The Need For Clear & Unequivocal Rules On Therapeutic Use Exemptions (ECB V Tom Wood)
The recent decision in England & Wales Cricket Board (ECB) v Tom Wood shines a light on the need for clear and unequivocal rules concerning therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) for cricketers (and indeed athletes) who use prescription medications, such as asthma inhalers.
This article reviews the decision, a copy of which available here1. Phil Hutchinson of Mills & Reeve LLP and Pippa Manby (4 New Square) represented Mr Wood in the case heard by David Casement QC.
To continue reading or watching login or register here
Already a member? Sign in
Get access to all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport including articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts. Find out more here.
- Tags: Anti-Doping | Cricket | England | England & Wales Cricket Board | Therapeutic Use Exemption | UKAD | WADA | WADA Code
Related Articles
- Contamination & Doping: Is The UFC's Approach To 'Reporting Limits' Fairer Than WADA's?
- Crossing The Line - Reflections On The Salazar, Brown & Nike Oregon Project Scandal
- The Okagbare/Lira Doping Case - First Prosecution Under The Rodchenkov Act
Written by
Philip Hutchinson
Phil is a Senior Associate at Mills & Reeve specialising in sports litigation and sports regulatory matters, with a particular focus on the football industry. Phil has worked on a number of high profile integrity/match fixing and doping cases across a variety of sports and also regularly advises football clubs, agents and players on transfers, most notably where work permits are required.
Harry Bambury
Harry is a trainee solicitor at Mills & Reeve based in the firm’s Birmingham office. Harry has worked on a number of sports law matters, ranging from anti-doping cases to work permit applications for professional footballers. Before starting at Mills & Reeve, Harry studied jurisprudence at the University of Oxford.
