Wed, September 26, 2018

Adam Fedorciow (BWL) v UKAD (Appeal)


  • Sport: Weightlifting
  • Issue: Appeal Arbitration
  • Type: Anti-Doping
  • Tribunal: Jeremy Summers, Carole Billington-Wood, Colin Murdock
  • Decision date: 29 May 2018
  • Outcome: At first instance the Tribunal imposed a sanction of 2 year's period of Ineligibility. A subsequent Appeal was dismissed.

Decision Details

Both First Instance and Appeal Decisions in the cases of UK Anti-Doping v Adam Fedorciow (BWL) and Adam Fedorciow v UK Anti-Doping (Appeal) have been published by the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP).

On 15 July 2017, Adam Fedorciow a licensed competitor of British Weight Lifting (BWL), was subject to In-Competition testing following the BWL Championships held in Coventry.

Analysis of Mr Fedorciow’s urine sample returned an Adverse Analytical Finding (“AAF”) for higenamine and its metabolite coclaurine. Mr Fedorciow 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 referred to the NADP for determination.

The NADP Tribunal consisting of Mr Matthew Lohn (Chairman), Dr Terry Crystal and Dr Barry O’Driscoll concluded that Mr Fedorciow had not established that he bore ‘No Significant Fault or Negligence’ and he was not eligible for any reduction of the period of Ineligibility for the purposes of ADR Article 10.5. The Tribunal determined that a doping offence under ADR Article 2.1 has been admitted and the applicable period of Ineligibility to be imposed should be two years, commencing on 15 July 2017.

Mr Fedorciow submitted an appeal on 26 February 2018, asserting two grounds of appeal. The Appellant subsequently served amplified grounds of appeal on 23 March 2018.

The Arbitral Appeal Tribunal consisting of Mr Jeremy Summers (Chair), Ms Carole Billington-Wood and Mr Colin Murdock found that there had been no error in the way in which the First Instance analysed and applied the evidence it had been required to consider and the Appeal Tribunal rejected the Appellant’s primary submission that the Tribunal had failed to apply the criteria properly when rendering its decision. As such, the appeal was dismissed.