Hiram Cruz (“The Respondent”), is a top ranked member of the United States Judo Association. He is currently ranked number one in the 55g weight category, and has been ranked as low as number eleven in the 60k weight category.
On February 18,2003, as part of an out-of-competition drug test, Respondent provided a urine sample at the request of a USADA Doping Control Officer. The UCLA accredited laboratory (“UCLA Lab"), which conducted the test, received the sample on February 20, 2003. On February 21, 2003, the laboratory screening test performed from the “A”-sample of Respondent’s urine specimen indicated the presence of a prohibited substance.
The A confirmation testing was performed on February 28, 2003, and it revealed the presence of Hydroxy-androstenedione, a metabolite of the prohibited anabolic steroid, 4-androstene-6 α-ol-3,17-dione (=6αOH-androstenedione) (“Hydroxy-androstendione”), in each of three “aliquots” from the “A” sample from which the three separate analyses were performed. This finding was reported to USADA. The Respondent was notified of such finding by letter of March, 2003. That letter advised Respondent that if he chose not to accept the “A” sample test results he had the right to request and observe the “B” sample analysis. On March 25, 2003, the UCLA Lab tested the “B” sample. The three replicates from the B sample also were positive for
Hydroxy-androstenedione. The UCLA Lab reported that Respondent’s urine sample was positive..
By letter of April 22,2003, the USADA Anti-Doping Review Board
recommended inter alia the minimum two-year suspension from the date the positive sample was collected, February 18, and the retroactive cancellation of all competitive results which occurred on or after that date. Respondent advised USADA of his election to proceed to arbitration, which USADA formally initiated in its May 5, 2003 letter to AAA and International Judo Federation (IJF).
Respondent is likewise responsible for the presence of the prohibited substance in his body. Respondent failed to meet his burden of proof to establish a defence that may have allowed for reduction in sanctions. USADA produced evidence supported by able argumentation that Respondent had not met the burden of proving that a reduction in the suspension period is warranted. The case law clearly indicated that the proportionality doctrine has to date been applied in a sports specific and conduct specific manner taking into account the specific international federation rules and, in the case of United States athletes, the USADA Protocol.
The panel of North American Court of Arbitration for Sport decides as follows:
- A doping violation occurred on the part of Respondent.
- The minimum suspension for a first offender of two (2) years to take place effective from February 18, 2003 is imposed on Respondent pursuant to IJF 17.
- All competitive results which occurred on or after that date are cancelled.
- A two-year period of ineligibility beginning February 18, 2003, from access to the training facilities of the USOC Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC, including grants, awards or employment is imposed.
The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association and the compensation and expenses of the arbitrators shall by borne entirely by USADA.
