The Respondent, Mark Hainline ("Hainline"), is an athlete in the sport of archery.
On April 16,2005, Hainline participated in the Arizona Cup and placed third.

As of August 13,2004, the USADA protocol implemented the mandatory provisions from the World Anti-Doping Code (the "WADA Code") into the USADA Protocol, "Which include the WADA definitions of anti-doping rule violations, burden, of proof prohibited list and sanctions.

The parties entered into Stipulations of Uncontested Facts and Issues on August 11, 2005. In addition to the agreement regarding the applicability of the USADA Protocol and the WADA Code, the parties agreed that:
- Hainline did not stipulate that he agreed to the application of or had knowledge of the provisions of the USADA Protocol or WADA Code at the time.
- Hainline refused to be tested when requested by USADA. ("Test Refusal")
- Hainline did not contest that his Test Refusal is a first doping offense.
- The period of ineligibility will be a maximum of two (2) years beginning on the date of the decision with credit being given for the time Hainline served a provisional suspension beginning on April 27, 2005, to a minimum of one (1) year.
- Hainline was disqualified from the Arizona Cup and forfeits any and all competitive results received subsequent to the Arizona Cup and this hearing.
- Hainline will testify that he used a prohibited substance immediately prior to competing at the Arizona Cup on April 16, 2005, and that he subsequently refused to allow the testing.

The Panel decides as follows:
- A doping violation occurred on the part of the Respondent.
- The minimum suspension for a first offender of two (2) years, to take place effective from April 16,2005, is imposed on the Respondent pursuant to WADA Code Article 10.2.
- The Respondent will receive credit for the provisional suspension that he began serving on April 27, 2005.
- The Respondent had already been disqualified from the Arizona Cup and had forfeited, any and all competitive results received subsequent to the Arizona Cup.
- During the same two-year period of ineligibility, the Respondent shall not have access to the training facilities of the USOC Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC, including grants, awards or employment.

George Hartman (“The Respondent”) is a member of the United States Judo Association (“USA Judo”). In 2005, Respondent was ranked number two in the United States under the 100kg weight category. Respondent has been in the USADA’s Out-of-Competition testing pool since November of 2004.

Respondent tested positive for testosterone in a March 2,2005 Out-of-Competition drug test. He admits being administered testosterone, but argues that his testosterone treatment was medically necessary as a result of his disability. Respondent requested that his two-year period of ineligibility be reduced under the Exceptional Circumstances provision of the World Anti Doping Code ("Code") Article 10.5. In addition, Respondent requested protection under the Americans with Disability Act ("ADA").
The Panel finds that Respondent failed to sustain his burden of proof that he suffers from a disability. As a consequence, the Panel imposes a two-year period of ineligibility, along with other sanctions as required by the Code.

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 subject to out-of-competition ("OOC") testing in 2004. As a result of several events, a Missed Test-Unavailable was declared. Because of a missed test in an eighteen month period Claimant charges Respondent with an anti-doping rule violation. Respondent failed his tests because had largely given up trying to race competitively.

Discussion and findings: Therefore, this panel imposes a two-year period of ineligibility commencing on the day of the hearing, August 22, 2006. WADA Code, Art. 10.8. This panel also disqualifies any and all of Mr. Mortenson's competitive results achieved on and subsequent to October 22, 2005, the day of his last violation. WADA Code, Art. 10.7.

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

Dissenting Opinion Christiopher L. Campbell

The Respondent, Floyd Landis is an elite cyclist with many cycling
accomplishments during his career. In 2006, he was first overall in the Tour of Georgia, as well as Paris Nice, and Tour of California. The Athlete holds a US license and in signing the license the Athlete agrees that the sole jurisdiction for resolving any dispute that arises shall be in the courts of domicile of the UCI. The UCI Cycling Regulations provide that adjudication of matters shall be handled by the national federation of the athlete involved.

On 25 July 2006, the Laboratoire National de Dépistage du Dopage (LNDD) reported to the UCI that there had been an adverse analytical finding with respect to the Respondent’s “A” sample, consistent with the use of Testosterone or one of its precursors. On 5 August 2006, the LNDD subsequently reported to the UCI that there had been a confirmation AAF on the Athlete’s “B” sample. The results of this second test were also consistent with the use of Testosterone or one of its precursors.

1. From the beginning, the Laboratoire National de Dépistage et du Dopage (“LNDD”) has not been trustworthy. In this case, at every stage of testing it failed to comply with the procedures and methods for testing required by the International Standards for Laboratories, Version 4.0, August 2004 (“ISL”) under the World Anti-Doping Code, 2003 (“WADA Code”). It also failed to abide by its legal and ethical obligations under the WADA Code. On the facts of this case, the LNDD should not be entrusted with Mr. Landis’ career.
2. Mr. Landis is only required to prove the facts he alleges in this case by a mere balance of the probabilities. In many instances, Mr. Landis sustained his burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The documents supplied by LNDD are so filled with errors that they do not support an Adverse Analytical Finding. Mr. Landis should be found innocent.

LEGAL ANALYSIS
- Safeguarding The Interests Of The Athletes
- LNDD Submitted Improper Evidence of a Doping Violation
- WADA’S “Code of Ethics” for Laboratory Directors has been Interpreted and Enforced as an Unnecessary Obstacle to the Search for Truth
- LNDD Failed to Follow ISL Procedure testing for three ions in the T/E Ratio test
- LNDD Did Not Have A Proper Chain of Custody for the Samples of Mr. Landis
- LNDD’s Failure to Properly Record Forensic Corrections Makes the
Documents Unreliable
- Additional Potentially Fraudulent Documents
- LNDD Did Not Abide by its Legal and Ethical Obligation of Confidentiality
- The LNDD Failed to Provide Complete Documentation of the Adverse Analytical Findings for the Additional Tests done on the B Samples from Stages 11,15,19 and 20
- The Document Package Supplied in Support of an Adverse Analytical Finding Does Not Comport with Known Science
- Even Using LNDD’s Questionable Numbers Landis’ Sample Would have been Reported Negative by a Reputable Laboratory

CONCLUSION
As this case demonstrates, even when an athlete proves there are serious errors in a laboratory’s document package that refute an Adverse Analytical Finding, it will be extremely difficult for an athlete to prevail in these types of proceedings. Therefore, it is imperative that WADA Accredited Laboratories abide by the highest scientific standards.
These doping adjudications can cause substantial harm to a human being financially, physically and emotionally. It can destroy families. If, from time to time, WADA's mission obligates it to inflict such harm, it should be obligated to get it right- all of it. As athletes have strict liability rules, the laboratories should be held strictly liable for their failure to abide by the rules and sound scientific practice.

Because everyone assumes an athlete who is alleged to have tested positive is guilty, it is not fashionable to argue that laboratories should comply with strict rules. However, if you are going to hold athletes strictly liable with virtually no possibility of overcoming a reported alleged positive test even in the face of substantial and numerous laboratory errors, fairness and human decency dictates that strict rules be applied to laboratories as s well. To do otherwise does not "safeguard the interest of athletes."

WADA should be writing rules that mandate the highest scientific standards rather than writing rules for a race to the bottom of scientific reliability so convictions can be easily obtained, as this case demonstrates. Given the plethora of laboratory errors in this case, there was certainly no reliable scientific evidence introduced to find that Mr. Landis committed a doping offence.

The Respondent, Floyd Landis is an elite cyclist with many cycling
accomplishments during his career. In 2006, he was first overall in the Tour of Georgia, as well as Paris Nice, and Tour of California. The Athlete holds a US license and in signing the license the Athlete agrees that the sole jurisdiction for resolving any dispute that arises shall be in the courts of domicile of the UCI.
The UCI Cycling Regulations provide that adjudication of matters shall be handled by the national federation of the athlete involved.

On 25 July 2006, the Laboratoire National de Dépistage du Dopage (LNDD) reported to the UCI that there had been an adverse analytical finding with respect to the Respondent’s “A” sample, consistent with the use of Testosterone or one of its precursors. On 5 August 2006, the LNDD subsequently reported to the UCI that there had been a confirmation AAF on the Athlete’s “B” sample. The results of this second test were also consistent with the use of Testosterone or one of its precursors.

There are in effect two allegations in the Lab report which are mirrored in the charge by USADA. The first allegation is that the Athlete had exogenous testosterone in his sample, a Prohibited Substance as provided for in UCI Regulations in Article 15.6.3. This allegation is based upon the GC/C/IRMS analysis of the Lab. The second allegation is that the T/E ratio has been violated as provided for in UCI Regulations in Article 15.1.3. This allegation is based upon the GC/MS analysis by the Lab.

On 19 September 2006 USADA issued the charging letter (portions of which were quoted above) in which it seeks an order of this Panel that a first doping violation has occurred pursuant to the USADA Protocol, the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, and the United States Olympic Committee (the “USOC”) Anti-Doping Policies. It seeks the following sanctions by way of orders from this Panel:
- A two (2) year period of ineligibility as described by the WADA Code, beginning on the day you accept this sanction, fail to contest this sanction, or the date of the hearing decision in this matter; and
- Disqualification of all competitive results obtained on or subsequent to July 20, 2006 the date your sample was collected, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes; and,
- Ineligibility for a period of two (2) years beginning on the day you accept this sanction, fail to contest this sanction or the date of the hearing decision in this matter, from participating or coaching in U.S. Olympic, Pan American Games or Paralympics Games Trials, being a member of any U.S. Olympic, Pan American Games or Paralympics Team and having access to the training facilities of the USOC including, but not limited to benefits, grants, awards or employment.

In response to some of the above motions, the Panel issued a total of 3 Interlocutory Awards.
The first Interlocutory Award was issued by way of majority decision on 17 March 2007. Dissenting in part and concurring in part was Arbitrator Chris Campbell. Mr. Campbell’s dissent was also issued on 17 March 2007. This initial Award was in response to the Respondent’s October 23, 2006 and January 22, 2007 request for documents. USADA provided written explanations regarding the Respondent’s request on 7 February 2007 and the Respondent filed a Response Brief on 13 February 2007. The Response Brief also raised a new issue regarding depositions. Oral arguments on these issues were heard at the Discovery Hearings on 22 & 23 February. In conclusion the first Interlocutory Award dealt with two issues. The Testing of Additional Samples and the Respondent’s Request for Deposition.
In its ruling the majority of the Panel agreed USADA could perform additional tests on the remaining “B” samples, but held that they could not result in an adverse analytical finding. The majority also ordered that any additional testing of the Respondent’s Samples be carried out by USADA and that the Athlete have the same rights of attendance and participation as were extended to him at the time of confirmation analysis of the “B” sample. The majority rejected the Respondent’s request for depositions.

The second Interlocutory Award was issued by the Panel on 8 May 2007 with reasons to follow. This award was made by way of majority decision, dissenting was Arbitrator Chris Campbell.
The third and final Interlocutory Award was also issued on 8 May 2007, with reasons to follow. The purpose of this award was to deal with the Respondent’s Motion for Continuance and Motion concerning the Second Request for Production of Documents. The motion concerning the second request was in furtherance to the materials provided by the parties prior to the discovery hearings of 22 and 23 February 2007 and the oral submissions of the parties
during the discovery hearing.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel, after having carefully read, reviewed and considered all of the evidence and arguments presented by the Claimant the United States Anti- Doping Agency on the one hand, and the evidence and arguments of the Respondent, Floyd Landis, on the other hand including, but not limited to, the pre-trial briefs and arguments, the pre-trial motions and related arguments and rulings, the testimony of the witnesses, with exhibits, the opening and closing statements of counsel introduced during the arbitration hearing held from May 14-23, 2007 and the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by both parties on the 28 June 2007, hereby makes the following rulings and awards in the case of USADA v. Landis:

1. The charge of an elevated T/E ratio from the sample was not
established in accordance with the WADA International Standard for Laboratories and is hereby dismissed.
2. The charge of exogenous testosterone being found in the
sample by the Carbon Isotope Ratio analysis is established in
accordance with the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations.
3. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation is found to have been
established under Article 15.1. This is the Athlete’s first violation.
4. Pursuant to UCI Article 261 a period of two years’ ineligibility
is imposed by this award.
5. The violation of the UCI Rules having occurred as a result of
an In-Competition test will result under UCI Articles 256 and
257.2 in the automatic disqualification of the Athlete’s results
in the 2006 Tour de France and forfeiture of any medals, points or prizes.
6. Under UCI Rules 257.2 and 275 the normal period of Ineligibility would commence with the date of this decision, but the Rule also provides that where any period during which provisional measures were imposed or voluntarily accepted by the athlete shall be credited against the total period of Ineligibility to be served. Furthermore, where required by fairness, the hearing body imposing the sanction may start the period of Ineligibility at an earlier date commencing as early as the date of the anti-doping violation. In this case the Athlete filed a declaration of voluntary non competition as of 30 January 2007. Therefore, the period of Ineligibility will begin on that date and continue until 29 January 2009.
7. The submission that the Athlete voluntarily accepted a suspension at an earlier date the 5th of August 2006 being the day on which he was fired by his cycling team is rejected.

Related cases:

• AAA 2001 No. 30 190 00701 01 USADA vs Barney Reed
  April 22, 2002
• CAS 2008_A_1577 USADA vs Barney Reed
  December 15, 2008

Claimant USADA and respondent Barney Reed.
This case involves respondents second anti-doping violation, a positve test for the prohibited substances, metabolites of Cannabinoids as a result of a legitimate medical condition. In his first anti-doping violation, he tested positive for an anabolic steroid in 2001, obtained from an over the counter product purchased at a vitamin supplement store.
By the rules of the Anti-Doping Code he faces a period of ineligibility of 2 years.
Through his pleadings, pre-hearing brief, oral argument, testimony given on March 31, 2008 at the evidentiary hearing and post-hearing brief, the respondent argued that the penalty sought by USADA should be reduced substantially. Repondent suffers from insomnia, stress and anxiety. He was treated by a physisian, who ultimately prescribed medical marijuana for Mr. Reed’s treatment, which is legal in the State of California. He didn't apply for the Therapeutic Use Exemption because he didn't knew the process. Marijuana is not a prohibited substance if taken out of competition, also it is not a substance which enhances sport performance.
The Panel considered the fact that the penalty for a firs time offense for marijuana could include as little as a warning. Having found that the respondent was not significantly negligent, the Panel reduces his
two year period of ineligibility to 15 months.

The Respondent, Justin Gatlin, is a member of the USA Track & Field, Inc. (“USATF”).He is the 2005 World and USA Outdoor 100m and 200m champion; 2004 Olympic 100m gold, 200m bronze, 4x100m relay silver medalist.

The Panel notes at the outset that this case appears to be unique, and its circumstances are unlikely ever to be repeated. It has proved particularly nettlesome, involving as it does an earlier AAA Panel Decision, made in 2001 under a prior set of IAAF code provisions. That earlier 2001 AAA Panel rendered what appears to be an interim, non-final decision pending disposition of a petition for reinstatement by the IAAF. When the IAAF reinstated Mr. Gatlin in 2002, the 2001 AAA Panel did not resume its deliberations, nor render a final decision, nor in any way, modify its initial decision, finding a doping violation and imposing a 2 year suspension on Mr. Gatlin for what the Panel found, and evidently the IAAF found was a completely inadvertent, unintentional violation which would have been avoided through the simple step of seeking permission for the use of a therapeutic, prescription medication. Nevertheless, the 2001 AAA Panel found a doping violation, Mr. Gatlin, and all of his witnesses consistently testified that they considered and understood that finding to constitute a first doping violation. At no time did Mr. Gatlin claim it was not a violation, nor did he present any evidence that it was not a finding of a first doping violation.
Nevertheless, the Panel found itself constrained by its obligations to consider the implications on the present case, of the findings or lack of findings in that 2001 decision.
Turning to the present case, the Panel finds that the evidence presented supports a finding that Mr. Gatlin committed a doping violation in 2006, namely the use of exogenous testosterone, which was detected in his system on or about April 22, 2006. The Panel further finds that Mr. Gatlin failed to sustain his burden of proof to show how the Prohibited Substance entered his body, in order to rely upon a claim of no fault, or no significant fault in connection with the 2006 doping violation.
The doping violation which was established by the proofs herein, was Mr. Gatlin’s second doping violation, the first having occurred in 2001 while Mr. Gatlin was a student at the University of Tennessee2. Since that finding meant that the present matter constitutes a second violation and additional potential penalties be considered, the Panel considered arguments of Mr. Gatlin that the first violation should not be counted and USADA’s to the contrary.
Despite the arguments of Mr. Gatlin, detailed more fully hereinbelow, there is no evidence before the Panel which would sustain the argument that the first doping violation should not be considered and that the current doping violation was, therefore, effectively a first violation.
Mr. Gatlin’s period of ineligibility will be four (4) years from May 26, 2006 ( thirty (30) days following the date on which his urine sample was taken). He is disqualified from and forfeits any and all competitive results, if any, received on or subsequent to April 22, 2006 through the end of his period of ineligibility.
While the Panel has held that it has no basis upon which to ignore the first finding of a doping violation, for the reasons discussed below, we adjure the International Amateur Athletic Federation (“IAAF”) to determine whether, in the exercise of its discretion, if its decision reinstating Mr. Gatlin in 2002 and eliminating any further ban from competition should be held to have been based on or the equivalent of a finding that he had no contributing fault in connection with his first doping violation. Similarly, Mr. Gatlin may choose to present evidence that the anti-doping authorities in 2001 affirmatively represented to Mr. Gatlin that cessation of use three days prior to competition would be sufficient compliance with the rules, and therefore the first panel, which has never relinquished jurisdiction over that offense would have found “no fault..” If either be the case, then it ought not be counted for purposes of the present award, and the Panel will retain jurisdiction over the award set out herein below to adjust that award should a decision of the IAAF, or subsequently discovered facts or events so warrant.

As will be more fully discussed below, the Panel notes that no AAA or CAS Panel has ruled that proceedings by Anti-Doping Organizations are subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act or comparable Swiss laws that prohibit discrimination against the disabled. Given the abject failure of Mr. Gatlin to support his mere generalized statement about those laws, this Panel likewise does not have to rule on that issue as it was not properly presented to it. We do note that the task of this Panel is made more difficult by the complexity caused by those statutes, which have not been explored in detail before this Panel. The Dissent presents detailed argument and citation as to why those statutes should be considered and thereby either invalidate the 2001 AAA Panel decision, or prohibit its consideration. Had Mr. Gatlin presented such arguments, or indeed virtually any arguments, they would have been considered by the Panel but the Panel makes no conclusions as to the outcome had he done so.

On the basis of the foregoing facts and legal aspects, this Panel renders the following decision:
- Respondent has committed a doping violation under the WADA Code, Article 10.2, by reason of the use of exogenous testosterone in 2006.
- The 2006 doping violation was Respondent’s second doping offense.
- There was no finding of the nature, level or existence of “fault” as to the first doping violation, either by the 2001 AAA Panel in 2001, which referred the matter for a final determination to the IAAF, nor by IAAF in 2002 when it decided that such “exceptional circumstances” existed so as to justify the immediate reinstatement of Mr. Gatlin.
- It therefore falls to this Panel to construe the language of and the record in that prior doping offense decision, to determine if it qualifies as the equivalent of a “no fault” determination such as to justify not counting it as a first offense, solely for purposes of the award for a second offense.
- The lack of requested evidence, finding by the 2001 AAA Panel of a doping violation, the nature of the standard applied in 2001, and the actions of the IAAF clearly suggest at a minimum, a finding of “no significant fault” in 2001. However, there is no evidence from which this Panel may determine that a finding of “no fault” under the current WADA standard was made or could be inferred.
- Therefore, the totality of circumstances causes the Panel to conclude that the 2001 decision of the AAA Panel and the 2002 decision of the IAAF cannot be construed, on the record before this Panel, as constituting a “no fault” level of responsibility on the part of the Respondent under Code section 10.5.1.
- The following sanctions shall be imposed on Respondent:
A four-year period of ineligibility commencing on May 25, 2006 through May 24, 2010, including his ineligibility from participating in U.S. Olympic, Pan American or Paralympics Games, trials or qualifying events, being a member of any U.S. Olympic, Pan America or Paralympics Games team and having access to the training facilities of the United States Olympic Committee 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 retroactive cancellation of all competitions results and awards occurring after April 22, 2006 through 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.

Christopher L. Campbell, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur with the majority decision in finding that Mr. Gatlin should be sanctioned for his second violation. I dissent from the majority decision to increase Mr. Gatlin’s sanction on the basis of his first violation. The procedural and substantive status of the first violation makes it improper for the Panel to impose an increased sanction because there was no finding of fault by the arbitration panel or the IAAF Council. Moreover, given the facts, Mr. Gatlin was not at fault for his first violation.

The first violation was caused by the medication Mr. Gatlin was taking for his disability, Attention Deficit Disorder (“ADD”). Increasing Mr. Gatlin’s sanction for his first violation because of his disability is blatant discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
By imposing sanctions on athletes like Mr. Gatlin who take medication for their legitimate disability, the Anti-Doping Organizations are willfully violating the law behaving as if they are above the law. In these circumstances, they are nothing more than bullies preying on the vulnerable. The federal government should take a serious look at this practice.

It is deeply disturbing how the majority has played fast and loose with the facts and the law in justifying discriminating against Mr. Gatlin. To find fault and fail to provide a reasonable accommodation for the first violation of an athlete testing positive because of a legitimately disability is an affront to the federal law and human rights. Such discrimination is incompatible with the public policy of the United States and Switzerland.

Respondent, Ms. LaTasha Jenkins (“Ms. Jenkins”) or “Respondent”, is an elite-level athlete in the sport of track and field. Ms. Jenkins has participated in USA Track an Field’s (“USATF”) Out-of-Competition testing pool since 2000. Prior to this period, Ms. Jenkins participated in the International Association of Athletic Federations (“IAAF”) drug testing program. With the sole exception of the test in issue, Ms. Jenkins has not previously tested positive for a prohibited substance.

On 22 July 2006, while competing in the KBC Night Hechtel Meet in Heusen, Belgium, The IAAF required Ms. Jenkins to submit to a drug test. On the same day, Ms. Jenkins participated and placed first in the women’s 100 meter event. Later that evening, Ms. Jenkins provided a urine sample at the doping control station at the venue, dividing the sample into two Berlinger collection bottles (“A” sample and “B” sample) each identified by control number 689699.
On the Doping Control Form, Ms. Jenkins declared that she had taken Voltaren, a prescription pain medication, Tylenol, and multi-vitamins over the course of the seven day period prior to administration of the test. The amount of urine collected and its pH at the time of collection were also measured and recorded on the Form.

The sample was then shipped on 25 July 2006 to the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”)-accredited laboratory in Ghent, Belgium (“Ghent Laboratory”)
On 31 July 2006, the Ghent Laboratory conducted an initial laboratory screen from Ms. Jenkins’s “A” sample using Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (“GC/MS”) and detected the presence of the anabolic steroid metabolite Norandrosterone.
On 2 August 2006, the Ghent Laboratory took three aliquots from the “A” sample bottle and performed three separate analyses of the urine, all of which revealed the presence of Norandrosterone at an average concentration of 7.80 mg/ml.
The Ghent Laboratory subsequently reported the “A” sample as positive to the IAAF.
On 4 August 2006, at the request of the IAAF, Ms Jenkins’s sample was sent to the WADA-accredited laboratory in Köln, Germany (“Cologne Laboratory”) for analysis by Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry (“IRMS”).
On 8 August 2006, the Cologne Laboratory reported the “A” sample as positive for Nandrolone.

Following notification that the “A” sample had tested positive for the presence of Norandrosterone in excess of the allowable threshold, Ms. Jenkins requested that the “B” sample be tested. Ms. Jenkins did not attend or request the attendance of a representative during the B sample test.
On 21 September 2006, the Ghent Laboratory took three aliquots from the “B” sample bottle and performed three separate analyses of the urine. Ms. Jenkins’s “B” sample tested positive for Norandrosterone at a level of 12.30 ng/ml. The Ghent Laboratory again reported its finding to the IAAF.
On 22 September 2006, USATF wrote to USADA requesting that the agency handle the positive testing result under the USADA Protocol.
Following notification of the “B” sample results, Ms. Jenkins agreed to serve a provisional suspension beginning on 23 October 2006.

USADA subsequently requested that IRMS analysis also be performed on Ms. Jenkins’s “B” sample. On 20 December 2006, the Cologne Laboratory reported that the “B” sample confirmed the finding of Nandrolone in Ms. Jenkins’s specimen.
On 16 January 2007, USADA informed Ms. Jenkins in writing that the result of the “B” sample IRMS analysis conducted by the Cologne Laboratory also confirmed the presence of Norandrosterone in her specimen.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel is of the view that:
- USADA has proven that the prohibited substance 19-Norandrosterone was found above the threshold level in urine specimen 689699 provided by the Respondent on 22 July 2006;
- The Respondent has successfully demonstrate that ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2 was violated by both the Ghent and Cologne laboratories;
- The Respondent has not demonstrated that ISL 5.2.5.1.1 was violated;
- And USADA has failed to prove to the Panel’s comfortable satisfaction that the failure by both laboratories to observe ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2. did not undermine the validity of the testing result.
In view of the Panel’s finding that USADA has failed to demonstrate that the violation of ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2 by both laboratories did not undermine the validity of the test results, the results must be set aside.

In closing, the Panel wishes to add two comments. Firstly, doping in sport is a scourge which must be eradicated. It is a strict liability offence and, just as the athletes who are subject to the anti-doping regime are expected to follow is rules and standard to the letter, so they are entitled by the anti-doping authorities themselves, including the WADA accredited laboratories that play such a vital role in the regime. Following the rules applicable to all stakeholders is the best method of ensuring the integrity of sport.
Finally, the Panel wishes to emphasize certain aspects of the findings which compel its award in this case. The Panel has found that two WADA-accredited laboratories detected prohibited levels of 19-Norandrostrone in the Respondent’s sample provide on 22 July 2006. The Panel has also determined that those test results must be set aside because of a violation of the ISL and because USADA was unable to prove that this violation did nor undermine the validity of the test results in question. However, the Panel has not found that the violation of the ISL caused the Respondent’s test result; nor has it determined whether the Respondent did or did not use a prohibited substance such as to account for the test result at issue.

The Panel therefore finds and awards as follows:
- The Ghent and Cologne Laboratories violated ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2 in the conduct of their analysis of Ms. Jenkins’s sample;
- The Ghent and Cologne Laboratories did not violate ISL 5.2.5.1.1 in the conduct of their analysis of Ms Jenkins’s sample;
- Claimant, USADA, has not demonstrated to the Panel’s comfortable satisfaction that the violation of ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2 did not cause the AAF arising from the analysis of the Respondent’s, Ms. Jenkins’s, sample by the Ghent and Cologne Laboratories;
- The testing results of Respondent are set aside.

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