x
x
x
x

Wed, January 08, 2020

UKAD v William Ohuaregbe (First Instance and Appeal)

UKAD v William Ohuaregbe (First Instance and Appeal)

Both First Instance and Appeal Decisions in the cases of UK Anti-Doping v William Ohuaregbe (Basketball England) and UK Anti-Doping v William Ohuaregbe (Cross-Appeal) have been published by the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP).

On 10 March 2019, William Ohuaregbe, a licensed competitor of Basketball England, was subject to In-Competition testing following the British Basketball League Trophy Final between London City Royals and London Lions held in Glasgow.

Analysis of Mr Ohuaregbe’s urine samples returned an Adverse Analytical Finding (“AAF”) for ostarine. Mr Ohuaregbe 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 and the matter was referred to the NADP for determination.

The NADP Tribunal consisting of Mr Charles Hollander QC (Chairperson), Professor Gordon McInnes and Ms Carole Billington-Wood concluded that Mr Ohuaregbe established that the ADRV was not ‘intentional’, but that he had failed to establish that he bore ‘No Significant Fault or Negligence’ in committing the ADRV. As a result, the Tribunal determined that the applicable period of Ineligibility to be imposed should be two years, commencing on 10 March 2019 (the date of Sample collection).

UK Anti-Doping submitted an appeal on 27 September 2019, asserting that that the Panel erred in the decision that the AAF was not ‘intentional’. Mr Ohuaregbe subsequently submitted a cross-appeal on the grounds that there was sufficient evidence to establish that he bore ‘No Significant Fault or Negligence’ on 1 October 2019.

The Arbitral Appeal Tribunal consisting of Mr Robert Englehart QC (Chair), Dr Kitrina Douglas and Professor Dorian Haskard found that the First Instance erred in their finding that Mr Ohuaregbe had discharged the burden of proof to show that his AAF was not ‘intentional’ but agreed with the First Instance Tribunal in that Mr Ohuaregbe had failed to establish that he bore ‘No Significant Fault or Negligence’. As a result, the Appeal Tribunal allowed UK Anti-Doping’s appeal and dismissed Mr Ohuaregbe’s cross-appeal, imposing a period of Ineligibility of four years.  The Appeal Tribunal agreed with the reasoning of the First Instance Tribunal that the period of Ineligibility should run from the date of Sample collection, i.e. 10 March 2019.

A copy of the full 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 who is responsible for investigating, charging and prosecuting cases before the NADP.

Share

Recent News Articles

Thu, March 13, 2025

UCI faces EU antitrust complaint over alleged anti-competitive practices

The Union Cycliste Internationale faces an EU antitrust complaint over alleged anti-competitive practices, including imposing penalties for participation in events not sanctioned by the UCI

Read More

Mon, March 10, 2025

Abuse allegation forces USA Swimming CEO to step down

Chrissi Rawak, a former swimmer and CEO of USA Swimming, has been forced to step down less than two weeks after her appointment in the wake of an abuse allegation against her

Read More

Fri, March 07, 2025

WTA introduces maternity leave scheme for players offering up to 12 months of paid leave and subsidies

The Women’s Tennis Association is the first international sports body to introduce a maternity leave scheme which grants up to 12 months of paid maternity leave and subsidies for fertility treatments including egg freezing and IVF. The scheme is available to eligible players who meet specific tournament participation requirements, and the amount received will not be affected by player rankings

Read More