In April 2016 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Amy Hay after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance ostarine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Commercial Arbitration Tribunal.
The Athlete accepted the test results and requested for a reduced sanction due to No Significant Fault or Negligence. She denied the intentional use and argued that she was the victim of sabotage. The Athlete’s boyfriend testified and he admitted that he sabotaged the Athlete’s water bottle the night before the competition in question. He stated he did it because he was upset that the Athlete was having an inappropriate relationship with her coach. He thought his action would damage the coach and his program. He knew that the Athlete would suffer the consequences from testing positive.
USADA points to inconsistencies in the testimony of the Athlete and her boyfriend. In light of all these inconsistencies, inaccuracies and failures of recollection, USADA argues that the Panel must determine whether the boyfriend's testimony can bear any weight whatsoever, and of course, the Athlete stakes her ability to meet her burden of proof to the boyfriend's testimony.
The Panel finds the story is far-fetched and very difficult to believe. The boyfriend is either telling a lie to protect his girlfriend, or he committed an odious act in sabotaging her water. The Panel finds the boyfriend is not convincing witness, and the lack of corroborating evidence for the details of the boyfriend's version of events is also troubling.
Nevertheless, the Panel found the Athlete's demeanor, transparency, her detailed testimony and the details of her story combined with the boyfriend's less convincing testimony to be sufficient to meet the balance of probability standard, which is not the more stringent burden, i.e. ''to the comfortable satisfaction" of the Panel, but rather ''more likely than not". This is an extremely unusual set of circumstances, and a troubling story, but the Panel does find it plausible and finds that Athlete has met her burden.
Therefore the AAA Tribunal decides on 7 November 2017 that:
A.) Respondent has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the Code, for Use of a Prohibited Substance;
B.) The period of ineligibility for the anti-doping rule violation under Article 10.2.1. of the Code is two years, starting on April 11, 2017 and ending April 10, 2019, including ineligibility ftom participating in and having access to the training facilities of the United States Olympic Committee Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC and NGBs including, but not limited to, grants, awards or employment pursuant to the USOC AntiDoping Policies only during the period of ineligibility;
C.) Respondent's competitive results from the date of her positive test, March 18, 2017 through her acceptance of Provisional Suspension, on April 11, 2017 are to be disqualified, and any medals, points and prizes earned during that period shall be forfeited;
D.) The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs associated with this Arbitration;
E.) The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association, and the compensation and expenses of the Panel, shall be borne by USADA and the United States Olympic Committee; and
F.) This Award shall be in full and final resolution of all claims and counterclaims submitted to this Arbitration. All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby denied.
G.) This Award may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall constitute together one and the same instrument.
