Thu, July 23, 2026
UK Anti-Doping v Daphne Schrager
A decision in the case of UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) against Daphne Schrager has been issued by the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP).
On 2 June 2025, Ms Schrager was notified by UKAD that she may have committed Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) for Presence of a Metabolite of a Prohibited Substance, namely Ligandrol, in a Sample taken on 16 April 2025 and Use of the same Prohibited Substance. This notification further imposed a Provisional Suspension with immediate effect.
On 6 August 2025, UKAD formally issued Ms Schrager with a Notice of Charge for committing the ADRVs pursuant to Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) Articles 2.1 and 2.2.
The NADP Tribunal comprised of Mark Hovell (Chair), Doctor Terry Crystal, and Doctor Paul Jackson, who were appointed to determine this matter.
Ms Schrager denied ever using prohibited substances and stated that she never intentionally violated the ADR. She gave evidence that the presence of Ligandrol was caused by environmental contamination and not intentional Use. She advanced two theories regarding source, namely environmental contamination at the gym she attended two days before Sample collection, and, alternatively, environmental contamination in her shared home. She submitted that if contamination is accepted, she bore No Fault or Negligence, or, alternatively, No Significant Fault or Negligence.
The Tribunal heard scientific evidence from several experts, along with other evidence. The experts agreed that inadvertent environmental contamination was to blame for Ms Schrager’s ADRVs. In weighing up all this evidence the Tribunal determined that Ms Schrager did not intentionally Use Ligandrol. The Tribunal was also satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that there was no recklessness in Ms Schrager’s attendance at the gym. In finding that the ADRVs were committed without intent, the maximum period of Ineligibility that could be imposed was therefore two years, pursuant to ADR Article 10.2.1(a). The Tribunal noted that as Ms Schrager had not established how Ligandrol entered her system, it was unable to consider her Fault and any possible further reduction in her period of Ineligibility.
Accordingly, the Tribunal found that Ms Schrager had unintentionally committed ADRVs pursuant to ADR Articles 2.1 and 2.2 and sanctioned her with a two-year period of Ineligibility. Given that Ms Schrager had been subject to a Provisional Suspension since 2 June 2025 and there was no evidence that she had not observed the Provisional Suspension, the two-year period of Ineligibility was set to run from 2 June 2025 and end at midnight 1 June 2027.
A copy of the full decision can be accessed via the related links tab on the right-hand side.
The 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.
Related Documents
- UKAD v Daphne Schrager Decision
