Mr. Justin Gatlin is a 19-year-old college student who attends the University of Tennessee on a track scholarship. Mr. Gatlin has a medical condition known as attention deficit disorder ("ADD"). He was first diagnosted with this condition when he was nine years old and he has been taking prescribed medication for this condition ever since.

On June 16 and 17, 2001, Mr. Gatlin was drug tested by USADA at het USA Track and Field ("USATF") Junior National Championships. His urine samples were declared positive by the IOC-accredited laboratory at the University of California at Los Angeles ("UCLA Laboratory") for the stimulant amphetamine. Amphetamine is a substance prohibited during competition under the International Association of Athletics Federation "(IAAF") rules, which were applicable tot the USATF competition. USADA notified Mr. Gatlin of his positive "A" sample on July 12, 2001. The UCLA Laboratory reported Mr. Gatlin's "B" sample positive on July 23, 2001.
Mr. Gatlin does not contest the integrity of the sample collection process, the transport, or laboratory chain of custody, of his samples. Mr. Gatlin further does not contest any aspect of the laboratory analysis, including the findings of amphetamine in his samples.

Mr. Gatlin stopped taking his medication several days before his first in-competition test. At the time Mr. Gatlin was enrolled in summer school.
Mr. Gatlin took his prescription medicine to study for mid-terms. He did not want to have the medication in his system at the time of the competition because it makes him feel ' sluggish' and unable to run as well. Mr. Gatlin did not take his medication for three days prior to the competiton. He did not feel the effects of his medicine and believed that it had cleared his system. He was nevertheless unaware that there was still the possibility that dectectable amounts of the medicine could exist in his urine.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel determines that Mr. Gatlin has served a period of suspension prior to this Panel's declaration of ineligibility in accordance with IAAF Rule 60(2)(a) and should have credit against his two-year suspension for the period from July 12, 2001, the date Mr. Gatlin was notified of his positive"A" sample result and subsequently informed USATF that he was withdrawing from competition, until the date of this Panel's decision. Thus, Mr. Gatlin's two-years suspension will commence on the date of this Order, May 1, 2002, and conclude on July 11, 2003. Consistent with IAAF rules, Mr. Gatlin shall forfeit all competitive results which he achieved at the 2001 USATF Junior National Championships.

The Panel is very concerned that Mr. Gatlin's reputation not be unneccessarily tarnished as a result of this decision. Anti-doping rules are like other sporting rules in that sometimes there are adverse consequences even when an athlete is not at fault. The Panel specifically notes that, in this case, Mr. Gatlin neither cheated nor did he intend to cheat. He did not intend to enhance his performance nor, given his medical condition, did his medication in fact enhance his performance. At most, his mistake was in not raising his medical condition for a review with the appropriate authorities before the race, instead of after it. The Panel requires that hist fact be made clear in any public release describing or relating to this decision.

Related case:

• AAA 2007 No. 30 190 000548 07 USADA vs Barney Reed
  May 21, 2008
• CAS 2008_A_1577 USADA vs Barney Reed
  December 15, 2008

Mr. Reed's sample tested positive for 19-norandrosterone (|Nandrolone). The award is two year suspension firom July 6, 2001, the date of the test, and cancellation of all sanctioned results and prizes firom that date.

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

The Appellant reached the semi-finals at the United States Men's National Boxing Championship, which was held at Colorado Springs on the 16th March 2001. He qualified for the final, and subsequently won the silver medal. After the semi-fïnal, the Appellant was required to submit to a drug test pursuant to USADA's Regulations. He provided a urine sample, and completed the appropriate USADA Doping Control Official Record. He declared on that form that, during the previous 3 days, he had taken multivitamins, chelate minerals, "alphalpha" , creatine, essential fatty acids and a green tea pill. The sample was divided, as usual into "A" and "B" samples. Both samples were transported to the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory in Los Angeles, California. They were received by the Laboratory on the 18 March 2001, and were there properly stored and labelled. The Appellant accepts that both the collection of the sample and the chain of custody were properly completed. The "A" sample was batch-screened, and it was determined that there was a possibility that it contained nandrolone metabolites. Accordingly, confirmation procedures were undertaken. These were completed on the 29th March 2001, when it was determined that the "A" sample contained a concentration of 19-norandrosterone greater than 2 ng/ml and 19-noretiocholanolone, both of which are nandrolone metabolites. USADA was notified of the result of the test of the "A" sample, and duly passed on that notification to the Appellant, who was given the option to have the " B " sample tested at the same laboratory. The Appellant elected to have that test carried out.
On the 1st May 2001 the UCLA Laboratory issued its report on the " B " sample. It concluded that the " B " sample contained 19-norandrosterone at a concentration greater than 2 ng/ml and 19-noretiocholanolone. On about the 4th May 2001, the
Appellant was notified of the positive result of the " B " sample. He was also notified that USADA was referring the matter to its Anti-Doping Review Board.

A doping offence is committed. A provided hairtest from the respondent is considered not to be valid. His suspension will reduced from 2 years to 18 months, and has to advice his football team about the dangers of taking supplements.

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.

Claiment USADA and respondent Pavel Jovanovic, in the samples of the respondent traces of 19-norandrosterone where found. The Arbitrators conclude that Respondent should be suspended from any competition for nine months from January 26,2002, the date of the expedited decision.

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.

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.

USADA claiment and repondent Kyoko Ina. Respondent failed No Advance Notice(NAN) test attempt on March 18, 2002, June 3, 2002, July 16, 2002. Also she refused a test on July 18, 2002. Hereby she committed a violation under section 5.2 (b) of the International Skating Union Anti-Doping Code. USADA proposed a 4 years suspension, this was rejected and arbritration followed.
USADA will not impose additional sanctions.
Respondent claims procedural infirmities, her privacy was invaded by testing late in the evening, the severe sanction doesn't comply.
However a violation has been made, the penalty will be a 4 years suspension.

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.

The Respondent, Adham Sbeih, is an elite-level athlete in the sport of cycling. In 2003, he became the United States National Champion in the 4-kilometer pursuit track event. On August 26, 2003, Respondent provided an urine sample at the USA Cycling Elite Track Nationals in Trexeltown, Pa. at the request of USADA. The A and B sample were tested positive for r-EPO.
Respondent contended at the hearing that there was an improper interpretation of the electropherogram related to his sample and that therefore there was not sufficient evidence of a doping offense for r-EPO, if he is found to have committed a doping offense, the penalty should be reduced from two years to 11 months.
Decision and award:
- The Panel finds that there is insufficient evidence from either side as to any theory on how the r-EPO got into Sbeih’s body.
- The minimum suspension for a first offender of two (2) years to take place effective from August 26, 2003, is imposed on Respondent pursuant to UCI Regulations, Art. 130.
- All competitive results that occurred on or after August 26, 2003, 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.