Decision: UK Anti-Doping v Ryan Bailey

Decision: UK Anti-Doping v Ryan Bailey

A decision in the case of the UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) v Ryan Bailey has been issued by the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP).

Mr Bailey, a rugby league player, was charged with ‘Evading, Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection’ pursuant to Article 2.3 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules.

On 30 May 2017, Mr Bailey was informed that he was required to provide a sample for the purposes of testing by the Canadian anti-doping agency, Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES).

Mr Bailey, who was present at Lamport Stadium in Toronto having completed a training session with Toronto Wolfpack, was adamant that the water he had drunk from the CCES Doping Control Officer (DCO) might have been contaminated and therefore, he would not provide a sample to the DCO.

The NADP Tribunal consisting of Mr Robert Englehart QC (Chair), Dr Terry Crystal and Mr Colin Murdock were comfortably satisfied that the athlete had committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation, however in the truly exceptional circumstances of his case, it was found that Mr Bailey bears No Fault or Negligence so that the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is eliminated.

The full NADP Decision can be accessed via the related links tab on the right-hand side.

The National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) is the United Kingdom’s independent tribunal responsible for adjudicating anti-doping disputes in sport. It is operated by Sport Resolutions in accordance with its own procedural rules and is entirely independent of UK Anti-Doping, who are responsible for investigating, charging and prosecuting cases before the NADP.