Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) charges Eric Lamaze (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping program (CADP). His doping test on July 22, 2000, revealed the prohibited substances ephedrine and pseudoephedrine.
History
The athlete had been banned in the past for a period of ineligibility of 4 years for the use of cocaine, he was succesfully reinstated in January 31, 1997. In this new case he had taken Advil Cold and Sinus in completely innocent circumstances. He also had been taking a nutritional diet supplement known as “Ultra Diet Pep” for approximately five years. It did not contain ephedrine and this substance had never appeared in Mr. Lamaze’s samples. However, the manufacturer subsequently began to distribute the same product with the addition of ephedrine. The name, print size, style of the product name and color of the label are identical for both categories of the product. Again the ingestion of ephedrine was completely innocent. His triumph over the previous doping infraction was inspiring. His notification by Dr. Pipe of a lifetime ban for a doping infraction he did not commit was a cruel twist of fate. Moreover, equestrian athletes do not merely complete for a short period of time and move on to other things. In the case of Mr. Lamaze, his competition is integrated with his other commercial activities such as operating his stables, teaching and coaching. The lifetime ban could have disastrous economic consequences for him.
Decision
Pursuant to my Summary of Decision issued on Monday, September 18, the application of Mr. Eric Lamaze is granted effective that date. Mr. Lamaze will bear the costs of the oral hearing facilities but no other costs are ordered. As pointed out in the Summary of Decision, this order does not resolve the Applicant’s eligibility to participate in the Sydney Olympics which falls within the authority of the Canadian Olympic Association to determine.
As a final observation, the evidence before me did not disclose in any way that Mr. Lamaze is a drug addict or that his positive test was an attempt to cheat. The evidence did disclose that his personal history has left him vulnerable in some respects. While he has shown incredible strength in many ways over the past four years and takes personal responsibility for his actions, it appears he would benefit from ongoing professional support. In particular, a professional support mechanism should be put in place in the event another catastrophic event, in the words of Dr. Harnick, should present itself. I considered imposing conditions along these lines but concluded it would be better to trust him to work out such arrangements with personal and professional assistance.
