The Respondent, Floyd Landis is an elite cyclist with many cycling
accomplishments during his career. In 2006, he was first overall in the Tour of Georgia, as well as Paris Nice, and Tour of California. The Athlete holds a US license and in signing the license the Athlete agrees that the sole jurisdiction for resolving any dispute that arises shall be in the courts of domicile of the UCI.
The UCI Cycling Regulations provide that adjudication of matters shall be handled by the national federation of the athlete involved.
On 25 July 2006, the Laboratoire National de Dépistage du Dopage (LNDD) reported to the UCI that there had been an adverse analytical finding with respect to the Respondent’s “A” sample, consistent with the use of Testosterone or one of its precursors. On 5 August 2006, the LNDD subsequently reported to the UCI that there had been a confirmation AAF on the Athlete’s “B” sample. The results of this second test were also consistent with the use of Testosterone or one of its precursors.
There are in effect two allegations in the Lab report which are mirrored in the charge by USADA. The first allegation is that the Athlete had exogenous testosterone in his sample, a Prohibited Substance as provided for in UCI Regulations in Article 15.6.3. This allegation is based upon the GC/C/IRMS analysis of the Lab. The second allegation is that the T/E ratio has been violated as provided for in UCI Regulations in Article 15.1.3. This allegation is based upon the GC/MS analysis by the Lab.
On 19 September 2006 USADA issued the charging letter (portions of which were quoted above) in which it seeks an order of this Panel that a first doping violation has occurred pursuant to the USADA Protocol, the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, and the United States Olympic Committee (the “USOC”) Anti-Doping Policies. It seeks the following sanctions by way of orders from this Panel:
- A two (2) year period of ineligibility as described by the WADA Code, beginning on the day you accept this sanction, fail to contest this sanction, or the date of the hearing decision in this matter; and
- Disqualification of all competitive results obtained on or subsequent to July 20, 2006 the date your sample was collected, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes; and,
- Ineligibility for a period of two (2) years beginning on the day you accept this sanction, fail to contest this sanction or the date of the hearing decision in this matter, from participating or coaching in U.S. Olympic, Pan American Games or Paralympics Games Trials, being a member of any U.S. Olympic, Pan American Games or Paralympics Team and having access to the training facilities of the USOC including, but not limited to benefits, grants, awards or employment.
In response to some of the above motions, the Panel issued a total of 3 Interlocutory Awards.
The first Interlocutory Award was issued by way of majority decision on 17 March 2007. Dissenting in part and concurring in part was Arbitrator Chris Campbell. Mr. Campbell’s dissent was also issued on 17 March 2007. This initial Award was in response to the Respondent’s October 23, 2006 and January 22, 2007 request for documents. USADA provided written explanations regarding the Respondent’s request on 7 February 2007 and the Respondent filed a Response Brief on 13 February 2007. The Response Brief also raised a new issue regarding depositions. Oral arguments on these issues were heard at the Discovery Hearings on 22 & 23 February. In conclusion the first Interlocutory Award dealt with two issues. The Testing of Additional Samples and the Respondent’s Request for Deposition.
In its ruling the majority of the Panel agreed USADA could perform additional tests on the remaining “B” samples, but held that they could not result in an adverse analytical finding. The majority also ordered that any additional testing of the Respondent’s Samples be carried out by USADA and that the Athlete have the same rights of attendance and participation as were extended to him at the time of confirmation analysis of the “B” sample. The majority rejected the Respondent’s request for depositions.
The second Interlocutory Award was issued by the Panel on 8 May 2007 with reasons to follow. This award was made by way of majority decision, dissenting was Arbitrator Chris Campbell.
The third and final Interlocutory Award was also issued on 8 May 2007, with reasons to follow. The purpose of this award was to deal with the Respondent’s Motion for Continuance and Motion concerning the Second Request for Production of Documents. The motion concerning the second request was in furtherance to the materials provided by the parties prior to the discovery hearings of 22 and 23 February 2007 and the oral submissions of the parties
during the discovery hearing.
The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel, after having carefully read, reviewed and considered all of the evidence and arguments presented by the Claimant the United States Anti- Doping Agency on the one hand, and the evidence and arguments of the Respondent, Floyd Landis, on the other hand including, but not limited to, the pre-trial briefs and arguments, the pre-trial motions and related arguments and rulings, the testimony of the witnesses, with exhibits, the opening and closing statements of counsel introduced during the arbitration hearing held from May 14-23, 2007 and the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by both parties on the 28 June 2007, hereby makes the following rulings and awards in the case of USADA v. Landis:
1. The charge of an elevated T/E ratio from the sample was not
established in accordance with the WADA International Standard for Laboratories and is hereby dismissed.
2. The charge of exogenous testosterone being found in the
sample by the Carbon Isotope Ratio analysis is established in
accordance with the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations.
3. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation is found to have been
established under Article 15.1. This is the Athlete’s first violation.
4. Pursuant to UCI Article 261 a period of two years’ ineligibility
is imposed by this award.
5. The violation of the UCI Rules having occurred as a result of
an In-Competition test will result under UCI Articles 256 and
257.2 in the automatic disqualification of the Athlete’s results
in the 2006 Tour de France and forfeiture of any medals, points or prizes.
6. Under UCI Rules 257.2 and 275 the normal period of Ineligibility would commence with the date of this decision, but the Rule also provides that where any period during which provisional measures were imposed or voluntarily accepted by the athlete shall be credited against the total period of Ineligibility to be served. Furthermore, where required by fairness, the hearing body imposing the sanction may start the period of Ineligibility at an earlier date commencing as early as the date of the anti-doping violation. In this case the Athlete filed a declaration of voluntary non competition as of 30 January 2007. Therefore, the period of Ineligibility will begin on that date and continue until 29 January 2009.
7. The submission that the Athlete voluntarily accepted a suspension at an earlier date the 5th of August 2006 being the day on which he was fired by his cycling team is rejected.
