Professional boxer Philip Bowes banned for four years
British professional boxer Philip Bowes has been banned from all sport for four years following a first Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) for having a Prohibited Substance in a urine Sample he provided on 2 September 2020.
UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) collected an In-Competition urine Sample from Mr Bowes immediately after he had fought Akeem Ennis-Brown for the Commonwealth and British Light Welterweight titles.
Analysis of Mr Bowes’ A Sample returned an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) for Ostarine, a Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator (SARM) which is a drug designed to have similar effects to testosterone. Ostarine is banned in sport at all times under the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List.
On 16 October 2020, UKAD charged Mr Bowes with violating Article 2.1 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules. Whilst admitting the ADRV, Mr Bowes contended that he had not committed the ADRV intentionally and stated that the presence of Ostarine in his Sample must have been due to him having ingested a contaminated supplement.
Mr Bowes’ case was first heard by the independent National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) on 15 July 2021. The NADP issued a decision on 5 August 2021 which imposed a period of Ineligibility of four years. Mr Bowes sought to appeal this decision and the matter was subsequently heard by an NADP Appeal Tribunal on 29 March 2022. The NADP Appeal Tribunal, by way of a decision dated 14 April 2022, dismissed Mr Bowes’ appeal and confirmed the period of Ineligibility of four years.
Mr Bowes’ period of Ineligibility will run from 2 September 2020 and expire on 1 September 2024.
Speaking on the case, UKAD Director of Operations Pat Myhill said: “This case serves as another reminder that athletes are solely responsible for what they are putting in their bodies. The rules relating to Prohibited Substances are explicit and clear: the athlete is personally responsible for what is in their system at all times. Whilst Mr Bowes sought to assert his ADRV was not intentional and that he had been the victim of contamination, the NADP, having considered his case, found he was not able to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim.”
You might also like
