Claimant USAD vs respondent Emily Brunemann, this case involves Respondent's first anti-doping violation, which she admits. Respondent tested positive for a diuretic that is now designated as a Specified Substance under the 2009 Fédération Internationale de Natation ("FINA") rules. She tested positive during the period when the 2003 version of the WADA Code was in effect.The UCLA Laboratory determined the finding of the substance hydrochlorothiazide and triamterene.
This Panel must resolve several issues before an appropriate sanction can be imposed. Because respondent tested positive for a banned substance in August 2008 (when the 2003 WADA Code was in effect) and this hearing was held on January 9, 2009 (after the 2009 WADA Code became effective, the parties agree the doctrine of lex mitior is applicable to this case. What is in dispute is how lex mitior should be applied.
AAA 2008 No. 77 190 E 00447 08 USADA vs Emily Brunemann
Original document
Parameters
- Legal Source
- National Decisions
- Date
- 26 January 2009
- Arbitrator
- Benz, Jeffrey G.
- Campbell, Christopher
- Mitten, Matthew J.
- Original Source
- American Arbitration Association (AAA)
- Country
- United States of America
- Language
- English
- ADRV
- Adverse Analytical Finding / presence
- Legal Terms
- Ignorantia legis neminem excusat
- Lex mitior
- Negligence
- No intention to enhance performance
- Sport/IFs
- Swimming (FINA) - World Aquatics
- Other organisations
- United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)
- Laboratories
- Los Angeles, USA: UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory
- Doping classes
- S5. Diuretics and Other Masking Agents
- Substances
- Hydrochlorothiazide
- Triamterene
- Document type
- Pdf file
- Date generated
- 15 May 2013
- Date of last modification
- 9 December 2019
