Claimant USADA and respondent Kicker Vencill on January 21, 2003, as part of an out-of-competition drug test, provided a urine sample at the request of a USADA Doping Control Office. The UCLA accredited laboratory ("UCLA Lab"), which conducted the test, received the sample on January 22, 2003. In the specimen the precense of 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone was detected.
Respondent through his pleading pre-hearing brief, oral argument and testimony given at the evidentiary hearings contends that the doping charge should be dismissed.

Confirming its interim Award the panel decides as follows;
1 A doping violation occurred on the part of Respondent.
2 The minimum suspension of four (4) years to take place effective from January 21, 2003 is imposed.
3 There is no retroactive sanction imposed involving cancellation of all results achieved in competitions during the period prior to the date the suspension takes effect and extending back to six (6) months before the collection of the positive sample.
4 The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association and the compensation and expenses of the arbitrators shall be borne by USADA.
.

Hiram Cruz (“The Respondent”), is a top ranked member of the United States Judo Association. He is currently ranked number one in the 55g weight category, and has been ranked as low as number eleven in the 60k weight category.

On February 18,2003, as part of an out-of-competition drug test, Respondent provided a urine sample at the request of a USADA Doping Control Officer. The UCLA accredited laboratory (“UCLA Lab"), which conducted the test, received the sample on February 20, 2003. On February 21, 2003, the laboratory screening test performed from the “A”-sample of Respondent’s urine specimen indicated the presence of a prohibited substance.

The A confirmation testing was performed on February 28, 2003, and it revealed the presence of Hydroxy-androstenedione, a metabolite of the prohibited anabolic steroid, 4-androstene-6 α-ol-3,17-dione (=6αOH-androstenedione) (“Hydroxy-androstendione”), in each of three “aliquots” from the “A” sample from which the three separate analyses were performed. This finding was reported to USADA. The Respondent was notified of such finding by letter of March, 2003. That letter advised Respondent that if he chose not to accept the “A” sample test results he had the right to request and observe the “B” sample analysis. On March 25, 2003, the UCLA Lab tested the “B” sample. The three replicates from the B sample also were positive for
Hydroxy-androstenedione. The UCLA Lab reported that Respondent’s urine sample was positive..

By letter of April 22,2003, the USADA Anti-Doping Review Board
recommended inter alia the minimum two-year suspension from the date the positive sample was collected, February 18, and the retroactive cancellation of all competitive results which occurred on or after that date. Respondent advised USADA of his election to proceed to arbitration, which USADA formally initiated in its May 5, 2003 letter to AAA and International Judo Federation (IJF).

Respondent is likewise responsible for the presence of the prohibited substance in his body. Respondent failed to meet his burden of proof to establish a defence that may have allowed for reduction in sanctions. USADA produced evidence supported by able argumentation that Respondent had not met the burden of proving that a reduction in the suspension period is warranted. The case law clearly indicated that the proportionality doctrine has to date been applied in a sports specific and conduct specific manner taking into account the specific international federation rules and, in the case of United States athletes, the USADA Protocol.

The panel of North American Court of Arbitration for Sport decides as follows:
- A doping violation occurred on the part of Respondent.
- The minimum suspension for a first offender of two (2) years to take place effective from February 18, 2003 is imposed on Respondent pursuant to IJF 17.
- All competitive results which occurred on or after that date are cancelled.
- A two-year period of ineligibility beginning February 18, 2003, from access to the training facilities of the USOC Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC, including grants, awards or employment is imposed.

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

Damu Cherry, The Respondent, is an athlete in the sport of track and field (athletics. She has been in the USA Track and Field (USATF) out-of-competition (OOC) drug testing pool since the fourth quarter of 2001.

On February 18, 2003, as part of an out-of-competition drug test, Respondent provided a urine. The IOC accredited University of California at Los Angeles Olympic Analytical Laboratory (UCLA Lab) performed the testing on the A sample ant it revealed the presence of 19-norandrosterone. This finding was reported to USADA. The Respondent was notified of such findings and requested an analysis of the B sample. The USLA Lab tested the B sample and reported that Respondent’s urine sample was positive for 19-norandrosterone. Respondent declined to accept the two-year sanction recommended by USADA, but accepted a provisional suspension effective August 2, 2003. The evidentiary hearing took place on November 3, 4 and 5, 2003, in New York.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel is convince that Respondent’s positive test result was not due to endogenous production. Dr. Di Pasquale lacked the expertise and experience, in contrast to Drs. Catlin, Seifer, and Bulun, to support his endogenous production theory, which, in any event, was unsupported by credible, scientific evidence.
The Panel is convinced that the applicable threshold set by the IOC based on recommendation on the directors of the various IOC accredited labs is valid.
USADA produce evidence supported by able argumentation that Respondent had not met the burden of proving that a reduction in the suspension period is warranted.

The Panel decides as follows:
- A doping violation occurred on the part of Respondent
- The minimum suspension for a first offender of two (2) years to take place effective from November 24, 2003 is imposed on Respondent pursuant to IAAF Rule 60. The Respondent is credited with the time of her provisional suspension, effective August 2, 2003
- All competitive results which occurred on or after February 18, 2003, are cancelled.
- A two-year period of ineligibility beginning August 2, 2003, from access to the training facilities of the USOC Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC, including grants, awards, or employment, is imposed.

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

Claimant USAD and respondent Frankie Caruso. Respondent was tested in the Men’ s Championship Tournament in March 2003 and selected for drug testing, he disclosed that within the three days had taken two hydroxy-cut pill; a water pill and a Centrum pill.
Furosemide was found in his sample, this is a prohibited or banned substance under the AIBA rules. Respondent was guilty of an anti-doping rule violation.
Frankie Caruso shall be suspended from all sanctioned USA Boxing competition for a period of two years, commencing April 10, 2003. The results of his boxing competitions at the U.S. Men’ s Championship held in March, 2003 are declared invalid.

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

Award and Decision of the Arbitrators & Dissenting Opinion

Christopher L. Campbell, concurring in part and dissenting in part
October 16, 2003

The Respondent, Amber Neben, is a 28 old professional cyclist and a member of the T-Mobile Women’s Cycling Team, a trade team owned by USA Cycling and sanctioned by the international federation for the sport of cycling, Union Cycliste International (UCI).
The Respondent is subject to testing by USADA and UCI.
Respondent has been tested a number of times and all results have been negative. She tested negative in a test nine days before her positive test and had two negative tests three and four days after her positive test.

On May 31, 2003, during the Coupe du Monde Montreal, Respondent provided a urine sample at the request of UCI. On June 4, 2003, the laboratory screening test performed from the A sample indicated the presence of an anabolic steroid. The A confirmation test was performed on June 30, 2003, and it revealed the presence of 19-norandrosterone. On July 14, 2003, the laboratory tested the B sample positive for 19-norandrosterone.

Respondent accepted a provisional suspension commencing on July 13.2003. The evidentiary hearing took place on October 1 and 2, 2003, in Denver, Colorado. An expedited preliminary decision was requested. The Interim Award and Decision was issued October 6, 2003.

The Respondent presented a impressive list of witnesses. The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has an outstanding reputation in the cycling community and is respected by both team members and officials of USA Cycling.
The Panel is, however, disturbed by the testimony from the USA Cycling witnesses and officials. It is obvious that the organization has acted in complete disregard of its athletes, in particular, those below the elite level. There appears to be little to no attempt at communicating the dangers of contaminated supplements to the thousands of USA Cycling athletes. In fact, the testimony indicated that many officials believe that the use of supplements is “necessary” in order to succeed at the elite level. The fact that USA Cycling encouraged the use of supplements, including Hammer Nutrition products, underscored the tot disregard for the warnings USADA and IOC have issued for years. To the Panel, it is inconceivable that such a highly regarded organization could disregard its obligation to its athletes.
Regardless of the inaction or neglect of the cycling community, the athlete must make the final determination as to his/her intake. If these athletes read any of their USADA materials and Respondent apparently did not read it carefully, the message is quite clear that there are numerous risks associated with ingesting these supplements, including the extreme danger to the athlete’s health. While Respondent seemed to acknowledge these risks, her desire to compete apparently overroad those concerns.
The Panel also determines that UCI bears some responsibility in this case. Rather than undertake a thorough investigation of the issues involved in the case, UCI issued its opinions and recommendations. It appears that no effort was made to undertake an examination of USA Cycling’s role in this situation.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides as follows:
- A doping violation occurred on the part of Respondent. The Panel finds that this was not an intentional doping violation.
- The minimum suspension from all competition for a first offender of two (2) years to take place effective from July 13, 2003 is imposed on Respondent pursuant to UCI Regulations.
- Respondent is prohibited from participating in any capacity whatsoever in any events sponsored by UCI, USOC, or USA Cycling during the 6-mondth period of time from July 13, 2003.
- Prior to the end of the 6-month period, Respondent will meet with her fellow T-Mobile team members and the athletic staff of USA Cycling and discuss with them the USADA and IOC warning on the possible contamination of dietary supplements, including vitamins and minerals. In addition, Respondent will meet at least once with the other licensed elite cyclists of USA Cycling, along with the athletic staff of USA Cycling, to also discuss with them the above USADA and IOC information. She will confirm in writing to USADA that she has completed these conditions of her probation.
- During the term of her full probation, Respondent will submit to urine drug testing at her expense on a monthly basis by an IOC accredited laboratory. If Respondent tests positive during any of this time, her probation will be revoked, any and all competition results will be cancelled in compliance with UCI Regulations, and she will serve the remainder of the two-year suspension, commencing from the time of another positive test result.
- A fine of CFH 700 is assessed against Respondent.
- All competitive results which occurred on or after May 31, 2003, are cancelled.

Christipher L. Campbell, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

Research proved that 18% of vitamin supplements contain substances, not listed on their labels, which are prohibited by the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code.
This Panel is now being asked to severely penalize Ms. Neben, who is the likely victim of a contaminated supplement, under a theory of preserving a level playing field for athletes. As arbitrators, it is not our place to debate the rationality of such a rule. However, it is our duty to apply the law to the facts of Ms. Neben's case:
- Limits of the Strict Liability Rule
- Ms. Neben did not inted to place a prohibited substance in het body
- Strict Liability Rule does not apply to sanctions regarding future competitions
- Ms. Neben was not negligent in taking vitamin supplements for her sport of road racing
- Negligence test

The Respondent, Amber Neben is a professional cyclist and a member of the T-Mobile Women’s Cycling Team, a trade team owned by USA Cycling and sanctioned by the international federation for the sport of cycling, Union Cycliste International (UCI).
The Respondent is subject to testing by USADA and UCI. On May 31, 2003, during the Coupe du Monde Montreal, Respondent provided a urine sample at the request of UCI. On June 4, 2003, the laboratory screening test performed from the A sample indicated the presence of an anabolic steroid. The A confirmation test was performed on June 30, 2003, and it revealed the presence of 19-norandrosterone. On July 14, 2003, the laboratory tested the B sample positive for 19-norandrosterone.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides as follows:
- A doping violation occurred on the part of Respondent. The Panel finds that this was not an intentional case of a doping violation.
- The minimum suspension from all competition for a first offender of two (2) years to take place effective from July 13, 2003 is imposed on Respondent pursuant to UCI Regulations.
- Respondent is prohibited from participating in any capacity whatsoever in any events sponsored by UCI during the 6-month period of time from July 13, 2003.
- Prior to the end of the 6-month period, Respondent will meet with her fellow T-Mobile team members and the athletic staff of USA Cycling and discuss with them the USADA and IOC warning on the possible contamination of dietary supplements, including vitamins and minerals. In addition, Respondent will meet at least once with the other licensed elite cyclists of USA Cycling, along with the athletic staff of USA Cycling, to also discuss with them the above USADA and IOC information. She will confirm in writing to USADA that she has completed these conditions of her probation.
- During the term of her full probation, Respondent will submit to urine drug testing at her expense on a monthly basis by an IOC accredited laboratory. If Respondent tests positive during any of this time, her probation will be revoked, any and all competition results will be cancelled in compliance with UCI Regulations, and she will serve the remainder of the two-year suspension, commencing from the time of another positive test result.
- All competitive results which occurred on or after May 31, 2003, are cancelled.

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.

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.

Calvin Harrison, the Respondent, gave a urine sample on June 21, 2003 following his participation in the U.S. Jr. and Sr. Outdoor National Track & Field Championships on that date. The existence of the substance “modafinil”, a prescription drug, was found in the Respondent’s bodily fluids in the urine sample.

Respondent denies that, when taken by him, modafinil was prohibited, and thus he did not commit a doping offense.
In 1993 Respondent provided an in-competition urine sample which tested positive for pseudoephedrine, ad drug then, but not currently, on IAAF’s prohibited substance list, for which he received a hearing resulting in the imposition, at that time, of the prescribed sanction. Since a finding that Respondent committed a doping offense would constitute a second offense under IAAF rules, USADA requests that the Panel impose a sanction that would include a minimum two-year period of ineligibility from July 26, 2004, the date of the evidentiary hearing and disqualification of Respondent’s result and award from the June, 2003 U.S. National Championships trough July 26, 2004.

The mere presence of a prohibited substance constitutes an offense. USADA is not required to prove any intent on the part of Respondent to take a prohibited substance, nor does Respondent allege a lack of such intent. The Panel find that Respondent, who admittedly took modafinil without a prescription, ingested a stimulant of the type specifically prohibited or pharmacologically related thereto
Since USADA met its burden of proving that Respondent ingested of prohibited substance, the Panel conclude that Respondent has committed a doping offense within the meaning of the applicable IAAF-rules.

Sanction:
- The North American Court of Arbitration for Sports Panel finds that Respondent committed a second offense.
- The Panel note that despite Respondent’s counsel’s undertaking that Calvin Harrison would be present at the hearing as a fact witness, to testify on his behalf and be examined by counsel and the Panel, he did not appear. In response to the Panel’ s inquiry, Respondent’s counsel affirmed that Respondent had been fully apprised of his rights to appear and express any “exceptional circumstances” for consideration by the Panel, but that he chose not to do so.
- Respondent’s counsel stipulated at the hearing that Respondent does not allege that there are any “exceptional circumstances” that might be considered by the Panel or IAAF in reducing the sanction prescribed under the IAAF Doping Control Rules.
- Accordingly Respondent is suspended for the minimum two-year period to commence from July 26, 2004, the date of the evidentiary hearing, to and including July 25, 2006. In addition Respondent is and shall be ineligible to receive any award or addition to his trust fund which would have resulted from his appearances or performances from June 21, 2003 through July 26, 2004.
The administrative fees and expenses of the AAA, the compensation of the aibitrators
and the costs of the hearing transcript shall be borne entirely by Claimant.

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.