Doping in football and The FA’s Anti Doping Regulations

One of the most significant battles in global sports is the fight against performance-enhancing drugs and other harmful substances. The desire for ‘clean sport’ is obvious and necessary, but unfortunately notoriously difficult to police and achieve. While the World Anti Doping Agency (“WADA”) has led the way in seeking to achieve this goal since its creation in 1999, throughout this period there have been thousands of cases of athletes/players being prosecuted for breaches of anti-doping regulations.

From state-sponsored doping to athletes/players taking recreational drugs on a night-out, the sanctions for those found guilty of anti-doping regulations can be severe, and for many have been career ending.

In English football, The Football Association (“The FA”) works in partnership with UK Anti Doping (“UKAD”) and FIFA to protect the integrity of football and lead the fight against doping.

To do this, The FA implements a set of anti–doping regulations (“ADR”) ¹ . The ADR apply to all “Participants ²” and “Persons ³” however the focus is very much on ‘Players ⁴’ given that they are the ones who compete on the pitch and whose performance may be impacted by a banned substance. The ADR are updated in line with any amendments or newer versions of the WADA Code and WADA Prohibited List, the latter of which sets out the full list of banned substances within sport and is updated annually.

In addition to the ADR, The FA have also published a separate set of anti-doping regulations called the Social Drugs Regulations (“SDR”). The SDR are implemented voluntarily by The FA and outside of its obligations to WADA. The purpose of the SDR is to:

“prevent [...] damaging consequences by providing courses of education, counselling and treatment, where appropriate, to rehabilitate Players who have become involved with Social Drugs while Out-of-Competition; and (ii) the imposition of proportionate sanctions when necessary to address such conduct and to deter similar conduct in the future. ⁵.”

The key differentiator which separates the SDR and ADR is that the SDR are not concerned with the presence of Social Drugs during the ‘In Competition⁶’ period. Instead, the SDR regulates Social Drugs when both the ingestion and testing take place during the ‘Out-of-Competition’ period.⁷

Mills and his party lifestyle

Unfortunately for our superstar Mills, it was only a matter of time before he fell foul of the ADR.

As has become clear since his transfer to Paddington, Mills is often on the wrong end of negative press and publicity. However, this doesn’t seem to have curbed his enthusiasm for nights out with his friends, which have become increasingly hard-core over the years as his wealth and fame have accumulated and accelerated.

Although Mills has a reputation as a physical player and is highly rated by the fitness staff (rumour has it he holds the record for the pre-season ‘bleep test’ at Paddington), he has little will power and is easily influenced by those around him.

In addition, and unknown to all of Mills’ friends and family, over the past few months Mills had been secretly using cocaine as a form of ’self-medication’ to try and combat feelings of depression he had been having.

These feelings had stemmed from the recent death of a close family member of Mills. Instead of seeking professional help, Mills decided to try his own method of combating his negative emotions.

On one night out with some of his new friends in the local town, Mills took his partying to the next level. Paddington United had lost that afternoon having conceded a 90th minute goal which Mills was at fault for, and he was furious with himself and on a rampage.

After ordering copious amounts of shots, one of Mills’ friends offered him some cocaine. Although up until this point Mills had never taken cocaine in the presence of anyone else and had always done so in secret, on this occasion, and whilst severely intoxicated and seething with his performance earlier that day, in a moment of madness he decided to take some.

Mills took 3 lines of cocaine with his friend. He regretted his decision immediately, but because he thought cocaine wasn’t a performance enhancing drug or a steroid, he didn’t think there was any major problem in taking it. Even if there was, as he had already been drug-tested after a match earlier that season ⁹, he thought the chances of being tested again were virtually nill. He therefore assumed no one would ever know what he had done, and he returned to the bar to order the next round of drinks.

The following morning, Mills woke up with a horrific hangover. His memory of the previous night was blurred, but he knew he had once again taken cocaine and was angry at himself. He got himself ready and went to training. He just about got through his training session, although his performance was far short of his normal standards.

The next day, Paddington had a cup match against local team Piccadilly Athletic FC. Mills was selected to start the match, despite the manager fielding a weakened side in order to give more game time to some of the squad players. Mills was still feeling the effects of his night out a few days prior, but did his best to focus on the match ahead.

The game finished 4-0 to Paddington. Miraculously, Mills managed to get himself on the scoresheet with a wonderfully taken free kick.

After the game, as Mills was walking down the tunnel and celebrating with his teammates, he received a tap on the shoulder from a Doping Control Officer (“DCO”). The DCO explained to Mills that he had been randomly selected to provide a urine sample. The DCO led Mills to the bathroom, and gave him a container for his ample.

Mills became extremely anxious, but put on a brave face to the DCO. In filling out the doping control form ⁸ he did not state that he had taken cocaine, and only listed the paracetamol he had taken the previous day in an attempt to cure his hangover.

After providing the sample, Mills felt sick and was extremely worried about what might happen. He still wasn’t sure whether there was any fine or sanction for testing positive for cocaine, and tried to convince himself that he would be fine and it wouldn’t even be in his system any more.

A month later, Mills turned up to training as usual. He headed straight for the changing room, but was intercepted by the manager and club secretary, who said they had something urgent to discuss with him. They took him into a room and showed him a charge letter that they had just received from The FA. The letter stated that Mills had committed an Anti Doping Rule Violation (“ADRV”) tested positive for cocaine following a test provided after the match against Piccadilly Athletic earlier in the season.

Mills came clean straight away, and told his manager and club secretary what he had done. Mills also opened about his use of cocaine as a form of self-medication, to which the club were both shocked and sympathetic. Whilst the manager was initially furious and questioned Mills’ professionalism, he promised Mills that the club would support him in getting help for what appeared to be an addiction. Mills sat in stunned silence, whilst the severity of the situation dawned on him.

The FA’s letter requested a response within 5 days. It also offered Mills the opportunity to have his ‘B’ sample tested and invited him to be interviewed by The FA.

Mills called his lawyer immediately to explain what had happened. His lawyer rushed to the training ground and Mills went through in detail exactly what had happened. It was agreed that there was no point in testing the B sample and that Mills should respond to The FA’s letter straight away and explain how and when he had taken cocaine. He responded that afternoon, and arranged an interview with The FA later that week.

A few days after the FA interview (where Mills gave a full account of what had happened on the night he took the cocaine as well as how he had been self-medicating for his depression), Mills received a formal Charge Letter from The FA. The Charge Letter explained that he had breached the ADR by providing an In-Competition urine Sample which contained cocaine; a prohibited substance under 56 of the Prohibited List. The letter confirmed that the Player was therefore provisionally suspended with immediate effect from all football activity- this included participating in first team matches, non-first team matches, friendlies and even training.

“Substances of Abuse”

One of the most common breaches of the ADR in football is in relation to ‘Substances of Abuse’. Under the ADR, the following substances fall into this category:

Cocaine
diamorphine (heroin)
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA/”ecstasy”); and
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

These are substances that are often associated with addiction and abuse in society, rather than seeking to gain a sporting advantage. There is also the acknowledgment that Substances of Abuse are often associated with addiction, which is reflected in the possibility of a further reduction in sanction for athletes who undergo a rehabilitation program. It is for these reasons that WADA has changed its position in relation to these substances which is reflected in the WADA Code and therefore the FA ADR.

Mills' response to the Charge

Given that ADRVs are strict liability offences¹⁰ , the burden is on Mills to prove how and when the substance entered his body. The threshold he has to meet is the balance of probabilities.

Mills therefore decided to submit a formal witness statement, setting out exactly what he had done and how regretful he was at his actions. He also submitted statements from his friends who were with him that night. Crucially, this included the friend who gave him the cocaine. He also obtained two expert reports; one (from a toxicology expert) which supported his position that he took cocaine when he said he did and the other (from a consultant psychiatrist) who went into detail about Mills’ addiction to cocaine.

The FA did not challenge the evidence provided by Mills, and Mills’ case was listed to be determined by a Regulatory Commission without a hearing.¹¹

Sanction
For Mills, the timing of his cocaine ingestion is key. This is because the sanction for him having taken cocaine Out-of-Competition is significantly less than if he had taken it In-Competition.

The applicable section of the ADR that addresses this is at paragraph 80 ADR. This states that where an ADRV committed by a player involves a Substance of Abuse:

(a) If the Player can establish that any ingestion or Use occurred Out-of-Competition and was unrelated to sport performance, then the period of Ineligibility shall be three (3) months, which may be reduced to one month if the Participant satisfactorily completes a Substance of Abuse treatment programme approved by The Association. The period of Ineligibility established in this Regulation 80(a) is not subject to any reduction based on any provision in Regulations 84 – 85.

(b) If the ingestion, Use, or Possession occurred In-Competition, and the Player can establish that the context of the ingestion, Use or Possession was unrelated to sport performance, the ingestion, Use, or Possession shall not be considered intentional for the purposes of Regulation 77 and shall not provide a basis for a finding of Aggravating Circumstances under Regulation 82.

Given that the night he took the cocaine fell during the Out-of-Competition period, it was vital that he could evidence this to a Regulatory Commission in order to benefit from a more lenient sanction.

The sanction
The Regulatory Commission determined that Mills had discharged the evidential burden and demonstrated that his cocaine ingestion took place Out-of-Competition and in a context unrelated to sporting performance.

By the time the decision was rendered by the Commission, Mills had been provisionally suspended for one month. The Commission imposed a one month on the basis that Mills complete a Substance of Abuse treatment programme. This meant that Mills was free to resume playing provided he undertook the treatment programme prescribed to him.

Mills felt great relief about the outcome, and was determined to overcome his addiction with the help of the Professional Footballers’ Association (“PFA”) and his friends and family.

Right of Appeal
Whilst the issuance of written reasons and a sanction is often the end of an integrity case like Mills’, the ADR do provide for an appeal process ¹². However, in circumstances where (1) the FA do not challenge/have accepted a player’s evidence and (2) a player has received an acceptable sanction, an appeal is not beneficial to either party.

What if Mills’ test had taken place Out-of-Competition?

If Mills’ test had taken place Out-of-Competition, for example at his home during the holidays, then the Social Drugs Regulations would have applied. Under these Regulations Social Drugs are defined as:

amphetamine
cannabinoids (for example, hashish and marijuana)
cocaine
diamorphine (aka heroin)
ketamine
lysergic acid diethylamide (aka LSD)
mephedrone, methadone, methylamphetamine, methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (aka MDMA or ecstasy) and methylenedioxyethylamphetamine (MDEA).

As this would have been his first Social Drug Finding, then he may have received a warning, or been required to undergo a course of assessment/evaluation, education, counselling and/or treatment, and receive a fine. Repeated breaches of the Regulations would result in a ban.

Education

A key ‘take-away’ point from Mills’ case is the lack of understanding the FA ADR and what substances form part of the WADA Prohibited List. While education is offered by The FA and PFA at the start of each season, it is vital that players pay proper credence to the rules and remember that they are ultimately responsible for what goes into their bodies.

The most recent ADR having come into force on 14 June 2024 ↩
“Participant” - means an Affiliated Association, Competition, Club, Club Official (which for the avoidance of doubt shall include a Director), Intermediary, Player, Official, Manager, Match Official, Match Official observer, Match Official coach, Match Official mentor, Management Committee Member, member or employee of a Club and all persons who are from time to time participating in any activity sanctioned either directly or indirectly by The Association; ↩
“Person” - means any natural person or an organisation or other entity, including (without limitation) any official, director, servant or representative of The Association; ↩
means any Contract Player, Out of Contract Player, Non-Contract Player or other player who plays or is eligible to play for a Club or is subject to any suspension from playing; ↩
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/anti-doping/social-drugs-regulations ↩
“In-Competition” means the period commencing at 23:59 on the day before a Match in which the Player is scheduled to participate through to the end of said Match and including the Sample collection process relating to said Match. ↩
“Out-of-Competition” means any time which is not In-Competition. ↩
Doping Control Officers from UKAD attend training, matches and players’ homes to test players randomly. ↩
This is provided to players giving Samples and asks them to list any medications or other substances they have taken, before signing a declaration regarding the procedure undertaken in obtaining the Sample. ↩
This means that players are solely responsible for any banned substance they use or that is found in their system, regardless of how it got there and whether there was an intention to cheat or not. ↩
When responding to a charge, players get the opportunity to determine whether or not they want to pursue an in person or ‘paper’ hearing. The former is more appropriate where charges are disputed by players, or where evidence is challenged by either the player or The FA. ↩
Part Nine - Appeals ADR ↩