AAA No. 01 18 0004 6622 USADA vs Stirley Jones

In October 2018 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Paralympic Athlete Striley Jones after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. After notification a provisional suspention was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Commercial Arbitration Tribual.

The Paralympic Athlete accepted the test result, denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance and requested the Panel for a reduced sanction. The Athlete claimed that one of his supplements he used was contamined and they were sent to a Lab for testing. Analysis of these supplements in question revealed that the supplement Nitro Tech Whey Protein was contaminated with Stanozolol which was recommended by the Athlete’s nutritionist. Reanalysis in the WADA Salt Lake City Lab confirmed the presence of Stanozolol.

USADA was able to obtain an unopened case of six sealed containers from the manufacturer from the same lot number as the supplement in question, which, when tested, did not contain Stanozolol.
As a result USADA contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the positive test was caused by a contaminated product and requested the Panel to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Panel considered the facts and circumstances in this case and accepts that this is a different inquiry entirely from the requirements on ameliorating a sanction on the basis of fault or lack thereof, which analysis expressly requires the athlete to meet the balance of probabilities burden on source. It is entirely possible for an Athlete to prevail on the finding of lack of intention only to fail to establish source to get a further reduction; such a result is not logically inconsistent and is in fact possible under the very different tests provided by the IPC ADC.

A majority of the Panel concludes that there was insufficient proof of lack of intention while the minority of the Panel concludes that there was sufficient proof of lack of intention. Consequently the Athlete did not establish by a balance of probability to the satisfaction of the majority of the Panel that the ingestion of the Stanozolol was unintentional.

Unanimously, the Panel does not believe that the Athlete was a cheater and the Panel would have welcomed additional evidence to support that belief. Unfortunately, under the existing rules, that belief alone is insufficient and adducing such evidence is acknowledged by the Panel as being difficult to accomplish; the majority is of the view that its hands are tied to issue a sanction of 4 years ineligibility.

Therefore by a Majority the Arbitration Tribunal decides on 17 June 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 17 October 2018.

show »


National Decisions
17 June 2019
Benck, David M.
Benz, Jeffrey G.
Reeves, Barbara A.
United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)
United States of America
Adverse Analytical Finding / presence
Legal Terms
Burdens and standards of proof
Case law / jurisprudence
Circumstantial evidence
Majority opinion
No intention to cheat
No intention to enhance performance
Rules & regulations International Sports Federations
Other organisations
United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)
Los Angeles, USA: UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory
Salt Lake City, USA: The Sports Medicine Research and Testing Laboratory (SMRTL)
Analytical aspects
B sample analysis
Doping classes
S1. Anabolic Agents
Paralympic sports
Document type
  • Legal
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period