Affidavit Tom Danielson [USADA vs Lance Armstrong October 10, 2012]
September 26, 2012

Mr. Tom Danielson Barry is a professional cylist since 2002 and rode in the professional teams of Mercury, Saturn, Fassa Bortolo, U.S. Postal Service Team, Discovery Channel Team and Slipstream-Chipotle.

Danielson admitted he used Erythropoietin (EPO), testosterone, growth hormone (hGH), cortisone and blood doping.
He testified to USADA about the widespread trafficking, distribution, possession and use of prohibited substances and methods in the U.S. Postal Service Team and Discovery Channel Team, his involvement and the involvement of Lance Armstrong, accompliced riders, medical doctors and officials.

CAS 2010/A/2062 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Real Federación Española de Fútbol (RFEF) & Gregorio Ciudad Real Linares

Football
Doping (benzoylecgonine)
Sanction

The Spanish Act 7/2006 distinguishes between “very serious” anti-doping violations (art. 14.1) due to the presence, use or consumption of prohibited substances or methods, leading to a sanction of ineligibility for a period of two to four years, and “serious” anti-doping violations (art. 14.2) related to substances or methods identified in the corresponding legal instrument as of less seriousness, leading to a sanction of ineligibility for a period of three months to two years. However, benzoylecgonine is a non-specified prohibited substance, in accordance with all the applicable regulations in the case at stake, and thus is far from being a substance of “less seriousness”. Elements such as relevant circumstances, no reiteration of the conduct or non-existence of previous records of the player related with anti-doping infringements, are totally irrelevant to the parameters envisaged in article 14.2 and therefore cannot constitute grounds to justify the reduction of the seriousness of the anti-doping violation.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 November 2010:

1.) That the appeal filed by WADA against the Decision rendered by the Competition Judge of the RFEF on 21st September 2009 with regard to the player Mr. Gregorio Ciudad Real Linares is admissible.
2.) The referred Decision of the Competition Judge of the RFEF dated 21st September 2009 is set aside.
3.) Mr. Gregorio Ciudad Real Linares is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility, starting on the date on which this award is communicated to the Player. Any period of suspension (whether imposed to or voluntarily accepted by the Player) shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility imposed.
(…)
6. Any other prayers for relief are rejected.

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.

On 10 August 2002 at the UCI sanctioned Satum Cycling Classic, the Respondent provided a urine sample. The A sample analysis resulted in finding the prohibited anabolic steroid; 19-norandrosterone. Norandrosterone is a metabolite on the list of list of Prohibited Classes of Substances and Prohibited Methods. The Respondent was informed and he requested that the B sample would be tested. The B sample analysis confirmed the positive results of the sample analysis.
The Respondent agreed on October 6, 2002, to a provisional suspension commencing on the date of this award.
Amino acid supplements the Respondent used were delivered for testing at the Integrated Biomolecule Corporation ("IBC"), and in one sample traces of 19-norandrosterone were present. UCLA concluded in his testing that in the same sample was no presence 19-norandrosterone but contained substances with spectral characteristics of androgens.
The UCLA Lab analysis of the supplement (Tyrosine Bottle 1) and the IBC lab result are in conflict with the UCLA Lab unable to confirm the BCI analytical result. The contaminant reported by the IBC is not the parent drug but the metabolite of it usually found in the urine.
USADA determined that in accordance with article 130 section 1, of the UCI Anti-Doping Examination Regulations ("UCI AER") for the use of an anabolic steroid.
Respondent claims the supplements he uses as cause of his positive test, however the UCLA laboratory disagrees.
The evidence at the hearing unequivocally demonstrated that the chain of custody of the open bottle of 15 Capsules was totally inadequate.

Findings:
A doping infraction occurred and the Respondent is disqualified from the Saturn Cycling Classic on 8 August 2002. The Respondent's results from that race are nullified.
A ineligibility for the period of one year is ordered.
A fine CHF 700 is assessed.

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

Duane Dickey, the Respondent, competed in the Vuelta de Guatemala during October 2001. On October 28, 2001, during the course of that competition, the Respondent was selected for a doping control test. The specimen of Respondent, along with 51 other samples, were all sent to Montreal, Canada, for testing and received on November 9, 2001.
The results of that testing were positive for the substances Phentermine, Boldenone and Nandrolone. All of those substances are prohibited by the UCI Regulations. The Respondent admits to having voluntarily taken Phentermine during the course of the competition, and that he did so for the purpose of providing him with extra energy in the mornings, a period of time during which he had been feeling tired and lethargic.

Respondent claimed that while he took the Phentermine in order to give himself more energy, that he had checked a condensed version of the USADA banned substance list taken from the USADA web site, and that he did not see Phentermine specifically identified.
Respondent denied any knowledge of how the other two substances Boldenone and Nandrolone came to be in his system. He did not even suggest that those substances were given to him by a third party without his knowledge.

Respondent attacked that showing on several grounds:
- That there were irregularities in the sample collection process in Guatemala;
- That there were irregularities in the intra-laboratory chain of custody documentation of the A specimen and A sample aliquots’ during the A sample confirmation testing; and
- That the testing conducted by the laboratory departed from the standard operating procedures of the laboratory as certified to the IOC.
The Respondent failed to establish errors in the specimen collection, the chain of custody, or the testing process.

Taking into account the Respondent’s age, competitive level, past history, and all the other factors in this case, it is the finding of the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel that Respondent be suspended from U.S.A. Cycling and UCI sanctioned competitions for a period of time through and including Monday, September 1, 2003.

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

Ms. Brooke Blackwelder is a racing cyclist in the elite class category.
On June 17, 2001, the Hewlett-Packard LaserJet Women’s Challenge Road Race (HP Race), Blackwelder was selected randomly to provide a urine sample. An analysis of the urine at the UCLA Lab resulted in an A sample analysis finding of the prohibited anabolic steroid 19-norandrosterone.
Blackwelder requested that the B sample be tested. The B sample confirmed the positive results of the A sample analysis.
Blackwelder was subject to a disqualification from the event at which the sample was taken; a suspension for one year, and a fine of SFr. 1,000.

Blackwelder does not contest the laboratory analysis, but does, however, contest the reliability of the single or sport urine test as a method of the detection of doping. Specially, Blackwelder asserts that the hydration level of the person providing the urine sample and the specific gravity of the urine sample may affect the spot urine test’s reliability for the detection of doping. Blackwelder’s position is that the finding of the level of 19-norandrosterone in het urine sample was the result of natural production by her. Blackwelder is not claiming that the presence of 19-norandrosterone in het urine sample was caused by a dietary or nutritional supplement.

On the basis of the evidence taken, the Panel is convinced that, at the time the urine sample was taken, a prohibited substance, under the UCI Anti-Doping Examination Regulations (UCI AER), was present in Blackwelder’s urine. She was not able to present any evidence to require any other conclusion but that a doping violation had occurred. Under the applicable rule the Panel has no choice in view of that positive finding but to conclude that Blackwelder violated the UCI AER’s provisions, not matter how unwittingly, and should be sanctioned.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides as follows:
- A doping infraction occurred and Blackwelder is disqualified from the HP Race.
- A suspension of eight months is ordered commencing 17 May, 2002, 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.

At the October, 2003, UCI World Championship held in Canada, Respondent provided a blood sample, it showed a hematorcrit level above the 47% UCI safety threshold for female riders, she was not permitted to participate in the race. Early on the morning of April 21,2004, prior to the start of the "La Flèche Wallonne" race in Belgium, Respondent provided a blood sample. She was shortly thereafter informed that her hematocrit level was 49.5, in excess of the safety threshold Thereupon she was requested for a urine sample, which she did. Respondent elected to have a "B" sample of her blood analyzed. Unlike the "A" sample, the "B" blood sample did not result in an elevated hematocrit level. The urine sample tested negative for all prohibited substances. Respondent proceeded with the race afterwards she failed to appear for the post-race drug testing.

Final Conclusion:

We conclude that Respondent
(a) has committed a doping offence, her first offence, for failure to appear for the post-competition drug testing,
(b) that the stipulated manner of notification by the UCI of Respondent's selection for drug testing was incompliance with applicable UCI Regulations,
(c) that Respondent was able through testimony and other evidence provided to the panel at the June 11 2004 evidentiary hearing, to disprove the presumption of refusal to take the test, (d) that the rather unique circumstances of Respondent's case, as described. do not justify a suspension but, rather, a warning, as authorized by UCI Regulations, Article 132.
A fine is settled.

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

We conclude that a doping offense under the UCI Regulations took place by reason of the failure of Respondent to appear for post- competition testing which she did not dispute, following the conclusion of the road race at the La Fleche Wallone on April 21, 2004.
Respondent was negligent and subject to sanction in accordance with UCI Regulation, Article 132.
Respondent disproved the presumption that she refused to take the test.
Based on the testimony and written exhibits presented, and taking into account the facts and circumstances surrounding the events which took place on April 21, 2004 on the occasion of La Fleche Wallonne competition, as UCI Regulation, Article 124 authorizes, and having taken into account the few precedents with respect to failures on the part of athletes to appear for prescribed testing, a warning should be issued to the Respondent as authorized by UCI Regulation, Article 132.
The fee will be borne by the claiment.

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

On March 25, 2004, Respondent gave a urine sample at the Redlands Classic in Redlands, California. In the A and B sample the presence of Oxymetholone metabolites was found. The USADA agrees that this violation is subject to sanction under UCI AER Article 130.1, a first offence, other than intentional doping.
The Evidentiary Hearing took place on November 8, 2004. Respondent argued that the penalty sought by USADA should be reduced substantially. He contended that the circumstances surrounding the offence, his character, age and experience, the gravity of the consequences of the penalty for his social, sporting and economic position, the risk to his professional career, and his normal discipline and programme all support the contention that the penalty should be no more than six moths. He also sought credit for the voluntary suspension served thus far and requested that a fine be waived due to his economic situation.

Decision and award: A two-year period of ineligibility
beginning from March 25, 2004, imposed on UCI Regulations AER 130. All competitive results after that date are cancelled (AER 143). No access to the training facilities of de USOC Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC, including grants, awards, or employment is imposed. Pursuant to Respondent was a TT/III licence-holder for three months in 2004. Therefore, in accordance with AER 128 a fine is reduced proportionally to 165 CHF.

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

AWARDS:

Tyler Hamilton is an elite level cyclist. In 2003 he finished fourth at the Tour de France. Although Mr. Hamilton was a serious contender for the 2004 Tour de France, he had to withdraw from the race after he sustained injury from a fall during the early stages of the race. He recovered sufficiently to compete in the cycling “time trial” event at the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens, Greece and won the gold medal for the United States.

On the day after his Olympic victory, Mr. Hamilton provided a blood sample for testing by the WADA approved laboratory in Athens, Greece.
Mr. Hamilton’s A sample was eventually reported as being positive for the presence of transfused blood on the basis that is contained a mixed red blood cell population. The B sample was inadvertently frozen by the Athens lab thereby destroying the red blood cells in that specimen. Therefore, the B analysis of Mr. Hamilton’s Olympic sample was not able to confirm the positive A sample finding and no doping offense was found to have occurred. As a consequence, Mr. Hamilton was confirmed as the gold medal winner of the Olympic time trial cycling event.

UCI sent a warning letter to Mr. Hamilton, dated June 10, 2004. The letter also goes on to state that Mr. Hamilton would be closely monitored in 2004 in terms of his doping tests.
On September 11, 2004, at the Vuelta cycling competition, Mr. Hamilton was targeted for testing at the request of ICI. The Lausanne Laboratory reported Mr. Hamilton’s sample as positive for the presence of transfused blood. Under UCI-rules, a blood transfusion that is not required for valid medical reasons, constitutes doping. Mr. Hamilton has denied receiving any type of transfusion during the relevant period.

On September 23, 2004, Tyler Hamilton was suspended by his team ARcycling as a result of the doping charges. He was therefore no longer able to compete in professional road cycling. On November 30, 2004, Mr. Hamilton was dismissed from his team as a result of the doping charges.
On February 23, 2005, a hearing was commenced in Denver, Colorado. Testimony and closing arguments were concluded on March 2, 2005.

The Panel concludes that the mixed RBC population arising from the Vuelta sample analysis has a very high probability of having caused by a blood transfusion, and an extremely low to the point of negligible probability of having been caused by Tyler Hamilton being a human chimera.
The finding of a mixed RBC population in Mr. Hamilton’s blood sample is based upon the state of the science known and brought to the attention of the Panel as of the date of this decision.
The conclusion is also based upon the evidence and state of the record of these proceedings before the Panel at the time of this decision.
The finding that the presence of the mixed blood population in Tyler Hamilton’s Vuelta sample was due to a homologous blood transfusion, brings the UCI Anti-Doping Rules into application.

The Panel therefore finds that a doping violation has been committed by Tyler Hamilton. The minimum suspension for a first offender is two years. Tyler Hamilton is therefore suspended from competition for a period of two years commencing, April 18, 2005. All of his competitive results from September 11, 2004, including the Vuelta competition are cancelled.

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

DISSENTING OPINION:
Chrstopher L. Campbel

1. The Lausanne Laboratory's failure to provide the measure of uncertaintly means its testing method failed to meet the prevailing standards of the scientific community.
2. The testing method applied subjective evaluation an this method has not been properly validated.
- The testing method should be objective and quantitative.
- The WADA criteria used a subjective, visual identification method that has not been peer reviewed of properly validated.
3. Appearance of a fair hearing