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.


Recent News Articles

Mon, September 26, 2022

Boxing’s Olympic future in doubt after IBA backs Russian president Umar Kremlev

Boxing’s inclusion at future Olympics has been plunged into further doubt after the International Boxing Association (IBA) backed Russian president Umar Kremlev by voting against allowing a leadership challenge against him. 

Read More

Fri, September 23, 2022

WADA Executive Committee approves 2023 Prohibited List

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Executive Committee has approved the 2023 List of Prohibited Substances and Methods which will come into force on 1st January 2023.

Read More

Wed, September 21, 2022

University of Toledo receives Title IX complaints over failures to address complaints against women’s soccer coach

The University of Toledo has received multiple Title IX complaints related to their failure to address complaints of sexual assault and emotional abuse that were made against women’s soccer coach Brad Evans. 

Read More