Tue, June 01, 2021
UK Anti-Doping v Carl Hone
A decision in the case of UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) v Carl Hone has been published by the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP).
On 06 February 2020, Mr Carl Hone, a rugby union player in Wales registered with Llanhilleth RFC, provided urine Sample Out-of-Competition. Sample analysis returned an Adverse Analytical Finding (“AAF”) for Boldenone.
Mr Hone was subsequently charged on 12 October 2020 with a breach of ADR Article 2.1 for the Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in his Sample. Mr Hone admitted the Anti-Doping Rule Violation on 02 November 2020.
The NADP Tribunal, consisting of Robert Englehart QC (Chair), Professor Peter Sever and Carole Billington-Wood established that Mr Hone had committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation contrary to ADR Art. 2.1, and therefore imposed a period of Ineligibility of 4 years, commencing on 06 February 2020 until midnight on 05 February 2024.
A copy of the full decision can be accessed via the related documents 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.
Related Documents
- UKAD v Carl HoneDecision
- UKAD v Carl HoneDecision
- UKAD v Carl HoneDecision
- UKAD v Carl HoneDecision
- UKAD v Carl HoneDecision
- UKAD v Carl HoneDecision
- UKAD v Carl HoneDecision
- UKAD v Carl HoneDecision
- UKAD v Carl HoneDecision
- UKAD v Carl HoneDecision
- UKAD v Carl HoneDecision
- UKAD v Carl HoneDecision
- UKAD v Carl HoneDecision
- UKAD v Carl HoneDecision
