Facts
Todd Perry (player) was reported for an Anti-Doping rule violation. During an ATP sanctioned Tour in Capablanca, Morocco on April 7, 2005, an in-competition doping test showed the presence of salbutamol in his A sample. The player used his right to have a hearing before the Anti-Doping Tribunal,
History
The player suffered from asthma since his childhood, for this he uses bronchodilator medication terbutaline administered by inhaler. For this an abbreviated therapeutic use exemption. However the tournament doctor supplied him with salbutamol. The player didn't knew he got another medication.
written submissions player
Counsel for the player wants to govern the procedure by the laws of the state of Delaware to apply for an estoppel precluding the ATP form enforcing its Anti-Doping Rules (ADR).
The player thought by using the tournament doctor he followed the ADR.
The player wasn't aware he used other medication. That the tournament doctor failed to notify the player is also a reason for an estoppel.
The doctrine of proportionality ought to be used.
written submissions ATP
The ATP submits that the player should not be found to have committed a doping offense.
Tournaments guidelines prescribed the salbutamol inhaler.
reasoning
The counsel for the player resquested for an estoppel, however the tournament doctor is not a representative of the ATP, he is assigned but not an employee of the ATP. Therefore the doctrine of an estoppel can't apply.
Decision
The tribunal makes the following orders:
1. A doping has occurred because of the presence of a prohibited substance for which no therapeutic use exemption had been granted.
2. ATP is ordered to disqualify the individual result at the Casablanca Competition, it is further ordered that there be a forfeiture of any medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money obtained at the competition. The disqualification of the results and other consequences will have effect from the time provided.
3. The player is found to have committed "No Fault or Negligence" in respect of the use of the specified substance, the period of ineligibility is eliminated. Furthermore, the findings of the tribunal with respect to a doping offense are specifically limited in their effect as prescribed as not being considered a doping offense for purposes of calculating any future infractions of the Anti-Doping Rules should occur.
4. As a consequence of the finding of "No Fault or Negligence" for the doping offense it is ordered that no other disqualification of results other than as referred to shall arise in this case.
5. By rule the ATP is ordered to issue a warning and reprimand to the player because of the decision.
