Eric Thompson, The Respondent, is a track athlete who competes primarily in the sport of high jumping. At the time of the events in question, he was 18 years old and had just graduated from public high school in Herrin, Illinois.
Mr. Thompson was a heavily recruited high school track athlete, and during his senior year he was awarded and accepted a fully-paid athletic scholarship to attend the University of Arkansas, where he had long hoped to enroll because of its distinguished track and field tradition.

Mr. Thompson competed in the high jump in Indianapolis on June 21, 2007, the second day after his consumption of cocaine at a graduation party. He placed second in the event, although his best jump was significantly below his prior jumping achievements. As a result of placing second, Mr. Thompson was subject to doping testing.
Mr. Thompson’s urine sample tested positive for the substance benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine. Mr. Thompson confessed and accepted responsibility for his actions. He agreed to an immediate suspension form further competition and has cooperated fully with USADA in this proceeding.

The fault was not “significant” in view of the totality of the circumstances. Mr. Thomson was young and inexperienced and ingested cocaine a single time in his life. He did so apparently out of a wrong-headed sense of experimentation and not to achieve any competitive athletic advantage, nor did he achieve any.
Mr. Thompson had had no experience with anti-doping regulations and had no one in a position to advise him. He had graduated from high school at the time in question, was not part of a continuing coaching program and was accompanied to the Junior National Championships by what were at that point former coaches who themselves had no experience with the relevant anti-doping testing. This does not excuse Mr. Thompson’s lack of knowledge of the applicable anti-doping rules, but it is a relevant mitigating circumstance in the case of a young athlete with no available informed guidance. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to limit the period of Mr. Thompson’s suspension to one year.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel therefore rules as follows:
- Mr. Thompson committed a doping violation, for which a suspension from competition of one (1) year, to take place effective from July 18, 2007 through July 17, 2008, is imposed.
- During the period of his suspension, and for at least one year thereafter, Mr. Thompson must participate in a substance abuse counseling program such as the one available to students at the University of Arkansas.
- The result of Mr. Thompson’ s competition at the Junior National Championship on June 21, 2007 is cancelled.

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

Respondent, a 27 year old world-class hammer thrower who tested positive in an out-of-competition urine sample test for hydrochlorothiazide and chlorothiazide which are used as Prohiblted Substances in the class of Diuretics and Other Masking Agents. This is a first offense for the athlete. Since 2005, Ms. Cosby has been in USADA' s Registered testing program, which means she has long been familiar with doping control testing.
Facing a suspension for 2 years she asks for a hearing. The key provision at issue in this case is as follows: World Anti-Doping Code 2009 10.4 Elimination or Reduction of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances. The positive drug test is related to a water pil (HCTZ) she took, a day before her drug test. She took this medecine because she was unable to urinate. Her condition is labeled as acute renal failure and in her family there is a history of high bloodpressure. Also her history of depression is regarded.
The Panel, having reviewed all the cases cited by the parties and having considered the life of this young athlete and her hopes for a future is of opinion that she should be suspended for four months and that the time should run from the date of her voluntary suspension which is September 21, 2009.

On May 22, 2005 provided Mr. Harris an urine sample at the Adidas Track Classics in Carson, California. July 6, 2005, USADA notified Mr. Harris of positive A and B sample from the May 22, 2005 Adidas Track Classic.
August 29, 2005, Mr. Harris requested arbitration under USADA-protocol for Olympic Movement Testing. August 31, 2005, Mr. Harris submitted Standard Application Form for Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) to IAAF for the use of Dexedrine (Amphetamine) to treat Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).

Mr. Harris was first diagnosed with ADD in about 1992. He was initially treated for his ADD with Ritalin, and was later switched to Dexedrine. That in addition to ADD, he has been diagnosed with various learning disabilities.
On the first day at the University of Florida in the fall of 2000, where he was an member of the university track team, he was provided by the university’s athletic department with a number of forms to fill out so that he could continue to use Dexedrine before and during track competitions.
He believed, albeit mistakenly, that he had, in the fall of 2000, submitted all necessary paperwork to USADA and others to use Dexedrine (Amphetamine) before and during any track competitions, domestically or internationally. This fact was corroborated by the medical notes maintained and made available to the Panel by the University of Florida. One such note stated that “he does have proper authorizations for the track organizations for use of this medication based on his diagnosis. He declared the use op Dexedrine on his Doping Control Form on May 22, 2005, at the Adidas Track Classic. Even after testing positive for Amphetamine from his urine sample provided on May 22, 2005, he believed, albeit mistakenly, that he had the necessary paperwork on file with USADA for the use of Dexedrine in competition.
As a result of the provisional suspension that Mr. Harris accepted on August 30, 2005, he missed a number of track meets during the 2005 outdoor season, missed the entire 2006 indoor track season, and has already missed a number of track meets during the 2006 outdoor.

The North American Court of Arbitrage for Sports Panel finds that the written stipulations, documents and the testimony of Mr. Harris do support a finding of no significant fault of negligence. It appears that Mr. Harris does suffer from ADD. Mr. Harris was at all relevant times under the mistaken belief that he had submitted all necessary paperwork to use Dexedrine before and during any track competition, domestic and international. This mistaken belief was formed based on representations from the University of Florida.
Mr. Harris’ mistaken belief in this regard is supported by the fact that he openly declared the use of Dexedrine on his May 22, 2005 Doping Control Form.
The Panel agrees that given the unique circumstances presented in this case, and the evidence, Mr. Harris has satisfied that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, and, therefore, reduces the period of ineligibility from two years to one year.
The Panel further finds that the period of ineligibility should start on May 22, 2005, the date of the test. Respondent Mr. Harris did not abuse his defence rights or otherwise intentionally delay the proceeding in order to gain any competitive advantage, nor did he use Dexedrine with the intent of enhancing his performance. The Panel believes that for reasons of fairness, the period of ineligibility should commence on May 22, 2005, the date of the sample collection.
The parties propose that all competitive results achieved by Mr. Harris between May 22, 2005 and August 31, 2005 be disqualified. The Panel agrees with this proposal.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sports Panel renders the following decision:
- Mr. Harris’ period of ineligibility is for one year commencing on May 22, 2005, and concluding on May 21, 2006.
- All competitive results achieved by Mr. Harris between May 22, 2005, and August 31, 2005, shall be disqualified.

Respondent is a coach of track and field athletes responsible for training, coaching and guiding athletes in preparation for elite competition. Stewart claims he quit coaching all athletes but his wife in 2004. His training includes strength training, weight management, body stability, rehabilitation and nutrition training.

Respondent met Angel Memo Heredia, hereinafter identified as Memo, in 1997. Respondent was training himself and Beverly McDonald at that time while living in Dallas, Texas. The Heredia family owns and operates the Chopo laboratory in Mexico City, Mexico. Stewart maintained a relationship with Memo from 1997 to 2006. Memo is an admitted drug dealer. He has co-operated with the United States government in the criminal prosecution of Coach Trevor Graham.
Specifically Stewart is charged with violations of WADA Sections 2.7.: identifies a doping violation for trafficking in any prohibited substance or prohibited method and 2.8.: identifies a doping violation of administration or attempted administration of a prohibited substance or prohibited method to any athlete or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation or attempted violation. USADA seeks to prove that Respondent engaged in an ongoing practice of procuring performance enhanced drugs (PED’s) and using those drugs in a training program designed to enhance the performance of athletes under his guidance and supervision, including encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity in an anti-doping rule violation or attempted anti-doping rule violation. In the event of prevailing on the charges, USADA seeks the imposition of a lifetime period of ineligibility.

The recommendation of USADA that the arbitrator impose a lifetime period of ineligibility from coaching on Raymond Stewart is accepted and adopted.

Larry Wade is an elite-level athlete in the sport of track and field. He is a member of the USA Track & Field (USATF) and has been serving on USATF’s Athlete Advisory Committee since 2002. Since the fourth quarter of 2000 and prior to the subject test of this arbitration, Mr. Wade had had no positive laboratory test reported by the IAAF or to USADA.

On May 11, 2004, Mr. Wade submitted to out-of-competition drug testing at the request of IAAF. As required by the collection process, Mr. Wade informed the Doping Control officer that he was taking multi-vitamins and minerals at the time of the collection.

The WADA-accredited Barcelona Laboratory conducted an initial test of Mr. Wade’s A sample and detected the presence of the metabolite of an anabolic steroid.
On June2, 2004 the Barcelona Laboratory took three replicates from Mr. Wades A sample and conducted three separate analyses. All three analyses indicated the presence of the anabolic steroid metabolite 19-norandrosterone. The Barcelona Laboratory subsequently reported the A sample as positive to the IAAF.

After being notified of the positive result, Mr. Wade requested that the B sample be tested in the presence of his representative.
On July 29, 2004, in the presence of Mr. Wade’s representative, the Barcelona Laboratory took three replicates form the B sample and performed three separate analyses. The results confirmed the existence of 19-norandrosterone.

On May 30, 2005, WADA issued a “Clarification about Nandrolone Testing” and an accompanying “ Explanatory Technical Note” discussing the phenomenon of “unstable urine” in which, in rare cases and under special conditions, a chemical reaction occurs in a vial of urine. WADA also provided some additional information about this phenomenon prior to the hearing.

On June 2, 2005, The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel held a hearing in Los Angeles. WADA provided further information on urine instability in response to Mr. Wade’s document request.

The Panel finds that Mr. Wade failed to provide any evidence that would indicate that his positive test result should be discounted due to instability of his urine. Mr. Wade’s Supplemental Brief and attached expert affidavit failed to provide any support for the specific proposition that Mr. Wade’s urine was unstable.
In Summary, the Panel is of the opinion that (1) USADA has proved that the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone was found above the cutoff level in Mr. Wade’s urine sample to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel; and (2) Mr. Wade has failed to rebut the doping violation and to meet his burden to prove any defences.

For these reasons, the North American Arbitration for Sports Panel finds Mr. Wade guilty of a doping violation under the IAAF rules. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Mr. Wade should be declared ineligible for two (2) years with credit for suspension time already served from July 12, 2004 until the date of this Award. Mr. Wade should therefore be eligible for competition on July 12, 2006.
The Panel therefore rules as follows:
- Mr. Wade is guilty of a doping violation under IAAF rules, so that he should be declared ineligible for two years, less the period of suspension he has previously.
- Mr. Wade shall be ineligible for two years from July12, 2004, under the IAAF rules, including from participating in U.S. Olympic, Pan American or Paralympic Games; trials or qualifying events, being a member of any U.S. Olympic, Pan American or Paralympic Games team and having access to the training facilities of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) 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.

This case involves Respondent's first anti-doping violation. Respondent does not challenge the Positive Analytical Findings. He alleges that he ingested the Prohibited Substance by accident. Mr. Merritt had three positive tests on October 28, 2009, December 8, 2009 and January 16, 2010 for the same prohibited substance DHEA. Pregnenolone was also found in his samples. Those tests are treated as one violation under anti-doping rules. For reasons related to USADA's legitimate and reasonable investigation, he was not informed of his positive tests until March 22, 2010.
Respondent requests that the Panel rule on the issue of whether International Olympic Committee's ("IOC") Executive Board's unpublished Memorandum relating to IOC Rule 45 of the Olympic Charter ("The Unpublished Memo") conforms to the mandatory provisions of the Code. Under The Unpublished Memo, if this Panel imposes over a six-month period of ineligibility The Unpublished Memo precludes an athlete from competing in the next Olympic Games. The Unpublished Memo imposes this penalty even if the athlete's period of ineligibility has expired by the time of these Olympic Games.

Decision and award:
- Twenty-one month period of ineligibility commencing October 28, 2009 and ending on July 27, 2011.
- During his period of ineligibility Mr. Merritt is prohibited from participating in and having access to the training facilities of the United States Olympic Committee Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC.
-After his period of ineligibility has ended on July 27, 2011, Mr. Merritt is eligible to compete in the competitions of all Signatories to the Code including the USOC, IAAF and IOC, if the reason for his exclusion would be related to this anti-doping rule violation.

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

Deeja Youngquist, the Respondent, is an elite-level distance runner who provided an out-of-competition urine sample that tested positive for recombinant human erythropoetin (rhEPO)
Younquist provided the sample on March 16, 2004, and she was notified that het A sample was positive on April 12, six days after the Olympic Laboratory at UCLA provided the results to USADA. The B sample was tested on May 24. USADA received the B sample documents confirming the earlier test results on May 27, and thereafter requested additional materials from the laboratory, but did not send the athlete notice until June 28. Beginning on April 12, 2004, Youngquist had the opportunity to accept a provisional suspension. She did not do so until December 4, 2004.

Youngquist has been properly found to be in violation of Rule 32 of the IAAF Competition Rules. As been noted by panels confronting rhEPO in the past, the USOC laboratory tests applied here are scientifically valid, and this substance cannot be accidentally ingested through contaminated supplements or the like. For this violation, Youngquist is subject to the two-year sanction imposed by the IAAF Rules.

Decision and Award of the Arbitration Tribunal:
- Respondent, Deeja Youngquist, committed a doping violation.
- The minimum suspension for a first offender of two years is imposed, to take effect from December 4, 2004, and all competitive results from March 16, 2004 are cancelled.

This case presents as one of first impression in some respects, and arose out of a series of events which led to the discovery of a new, previously unknown, so called “designer” anabolic steroid agent (THG, tetrahydrogestrinone) which might be used by athletes in a variety of sports to enhance performance.

The accredited Testing Laboratory at UCLA conducted extensive validation tests on the newly developed confirmation test for THG. The Laboratory did extensive work to confirm its reliability, stability and repeatability in testing urine specimens for THG.

Finally, the confirmation tests on all three A specimens of the athlete Melissa Price took place in mid-September 2003, and the results reported to USADA on September 23, 2003. All three specimens showed the presence of THG. On November 8, 2003, a confirmation test was done on the athlete’s B specimen. The test confirmed the presence of THG.
Melissa Price had been tested four times prior to June 2003, all of which was reported as negative for prohibited substances.

USADA presented uncontradicted evidence through its expert witnesses, both (1) that THG is not and could not be an endogenous substance; and (2) that the kinds of test done merely to detect the presence of a substance, like THG, are sufficiently different from those which would be used to measure quantities, that no quantitative conclusions can, or should be reached from data resulting from a qualitative analysis.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sports Panel finds that USADA has met its burden to establish the presence of THG in the specimens provided by Melissa Price, and that she has committed a doping violation. The presence of THG in an athlete does not appear to be possible from any sort of mistake or error, such as by reason of ingesting a food supplement, as the product is not approved by the FDA and cannot be purchased for any lawful purpose. Use of such a powerful anabolic steroid could be for no other purpose than to enhance an athlete’s performance in violation of the spirit and absolute proscriptions of the IAAF doping rules. This is not a case of possible negligence and, indeed, the Athlete did not raise any such claim. Therefore, Melissa Price shall be ineligible to compete for a period of two (2) years from the day of the commencement of the hearing, to and including April 15, 2006.
In addition Melissa Price shall also be ineligible and shall not be entitled to any award or addition to her trust fund for which she qualified as a result of her performance at the Nationals, or thereafter.

USADA had sought imposition of a blanket four year period of ineligibility for all competition. The Panel was unable to find any guidance in the Rules of the IAAF, such as do exist in the rules of some other international sports federations, as to factors which should be considered in imposing a sanction should a doping violation be established. Hence the Panel was left to its own considerations, in light of the evidence submitted by the parties.

In this case involves respondent's first alleged anti-doping violation:
- assisted or incited others to use prohibited substances or prohibited technique thereby committing a doping offense in violation of the World Anti-Doping Agency Code or International Amateur Athletic Federation ("IAAF") rules and regulations
- traded, trafficked, distributed or sold prohibited substances in violation of the applicable WADA and IAAF rules and regulations
- engaged in covering up his rule violations during these proceedings thereby violating additional rules.

Respondent is related to BALCO/Victor Conte, evidence is provided. Respondent administered the drugs Modafinil and Repoxygen (EPO) to other Athletes. Modafinil especially to his wife Zhanna Block in out of competition periods.

Decision and award: respondent had committed a doping violation under each rules: Article 7.2 of IAAF rule 19 and violated IAAF Anti-Doping Rules 32.2(h), 56.3, and 56.4.
The sanction is a ten year period of ineligibility commencing January 1, 2009 and ending on January 1, 2019.
Respondent is prohibitted from participating in and having access to the training facilities of the USOC training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC.

This case against John McEwen arose out of a series of events which led to the discovery of an new anabolic steroid designed to be undetectable with the then state of testing. It was argued and alleged the newly designed anabolic steroid was intended to be used by athletes in a variety of sports to enhance performance.

The confirmation test on the athlete’s A sample, for THG, took place on September 16, 2003, and the positive THG results were reported to USADA, 2003. The A sample additionally showed the presence of Modafinil on September 24th and 25th, 2003, as reported to USADA on September 26, 2003. On October 21, 2003, a confirmation test was done on the athlete’s B specimen. That test confirmed the presence of Modafinil an THG.
John McEwen had been tested ten times prior to June 2003, all of which were reported as negative for prohibited substances.

USADA presented uncontradicted evidence, both (1) that THG is not and could not be an endogenous substance; and (2) that the kinds of test done merely to detect the presence of a substance, like THG, are sufficiently different from those which would be used to measure quantitative conclusions can, or should be reached from data resulting from a qualitative analysis

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel finds that USADA has met its burden to establish the presence of THG and Modafinil in the sample provided by John McEwen, and that he has committed an doping violation.
As noted THG is not endogenous to the human body. The use of THG by the athlete can be for no other purpose than to enhance his performance in violation of the spirit and absolute proscriptions of the IAAF doping rules. This is not a supplement contamination issue, nor a case of negligence, it is a willful act by the athlete.
Therefore John McEwen shall be ineligible to compete for a period of two (2) years from the date of the commencement of the hearing, to and include April 19, 2006.
In addition John McEwen shall also be ineligible and shall not be entitled to any award or addition to his trust fund for which he qualified as a result of his performance at the Nationals, or thereafter.