Decision | UKAD v Christopher Phillips

Decision | UKAD v Christopher Phillips

A Decision in the case of UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) v Christopher Phillips has been issued by the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP).

On 26 October 2017, semi-professional rugby player Christopher Phillips was subject to a doping test following a training session at Pontypridd RFC.  Analysis of Mr Phillips’ urine sample returned an Adverse Analytical Finding for stanozolol-N-glucuronide, a metabolite of stanozolol, a non-specified substance prohibited at all times.  Mr Phillips was subsequently charged with an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) for the Presence of a Prohibited Substance under UK Anti-Doping Rule (ADR) Article 2.1.

Mr Phillips submitted an application for his Provisional Suspension to be lifted, on the basis that his Adverse Analytical Finding had been due to the ingestion of a contaminated product. His provisional suspension was lifted on 25 July 2018. 

The onus of establishing the violation was not intentional rested on Mr Phillips, with the starting point for the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility being 4 years. After assessing whether the violation was intentional, and concluding it was not, the Panel turned itself to the Athlete’s degree of fault. The NADP Tribunal consisting of Robert Englehart QC (Chairman), Dr Kitrina Douglas and Carole Billington-Wood found that Mr Phillips bore No Significant Fault or Negligence, and determined the period of ineligibility to be imposed should be 4 months.

Mr Phillips’ period of Ineligibility ran from 26 October 2017, the date of sample collection.

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 and is entirely independent of UK Anti-Doping and the RFU, who are responsible for investigating, charging and prosecuting cases before the NADP.