Respondent, Torri Edwards, is an elite sprinter who was the gold medalist in the 100 meter event at the 2003 World Championships. She qualified for the 2004 United States Olympic Team in the 100 and 200 meter events.
On July19, 2004, the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel conducted a hearing pertaining to Respondent's positive doping test which occurred at the April 24, 2004 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) competition in Martinique known as the Meeting du Conseil Général.
At the hearing before the Panel, Respondent admitted that she had committed a doping offens through the ingestion of the prohibited stimulant nikethamide, but contended that exceptional circumstances existed which should result in the reduction of elimination of any period of ineligibility to be imposed in connection therewith. At the hearing, Respondent was given the opportunity to make a complete record regarding her claim of exceptional circumstances. She submitted document and testified about the circumstances surrounding her ingestion of nikethamide and submitted to cross examinations.
After the hearing the evidence and the arguments of counsel presented at the hearing the Panel concluded "that exceptional circumstances may here exist" and that " referral to the IAAF pursuant of Rule 38.16 is the proper course of action"
Acting upon the referral, the Doping Review Board of the IAAF issued a determination dated August 3, 2004. In this determination the IAAF Doping Review Board noted that it had reviewed the interim award, certain relevant correspondence, the exhibits presented at het hearing before the Panel and the transcript of the hearing before the Panel. That determination notes that Claimant and Respondent were given the opportunity to submit to the Doping Review Board evidence not presented during the hearing before the Panel.
The IAAF Doping Review Board summarized its conclusion on the question of the existence of “exceptional circumstances’ as follows: “The Doping Review Board does not consider the circumstances of this case to constitute Exceptional Circumstances as required by IAAF Rule 38.12. By reason of the factors, the Doping Review Board considers that Ms. Edwards is unable to establish that this anti-doping violation took place without significant fault of negligence on her part. On the contrary, in the Board’s view, the athlete was at significant fault and, in consequence of this, there are no Exceptional Circumstances in this case.
The presumptive sanction for Respondent’s doping offense is a minimum two year period of ineligibility to run from the date of the hearing pursuant to IAAF Rule 40.19a0, and disallowance of results obtained between the date of her positive drug test and the date on which her period of ineligibility begins, as set forth in IAAF Rule 39.4.
USADA had not sought a sanction of longer than the minimum two year period of ineligibility mandated by IAAF Rule 40.1(a), and the Panel has been presented with no evidence reflecting that a lengthier period of ineligibility is warranted.
Accordingly, pursuant to IAAF Rule 40.1(a)(i), the Panel hereby imposes a two year period of ineligibility upon Respondent to expire on July 17, 2006, and , in accordance with IAAF Rule 39.1 and 39.4, orders disqualification of all results obtained by Respondent at the April 24, 2004 competition in Martinique and all of Respondent’s subsequent competitive results through the date of this decision, including the forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money received as a result of competitions or appearances occurring during this period.
The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association and the compensation and expenses of the arbitrators shall by borne entirely by USADA.
