal imposed a period of ineligibility of 4 years, running from 14 December 2018, the date of Provisional Suspension, until midnight on 13 December 2022.

Should you require Sport Resolutions to conduct and manage an investigation, review or inquiry, please contact us.

UKAD v Miles Normandale

June 26, 2019 | Rugby Union | Arbitration

Spacer

Summary

  • Sport: Rugby Union
  • Issue: Arbitration
  • Type: Anti-Doping
  • Tribunal: Robert Englehart QC, Blondel Thompson, Professor Gordon McInnes
  • Decision date: 27 June 2019
  • Outcome: 2 years ineligibility

A decision in the case of the UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) v Miles Normandale has been published by the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP).  

On 20 September 2018 Miles Normandale, a registered player of Welsh Rugby Union, was selected for Out-of-Competition testing during a Cardiff RFC training session.  The urine sample returned an Adverse Analytical Finding for the presence of clomifene, an anti-estrogenic substance listed within the hormone and metabolic modulators section of the Prohibited List. Clomifene is a Specified Substance, prohibited at all times, and Mr Normandale was subsequently charged with a breach of Anti-Doping Rule Article 2.1 for the Presence of a Prohibited Substance.

Mr Normandale admitted the Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) but contested his sanction on the grounds of intentionality.  The NADP Tribunal consisting of Robert Englehart QC, Blondel Thompson and Professor Gordon McInnes found that UKAD did not establish that the ADRV was intentional and therefore imposed a period of ineligibility of 2 years. 

As Mr Normandale promptly admitted the ADRV, his ban will run from 20 September 2018, the date of Sample collection, until midnight on 19 September 2020.

Should you require Sport Resolutions to conduct and manage an investigation, review or inquiry, please contact us.

IAAF v Oluwakemi Adekoya

June 26, 2019 | Athletics | Arbitration

Spacer

Summary

  • Sport: Athletics
  • Issue: Arbitration
  • Type: Anti-Doping
  • Tribunal: Hon. Hugh L. Fraser, Dr Thomas Murray, Mr Lauri Tarasti
  • Decision date: 18 July 2019
  • Outcome: 4 years ineligibility

A decision in the matter of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v Ms Oluwakemi Adekoya has been issued by the Disciplinary Tribunal.

Ms Adekoya, a Bahraini 400 meter hurdler/sprinter was charged by the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) under the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) after testing positive for the presence of stanozolol and its metabolites (3’-hydroxy-stanozolol, 4-hydroxy-stanozolol and 16β-hydroxy-stanozolol) in September 2018.

On 1 July 2019, a hearing was held before the Panel, comprised of Hon. Hugh L. Fraser (Chair), Dr Thomas Murray and Mr Lauri Tarasti. The Panel found that the Athlete had committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violations pursuant to Article 2.1 ADR and Article 2.2 ADR and a four (4) year period of Ineligibility has been imposed upon the Athlete commencing on the date of the Award.

The secretariat to the Disciplinary Tribunal is managed by Sport Resolutions.

Should you require Sport Resolutions to conduct and manage an investigation, review or inquiry, please contact us.

IAAF v Jarrion Lawson

June 17, 2019 | Athletics | Arbitration

Spacer

Summary

  • Sport: Athletics
  • Issue: Arbitration
  • Type: Anti-Doping
  • Tribunal: Michael Beloff QC, Francisco A.Larios, Jeffrey Benz
  • Decision date: 24 May 2019
  • Outcome: A period of Ineligibility imposed by the Tribunal was four (4) years.

A decision in the matter of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v Jarrion Lawson has been issued by the Disciplinary Tribunal. Jarrion Lawson, an American long jumper/sprinter was charged by the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) under the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) after testing positive for the presence of epitrenbolone (which is listed in S1.1a. Exogenous Anabolic Androgenic Steroids of the World Anti-Doping Agency 2018 Prohibited List) in a urine sample collected on 2 June 2018.

On 26 April 2019, a hearing was held in New York before the Tribunal consisting of Michael J. Beloff QC (Chair), Jeffrey Benz and Francisco A. Larios. The Panel found that the Athlete had committed Anti-Doping Rule Violations pursuant to Articles 2.1 and Art 2.2 ADR, and a four (4) year period of ineligibility has been imposed upon Mr. Jarrion Lawson, commencing on the date of the Tribunal Award. The period of Provisional Suspension imposed on the Athlete from August 3, 2018 until the date of the Tribunal Award shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility, provided that it has been effectively served. 

Mr. Jarrion Lawson’s results from June 2, 2018 until the date of his Provisional Suspension on August 3, 2018 shall be disqualified with all resulting consequences including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money pursuant to Article 10.8 ADR. 

Related Documents

Should you require Sport Resolutions to conduct and manage an investigation, review or inquiry, please contact us.

Scroll To Top