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.

Michelle Collins is a world-class sprinter. In 2000, she principally competed in the 400 meters, but in 2002, she began to compete more in 200-meter races. On March 15, 2003, she won the world indoor championship in that event. After that race, Collins was injured, and she did not reace again in 2003. In 2004, she ran the 200 meters twiece in May, but she has otherwise not competed.

In this case USADA seeks for the first time to sanction an athlete who has not tested positive in any of her in-competition or out-of-competition drug tests. Thus on the one hand, the case involves issues that have not previously had to be decided by Arbitral Tribunals. On the other hand, the straightforward application of legal principles to essentially undisputed facts leads to a clear resolution of this matter.

USADA seeks a lifetime ban of Michelle Collins for participating in a wide-ranging doping conspiracy implemented by the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO). USADA charges that, for a period of several years, Collins used various performance-enhancing drugs provided by BALCO. Collins has never had a single drug test found to be a positive doping violation, but USADA’s charges are based, in part, on all of the blood and urine tests at IOC-accredited laboratories that she has had in recent years. USADA also relies upon documents seized by the U.S. government from BALCO that have been provided to USADA; statements made by BALCO officials; documents obtained by other law enforcement means; and other documents about Michelle Collins.

For the reasons described in this Award, The Arbitral Tribunal holds that USADA has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Collins was guilty of doping through the use of prohibited substances and techniques for more that a year. This conclusion is bases principally on two sets of documents: emails from Collins in which she admits to using some of the prohibited substances and techniques, and undisputed blood and urine test results that together provide solid evidence of a pattern op doping.

The Arbitral Tribunal finds that USADA has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Collins took EPO, the testosterone / epitestosterone cream, and THG, and that Collins used these substances to enhance her performance and elude the drug testing that was available at the time. The Tribunal further finds that Collins’s use op EPO, testosterone and epitestosterone, and THG were violations of the IAAF’s prohibitions of banned substances and banned techniques, as set forth in IAAF rules.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel therefore rules that the following sanctions shall be imposed on Collins:
- The retroactive cancellation of all award or additions to Collins’s trust fund to which Collins would have been entitled by virtue of het appearance and/of performance at any athletics meeting occurring between February 1, 2002 and the date of this Award;
- A period of ineligibility under IAAF Rules for eight years beginning on the date of this Award, including from participating in 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.

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

Respondent, Torri Edwards, is an elite sprinter who was the gold medalist in the 100 meter event at the 2003 World Championships. She qualified for the 2004 United States Olympic Team in the 100 and 200 meter events.

On July19, 2004, the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel conducted a hearing pertaining to Respondent's positive doping test which occurred at the April 24, 2004 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) competition in Martinique known as the Meeting du Conseil Général.
At the hearing before the Panel, Respondent admitted that she had committed a doping offens through the ingestion of the prohibited stimulant nikethamide, but contended that exceptional circumstances existed which should result in the reduction of elimination of any period of ineligibility to be imposed in connection therewith. At the hearing, Respondent was given the opportunity to make a complete record regarding her claim of exceptional circumstances. She submitted document and testified about the circumstances surrounding her ingestion of nikethamide and submitted to cross examinations.
After the hearing the evidence and the arguments of counsel presented at the hearing the Panel concluded "that exceptional circumstances may here exist" and that " referral to the IAAF pursuant of Rule 38.16 is the proper course of action"

Acting upon the referral, the Doping Review Board of the IAAF issued a determination dated August 3, 2004. In this determination the IAAF Doping Review Board noted that it had reviewed the interim award, certain relevant correspondence, the exhibits presented at het hearing before the Panel and the transcript of the hearing before the Panel. That determination notes that Claimant and Respondent were given the opportunity to submit to the Doping Review Board evidence not presented during the hearing before the Panel.

The IAAF Doping Review Board summarized its conclusion on the question of the existence of “exceptional circumstances’ as follows: “The Doping Review Board does not consider the circumstances of this case to constitute Exceptional Circumstances as required by IAAF Rule 38.12. By reason of the factors, the Doping Review Board considers that Ms. Edwards is unable to establish that this anti-doping violation took place without significant fault of negligence on her part. On the contrary, in the Board’s view, the athlete was at significant fault and, in consequence of this, there are no Exceptional Circumstances in this case.

The presumptive sanction for Respondent’s doping offense is a minimum two year period of ineligibility to run from the date of the hearing pursuant to IAAF Rule 40.19a0, and disallowance of results obtained between the date of her positive drug test and the date on which her period of ineligibility begins, as set forth in IAAF Rule 39.4.
USADA had not sought a sanction of longer than the minimum two year period of ineligibility mandated by IAAF Rule 40.1(a), and the Panel has been presented with no evidence reflecting that a lengthier period of ineligibility is warranted.

Accordingly, pursuant to IAAF Rule 40.1(a)(i), the Panel hereby imposes a two year period of ineligibility upon Respondent to expire on July 17, 2006, and , in accordance with IAAF Rule 39.1 and 39.4, orders disqualification of all results obtained by Respondent at the April 24, 2004 competition in Martinique and all of Respondent’s subsequent competitive results through the date of this decision, including the forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money received as a result of competitions or appearances occurring during this period.

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, Torri Edwards, is an elite athlete who has repeatedly been through doping control, with no positive results during her five year professional career. She exercised caution by not using the previously opened container offered by het trainer for fear of contamination, and the did take from his a locally purchased scaled glucose packet which was in a rare (and, at least on the individual packet, unmarked) combination with the prohibited substance shown in het subsequent test.
Respondent states that she had no reason to suspect, in spite of the highly charged environment of contaminated supplements and doping violations in the elite athlete community, that sealed packages of glucose would ever be combine with other substances, as it is always packaged alone (except, she had now learned to her detriment, in France and Vietnam.

The Panel find that exceptional circumstances may here exist. The Panel further determine, based in part of the lack of precedent under these newly promulgated rules as to what may constitute "no fault of negligence" under Rule 40.2 and "no significant fault or no significant negligence" under Rule 40.3, that referral to the IAAF pursuant to Rule 38.16 is the proper course of action. Accordingly, we adjourn these proceedings as set forth in subpart (o) thereof, and await the decision of the IAAF.

The Respondent concedes that she failed in her "personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his body tissues of fluids. Athletes are warned that they shall be held responsible for any prohibited substance found to be present in their bodies (IAAF Rule 38.12(i). Respondent accepts responsibility and stipulated that there was a doping violation. Therefore, the only issue submitted to the panel is whether to impose the requisite sanction, or to find that there may be exception circumstances under Rule 38,12(iii).

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

Related cases:

• CAS 2005_A_831 IAAF vs Eddy Hellebuyck
  May 5, 2006
• AAA No. 77 190 168 JENF USADA vs Eddy Hellebuyck
  January 30, 2012

Mr. Eddy Hellebuyck ("Respondent") is an elite-level distance runner in the sport of track and field. He is 43 years old and has won over 20 marathons in his career. He is a 1996 Olympian and a member of % World Championship teams for both his native Belgium and the USA.
He currently holds the American Masters records for the 10KM 15K and the half marathon. He has been drug tested often and has never tested positive until now. He is adamant that he has never taken EPO or any other banned substance.

On January 31, 204, Respondent provided a urine sample as part of the USADA Out-of-Competition testing program. The World Anti-Doping Agency ("WADA") accredited laboratory at het University of California at Los Angeles ("UCLA Laboratory") found Respondent's urine sample positive for recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO), a prohibited substance under the International Association of Athletics Federations ("IAAF") Anti-Doping Rules.
As provided for in the USADA Protocol for Olympic Movement Testing, USADA enforces the rules of the IAAF, which is the international federation for the sport of track and field.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides as follows:
- A doping violation occurred on the part of Respondent Eddy Hellebuyck.
- The minimum suspension for a first offender of two (2) years is imposed on Respondent to take effect from January 31, 2004.

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 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.

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.

Claimant USADA and respondent Faruk Sahin. Respondent's urine sample tested positive on the stimulant phentermine.
The substance was related to a pill he used from his wife in order to release back pains.
FILA Anti-Doping Regulations applying to this matter: The presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Wrestler's bodily Specimen; Imposition of Ineligibility for Prohibited Substances and Prohibited
Methods; Elimination or reduction of Period of Ineligibility based on Exceptional Circumstances.
Decision and Award: the two-year suspension which began on May 18, 2004 when respondent accepted a provisional suspension, is affirmed.

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.

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