AAA 2004 No. 30 190 00609 04 USADA vs Genevieve Jeanson

28 Jun 2004

At the October, 2003, UCI World Championship held in Canada, Respondent provided a blood sample, it showed a hematorcrit level above the 47% UCI safety threshold for female riders, she was not permitted to participate in the race. Early on the morning of April 21,2004, prior to the start of the "La Flèche Wallonne" race in Belgium, Respondent provided a blood sample. She was shortly thereafter informed that her hematocrit level was 49.5, in excess of the safety threshold Thereupon she was requested for a urine sample, which she did. Respondent elected to have a "B" sample of her blood analyzed. Unlike the "A" sample, the "B" blood sample did not result in an elevated hematocrit level. The urine sample tested negative for all prohibited substances. Respondent proceeded with the race afterwards she failed to appear for the post-race drug testing.

Final Conclusion:

We conclude that Respondent
(a) has committed a doping offence, her first offence, for failure to appear for the post-competition drug testing,
(b) that the stipulated manner of notification by the UCI of Respondent's selection for drug testing was incompliance with applicable UCI Regulations,
(c) that Respondent was able through testimony and other evidence provided to the panel at the June 11 2004 evidentiary hearing, to disprove the presumption of refusal to take the test, (d) that the rather unique circumstances of Respondent's case, as described. do not justify a suspension but, rather, a warning, as authorized by UCI Regulations, Article 132.
A fine is settled.

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

AAA 2004 No. 30 190 00609 04 USADA vs Genevieve Jeanson - Interim Award

11 Jun 2004

We conclude that a doping offense under the UCI Regulations took place by reason of the failure of Respondent to appear for post- competition testing which she did not dispute, following the conclusion of the road race at the La Fleche Wallone on April 21, 2004.
Respondent was negligent and subject to sanction in accordance with UCI Regulation, Article 132.
Respondent disproved the presumption that she refused to take the test.
Based on the testimony and written exhibits presented, and taking into account the facts and circumstances surrounding the events which took place on April 21, 2004 on the occasion of La Fleche Wallonne competition, as UCI Regulation, Article 124 authorizes, and having taken into account the few precedents with respect to failures on the part of athletes to appear for prescribed testing, a warning should be issued to the Respondent as authorized by UCI Regulation, Article 132.
The fee will be borne by the claiment.

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

AAA 2004 No. 30 190 00759 04 USADA vs David Fuentes

12 Nov 2004

On March 25, 2004, Respondent gave a urine sample at the Redlands Classic in Redlands, California. In the A and B sample the presence of Oxymetholone metabolites was found. The USADA agrees that this violation is subject to sanction under UCI AER Article 130.1, a first offence, other than intentional doping.
The Evidentiary Hearing took place on November 8, 2004. Respondent argued that the penalty sought by USADA should be reduced substantially. He contended that the circumstances surrounding the offence, his character, age and experience, the gravity of the consequences of the penalty for his social, sporting and economic position, the risk to his professional career, and his normal discipline and programme all support the contention that the penalty should be no more than six moths. He also sought credit for the voluntary suspension served thus far and requested that a fine be waived due to his economic situation.

Decision and award: A two-year period of ineligibility
beginning from March 25, 2004, imposed on UCI Regulations AER 130. All competitive results after that date are cancelled (AER 143). No access to the training facilities of de USOC Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC, including grants, awards, or employment is imposed. Pursuant to Respondent was a TT/III licence-holder for three months in 2004. Therefore, in accordance with AER 128 a fine is reduced proportionally to 165 CHF.

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

AAA 2005 No. 30 190 00130 05 USADA vs Tyler Hamilton - Awards & Dissenting Opinion

18 Apr 2005

AWARDS:

Tyler Hamilton is an elite level cyclist. In 2003 he finished fourth at the Tour de France. Although Mr. Hamilton was a serious contender for the 2004 Tour de France, he had to withdraw from the race after he sustained injury from a fall during the early stages of the race. He recovered sufficiently to compete in the cycling “time trial” event at the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens, Greece and won the gold medal for the United States.

On the day after his Olympic victory, Mr. Hamilton provided a blood sample for testing by the WADA approved laboratory in Athens, Greece.
Mr. Hamilton’s A sample was eventually reported as being positive for the presence of transfused blood on the basis that is contained a mixed red blood cell population. The B sample was inadvertently frozen by the Athens lab thereby destroying the red blood cells in that specimen. Therefore, the B analysis of Mr. Hamilton’s Olympic sample was not able to confirm the positive A sample finding and no doping offense was found to have occurred. As a consequence, Mr. Hamilton was confirmed as the gold medal winner of the Olympic time trial cycling event.

UCI sent a warning letter to Mr. Hamilton, dated June 10, 2004. The letter also goes on to state that Mr. Hamilton would be closely monitored in 2004 in terms of his doping tests.
On September 11, 2004, at the Vuelta cycling competition, Mr. Hamilton was targeted for testing at the request of ICI. The Lausanne Laboratory reported Mr. Hamilton’s sample as positive for the presence of transfused blood. Under UCI-rules, a blood transfusion that is not required for valid medical reasons, constitutes doping. Mr. Hamilton has denied receiving any type of transfusion during the relevant period.

On September 23, 2004, Tyler Hamilton was suspended by his team ARcycling as a result of the doping charges. He was therefore no longer able to compete in professional road cycling. On November 30, 2004, Mr. Hamilton was dismissed from his team as a result of the doping charges.
On February 23, 2005, a hearing was commenced in Denver, Colorado. Testimony and closing arguments were concluded on March 2, 2005.

The Panel concludes that the mixed RBC population arising from the Vuelta sample analysis has a very high probability of having caused by a blood transfusion, and an extremely low to the point of negligible probability of having been caused by Tyler Hamilton being a human chimera.
The finding of a mixed RBC population in Mr. Hamilton’s blood sample is based upon the state of the science known and brought to the attention of the Panel as of the date of this decision.
The conclusion is also based upon the evidence and state of the record of these proceedings before the Panel at the time of this decision.
The finding that the presence of the mixed blood population in Tyler Hamilton’s Vuelta sample was due to a homologous blood transfusion, brings the UCI Anti-Doping Rules into application.

The Panel therefore finds that a doping violation has been committed by Tyler Hamilton. The minimum suspension for a first offender is two years. Tyler Hamilton is therefore suspended from competition for a period of two years commencing, April 18, 2005. All of his competitive results from September 11, 2004, including the Vuelta competition are cancelled.

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

DISSENTING OPINION:
Chrstopher L. Campbel

1. The Lausanne Laboratory's failure to provide the measure of uncertaintly means its testing method failed to meet the prevailing standards of the scientific community.
2. The testing method applied subjective evaluation an this method has not been properly validated.
- The testing method should be objective and quantitative.
- The WADA criteria used a subjective, visual identification method that has not been peer reviewed of properly validated.
3. Appearance of a fair hearing

AAA 2003 No. 30 190 001100 03 USADA vs Adham Sbeih

25 Mar 2004

The Respondent, Adham Sbeih, is an elite-level athlete in the sport of cycling. In 2003, he became the United States National Champion in the 4-kilometer pursuit track event. On August 26, 2003, Respondent provided an urine sample at the USA Cycling Elite Track Nationals in Trexeltown, Pa. at the request of USADA. The A and B sample were tested positive for r-EPO.
Respondent contended at the hearing that there was an improper interpretation of the electropherogram related to his sample and that therefore there was not sufficient evidence of a doping offense for r-EPO, if he is found to have committed a doping offense, the penalty should be reduced from two years to 11 months.
Decision and award:
- The Panel finds that there is insufficient evidence from either side as to any theory on how the r-EPO got into Sbeih’s body.
- The minimum suspension for a first offender of two (2) years to take place effective from August 26, 2003, is imposed on Respondent pursuant to UCI Regulations, Art. 130.
- All competitive results that occurred on or after August 26, 2003, are cancelled.

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

AAA 2006 No. 30 190 00847 06 USADA vs Floyd Landis - Dissenting Opinion

20 Sep 2007

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.

AAA 2006 No. 30 190 00405 06 USADA vs James Mortenso

25 Sep 2006

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.

AAA 2006 No. 30 190 00847 06 USADA vs Floyd Landis - Final Award

20 Sep 2007

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.

AAA 2008 No. 77 190 00111 08 USADA vs Kayle Leogrande

1 Dec 2008

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.

AAA 2009 No. 77 190 16 09 USADA vs Jonathan Page

4 Feb 2009

Respondent failed to submit to sample collection as required, during cyclocross World Cup event in Koksijde, Belgium on November 29, 2008.
Respondent's claims compelling justifïcation. Due to flu-like symptoms, a concussion and other injuries forced him to abandon the event, unable to attend the sample gathering.
Decision and award: Respondent had not committed an anti-doping violation under the UCI rules. Respondent was able to demonstrate a compelling justification for his failure to submit sample collection at the event.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin