CAS 2010/A/2185 Alberto Blanco v. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)
CAS 2010/A/2229 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Fédération Internationale de Volleyball (FIVB) & Gregory Berrios
In January 2009 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Alberto Blanco after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Prasterone (DHEA).
Consequently on 14 July 2010 the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel (AAA) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 15 December 2008.
In first instance the AAA Panel deemed that the Beijing Laboratory had provided sufficient information to permit interpretation of the results for the A and B Samples. There was no violation of the ISL.
Hereafter in July 2010 the Athlete appealed the AAA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to annul the imposed sanction.
The Athlete argued that the test results showing the presence of a prohibited exogenous substance in his urine Samples are unreliable. This unreliability arises from the fact that no negative controls were run by the laboratory during the analyses of his A and B Samples, and the alleged lack of robustness and reproducibility with regard to the test results.
The Panel assessed and addressed the issued raised by the Athlete and determines:
- There has been no violation of the ISL with regard to the Beijing Laboratory's failure to run negative controls during the analysis of the Athlete's samples.
- The Beijing Laboratory has not deviated from the ISL on robustness or reproducibility grounds.
- WADA is invited to amed the ISL and to formulate the range of of uncertainty for the measurement during the IRMS process.
- WADA is also invited to formulate requirements for negative controls for IRMS analyses.
Therefore the Court of Arbitraton for Sport decides on 1 April 2011:
1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Alberto Blanco against the Award dated 14 July 2010 rendered by the AAA Panel is dismissed.
2.) Each party bears its own costs.
3.)The present award is rendered without costs, with the exception of the Court office fee of CHF 500, paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS.
4.) Any further claim is dismissed.
