Christopher L. Campbell, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority decision in finding that Mr. Gatlin should be sanctioned for his second violation. I dissent from the majority decision to increase Mr. Gatlin’s sanction on the basis of his first violation. The procedural and substantive status of the first violation makes it improper for the Panel to impose an increased sanction because there was no finding of fault by the arbitration panel or the IAAF Council. Moreover, given the facts, Mr. Gatlin was not at fault for his first violation.
The first violation was caused by the medication Mr. Gatlin was taking for his disability, Attention Deficit Disorder (“ADD”). Increasing Mr. Gatlin’s sanction for his first violation because of his disability is blatant discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
By imposing sanctions on athletes like Mr. Gatlin who take medication for their legitimate disability, the Anti-Doping Organizations are willfully violating the law behaving as if they are above the law. In these circumstances, they are nothing more than bullies preying on the vulnerable. The federal government should take a serious look at this practice.
It is deeply disturbing how the majority has played fast and loose with the facts and the law in justifying discriminating against Mr. Gatlin. To find fault and fail to provide a reasonable accommodation for the first violation of an athlete testing positive because of a legitimately disability is an affront to the federal law and human rights. Such discrimination is incompatible with the public policy of the United States and Switzerland.
