As described in the initial funding application, I began data collection among under-23 (U23) collegiate cyclists in the Spring of 2008. Overall data collection proceeded much more slowly than initially anticipated. I also experienced resistance to filling out surveys from potential subjects once they heard that WADA had funded the study. Many of the U23 athletes had negative opinions and reactions to WADA. Anecdotally, they seemed to feel that WADA, as an organization, was working against their interests and as one survey participant said, “aren't they on a witch hunt?” I experienced very similar reactions when I surveyed and interviewed American U23 cyclists racing in Europe. Despite these negative reactions I was able to collect 170 valid surveys. I was also able to collect 10 one-hour interviews from U23 cyclists racing professionally as Espoirs.

The present study aimed to assess the status of anti-doping works among the Hong Kong NSOs. Apart from this, the organizations’ readiness to change and to initiate / strengthen the anti-doping works was also studied from the point of view of administrator, coach, and committee member. It would appear that a great majority of NSOs in Hong Kong were at the contemplation stage in implementing anti-doping functions and that their major constraints were the limited financial and manpower resources.

This study examined the attitude towards doping and behaviour regarding doping amongst Ukrainian students. The sample consists of both Sports students and Polytechnics students. The first part of the study includes material of self-reported data of mass survey amongst students. The second part deals with focus groups’ interview materials in order to deeper investigate driving forces of doping behaviour.

It has been established that the doping prevalence in Ukraine might affect nearly 10 % of university students. Prevalence of doping varies greatly with level of sports’ results, kind of sports activity, and the aims of engaging in sport. Representatives of strength and cyclical kinds of sports are at a higher risk of doping prevalence.

The opinion that using doping can lead to better sport results and development of muscles is widespread among Sports students, while Polytechnics students mostly consider that doping can improve appearance and increase muscles.

In spite of the widespread opinion of doping pernicious effect on health, the opinion of athletes has an essential distinction from common beliefs. Sports-oriented students consider that doping does not impact on health negatively if it is used in a reasonable way. Among athletes the opinion that doping in small doses and in reasonable proportions would be beneficial is widespread.

Our results suggest that doping use has a moral legitimacy among the majority of athletes, and this point determines doping use. The motive of “necessity” looks like a mature explanation – an ideological scheme. One of the main reasons of doping use that athletes indicated was the self-affirmation motive, reaching high sport results, material welfare.

A considerable proportion of students have lack of knowledge, in terms of side-effects, sources of information and testing procedure.

A vast proportion of high performance athletes have admitted positive attitude towards doping. One of the main reasons to take a risk of using doping is an opportunity to have a compensation (tangible, social, ideological) for harm to health.

This indicated that driving forces of doping behaviour among sports students are mainly described by the self-affirmation motive, which in turn resulted in pecuniary component.

The findings highlight a gap between policy and student behaviour regarding doping. The evidence from these results may provide arguments for governing bodies and serve as a platform in creating educational programs for main stakeholders.

Christopher L. Campbell, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur with the majority decision in finding that Mr. Gatlin should be sanctioned for his second violation. I dissent from the majority decision to increase Mr. Gatlin’s sanction on the basis of his first violation. The procedural and substantive status of the first violation makes it improper for the Panel to impose an increased sanction because there was no finding of fault by the arbitration panel or the IAAF Council. Moreover, given the facts, Mr. Gatlin was not at fault for his first violation.

The first violation was caused by the medication Mr. Gatlin was taking for his disability, Attention Deficit Disorder (“ADD”). Increasing Mr. Gatlin’s sanction for his first violation because of his disability is blatant discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
By imposing sanctions on athletes like Mr. Gatlin who take medication for their legitimate disability, the Anti-Doping Organizations are willfully violating the law behaving as if they are above the law. In these circumstances, they are nothing more than bullies preying on the vulnerable. The federal government should take a serious look at this practice.

It is deeply disturbing how the majority has played fast and loose with the facts and the law in justifying discriminating against Mr. Gatlin. To find fault and fail to provide a reasonable accommodation for the first violation of an athlete testing positive because of a legitimately disability is an affront to the federal law and human rights. Such discrimination is incompatible with the public policy of the United States and Switzerland.

The Respondent, Justin Gatlin, is a member of the USA Track & Field, Inc. (“USATF”).He is the 2005 World and USA Outdoor 100m and 200m champion; 2004 Olympic 100m gold, 200m bronze, 4x100m relay silver medalist.

The Panel notes at the outset that this case appears to be unique, and its circumstances are unlikely ever to be repeated. It has proved particularly nettlesome, involving as it does an earlier AAA Panel Decision, made in 2001 under a prior set of IAAF code provisions. That earlier 2001 AAA Panel rendered what appears to be an interim, non-final decision pending disposition of a petition for reinstatement by the IAAF. When the IAAF reinstated Mr. Gatlin in 2002, the 2001 AAA Panel did not resume its deliberations, nor render a final decision, nor in any way, modify its initial decision, finding a doping violation and imposing a 2 year suspension on Mr. Gatlin for what the Panel found, and evidently the IAAF found was a completely inadvertent, unintentional violation which would have been avoided through the simple step of seeking permission for the use of a therapeutic, prescription medication. Nevertheless, the 2001 AAA Panel found a doping violation, Mr. Gatlin, and all of his witnesses consistently testified that they considered and understood that finding to constitute a first doping violation. At no time did Mr. Gatlin claim it was not a violation, nor did he present any evidence that it was not a finding of a first doping violation.
Nevertheless, the Panel found itself constrained by its obligations to consider the implications on the present case, of the findings or lack of findings in that 2001 decision.
Turning to the present case, the Panel finds that the evidence presented supports a finding that Mr. Gatlin committed a doping violation in 2006, namely the use of exogenous testosterone, which was detected in his system on or about April 22, 2006. The Panel further finds that Mr. Gatlin failed to sustain his burden of proof to show how the Prohibited Substance entered his body, in order to rely upon a claim of no fault, or no significant fault in connection with the 2006 doping violation.
The doping violation which was established by the proofs herein, was Mr. Gatlin’s second doping violation, the first having occurred in 2001 while Mr. Gatlin was a student at the University of Tennessee2. Since that finding meant that the present matter constitutes a second violation and additional potential penalties be considered, the Panel considered arguments of Mr. Gatlin that the first violation should not be counted and USADA’s to the contrary.
Despite the arguments of Mr. Gatlin, detailed more fully hereinbelow, there is no evidence before the Panel which would sustain the argument that the first doping violation should not be considered and that the current doping violation was, therefore, effectively a first violation.
Mr. Gatlin’s period of ineligibility will be four (4) years from May 26, 2006 ( thirty (30) days following the date on which his urine sample was taken). He is disqualified from and forfeits any and all competitive results, if any, received on or subsequent to April 22, 2006 through the end of his period of ineligibility.
While the Panel has held that it has no basis upon which to ignore the first finding of a doping violation, for the reasons discussed below, we adjure the International Amateur Athletic Federation (“IAAF”) to determine whether, in the exercise of its discretion, if its decision reinstating Mr. Gatlin in 2002 and eliminating any further ban from competition should be held to have been based on or the equivalent of a finding that he had no contributing fault in connection with his first doping violation. Similarly, Mr. Gatlin may choose to present evidence that the anti-doping authorities in 2001 affirmatively represented to Mr. Gatlin that cessation of use three days prior to competition would be sufficient compliance with the rules, and therefore the first panel, which has never relinquished jurisdiction over that offense would have found “no fault..” If either be the case, then it ought not be counted for purposes of the present award, and the Panel will retain jurisdiction over the award set out herein below to adjust that award should a decision of the IAAF, or subsequently discovered facts or events so warrant.

As will be more fully discussed below, the Panel notes that no AAA or CAS Panel has ruled that proceedings by Anti-Doping Organizations are subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act or comparable Swiss laws that prohibit discrimination against the disabled. Given the abject failure of Mr. Gatlin to support his mere generalized statement about those laws, this Panel likewise does not have to rule on that issue as it was not properly presented to it. We do note that the task of this Panel is made more difficult by the complexity caused by those statutes, which have not been explored in detail before this Panel. The Dissent presents detailed argument and citation as to why those statutes should be considered and thereby either invalidate the 2001 AAA Panel decision, or prohibit its consideration. Had Mr. Gatlin presented such arguments, or indeed virtually any arguments, they would have been considered by the Panel but the Panel makes no conclusions as to the outcome had he done so.

On the basis of the foregoing facts and legal aspects, this Panel renders the following decision:
- Respondent has committed a doping violation under the WADA Code, Article 10.2, by reason of the use of exogenous testosterone in 2006.
- The 2006 doping violation was Respondent’s second doping offense.
- There was no finding of the nature, level or existence of “fault” as to the first doping violation, either by the 2001 AAA Panel in 2001, which referred the matter for a final determination to the IAAF, nor by IAAF in 2002 when it decided that such “exceptional circumstances” existed so as to justify the immediate reinstatement of Mr. Gatlin.
- It therefore falls to this Panel to construe the language of and the record in that prior doping offense decision, to determine if it qualifies as the equivalent of a “no fault” determination such as to justify not counting it as a first offense, solely for purposes of the award for a second offense.
- The lack of requested evidence, finding by the 2001 AAA Panel of a doping violation, the nature of the standard applied in 2001, and the actions of the IAAF clearly suggest at a minimum, a finding of “no significant fault” in 2001. However, there is no evidence from which this Panel may determine that a finding of “no fault” under the current WADA standard was made or could be inferred.
- Therefore, the totality of circumstances causes the Panel to conclude that the 2001 decision of the AAA Panel and the 2002 decision of the IAAF cannot be construed, on the record before this Panel, as constituting a “no fault” level of responsibility on the part of the Respondent under Code section 10.5.1.
- The following sanctions shall be imposed on Respondent:
A four-year period of ineligibility commencing on May 25, 2006 through May 24, 2010, including his ineligibility from participating in U.S. Olympic, Pan American or Paralympics Games, trials or qualifying events, being a member of any U.S. Olympic, Pan America or Paralympics Games team and having access to the training facilities of the United States Olympic Committee Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC including, but not limited to, grants, awards, or employment pursuant to the USOC Anti-Doping Policies.
- The retroactive cancellation of all competitions results and awards occurring after April 22, 2006 through the date of this Award.

The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association and the compensation and expenses of the arbitrators shall by borne entirely by USADA.

CAS 2007/A/1332 Jónsson v/ The International Powerlifting Federation (IPF)

• Powerlifting
• Doping (metandienone)
• Distinction between In-Competition Testing and Out-of-Competition Testing
• Burden of proof regarding departures from the International Standard
• De novo hearing
• Disciplinary sanction

1. According to the definitions of the applicable anti-doping Rules an “Event” is a series of individual competitions conducted together under the ruling body (e.g., the Olympic Games) whereas a “Competition” is, a single race, match, game or singular athletic contest (e.g. the finals of the Olympic 100-meter dash). For the purpose of differentiating between In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing, unless provided otherwise in the rules of an international federation or other relevant anti-doping organization, an In-Competition test is a test where an athlete is selected for testing in connection with a specific competition. “Out-of-Competition” is defined as “any doping control which is not in-competition”. Therefore, a testing which takes place during an event between two competitions shall be considered as an Out-of-Competition Testing according to the International Standard of Testing.

2. According to the applicable anti-doping rules, departures from the International Standard for Testing which did not cause an Adverse Analytical Finding shall not invalidate such result. If an athlete establish that departures from the International Standard have occurred during testing, then the federation shall have the burden to establish that such departures did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or the factual basis for the anti-doping violation. In this regard, the fact that a doping session has been conducted by one person instead of two is a departure from the applicable guidelines. Likewise, the fact that a Doping Control Officer (DCO) failed to identify himself with the official identification card provided by the international federation is a technical departure from the guidelines. However, where on the basis of the evidence presented by the parties, no circumstances indicate that the departures from the rules did in fact have an effect on the result of the test, the federation will have to be deemed to have discharged its burden of proof.

3. Although it is inadequate and not proper in the sense of a fair hearing to choose a member of a federation’s doping hearing body as DCO, under Art. R57 of the CAS Code, a CAS panel has the full power to review the facts and the law. Therefore a CAS panel holds a trial de novo, evaluating all facts and legal issues involved in a dispute. This means that an athlete’s challenge of the federation’s doping hearing panel as not being impartial can be remedied by a de novo examination by CAS.

4. The athlete who has not given any explanation as to how an exogenous banned substance entered into his system nor rebut the presumption that the WADA accredited Laboratory has conducted sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the International Standard for laboratory analysis, must be considered as having committed a doping offence involving a prohibited substance and must take responsibility for it.

The case concerns the issue whether the drug test of Audunn Jónsson should be invalidated because of an alleged breach of the applicable rules, in particular the IPF Anti-Doping Rules and the International Standard for Testing.

CAS Panel concludes that possible departures from the International Standard for Testing that may have occurred in this case did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding. The CAS is therefore entitled to rely on the test results in its decision.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport on 21 December 2007:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Audunn Jónsson on 18 July 2007 against a decision of the IPF Doping Hearing Panel is dismissed.

2.) The appealed decision issued on 20 June 2007 by the IPF Doping Hearing Panel is upheld.

3.) Mr Audunn Jónsson shall be declared ineligible for two years from 8 November 2006.

4.) This award is rendered without costs except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss francs) already paid by Mr Audunn Jónsson, which is retained by the CAS.

5.) Each party shall bear its own legal and other costs.

6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2007/A/1364 WADA v/FAW and James

In April 2007 the Football Association of Wales (FAW) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Ceri James after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

Consequently the FAW Appeals Panel decided on 22 May 2007 to impose a fine and a reduced 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in August 2007 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the FAW Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The case was settled based on the written submissions of the parties.

WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The FAW acknowledged that the imposed 6 month sanction was not in accordance with the FIFA Disciplinary Code.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He requested the Panel for a reduced sanction.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel determines that a sanction must be imposed in accordance with the FIFA Rules and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 December 2007:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Association on 27 August 2007 is upheld, and the Appealed Decision issued by the Appeals Panel of the FAW on 22 May 2007 is varied to impose a two-year sanction.

2.) Mr. Ceri James is declared ineligible for a period of two years, from 25 April 2007 to 24 April 2009.

3.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) already paid by the World Anti-Doping Association and to be retained by the CAS.

4.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

The New Zealand Rugby League (NZRL) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.
NZRL notified the Respondent and ordered a provisional suspension. The Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal. Respondent admitted he had smoked Cannabis at a party a couple of days before the competition.
The Tribunal accepts that Respondent did not smoke Cannabis for performance enhancing purposes and finds that Respondent has already been penalized as the result of the provisional suspension.
Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of this decision.

Facts
Christopher Jarvis (claiment) appeals against the decision of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES). He was sentenced with a penalty of three months of ineligibility for not providing the information about his whereabouts.

History
His heavy travel agenda, coupled with his training schedule and travel to competitions, caused him to be distracted from paying close attention to his email communications, particularly as his email in-box became more heavily loaded with messages connected to his extensive community work. In the result, he was not focused on his obligations to report his whereabouts in a timely way, as required by the rules.

Decision
The claim must be dismissed. The Tribunal hereby finds and declares that the Claimant did commit an Anti-Doping Rule Violation by his failure to provide the requisite whereabouts information in three separate quarters within an 18 month period, contrary to article 10 of the Guidelines. The minimum sanction of three months’ ineligibility, as required under article 7.27 of the Doping Violations and Consequences Rules, is therefore justified. The Tribunal directs that the period of ineligibility of claiment be calculated to begin on November 20, 2007.

In November 2007 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Sorin Marza after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances epimetendiol (metandienone). The Athlete admitted the use of Naposim.

Therefore on 1 November 2007 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.