Lizzy Banks reveals Wada has appealed doping case but says ‘they’ve picked on the wrong woman’

Lizzy Banks has told The Telegraph she is “bitterly disappointed, but on reflection completely unsurprised” after revealing the World Anti-Doping Agency has decided to appeal UK Anti-Doping’s landmark ruling of “No fault or Negligence”, and no sanction, in her long-running anti-doping case.

The case will be heard at the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne. Banks says she has not yet been given a date, or the basis for Wada’s appeal, despite repeated attempts to contact the body in the last two days. But she added that she had to pick an arbitrator “in the next 10 days”. She described the process as “ridiculous”.

In an emotional interview with The Telegraph last month, the 33-year-old, former Great Britain cyclist lifted the lid on what she described as a “year from hell”.

Banks, who returned two Adverse Analytical Findings last summer, revealed that she had bankrupted herself and been forced to retire from the sport after spending her life savings fighting what she described as a “flawed” testing system.

Ukad, which had threatened Banks with a two-year ban, eventually accepted contamination as the most likely source of her positive test for a trace amount of chlortalidone, a diuretic. Banks’ second ‘positive’, for Formoterol, an asthma medication which she took within the permitted threshold, only triggered an AAF because of the presence of chlortalidone at the same time.

Banks said she had experienced depression and suicidal thoughts as a result of her experience, arguing that Wada and Ukad’s rules needed “a complete overhaul” as far too many innocent athletes were in danger of being labelled dopers by the current system.

Banks, who studied medicine before becoming a professional cyclist, carried out copious research during the course of her battle to clear her name. She concluded that the hugely increased sensitivity of testing equipment in some Wada-approved labs over the last decade, combined with the lack of a Minimum Reporting Limit for many banned substances, plus the “sloppy standards” across the pharmaceutical industry, meant it was “ inevitable” that some athletes find their samples contaminated.

In 2021, Wada introduced a Minimum Reporting Limit for six diuretics, leading to a sudden reduction in AAFs. Banks estimates that over 300 athletes may have returned positive tests because of contamination in 2019 alone.

Ukad accepted her findings, issuing its reasoned decision on April 26. But Wada, which had until June 7 to appeal, informed Banks on Wednesday that it intended to take the matter to CAS.

‘The whole process is ridiculous’

She says she does not yet know the grounds for appeal, despite repeated attempts to contact Wada. But she intends to represent herself in Lausanne.

“I spent the whole of Wednesday afternoon trying to get in contact with them or somebody to work out how [the appeal] worked,” Banks said. “I eventually got hold of Wada’s lawyers. They said that they would call me back. They didn’t. I then emailed. They also didn’t respond. Then on Thursday, around two o’clock, I received a procedural document from the Court of Arbitration for Sport, laying out when some things needed to happen. It still didn’t say the basis for Wada’s appeal.

“The whole process is ridiculous. Wada now has 10 days in order to file their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. And in this 10-day period, Ukad and I, who are now on the same team effectively, we have to jointly nominate an arbitrator from a list of 421 arbitrators. But how are we supposed to nominate an arbitrator if we don’t know what the basis of Wada’s appeal is?”

Banks said that Ukad – whose climbdown on her case marked the first time the body had ever issued a finding of No Fault or Negligence and therefore zero sanction when an athlete had not specifically identified the exact source of a contamination – had appointed lawyers from London-based Bird & Bird to represent it in Lausanne, while Wada’s lawyers are based in Lausanne.

She said the money being spent was a “huge waste of public funds” as the anti-doping system itself was the problem.

“Wada knows this. They’ve known for years that there was a problem,” she said. “They created a Contaminants Working Group a few years ago, but they haven’t addressed any of the real issues. We know that many, many, many athletes have been given sanctions for something that they couldn’t possibly have avoided. Instead Wada are taking this to CAS, hiring bigshot lawyers. This is public money. Ukad’s money is public money. I’ve been told Bird & Bird lawyers are £600 pounds an hour.

‘I’m bitterly disappointed but unsurprised’ 

“I intend to represent myself because I can’t pay for lawyers. In the statement from CAS, it says I need to tell CAS whether or not I’m happy to “pay their respective shares of the advanced costs”. But I don’t know how I can.

Banks added: “I’m bitterly disappointed, of course, that they have appealed. But at the same time, I’m completely unsurprised. From my experience, it fits Wada’s approach to the evolution of anti-doping rules in response to science and environmental conditions. That the best way to deal with something is to just bury their head in the sand and carry on.”

Banks says the response to her initial story was “overwhelming” and that she is even more determined now to fight for a change to the rules.

“I’ve had maybe a thousand messages from people – scientists, sports scientists, athletes, fans, lawyers… So many people have contacted me. I haven’t been able to respond to them all. And everybody that contacted me agreed that something needs to change. They cannot get away with treating people like this. It is really inhumane.

“The only silver lining is that I now get my day in court. Somebody commented on my Instagram, after I said ‘They picked on the wrong person’. ‘Actually, they picked on the right person.’ I hope so.”

Ukad and Wada have been contacted for comment. In a statement after Banks went public with her story last month, Wada told The Telegraph: “This is a complex and nuanced area of anti-doping in which Wada always strives to strike the right balance for the good of athletes and clean sport.

“The issue of possible contamination is real and one that Wada is addressing. The Wada Contaminants Working Group was created for the purpose of providing expert advice and recommendations with regards to prohibited substances that can be prevalent contaminants, based on the best available scientific evidence. The group contains many experts in this field from different parts of the world.

“Over the years, the minimum reporting limits for various substances have been adjusted to ensure fairness for athletes who unintentionally ingest a prohibited substance, while protecting against those who would cheat the system. Moreover, the Code has, through its various editions, adopted an increasingly flexible and tailored sanction regime that aims to impose appropriate consequences to reflect the nature of the anti-doping rule violation.

“A specific provision was introduced to allow greater flexibility for cases involving contaminated products. This is a complex and nuanced area of anti-doping in which Wada always strives to strike the right balance for the good of athletes and clean sport. As in all cases, Wada will review it to ensure it has been dealt with appropriately under the rules and, as always, it reserves the right to take an appeal to the Court of Arbitration, as appropriate.”