Daphne Schrager: Para-cyclist unintentionally commits Anti-Doping Rule Violations

The British para-cyclist Daphne Schrager has received a two-year ban from all World Anti-Doping Code compliant sport following Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) for the Presence and Use of a Prohibited Substance. 

A tribunal of the National Anti-Doping Panel determined that whilst Ms Schrager had not proved that inadvertent environmental contamination was the cause of her Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF), it nevertheless accepted that Ms Schrager had established that she did not intentionally use a Prohibited Substance. 

Last year, UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) collected a urine Sample from Ms Schrager Out-of-Competition. Analysis of the Sample returned an AAF for a Metabolite of ligandrol, known as ‘bishydroxylated LGD-4033’. 

Ligandrol is a non-Specified Substance which is prohibited in sport at all times. The substance is part of a wider group of anabolic agents called SARMs (Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators) that are not approved for medical use or human consumption. 

UKAD notified Ms Schrager of the AAF and imposed a Provisional Suspension. Ms Schrager accepted the ADRVs but argued that her ingestion of ligandrol was not intentional. The case was referred to the independent National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) for determination of the applicable consequences. 

On 16 and 17 April 2026, a tribunal of the NADP heard Ms Schrager's case. 

Ms Schrager argued that she had been exposed to environmental contamination, putting forward two possible scenarios: two days before Sample collection, at a gym that she had attended to receive a massage, or alternatively at a shared home address.  

During the hearing, evidence was provided by several witnesses and different scientific experts on behalf of UKAD and Ms Schrager. There was consensus amongst the scientific experts that environmental contamination was the most likely explanation for the concentration of ligandrol in Ms Schrager’s Sample. Whilst the independent tribunal of the NADP concluded that Ms Schrager had not sufficiently established the source of her AAF, when determining sanction, the tribunal was satisfied having considered all of the evidence that she had established that her ADRVs were not intentional. 

In those circumstances, the tribunal of the NADP imposed a two-year period of Ineligibility on Ms Schrager, which is deemed to have commenced on 2 June 2025 (the date she was provisionally suspended) and will end on 1 June 2027. 

Technical terms and more information   

Presence and Use ADRVs are strict liability violations. An Athlete is responsible for any Prohibited Substance or any of its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Sample or ingested by them. Accordingly, it is not necessary to demonstrate intent, Fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part in order to establish an Article 2.1 (Presence) or Article 2.2 (Use) violation; nor is the Athlete's lack of intent, Fault, negligence or knowledge a valid defence to an assertion that an Article 2.1 or Article 2.2 ADRV has been committed. 

It should be noted that the two-year period of Ineligibility is the minimum available under the UK Anti-Doping Rules in cases where the Presence and Use of a non-Specified Substance is not ‘intentional’ (as that term is meant within the rules) but the Athlete cannot establish the source of the non-Specified Substance. 

The Tribunal found Ms Schrager to be a “credible individual, who had honest explanations…and went to great lengths and expense in her attempts to meet her burden.”  

Ms Schrager's results in the UCI Para-Cycling Road World Cup of May 2025 are maintained. 

Ms Schrager’s Sample returned an Adverse Analytical Finding for (4R,5R)-4-{[4-Cyano-3-(trifluoromethyl)-phenyl]amino}-6,6,6-trifluoro-5-hydroxyhexanoic acid (also referred to as bishydroxylated LGD-4033), a Metabolite of LGD-4033 (ligandrol). 

A non-Specified Substance or Method is considered more likely to be used for the purposes of enhancing performance. Sanctions are generally longer for this category of substances. In contrast, a Specified Substance or Method is considered more likely to have been used by an Athlete for reasons unrelated to enhancing performance, which potentially allows under defined conditions, for a greater reduction in sanction if an Athlete tests positive. 

SARMs: Frequently asked questions on SARMs 

Please note, unless otherwise indicated or the context otherwise requires, capitalised terms used in this announcement have the meaning given to them in the UK Anti-Doping Rules and/or the World Anti-Doping Code. 

The National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) is the United Kingdom's independent tribunal responsible for adjudicating sports-related anti-doping disputes. It is operated by Sport Resolutions and is completely independent of both national sports governing bodies and UKAD.