On March 14, 2002, as part of USADA’s out of competition doping control program, Ms. Thomas provide a urine sample for drug testing. The UCLA Lab performed scientific analysis of Ms. Thomas’ sample. The analysis determined that Ms Thomas’ sample was positive for the anabolic steroid norbolethone.
Subsequently, on April 10, 2002, Ms. Thomas provide another urine sample. This sample was also sent to the UCLA Lab for analyses and tested positive for norbolethone.
Therefore pursuant to the UCI rules, USADA, by letter, dated June 18, 2002, addressed to Respondent stated it would seek the sanction “suspension for life” with respect to the doping violations involving Norbolethone.
Ms. Thomas denied the allegations of positive test results and demanded a hearing before a Panel of North American Court of Arbitration for Sport arbitrators.
At hearing Ms. Thomas asserted several issues in defence of he position:
- Denial that this was het second doping violation, asserting a settlement agreement entered into by her, the USOC and USA Cycling, in August 200 with respect to, among other things, four positive doping tests was not to be considered a doping violation, thus precluding this matter from becoming a second doping violation.
- The birth control pills Ms. Thomas ingested on each one of the day the urine sample was taken, along with her intense training regimen, caused the levonorgestrel content from her birth control to convert into norbolethone.
- Chain of custody and Laboratory testing problems.
- Dr. Donald H. Catlin’s (of the UCLA Lab) testimony was not credible.
- The ban of a substance by the phrase “… related compounds”, pursuant to UCI AER, does not give the athletes sufficient notice that this specific drug was banned.
The Panel has thoroughly reviewed the exhibits received along with the testimony of the experts. It is the conclusion of the Panel that the UCLA Lab has followed the prescribed standards that USADA has Proven the presence of norbolethone in Respondent’s urine.
Respondent’s proof on the issue of conversion of levonorgestrel to norbolethone fall far short of acceptable standards. It is the Panel’s conclusion that such defence has no merit and accordingly cannot assist Respondent in forwarding her case.
Respondent’s position that this matter is not a second violation of UCI AER was not sustained by the evidence. It is the conclusion of the Panel that this is a second violation of UCI AER.
The Panel concludes no conflict of interest is involved with respect to Dr. Catlin’s testimony or participation in this matter.
On the basis of the evidence submitted, the Panel is convinced that at the time Ms. Thomas’ samples were taken, a prohibited substance under the UCI AER was present in Respondent’s urine. The substance was the anabolic agent norbolethone. The Respondent did not present any other evidence to require any other conclusion but that a doping violation occurred. Sanctions must be therefore imposed pursuant to UCI AER.
The Panel is cognizant of the impact of heavy penalties upon an athlete. A career may be ended and life goals severely interrupted. But the Panel has also taken into account Ms. Thomas’ record as a cyclist with numerous doping infractions throughout her career. Indeed the disclosures in the medical records bear out the medical analysis of her use of exogenous steroids, in contrast to her denials in direct testimony.
The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides as follows: Respondent, Tammy Thomas is suspended for life from any cycling competition, effective August 31, 2002.
The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association and the compensation and expenses of the arbitrators shall by borne entirely by USADA.
