In October 2015 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Colombian cyclist Ana Milena Fagua Raquira after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Commercial Arbitration Tribunal.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance and could not explain how the substance came into her body. She mentioned several possible sources of the testosterone, including supplements and pharmaceuticals.

The Sole Arbitrator did not accept the Athlete’s statement and concludes that USADA has established that the Athlete committed an anti-doping violation.

Therefore the AAA Tribunal Panel decides on 17 August 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 9 October 2015.

In December 2015 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Charis Chan after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance trenbolone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and waived her right to be heard for the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Commercial Arbitration Tribunal.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance and asserted that the positive test was the result of eating meat she did not know and had no reason to know was contaminated with trenbolone.

The Sole Arbitrator holds that the Athlete’s assertions regarding meat contamination as the source of the positive sample are factually and scientifically implausible and for several reasons dismissed.

Therefore the AAA Tribunal Panel decides on 6 January 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 29 December 2015.

In June 2016 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Sam Tierney after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance vilanterol.
At the time of the violation the Athlete used an inhaler without an approved TUE and a TUE application hereafter to USADA was denied.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Commercial Arbitration Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that in May 2016 he suffered from acute bronchitis and therefore used prescribed antibiotics and the inhaler. He didn’t research the ingredients of medication before using and he did not understand that he had been prescribed asthma medicine.

Considering the circumstances the Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete has established No Significant Fault or Negligence for the lowest possible sanction available.
Therefore the AAA Tribunal Panel decides on 8 July 2016 to impose a reprimand on the Athlete without a period of ineligibility.

In April 2016 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances: Amphetamine, Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone, Drostanolone and Mesterolone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with arguments in his defence and he was heard for the Commercial Arbitration Tribunal of the American Arbitration Association.

The Athlete argued that USADA does not have the authority to bring a case against him under the USADA Protocol and IWF Anti-Doping Policy regarding the results of the testing conducted on his sample collected at the Weightlifting event on 5 March 2016. Therefore the Panel should dismiss the case. The Athlete contended that in fact his sample was collected by USA Powerlifting (USAPL) and not by USADA, the applicable rule in this matter should be the USAPL Technical Rules, not those of the IWF.

USADA contended that in this case the IWF Anti-Doping Policy and the USADA Protocol apply to the Athlete. USADA explained that USA Weightlifitng (USAW) contracted with USAPL (which then subcontracted with the company Sportcheque) to collect the samples for testing at the event under USAW’s authority.
USADA argued that it is uncontested that the Athlete was a USA Weightlifting member on 5 March 2016 when his sample was collected at the weightlifting event under the IWF Rules. Also the Athlete expressly agreed to the IWF Anti-Doping Policy applying because his license agreement states that he agreed not to commit a doping violation as defined by the IWF.

Considering the circumstances in this case the Panel finds that the Athlete was not adequately informed by USAW about the USOC Policy or the USADA Protocol in the USAW Membership Form and is not subject to the results management authority of USADA in this case by virtue of signing that document.
The Panel establish that USAW was the organization that initiated the drug testing process, delegated sample collection to USAPL, and, when it received the results of the testing on the Athlete's sample, asked USADA to manage the results of such testing.

Although the Panel finds that USADA has results management authority in this instance, the Panel notes that USADA has barely met its burden of proof of doing so to the Panel's comfortable satisfaction in this regard. The Panel is of the view that United States athletes would be better served by having clear documentation implemented at each event sanctioned by an National Governing Body (NGB) and in the NGB membership application process that informs all athletes of the legal obligations they have and their rights to resolve any disputes arising thereunder; whether this responsibility lies with WADA, the IWF, the USOC, USAW, or USADA is something that is outside of this Panel's purview.

On 10 May 2017 the AAA Tribunal decides that:

1.) USADA has the authority to manage the results of the testing conducted on Respondent's sample that was collected at the 2016 Arnold Weightlifting Championships. Accordingly, arbitral jurisdiction is proper here.
2.) The Athlete shall not be responsible for any costs related to the testing or analysis conducted on his sample and that USADA shall bear any administrative costs related to the testing or management of Respondent's sample.
3.) The parties ordered to proceed to share their dates of availability over the next 30 days for the Panel to conduct a proper preliminary hearing to set a hearing date and the procedural order for the case.

Hereafter on 31 May 2017 USADA announced that the Athlete Robert Dosterschill has accepted a 4 year period of ineligibility after testing positive for multiple prohibited substances.

In September 2016 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance modafinil.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard before the Commercial Arbitration Tribunal of the American Arbitration Association (AAA).

USADA contended that the Athlete failed to prove that the violation was non intentional because to the Athlete used the medication Nuvigil (modafinil) without a prescription; the medication was provided by her coach; she didn’t apply for a TUE and neither did she mention it on the doping control form.

The Athlete stated that the violation was non intentional and explained that due to the long and irregular hours she worked and the heat in Arizona required her to train late at night. She struggled with sleep issues and used Nuvigil, provided by her coach, to help keep her alert for late night training sessions. Before using the medication she consulted a doctor who agreed that Nuvigil could help her and she researched the medication on the DRO website which confirmed that the medication was not prohibited out-of-competition. She used the medication between March and July 2016 and showed with evidence that she was tested out-of-competition during that time without incident.

In this case the parties' experts agree that the half-life of modafinil is 12-15 hours and that the peak plasma concentration is two to four hours after ingestion. After considering all of the submissions of the parties and evidence presented, the Panel concludes the Athelete has established by a balance of probability that she took Nuvigil 150mg tablets obtained from her coach out-of-competition knowing that Nuvigil was only prohibited in-competition.

The Panel finds that USADA has failed to carry its burden of proving that the Athlete engaged in conduct which she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or that she knew that there was a significant risk that her conduct might result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.
Considering the Athlete’s subjective element of fault and the mitigating subjective factors the Panel concludes that the Athlete’s conduct falls in the higher level of fault category.
Due to several months delay not attributed to the Athlete the Panel finds it appropriate to start the period of ineligibility on the date of the sample collection.

Therefore the AAA Commercial Arbitration Tribunal decides on 30 June 2017:

1.) Respondent has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the Code and the UCI Rules.
2.) The following sanction shall be imposed on the Respondent:
a.) A twenty one (21) month period of ineligibility commencing August I 0. 2016, including her ineligibility 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 including, but not limited to, grants, awards or employment pursuant to the USOC Anti-Doping Policies only during the period of ineligibility.
b.) Respondent's results from August 10, 2016 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes pursuant to Atticle 9 of the Code.
3.) The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs associated with this arbitration.
4.) The Administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association and the compensation and expenses of the Arbitrators shall be borne entirely by USADA and the USOC.
5.) This Award is in full settlement of all of the claims and counterclaims submitted to this Arbitration. All claims not expressly granted herein are denied.
6.) (…)

In September 2016 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the track cyclist after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance clenbuterol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Commercial Arbitration Panel.

The Athlete did not challenge the test results and he denied the intentional use of the substance. He asserted that his positive test was the result of contaminated meat or supplements and referred to previous cases of meat tainted with clenbuterol. Laboratory reports showed that non of the supplements provided by the Athlete were contaminated. Also the Athlete filed a polygraph exam, which confirmed that he was truthful about not knowingly taking any substance containing clenbutererol and not having ever intentionally ingested clenbuterol.

The Panel, though willing to accept that the Athlete did not cheat, needs more than theories about contaminated meat or supplements. The Panel does not find the polygraph evidence particularly helpful, and unconvincing in this matter. The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to provide some evidence which constitutes a probable source of the positive result in addition to the Athlete’s denial of intent.

Therefore the AAA Commercial Arbitration Tribunal decides on 14 July 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 2 September 2016.

Mr Paulo Miyao is a Brazilian Athlete in the sport of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and residing in the United States.

In August 2016 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance clomiphene.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete file a statement with arguments in his defence and he was heard for the Commercial Arbitration Tribunal of the American Arbitration Association (AAA).

The issue of whether USADA has jurisdiction with respect to the Athlete’s positive drug test at the 2016 World Championship comes down to a determination of whether he knew, or should have known, that USADA was responsible for drug testing and results management, including dispute resolution through arbitration.

USADA and IBJJF established clearly that USADA was retained by a contract effective as of January 14, 2016, to conduct drug tests and results management at the 2016 World Championship.

The Athlete presented evidence through a written Declaration and by testimony at the 28 March 2017 video conference hearing that his native language is Portuguese, that he does not read English, and that his three year study of English in Brazilian schools was rudimentary.

The Athlete argued that he did not understand that the registration documents he signed to enter the 2016 World Championship - particularly the Additional Waiver Release Terms - committed him to results management, in particular arbitration, under USADA jurisdiction. His inability to read English is cited as the reason for his lack of understanding.

The Sole Arbitrator notes that the Athlete testified at several points that he had assistance in completing the 2016 World Championship registration. And he certainly had time between his 31 May 2015 doping test and his appearance in the 2016 World Championship in June 2016 to inquire, learn, ask and search about doping control procedures.

The Arbitrator finds that the Athlete was an experienced athlete in IBJJF competition and had access to many resources, but in testimony conveyed a disinterested, or perhaps even a careless attitude, towards the registration documents he was required to read and acknowledge. In the Arbitrator's view, the Athlete knew, or should have taken the initiative to know, the essential elements of the USADA Protocol and WADA Code applicable to him as an experienced, successful international competitor in International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.

Therefore the AAA Tribunal decides on 12 April 2017:

A.) USADA has sustained its burden of proof, thus making the Respondent subject to the jurisdiction of USADA for the purposes of Results Management Procedures following his positive drug test result at the 2016 World Championship.

B.) Subject to the agreement of the Parties, a separate Hearing should be held with respect to the merits of Respondent's case.

C.) The Parties shall bear their own attorney's fees and costs associated with this Arbitration.

D.) This Decision shall be in full and final resolution of the issue of jurisdiction only, and not on the merits of the claim submitted to this Arbitration.

Hereafter on 10 May 2017 USADA announced that the Athlete Paulo Miyao had accepted a two-year sanction for his anti-doping rule violation.

In June 2016 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Mary C. Hall after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance oxandrolone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete indicated that she wanted a hearing but hereafter duly notified she failed to attend the scheduled hearings of the Tribunal nor did she provide the requested information.

Based on the evidence filed by USADA and without the Athlete’s response the Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete’s sample establish the presence of a prohibited substance as anti-doping rule violation committed by the Athlete.

Therefore the AAA Tribunal decides on 24 March 2017:

1.) That Ms. Hall serve a four (4) year period of ineligibility as described in Article 10.2 of the IWF Anti-Doping Policy and the Code, beginning on June 1, 2016, the day Ms. Hall received notice of her provisional suspension;
2.) That Ms. Hall's competitive results obtained on and subsequent to May 6, 2016, the date Ms. Hall participated in the USAW National Championships, be disqualified and that she forfeit any medals, points and prizes obtained on and subsequent to May 6, 2016 consistent with the IWF Anti-Doping Policy;
3.) That Ms. Hall serve a four (4) year period of ineligibility, beginning on June 1, 2016, the day Ms. Hall received notice of her provisional suspension, from participating or coaching in U.S. Olympic, Pan American Games or Paralympic Games Trials, being a member of any U.S. Olympic, Pan American Games or Paralympic Team and having access to the training facilities of the USOC Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC including, but not limited to benefits, grants, awards or employment as set forth in Section 6 of the USOC NADP and further defined by Attachment A therein; and,
4.) That Ms. Hall be required to pay any fines, costs, return of prize money, or other financial consequences that may be required by the IWF rules for the violation of its Anti-Doping Policy.

In December 2016 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Brianna Rollins for 3 whereabouts failures in a 12 month period.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard before the Commercial Arbitration Tribunal of the American Arbitration Association.

The Athlete did not contest the charges about her 2nd and 3rd whereabouts failures in September 2016. The point of contention between USADA and the Athlete is whether the Athlete’s 1st whereabout failure on 27 April 2016 triggered a violation under WADA Code Article 2.4. Also the Athlete contested the length of sanction and its starting date in the event a violation is found.

Based on the facts and analysis of the case the Panel concludes that the Athlete committed a whereabouts failure on 27 April 2016 and therefore committed 3 such failures within 12 months as violation of Article 2.4. the WADA Code.
The Athlete made a fault with the computer filing system where she failed to notice that the standing 60-minute time slot at her home was still in place for the competition day on 27 April 2016. She was required to update the record with a new time slot which she neglected to do so.
The Panel finds that the anti-doping agencies and other authorities could have done more to help her, but the duty to comply remained hers. Due to her failing to make any effort to update, as she knew the rules required, the Athlete has not met and cannot meet her burden to show by a balance of probability that no negligent behavior on her part at least contributed to her failure to be available and her failure to update her whereabouts filing.

Therefore the AAA Tribunal decides on 14 April 2017:

1.) Respondent has committed a doping violation under WADA Code Article 2.4.
2.) Respondent shall be sanctioned by imposition of a period of ineligibility for one (1) year, which period is deemed to have commenced on December 19, 2016 and shall expire on December 18, 2017. During the period of ineligibility, Respondent may not compete in any competitions under the jurisdiction of the
USATF, IAAF, the USOC, any other signatory of the WADA Code, any body which has accepted the WADA Code or any body whose rules are consistent with the WADA Code, or any of the clubs, member associations, or affiliates of these entities.
3.) The parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this arbitration.
4.) The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association, and the compensation and expense of the arbitrators shall be borne entirely by Claimant.
5.) This Award is in full settlement of all claims submitted to this Arbitration. All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby denied.
6.) 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.

In July 2016 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Jennifer Schumm after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Commercial Arbitration Tribunal.

Previously the Athlete had filed applications for a TUE for the use of testosterone which were denied by USADA.
The Athlete denied the intentional use to enhance her sports performance and requested for a reduced sanction.
She explained - sustained by two doctors - that she suffered from varous medical conditions for many years and a medical specialist gave her a bioidentical testosterone implant which she found to be very effective in helping her with her complaints.

Because testosterone was prohibited under the cycling rules she applied for a TUE the day before the competition. She did not wait for the TUE to be granted or denied before racing. She stated that she believed her treatment was essential to her health, that bioidentical testosterone was “natural” and was not the same as taking a prohibited exogenous steroid.

The Panel finds that the Athlete failed to prove by a balance of probability that her violation was unintentional and that she knew before racing that she was being administered the prohibited substance, thus no reduction of the sanction is possible. The Panel rejects the Athlete’s request to allow publication of the Award anonymized in order to protect her job and career.

Therefore the AAA Tribunal decides on 19 January 2018 that:

A.) Respondent has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 (Presence of a Prohibited Substance) of the Code and Article 2.2 (Use of a Prohibited Substance) of the Code;

B.) The period of Ineligibility for the anti-doping rule violation under Article 10.2.1 of the Code is four years, starting on July 21, 2016, the date Respondent accepted a Provisional Suspension, and ending July 20, 2020. Respondent shall be prohibited during this period from participating in any capacity in a Competition (as defined in the Code) or activity authorized or organized by any Signatory (as defined in the Code), Signatory's member organization or a club or other member organization of a Signatory's member organization, or in Competitions authorized or organized by any professional league or any international- or national-level Event organization or any elite or national-level sporting activety funded by a governmental agency, all as set forth in Article 10.12 of the Code;

C.) Respondent's competitive results from the date of her positive test, May 28, 2016, through her acceptance of Provisional Suspension, on July 21, 2016, are to be disqualified, and any medals, points and prizes earned during that period shall be forfeited;

D.) The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs associated with this Arbitration;

E.) The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association, and the compensation and expenses of the Panel, shall be borne by USADA and the United States Olympic Committee; and

F.) This Award shall be in full and final resolution of all claims and counterclaims submitted to this Arbitration. All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby denied.

G.) 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.