Members of the Panel have deliberated and, unanimously, reached the following conclusions:
1. The Gent and Cologne laboratories have violated ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2;
2. Claimant, USADA, has not demonstrated to the Panel's comfortable satisfaction that this violation did not cause Ms. Jenkins' adverse analytical finding;
3. The testing results of Respondent, LaTasha Jenkins, are set aside.

Claimant USADA and respondent Nathan Piasecki: a sample taken on January 10, 2007 for an out-of-competition doing test, was tested positive on DHEA.
Respondent claims to have used supplements contaminated with substances on the prohibited list. By tests of the Aegis Sciences Corporation (Aegis) the supplements tested positive for contamination with steroid or steroid precursors. Also the UCLA Laboratory, testified that the supplements contained an anabolic androgenic steroid and an aromatase inhibitor.
Decision: respondent shall be ineligible to compete for a period of two years beginning on February 8, 2007, due to his provisional suspension.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related case:

CAS 2008_A_1473 Joe Warren vs USADA
July 24, 2008

The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the wrestler Joe Warren after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis. This is the Athlete's second violation due to he was sanctioned for 3 months in 2006 for the presence of Cannabis.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel (AAA).

The Athlete admitted the use of marijuana and that he had committed a second anti-doping rule violation. He asserted that exceptional circumstances justify a finding of No Significant Fauly or Negligence based on the facts of his case and therefore the imposition of a reduced sanction.

Additionally, he argued that the application of the principle of
proportionality applies to this sanction justifying a reduction below that allowed by the FILA Regulations.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete makes a good case for exceptional circumstances regarding his one use of marijuana in May of 2007. However the panel must consider his overall conduct of continued use after his first positive in 2006, a lifestyle conducive to placing his career and his liberty in jeopardy.

The Arbitrator considers that the Athlete failed to seek competent mental and medical advice despite the obvious need for it. He also made a calculated decision to take the chance on a possible positive test with full knowledge of the consequences.

The Arbitrator deems that these considerations do not justify a reduced period of eligibility based on the principle of proportionality nor do they justify afinding of No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the AAA Tribunal decides on 14 January 2007 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspenson, i.e. on 23 July 2007.

On May 13, 2007, respondent was tested during the Weightlifting National Championships in Schaumberg. Illinois, his test was positive for THC metabolite. This was a second in-competition positive test, respondent tested positive on December 3 , 2006 at the American Open in Birmingham Alabama. Respondent accepted a three months period of ineligibility from competition with the three months deferred if he completed USADA's Online education program.
The rules when the period of ineligibility of the IWF are in conflict with the World Anti-Doping Code. Respondent accepted a provisional suspension. At a pre-hearing on April 28, 2008, respondent argues that a 2 years suspension is too long.
The hearing decision: the appropriate period of ineligibility is two years, starting from de date of provisional suspension.

Respondent was tested during competing in The Point Premium Root Beer International Cycling Classic, on July 26, 2007. The A sample as positive on September 20, 2006. The B sample was tested on October 3 and declared negative.
The Panel agrees with the Respondent's argument that proof of use without positive Lab results, i.e. a "non-analytical positive" such as we have here, is more difficult to prove. The Panel is acutely aware of the seriousness of the allegation which is being made and the
burden of proof which must be met. The Panel is comfortably satisfied that the totality of the evidence in this case clearly establish that Respondent has committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Findings and decision: Respondent shall be ineligible to compete for a perlod of two years, under the UCI ADR, beginning on the date of this decision, December 1, 2008. Mr. Leogrande shall be eligible to compete again on December 1, 2010. Results obtained during The Point Premium Root Beer International Cycling Classic and all subsequent results he obtained through the date of this decision. December 1, 2008, shall be disqualified, under the UCI ADR.

Related cases:
AAA No. 77 190 00288 08 JENF USADA vs Jessica Hardy - Interim Award
August 1, 2008
CAS 2009_A_1870 WADA vs Jessica Hardy & USADA
May 21, 2010
CAS 2011_O_2422 USOC vs IOC
October 4, 2011

In July 2008 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jessica Hardy after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibitied substance clenbuterol.

After an Interim Award of 1 August 2008 the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel (AAA) considered the Athlete's negligence with the use of contaminated supplements and decided in a Final Award on 30 May 2009 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Related cases:
AAA No. 77 190 00288 08 USADA vs Jessica Hardy
May 30, 2009
CAS 2009_A_1870 WADA vs Jessica Hardy & USADA
May 21, 2010
CAS 2011_O_2422 USOC vs IOC
October 4, 2011

In the matter of the Arbitration between claimant USADA and respondent Jessica Hardy, agree that testing of the supplements used by Respondent JESSICA HARDY in July 2008, has not yet been completed; and agree that the completion of the supplement testing is potentially relevant to issues in this case; limited evidence on the issue of whether respondent Jessica Hardy has violated La Fédération Internationale de Natation ("FINA") Doping Control Rules DC 2.1 and 2.2. for the presence of the substance clenbuterol in her sample.
The hearing has been bifurcated into two phases.The first phase of the arbitration hearing (hereinafter referred to as “PHASE ONE”) was limited to the issue of whether Respondent Jessica Hardy has violated FINA DC 2.1 and 2.2 for the presence of the substance clenbuterol in sample and the imposition of any presumptive period of ineligibility. The second phase of the arbitrational hearing (referred to as "PHASE TWO") will be limited to the issue of wether exceptional circumstances exist pursuant to FINA DC 10.5 that might reduce or eliminate the presumptive periode of ineligibility.

Claimant USAD vs respondent Emily Brunemann, this case involves Respondent's first anti-doping violation, which she admits. Respondent tested positive for a diuretic that is now designated as a Specified Substance under the 2009 Fédération Internationale de Natation ("FINA") rules. She tested positive during the period when the 2003 version of the WADA Code was in effect.The UCLA Laboratory determined the finding of the substance hydrochlorothiazide and triamterene.
This Panel must resolve several issues before an appropriate sanction can be imposed. Because respondent tested positive for a banned substance in August 2008 (when the 2003 WADA Code was in effect) and this hearing was held on January 9, 2009 (after the 2009 WADA Code became effective, the parties agree the doctrine of lex mitior is applicable to this case. What is in dispute is how lex mitior should be applied.

This case involves the first anti-doping violation for Joshua O'Neil ("Respondent").
He is a 24 year-old world class Judo athlete who placed second at the 2008 Olympic trials and won the USA Judo Senior National Championships in the 66K division in 2009. He has been in the United States Anti-Doping Agency ("USADA") Registered Testing Pool for several years and has been randomly tested on a number of occasions. He has never before tested positive or been found to have committed a doping offense.

Respondent gave a urine sample on April 18, 2009, as part of the USADA In-Competition testing program at the U.S. Senior Judo National Championships. Respondent's sample tested positive for ritalinic acid (Ritalin), a metabolite of methylphenidate, which is prohibited in the Class of Stimulants on the 2009 World Anti-Doping Agency ("WADA") Prohibited List (and is a Specified Substance). By stipulation, Respondent accepted the laboratory findings and agreed that the Positive Test constituted a first doping offense. The period of Ineligibility is a maximum of two (2) years. Respondent stated that he took a Ritalin tablet two (2)
days before the Championships to aid in studying for a firefighter's examination, and that he did not do so to enhance his athletic performance. He reserved the right in his stipulation, and thereafter argued, that the period of Ineligibility should be reduced under Article 10.4 (Elimination or Reduction of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances) of the World Anti-Doping Code ("WADC"), or under Article 10.5.2 (No Significant Fault or Negligence), that the concept of proportionality should apply, and that the period of Ineligibility should commence on the date of the sample collection (April 18, 2009) pursuant to Article 10.9.2.

The only disputed issues in this case are the period of Respondent's Ineligibility and the date upon which it begins. After full consideration of the briefs and the testimony in light of the required elements and the respective burdens of proof under Articles 10.4, 10.5.2 and 10.9.2 of the WADC (which has been adopted by the International Judo Federation (the "IJF"), the Arbitrator finds that the Respondent was significantly negligent in taking Ritalin approximately two (2) days prior to a major Championship and was unable to demonstrate to the comfortable satisfaction of the Arbitrator that such action was not intended to enhance his athletic performance.
The Respondent was, however, forthright about having made a serious mistake and took full responsibility for his actions. Moreover, he made a timely admission before competing again after being confronted with the anti-doping rule violation, and voluntarily accepted on June 10, 2009 a Provisional Suspension in writing from USADA. The Arbitrator recognizes the benefits of encouraging honest acceptance of responsibility on the part of athletes, and concomitantly, of reducing the time and expense associated with pursuing anti-doping rule violations. After due consideration, the Arbitrator hereby sets the period of Ineligibility at two (2) years, commencing on April 18, 2009.