This case involves Respondent's first anti-doping violation. Respondent does not challenge the Positive Analytical Findings. He alleges that he ingested the Prohibited Substance by accident. Mr. Merritt had three positive tests on October 28, 2009, December 8, 2009 and January 16, 2010 for the same prohibited substance DHEA. Pregnenolone was also found in his samples. Those tests are treated as one violation under anti-doping rules. For reasons related to USADA's legitimate and reasonable investigation, he was not informed of his positive tests until March 22, 2010.
Respondent requests that the Panel rule on the issue of whether International Olympic Committee's ("IOC") Executive Board's unpublished Memorandum relating to IOC Rule 45 of the Olympic Charter ("The Unpublished Memo") conforms to the mandatory provisions of the Code. Under The Unpublished Memo, if this Panel imposes over a six-month period of ineligibility The Unpublished Memo precludes an athlete from competing in the next Olympic Games. The Unpublished Memo imposes this penalty even if the athlete's period of ineligibility has expired by the time of these Olympic Games.

Decision and award:
- Twenty-one month period of ineligibility commencing October 28, 2009 and ending on July 27, 2011.
- During his period of ineligibility Mr. Merritt is prohibited from participating in and having access to the training facilities of the United States Olympic Committee Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC.
-After his period of ineligibility has ended on July 27, 2011, Mr. Merritt is eligible to compete in the competitions of all Signatories to the Code including the USOC, IAAF and IOC, if the reason for his exclusion would be related to this anti-doping rule violation.

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

Respondent is a coach of track and field athletes responsible for training, coaching and guiding athletes in preparation for elite competition. Stewart claims he quit coaching all athletes but his wife in 2004. His training includes strength training, weight management, body stability, rehabilitation and nutrition training.

Respondent met Angel Memo Heredia, hereinafter identified as Memo, in 1997. Respondent was training himself and Beverly McDonald at that time while living in Dallas, Texas. The Heredia family owns and operates the Chopo laboratory in Mexico City, Mexico. Stewart maintained a relationship with Memo from 1997 to 2006. Memo is an admitted drug dealer. He has co-operated with the United States government in the criminal prosecution of Coach Trevor Graham.
Specifically Stewart is charged with violations of WADA Sections 2.7.: identifies a doping violation for trafficking in any prohibited substance or prohibited method and 2.8.: identifies a doping violation of administration or attempted administration of a prohibited substance or prohibited method to any athlete or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation or attempted violation. USADA seeks to prove that Respondent engaged in an ongoing practice of procuring performance enhanced drugs (PED’s) and using those drugs in a training program designed to enhance the performance of athletes under his guidance and supervision, including encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity in an anti-doping rule violation or attempted anti-doping rule violation. In the event of prevailing on the charges, USADA seeks the imposition of a lifetime period of ineligibility.

The recommendation of USADA that the arbitrator impose a lifetime period of ineligibility from coaching on Raymond Stewart is accepted and adopted.

Related cases:

• AAA No. 30 190 00686 04 USADA vs Eddy Hellebuyck
  December 9, 2004
• CAS 2005_A_831 IAAF vs Eddy Hellebuyck
  May 5, 2006

The Respondent, Hellebuyck, was a member of USA Track & Field, Inc. ("USATF")' for the time period in question in this case.
Respondent was an elite-level distance runner in the sport of track and field. He has won over 20 marathons in his career. He was a 1996 Olympian and a member of 5 World Championship teams- combined for both his native Belgium and his adopted home of the United States. He has also been a Masters level runner for a number of years.

On January 31, 2004, Hellebuyck provided a urine sample as part of USADA's out of competition drug testing program. The WADA accredited laboratory at the University of California Los Angeles found Hellebuyck's sample positive for recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO).

Based on admissions by Respondent, Eddy Hellebuyck, that he took EPO on multiple occasions prior to January 31, 2004, the starting date for his doping sanction previously imposed by prior AAA and CAS panels, Claimant, United States Anti-Doping Agency ("USADA" or "Claimant") seeks to extend back in time the period of Hellebuyck's in eligibility to disqualify his prior results and cause forfeiture of any medals and prize money Hellebuyck may have obtained during that extended period.

In what the Panel believes is a case of first impression, the Panel determines that Hellebuyck’s perjury in a proceeding before the anti-doping tribunal established by the USOC, WADA and lAAF precludes Hellebuyck from arguing for any protection under lAAF or WADA Rules regarding limiting the time USADA has to pursue charges against him. Athletes" in AAA and CAS tribunals cannot be forced to testify against themselves, they can choose not to testify.
However, if they choose to testify before an AAA or CAS tribunal, they have a legal duty to testify truthfully. Hellebuyck breached that duty when he testified that he never used EPO in his 2004 hearing before the AAA and 2005 hearing before CAS. But for his perjury, Hellebuyck's records would have been expunged from 2001 through 2004. Hellebuyck cannot now come before this tribunal and in essence use his perjury as a means to avoid the consequences that should have been imposed in 2004. As a result, Respondent's sanction for his first anti-doping offense shall be modified to invalidate his competitive results from October 1, 2001 through January 30, 2004.

On the basis of the foregoing facts and legal aspects, the Panel renders the following decision:

• Respondent has committed a doping violation under Article 2.1 of the 2009 version of the WADA Code.
• The following sanction shall be imposed on Respondent: Respondent's sanction for his first anti-doping offense shall be extended and modified to invalidate his competitive results from October 1, 2001 through January 30, 2004.

Claimant USADA and respondent Luis Arias.
USADA announced today that an independent American Arbitration Association (AAA) arbitrator has issued a decision finding that Luis Arias, of Oak Creek, Wis., a U.S. athlete in the sport of boxing, has committed an anti-doping rule violation and has received a one-year suspension for the offense.

Arias is a member of the USADA National Testing Pool, which consists of a select group of athletes subject to certain whereabouts requirements in order to be located for USADA Out-of-Competition testing. Arias failed to comply with the whereabouts requirements and, as a result, accrued three Whereabouts Failures within an 18-month period. Under the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing and the International Boxing Association (AIBA) Anti-Doping Rules, both of which have adopted the World Anti-Doping Code (“Code”), the combination of three Whereabouts Failures within an 18-month period constitutes a rule violation. A Whereabouts Failure for National Testing Pool athletes includes failure to provide required quarterly whereabouts filings and/or failure to be available for testing due to inaccurate or incomplete information provided by the athlete.

A hearing was held on February 23, 2012. Arias’ one-year period of ineligibility, began on February 24, 2012 the date the arbitrator issued the decision. As a result of the violation, Arias has been disqualified from all competitive results achieved on and subsequent to January 1, 2012, the date of his third Whereabouts Failure, including forfeiture of any medals, points, and prizes.

Luis Arias (Respondent) is a member of the USADA National Testing Pool, which consists of a select group of athletes subject to certain whereabouts requirements in order to be located for USADA Out-of-Competition testing. Respondent failed to comply with the whereabouts requirements and, as a result, accrued three Whereabouts Failures within an 18-month period.

Under the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing and the International Boxing Association (AIBA) Anti-Doping Rules, both of which have adopted the World Anti-Doping Code (“Code”), the combination of three Whereabouts Failures within an 18-month period constitutes a rule violation.

A Whereabouts Failure for National Testing Pool athletes includes failure to provide required quarterly whereabouts filings and/or failure to be available for testing due to inaccurate or incomplete information provided by the athlete.

In this Final Award the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel denies Respondent’s claims about whereabouts filing failures and concludes he acted negligently.

Conclusion and sanction:

1.) USADA sought a 1 year period of ineligibility for Respondent’s whereabouts violation, a first anti-doping rules’ violation on his part.

2.) The Interim Final Award is hereby confirmed and Respondent is hereby sanctioned for a 1 year period of ineligibility commencing as of February 24, 2012, the date of the Interim Final Award and ending at midnight on February 23, 2013.

3.) Consequently, all competitive results, medals, points and prizes obtained by Respondent on or subsequent to January 1, 2012, his third whereabouts failure, are hereby cancelled with retroactive effect.

4.) The Administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association and the compensation and expenses of the Arbitrator shall be borne by USADA.

5.) The parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.

6.) This Final Award is in full settlement of all claims asserted in this arbitration. All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby, denied.

Respondent, Mark Jelks, is a 28-year-old elite track & field athlete registered with USA Track & Field ("USATF") and the International Association of Athletics Federation ("IAAF"). He has been in the Registered Testing Pool ("RTP") for international athletes since
2005.

Mark Jelks received an anti-doping rule violation for three whereabouts failures within an eighteen (18) month period.
Mr. Jelks did not respond to USADA's written Communications
conceming his rule violation. Accordingly, on August 30, 2010, USADA announced that Mr. Jelks had been suspended for a period of two years commencing on August 23, 2010.

Subsequent to the deadline for appealing his anti-doping rule violation and after more than one half of his period of ineligibility had been served, Mr. Jelks contacted USADA requesting a
reduction in his period of ineligibility and providing an explanation of exigent circumstances that, if timely raised, might have led USADA to seek less than two years ineligibility for Mr. Jelks' rule violation.

On the basis of the facts and legal considerations, the Arbitrator renders the following decision:
- Mr. Jelks' appeal of his two (2) year period of ineligibility commencing August 23, 2010 is hereby denied.
- The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs associated with this arbitration.
- The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association, and the compensation and expenses of the Arbitrator, shall be borne entirely by USADA and the United States Olympic Committee.
- This Decision is in full settlement of claims and counterclaims submitted by the parties to this Arbitration.

Mr Kevin Moats (58) is an age group athlete, in the 55 year old to 59 year old category, who participated in the sport of Ironman triathlon. The Athlete used regularly medically prescribed Testosterone under medical supervision to treat andropause and hypothyroidism since 2005.

In April 2012 the World Triathlon Corporation (WTC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the substance Testosterone without a valid TUE. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the AAA Panel for WTC Doping Disputes.

WTC contended that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation whereas he failed to apply for a TUE in advance for such use.

The Athlete admitted the violation and explained that he had a valid medical condition and used the prescribed Testosterone 7 days before the out-of-competition test. He had not mentioned the prescribed Testosterone on the Doping Control Form as it only requested disclosure of substances used within the 3 days prior to sample collection.

The Athlete argued that the WTC's own rules did not require for athletes like him to obtain a TUE based on the chart on the WTC's TUE website saying that no TUE in advance was required for Age Group athletes. He acknowledged that he did not consult the WTC ADR nor contacted WTC, USA Triathlon, or USADA to ascertain whether he had to apply for a TUE.

The Panel finds that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and acted with at least some degree of fault and negligence in failing to obtain a TUE. The Panel regards the Athlete's testimony both credible and persuasive and considers that he had admitted the violation and demonstrated with medical evidence how the substance entered his system.

The Panel establishes that there was substantial evidence of possibly contradictory, or at best ambiguous, instruction by the WTC on whether a TUE was required in advance of an event for an age group athlete who had received no anti-doping education under a relatively new anti-doping regime applicable to WTC event.

The Panel concludes that there are grounds for no significant fault or negligence because the Athlete reasonably interpreted the website to indicate that WTC rules did not require him to obtain a TUE for WTC events.

Therefore the AAA Panel for WTC Doping Disputes decides on 10 October 2012 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 30 January 2012.

AAA No. 77190 00225 12 USADA vs Johan Bruyneel
AAA No. 77190 00226 12 USADA vs Pedro Celaya
AAA No. 77190 00227 12 USADA vs José Martí Martí

Related cases:
CAS 2013_A_3285 Johan Bruyneel vs USADA
May 13, 2014
Swiss Federal Court 4A_222_2015 Johan Bruyneel vs USADA & WADA
January 28, 2016
CAS 2014_A_3598 Johan Bruyneel & Jose Martí vs USADA | WADA vs Johan Bruyneel, Pedro Celaya Lezama, Jose Martí Martí & USADA - Partial Award
October 24, 2018

- Mr. Bruyneel served as a team director for the U.S. Postal Service team between 1999 and 2004 and the Discovery Channel team between 2005 and 2007.
- Dr. Celaya served a team physician for the U.S. Postal Service team in 1997, 1998, and 2004 and the Discovery Channel team between 2005 and 2007.
- Mr. José Martí served as a team trainer for the U.S. Postal Service team between 1999 and 2004 and the Discovery Channel team between 2005 and 2007.

On June 2012 USADA informed Respondents, Mr. Lance Armstrong and others that a formal action was opened based on evidence that each party had engaged in anti-doping violations under the UCI Rules from 1998 to 2012, the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) from inception to 2012 and the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing from inception to 2012.

All three Respondents are charged of possession, trafficking, administration and to have assisted, encouraged, and facilitated the use of prohibited doping agents to the professional cyclists on these U.S.-based teams. The banned doping agents and methods alleged to have been administered in this case: erythropoietin, hGH, blood transfusions, cortisone, testosterone and/or saline, plasma or glycerol infusions.

After given notice by USADA, the Respondents filed several objections and evidence in their defence and were heard for the Panel of the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport (NACAS).
The Panel was asked by USADA here to consider applying equitable doctrines to extend the applicable statute of limitations period beyond the express period set forth in Article 17 of the WADC.
The Panel allowed USADA to present all of its evidence, including acts undertaken before the limitations period. The Panel did not consider that evidence in making this Award, even for corroborating the evidence of acts within the limitations period.

Against the Respondents, USADA submitted in this case several affidavits and sworn testimonies of cyclists and riders for the U.S Postal Service and Discovery Channel teams:
- Michael Barry
- Tom Danielson
- Tyler Hamilton
- George Hincapie
- Floyd Landis
- Levi Leipheimer
- Christian Vande Velde
- David Zabriskie

The Panel of the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport (NACAS) concludes that USADA had presented sufficient evidence of acts in violation of the UCI ADR taken within the limitations period to support the charges against each Respondent. On the basis of the facts, legal analysis, and conclusions of fact, this Panel renders the following decision:

(A) USADA has sustained its burden of proof as to all Respondents. As a result, Respondents have each committed their first doping violations under Article 2.1 of the 2009 version of the WADA Code, with the presence of aggravating circumstances. Therefore, the Panel imposes a period of ineligibility for each Respondent as follows:

(1) Mr. Johann Bruyneel: 10 years, starting from June 12, 2012 and continuing through and including June 11, 2022;
(2) Dr. Pedro Celaya: 8 years, starting from June 12, 2012 and continuing through and including June 11, 2020; and
(3) Mr. José Martí Martí: 8 years, starting from June 12, 2012 and continuing through and including June 11, 2020.

(B) The parties shall bear their own attorney’s fees and costs associated with this arbitration;
(C) The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association, and the compensation and expenses of the arbitrators and the Panel, shall be borne entirely by USADA and the United States Olympic Committee;
(D) This Award shall be in full and final resolution of all claims and counterclaims submitted to this Arbitration. The Panel has considered all of the arguments made by the parties, whether or not they are specifically referenced in this Award. All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby denied; and
(E) This Award may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall constitute together one and the same instrument.

Claiment USAD and repsondent Lenroy Thompson. The respondent, a super heavyweight division boxer, was included in de USAD Registered Testing Pool in the first quarter of 2009 and continuously since the third quarter of 2010. The respondent failed in three occasions to provide accurate and timely whereabouts information for out-of-competition testing, within an eighteen-month period.
The respondent is charged with a first anti-doping rule violation in principle Article 2.4 of the World Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Agency International Standard for Testing. Due to the respondent intention to compete in a protected competition scheduled to commence on February 25, 2012 an expedite hearing was agreed with a sole arbitrator, an interim award was issued at February 25, 2012 concluding that the respondent had violated the Policy by his negligent commission.
For NTP Athletes: Failure to submit a completed Whereabouts Filing the athlete is drawn for out of competition testing by USADA; The Athlete is unavailable for testing due to the Athlete providing inaccurate information on his Whereabout Filing.
Conclusions and sanctions:
The respondent will be sanctioned for the period of one year, will end on midnight on February 24, 2013. Alle competitive results, medal, points and prizes on or subsequently to November 11, 2012, are hereby cancelled with retroactive effect.

Mr. Richard Meeker (the Respondent) is a 51-year old member of USA Cycling who has been competing as an amateur cyclist for over 35 years.

USADA has reported an anti-doping rule violation against Respondent after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone. USADA notified the person of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension.
The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport (NACAS) on 22 October 2013.

Respondent stated that the positive test may have been caused by his use of dietary supplement that he purchased and used prior to his positive test. Prior to the hearing Respondent’s supplement were analysed and the test results confirmed that one the supplements contained the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and DHEA. However the Respondent did not test positive for DHEA.

Considering the Respondent’s statements and the evidence in this case the Panel finds that Respondent did not testify falsely but he failed to show by a balance of probability how the prohibited substance entered his system.

On 18 November 2013 the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 6 September 2012 to 5 September 2014.