Player requested an hearing before the ATP Tour Anti-Doping tribunal. His doping test was positive for the prohibited substance caffeine, also the B-sample was tested positive for this substance.
The hearing was held on August 30, 2003, outside the 60 day guideline. An extension was agreed till July 30, 2993.
Another extension is granted till August 4, 2003, for which written statements are provided.
There is a difference in the amount measured from the two samples.
The player alleges that the statistical methodology used in the analysis of the player's urine yielded a miscalculation in the margin of error. The use of an alternative and widely accepted statistical methodology would have produced a result with a corresponding margin of error that would have warranted a finding of a concentration level below the threshold.
Also he mentions the Ulihrach decision were was dealt with the distribution of caffeine-containing product by the ATP Tour.
The player can specify how the caffeine came into his body regarding the rules about exceptional circumstances. He had not gained advantage from his conduct and the publication of his name in Argentina will cause him irreparable harm.
The respondent finds that the player has committed a doping violence because his samples tested positive on the prohibited substance caffeine during competition. The test are considered to have a sufficient confidence level. Also in contrast to the Ulihrach case, the Basel tournament provided the coffee not the ATP Tour. Also there are no exceptional circumstances, the player suggested the source of the caffeine and has not demonstrated his conduct was reasonable. For all of this the respondent finds the player guilty and penalties should be mandated.
An expert witness claims another alternative test would lower the range of caffeine below the threshold. The tribunal however can't conclude this, the difference in opinion by experts and Lab directors have to be resolved by those individuals and the accreditation bodies.
The tribunal finds the results not below the threshold.
The player applies for an estoppel.
However the ATP didn't give misleading information or suggested how many cups of coffee could be consumed below the threshold of the doping test. The player was the only person who was over the threshold while 46 samples where tested (in the Ulihrach case others were also over the threshold).
The lab didn't make any mistakes towards the qualification of the positive result or the quantification of the threshold.
The only reason for an estoppel would be if the ATP was responsible for administering the coffee, this was not the case. The tribunal also finds that there is no ground for the decision in the Ulihrach case.
Also the plea for saving the claimant from public embarrassment in his own country is something the tribunal can't avoid.
The final decision is that the prize money obtained from the tournament in Basel, Switzerland be forfeited and is to be repaid immediately to the ATP. It is ordered that Race/Entry System points earned at the same competition be struck out.
