CAS 2004/O/649 United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) v. G.
- Athletics
- Doping (THG)
- Absence of any adverse analytical finding (“non-analytical positive” case)
- Burden and standard of proof
- Uncontroverted testimony
- Adverse inference
- Admission of the use of a prohibited substance
- Sanction
1. USADA bears the burden of proving, by strong evidence commensurate with the serious claims it makes that the athlete committed the doping offences. It makes little, if indeed any difference, whether a ’beyond reasonable doubt’ or ’comfortable satisfaction’ standard is applied to determine the claims against the athlete.
2. Doping offences can be proved by a variety of means. In the absence of any adverse analytical finding (“non-analytical positive” cases), other types of evidence can be substantiated. Among these is the uncontroverted testimony of a wholly credible witness, which can be sufficient to establish that the athlete has indeed admitted to have used prohibited substances in violation of applicable anti-doping rules.
3. The admission of the use of prohibited substances merits a period of ineligibility under IAAF Rules of two years. The date of commencement of the sanction takes into consideration the numerous delays in the hearing process which are not attributable to the Athlete. The retroactive cancellation of all the athlete results, rankings, awards and winnings as of the date of admission of the use of prohibited substances has to take place.
In June 2004 USADA seeks a four-year sanction of Chryste Gaines for participating in a wideranging doping conspiracy allegedly implemented by the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO).
USADA charges that, for a period of several years, Ms. Gaines used various performance-enhancing drugs provided by BALCO. As noted, Ms. Gaines has never had a single drug test found to be a positive doping violation, but USADA’s charges are based, in part, on all of the urine tests at IOC-accredited and non-IOC-accredited laboratories that she has had in recent years.
USADA also relies, among other things, on documents seized by the U.S. government from BALCO that have been provided to USADA; statements made by BALCO officials; and other documents.
According to USADA, BALCO was involved in a conspiracy the purpose of which was the distribution and use of doping substances and techniques that were either undetectable or difficult to detect in routine drug testing. BALCO is alleged to have distributed several types of banned doping agents to professional athletes in track and field, baseball and football. Among these were tetrahydrogestrinome (THG), otherwise known as “the Clear” by BALCO and its users.
THG is a designer steroid that could not be identified by routine antidoping testing until 2003, when a track and field coach provided a sample of it to USADA. It is undisputed that the Clear is a prohibited substance under the IAAF Rules.
After deliberations between the parties this case was transferred in July 2004 to the Court of Aribitration for Sport (CAS).
The Panel has no doubt in this case, and is more than comfortably satisfied, that Ms Gaines committed a doping offence. It has been presented with strong, indeed uncontroverted, evidence of doping by the Athlete, in the form of an admission contained in her statements made to W. On this basis, the Tribunal finds Respondent guilty of a doping offence.
On 13 December 2015 the Panel unanimously finds and orders as follows:
1.) Respondent is guilty of the offence of admitting having used a prohibited substance under IAAF Rules 55.2(iii) and 60.1(iii).
2.) The following sanctions shall be imposed on Respondent:
- a.) A period of ineligibility under the IAAF Rules for two years commencing as of 6 June 2005, including her ineligibility from participating in U.S. Olympic, Pan American or Paralympic Games, trials or qualifying events, being a member of any U.S. Olympic, Pan American or Paralympic Games team and having access to the training facilities of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC including, but not limited to, grants, awards, or employment pursuant to the USOC Anti-Doping Policies;
- b.) The retroactive cancellation of all awards or additions to Respondent‟s trust fund to which she would have been entitled by virtue of her appearance and/or performance at any athletics meeting occurring between 30 November 2003 and the date of this Award.
3.) (…).
4.) (…).
5.) This Award deals definitively with all charges brought against Respondent by Claimant in this arbitration. All charges not expressly dealt with herein are dismissed.
