Related cases:
- UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Mark Dry
October 8, 2019 - UKAD 2020 UKAD vs Mark Dry - Revision
May 7, 2021 - UKAD 2021 Mark Dry vs UKAD - Appeal
August 2, 2021
In May 2019 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Mark Dry for tampering through providing a false account to UKAD as to why he was not at the address at the time after a missed test in October 2018.
The Athlete admitted he initially gave a false statement but asserted that the lie had no effect on the operation of the Rules since he was in the Domestic Testing Pool and not in the Registered Testing Pool. The Domestic Testing Pool operated separately, and outside the IAAF Doping Control Arrangements.
The National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) accepted the Athlete’s assertion that a filing failure under the Domestic Testing Pool involved no sanction and that there was no Anti-Doping Rule violation. As a result on 8 October 2019 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to dismiss the charge against the Athlete.
Hereafter UKAD appealed the First Instance Decision and the NADP Appeal Panel considered the applicable Rules and the structure of Testing Pools in the UK.
The Appeal Panel deems that the distinction drawn by the Tribunal in First Instance between the Domestic Testing Pool and the National Registered Testing Pool is not correctly drawn. The different pools are not separate in the way that the Tribunal had regarded. The Domestic Testing Pool is a lower level pool with less onerous requirements but it is part of the same pyramid structure, and a filing failure has the consequence, if there are two further failures, for the athlete of him being transferred to the National Registered Testing Pool with more onerous requirements and potentially serous consequences for non-compliance.
The Appeal Panel concludes that the deliberate provision of false information was committed by the Athlete with the intention of evading the operation of the Rules and disagrees with the conclusion of the Tribunal in First Instance. The Appeal Panel finds the charge against the Athlete has been proven and is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete committed and Anti-Doping Rule Violation.
The Appeal Panel finds that the appeal filed by UKAD is admissible and decides on 25 February 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision. The provisional suspension already served by the Athlete shall be credited.
