CAS 2008_A_1461 Justin Gatlin vs USADA

  • CAS 2008/A/1461 Gatlin v/ USADA
  • CAS 2008/A/1462 lAAF v/ USATF & Gatlin
  • CAS 2008/A/1461 Justin Gatlin v. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)
  • CAS 2008/A/1462 IAAF v. USA Track & Field (USATF) & Justin Gatlin

Related cases:

  • AAA 2001 No. 30 190 00546 01 USADA vs Justin Gatlin
    May 1, 2002
  • AAA 2007 No. 30 190 00170 07 USADA vs Justin Gatlin
    December 31, 2007
  • AAA 2007 No. 30 190 00170 07 USADA vs Justin Gatlin - Dissenting Opinion
    December 31, 2007

  • Athletics
  • Doping (amphetamines)
  • Application of the World Antidoping Code
  • Fault of the athlete
  • Reduction of the sanction based on exceptional circumstances

1. The WADA Code does not apply as between a signatory organization and its members, unless the signatory organization has expressly incorporated the WADA Code into its own relevant rules. If only some provisions of the WADA Code have been incorporated into the own rules of the signatory organization, the WADA Code is not directly applicable to the case at stake.

2. If, under the IAAF Rules, a doping offense is a strict liability offense, fault is not a part of determining whether or not an offense was committed.

3. If the sanction to be imposed is based on the existence of two antidoping violations, the circumstances surrounding both violations must be taken into account when determining whether there are exceptional circumstances for the purposes of determining the period of ineligibility.



In May 2002 a sanction of 2 years was imposed on the Athlete Justin Gatlin related to the prescribed medication he used as treatment for his Attention Deficit Disorder.

On 3 July 2002 the lAAF Council granted the request for early reinstatement on the basis that it believed that Mr. Gatlin had a genuine medical explanation for his positive result. The effect of this reinstatement was that the Athlete served a provisional suspension of almost one year.

In May 2006 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported a second anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone.

Consequently on 31 December 2007 the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel (AAA) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Hereafter in both the Athlete and the IAAF appealed the AAA Panel decision with the Court of Aribitration for Sport (CAS).

Undisputed in this appeal is that Mr. Gatlin’s positive test in 2006 constitutes an anti-doping rule violation. The main issue before this Panel is what ought to be the sanction for the 2006 Violation. The other important issue is what ought to be the start date for the sanction.

Following assessment the Panel concludes that the 2006 Violation was the Athlete's second anti-doping rule violation. Futhermore the invoked Americans with Disabilities Act does not prevent this Panel from imposing a sanction on the Athlete.

The CAS Panel finds that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the Athlete's 2001 case are such that they constitute exceptional circumstances for the purposes of determining the period of ineligibility. The Panel therefore decides that Mr. Gatlin’s period of ineligibility is to be four years.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 June 2008:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Justin Gatlin on 21 January 2008 is rejected.

2.) The appeal filed by the IAAF on 23 January 2008 is upheld in part.

3.) The decision of the American Arbitration Association dated 31 December 2007 is amended by altering the commencement date of the period of ineligibility from 26 May 2006 to 25 July 2006 when Mr Justin Gatlin voluntarily accepted a provisional suspension.

4.) The decision of the AAA Panel is further amended by cancelling all of Mr. Gatlin’s competition results from the date of the sample collection on 22 April 2006 until the commencement of the period of ineligibility set out in paragraph 3 above.

5.) The balance of the decision of the AAA Panel will remain unaltered and the period of ineligibility of four years is confirmed.

(…)

Original document

Parameters

Legal Source
CAS Appeal Awards
Date
6 June 2008
Arbitrator
Bernasconi, Michele A.R.
Hobér, Kaj
McLaren, Richard H.
Original Source
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
Country
United States of America
Language
English
ADRV
Adverse Analytical Finding / presence
Legal Terms
Commencement of ineligibility period
Exceptional circumstances
Legislation
Period of ineligibility
Provisional suspension
Rules & regulations International Sports Federations
Second violation
Strict liability
Suspended sanction
WADA Code, Guidelines, Protocols, Rules & Regulations
Sport/IFs
Athletics (WA) - World Athletics
Other organisations
International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)
United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)
United States Association for Track and Field (USATF)
Laboratories
Los Angeles, USA: UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory
Analytical aspects
B sample analysis
Doping classes
S1. Anabolic Agents
S6. Stimulants
Substances
Amfetamine
Testosterone
Medical terms
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
Legitimate Medical Treatment
Document type
Pdf file
Date generated
27 February 2013
Date of last modification
4 July 2023
Category
  • Legal Source
  • 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
Origin