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.

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.

Respondent. David Clinger, is a 32 year old elite cyclist who provided USADA urine specimen on July 30, 2009, after placing second in the Men's Road Race at the USA Elite Road Nationals in Bend, Oregon. Respondent's urine sample tested positive (A and B sample) for synthetic testosterone, an anabolic agent, and modafinil, a stimulant.

Respondent contends that his Positive Test is the result of his use of Modafinil and Testosterone, which he contends was prescribed by his physician prior to his Positive Test.
Respondent submitted two therapeutic use exemption (TUE) applications for the use of Testosterone to USADA after his Positive Test, the first of which he submitted on September 2. 2009, and which was returned to him by USADA as incomplete on September 9, 2009. and the second of which he submitted on September 17, 2009 and which the USADA TUE-Committee denied on September 23, 2009 because medical records provided did not meet the criteria set forth in the WADA International Standard for TUEs. Respondent was provisionally suspended effective September 3, 2009, after a telephonic hearing before a panel of arbitrators of the American Arbitration Association.

Respondent has stipulated to the essential element of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation: the Prohibited Substances were present in his bodily specimen. Respondent's arguments with respect to the
circumstances under which he took the Prohibited Substances do not meet the criteria of the applicable rules for exceptional circumstances. as required in order to reduce or eliminate the period of Ineligibility:
- Respondent did establish how the Prohibited Substances entered his system: he took them under the care of a physician.
- Based on the definitions in the applicable rules. Respondent was unable to establish that he bore no fault or negligence or no significant fault or negligence in relationship to the anti-doping rule violation: Respondent was aware of the rules against taking Prohibited Substances. he knew about the TUE process, he had previously requested thal his physician complete similar fomis to those required in the current TUE process, he did not ask his physicians to complete the TUE
process before taking the Prohibited Substances.
- Though Respondent argues this was a "first aid situation," that would not be a valid rationale for disregarding the TUE process. And even if a "first aid situation" were some kind of exception, this was not an emergency/”First aid situation." as Respondent took the
Testosterone every 2 weeks for 3 months after it was prescribed. He had plenty of time then to apply for a TUE. Respondent deliberately disregarded the rules, of which he was aware, al least with respect to the Testosterone.
- Nor did Respondent exercise any level of caution, and certainly not utmost caution, as required to establish exceptional circumstances. He knew that the Testosterone
was a Prohibited Substance in direct contradiction of the applicable rules. He nevertheless continued to take it.
- With respect to the Modafinil. Respondent exercised no caution either. He did not inquire about the ingredients in the medications he was being prescribed or consult the list of Prohibited Substances with respect to the Resperdol prescription.

USADA further argued that there are "aggravating circumstances" in this case. such that the panel should impose a period of Ineligibility of 4 years on the Respondent. Mr. Clinger admitted the anti-doping rule violation from the outset of this case. He never denied taking the Prohibited Substances, but rather claimed that he took the Prohibited Substances under adverse circumstances that he believed consisted of exceptional circumstances.
Thus, the panel does not address whether the facts of this case consist of aggravating circumstances, but rather find that the Respondent can avoid the application of this provision based on his admission of the anti-doping rule violation.

The Arbitrators therefore rule as follows:
- Mr. Clinger shall be ineligible to compete for a period of two years, under the UCI ADR, beginning on the date of his provisional suspension, September 3,2009. Mr. Clinger shall be eligible to compete again on September 2, 2011.
- Mr. Clinger's competition results between July 30, 2009 and September 3, 2009 shall be disqualified.

Preliminary Award Regarding Provisional Suspension

Respondent, David Clinger, is a 32 year old elite cyclist who provided urine sample on July 30, 2009, after placing second in the Men’s Road Race at the USA Elite Road Nationals in Bend, Oregon.
The UCLA laboratory reported an Adverse Analytical Finding on Mr. Clinger's A Sample collected in competition on July 30, for two Prohibited Substances. In accordance with Article 7.5.1 of the Code, USADA is required in such circumstances to impose a provisional suspension promptly after review whether an applicable therapeutic use exemption has been granted or there is any apparent departure from the standards applied to laboratories.

The sole issue for the Panel to determine is whether USADA's decision that a provisional suspension should be imposed shall be upheld, based on whether probable cause exists for USADA to proceed with a charge of an anti-doping rule violation against Mr. Clinger. To establish probable cause, in accordance with Article 7.5.1 of the Code, it is not necessary for any B Sample analysis to have been completed.

The Panel, being duly advised, hereby finds:
- USADA complied with the review and notification requirements of the Code and by supplying Mr. Clinger, prior to the Provisional Hearing, on August 30,2009 with any and all laboratory documentation in the possession of USADA for the Urine sample.
- USADA has met its burden of showing that probable cause exists for USADA to proceed with a charge of an anti-doping rule violation against Mr. Clinger. The Panel therefore upholds USADA’s decision to impose an provisional suspension against Mr. Clinger.
- The provisional suspension shall Mr. Clinger ineligible to participate in any “Competition or Event”.
- The Provisional Suspension shall be in effect until the final hearing has been held and an award issued by the Panel.
- Mr. Clinger shall be entitled to have his case heard pursuant to the Expedited Track set forth in Section 13 of the Protocol, if he submits to the Panel a written request for such expedited treatment within three (3) business days from September 3, 2009.

Related case:

CAS 2010_A_2107 Flavia Oliveira vs USAD
December 6, 2010

In September 2009 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Flavia Oliveira after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxilofrine (Methylsynephrine).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She argued that she was unaware that the supplement Hyperdrive 3.0+ contained a prohibited substance. Because she acted with a low degree of fault she requested for a reduced sanction.

The Sole Arbitrator accepts that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional and rules that there were insufficient grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the American Arbitration Association (AAA) decided on 6 April 2010 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, staring on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 19 June 2009.

Award and Decision of the Arbitrators & Dissenting Opinion

Christopher L. Campbell, concurring in part and dissenting in part
October 16, 2003

The Respondent, Amber Neben, is a 28 old professional cyclist and a member of the T-Mobile Women’s Cycling Team, a trade team owned by USA Cycling and sanctioned by the international federation for the sport of cycling, Union Cycliste International (UCI).
The Respondent is subject to testing by USADA and UCI.
Respondent has been tested a number of times and all results have been negative. She tested negative in a test nine days before her positive test and had two negative tests three and four days after her positive test.

On May 31, 2003, during the Coupe du Monde Montreal, Respondent provided a urine sample at the request of UCI. On June 4, 2003, the laboratory screening test performed from the A sample indicated the presence of an anabolic steroid. The A confirmation test was performed on June 30, 2003, and it revealed the presence of 19-norandrosterone. On July 14, 2003, the laboratory tested the B sample positive for 19-norandrosterone.

Respondent accepted a provisional suspension commencing on July 13.2003. The evidentiary hearing took place on October 1 and 2, 2003, in Denver, Colorado. An expedited preliminary decision was requested. The Interim Award and Decision was issued October 6, 2003.

The Respondent presented a impressive list of witnesses. The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has an outstanding reputation in the cycling community and is respected by both team members and officials of USA Cycling.
The Panel is, however, disturbed by the testimony from the USA Cycling witnesses and officials. It is obvious that the organization has acted in complete disregard of its athletes, in particular, those below the elite level. There appears to be little to no attempt at communicating the dangers of contaminated supplements to the thousands of USA Cycling athletes. In fact, the testimony indicated that many officials believe that the use of supplements is “necessary” in order to succeed at the elite level. The fact that USA Cycling encouraged the use of supplements, including Hammer Nutrition products, underscored the tot disregard for the warnings USADA and IOC have issued for years. To the Panel, it is inconceivable that such a highly regarded organization could disregard its obligation to its athletes.
Regardless of the inaction or neglect of the cycling community, the athlete must make the final determination as to his/her intake. If these athletes read any of their USADA materials and Respondent apparently did not read it carefully, the message is quite clear that there are numerous risks associated with ingesting these supplements, including the extreme danger to the athlete’s health. While Respondent seemed to acknowledge these risks, her desire to compete apparently overroad those concerns.
The Panel also determines that UCI bears some responsibility in this case. Rather than undertake a thorough investigation of the issues involved in the case, UCI issued its opinions and recommendations. It appears that no effort was made to undertake an examination of USA Cycling’s role in this situation.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides as follows:
- A doping violation occurred on the part of Respondent. The Panel finds that this was not an intentional doping violation.
- The minimum suspension from all competition for a first offender of two (2) years to take place effective from July 13, 2003 is imposed on Respondent pursuant to UCI Regulations.
- Respondent is prohibited from participating in any capacity whatsoever in any events sponsored by UCI, USOC, or USA Cycling during the 6-mondth period of time from July 13, 2003.
- Prior to the end of the 6-month period, Respondent will meet with her fellow T-Mobile team members and the athletic staff of USA Cycling and discuss with them the USADA and IOC warning on the possible contamination of dietary supplements, including vitamins and minerals. In addition, Respondent will meet at least once with the other licensed elite cyclists of USA Cycling, along with the athletic staff of USA Cycling, to also discuss with them the above USADA and IOC information. She will confirm in writing to USADA that she has completed these conditions of her probation.
- During the term of her full probation, Respondent will submit to urine drug testing at her expense on a monthly basis by an IOC accredited laboratory. If Respondent tests positive during any of this time, her probation will be revoked, any and all competition results will be cancelled in compliance with UCI Regulations, and she will serve the remainder of the two-year suspension, commencing from the time of another positive test result.
- A fine of CFH 700 is assessed against Respondent.
- All competitive results which occurred on or after May 31, 2003, are cancelled.

Christipher L. Campbell, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

Research proved that 18% of vitamin supplements contain substances, not listed on their labels, which are prohibited by the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code.
This Panel is now being asked to severely penalize Ms. Neben, who is the likely victim of a contaminated supplement, under a theory of preserving a level playing field for athletes. As arbitrators, it is not our place to debate the rationality of such a rule. However, it is our duty to apply the law to the facts of Ms. Neben's case:
- Limits of the Strict Liability Rule
- Ms. Neben did not inted to place a prohibited substance in het body
- Strict Liability Rule does not apply to sanctions regarding future competitions
- Ms. Neben was not negligent in taking vitamin supplements for her sport of road racing
- Negligence test

Misuse of Anabolic Products in Sport: a Retrospective Study of Phone Calls at the Écoute Dopage Anti-doping Hot-line / Nicolas Palmié, Hélène Peyrière, Céline Eiden, Claire Condemine-Piron. - (Thérapie 68 (2013) 1 (Janvier-Février); p. 27–29)

• PMID: 23484657
• DOI: 10.2515/therapie/2013006

Objective.
The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the calls concerning anabolic products (AP), received at Écoute Dopage, a French anti-doping hot-line.

Methods.
We reviewed all phone calls handled between 2000 and 2008, among them 214 concerned AP. Information collected include demographic data, reason for the phone call, name of AP, characteristic of consumption, adverse reactions.

Results.
Fifteen different AP (mainly testosterone) were reported. Calls concerned information about side-effects (42% of calls), risk for doping (28%), and risk for health (10%), psychological assistance (10%), and legislation (2%). Most calls came from fitness practitioners or bodybuilders (85%). The reason for use was documented in 137 subjects: to increase muscular strength (76%), improve social life ability (15%), improve sporting ability (6%), and losing weight (3%). Eighty subjects (37%) reported at least one side-effect mainly uro-genital (40 cases) or psychic disorders (25 cases), both 15 cases. Among these 80 patients, 17 patients (21.25%) presented signs of AP dependence.

Conclusion.
The abuse of AP in sport is a public health problem well known, but data on the dependence on AAS are sparser. Information
and education should be emphasise to fight against doping.

The Respondent, Amber Neben is a professional cyclist and a member of the T-Mobile Women’s Cycling Team, a trade team owned by USA Cycling and sanctioned by the international federation for the sport of cycling, Union Cycliste International (UCI).
The Respondent is subject to testing by USADA and UCI. On May 31, 2003, during the Coupe du Monde Montreal, Respondent provided a urine sample at the request of UCI. On June 4, 2003, the laboratory screening test performed from the A sample indicated the presence of an anabolic steroid. The A confirmation test was performed on June 30, 2003, and it revealed the presence of 19-norandrosterone. On July 14, 2003, the laboratory tested the B sample positive for 19-norandrosterone.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides as follows:
- A doping violation occurred on the part of Respondent. The Panel finds that this was not an intentional case of a doping violation.
- The minimum suspension from all competition for a first offender of two (2) years to take place effective from July 13, 2003 is imposed on Respondent pursuant to UCI Regulations.
- Respondent is prohibited from participating in any capacity whatsoever in any events sponsored by UCI during the 6-month period of time from July 13, 2003.
- Prior to the end of the 6-month period, Respondent will meet with her fellow T-Mobile team members and the athletic staff of USA Cycling and discuss with them the USADA and IOC warning on the possible contamination of dietary supplements, including vitamins and minerals. In addition, Respondent will meet at least once with the other licensed elite cyclists of USA Cycling, along with the athletic staff of USA Cycling, to also discuss with them the above USADA and IOC information. She will confirm in writing to USADA that she has completed these conditions of her probation.
- During the term of her full probation, Respondent will submit to urine drug testing at her expense on a monthly basis by an IOC accredited laboratory. If Respondent tests positive during any of this time, her probation will be revoked, any and all competition results will be cancelled in compliance with UCI Regulations, and she will serve the remainder of the two-year suspension, commencing from the time of another positive test result.
- All competitive results which occurred on or after May 31, 2003, are cancelled.

USADA seeks a lifetime period of ineligibility of cyclist Kirk O’Bee second anti-doping violation based on his alleged use, possession, trafficking or attempted trafficking, and administration or attempted administration of prohibited substances, including recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO), testosterone, and human growth hormone (“hgh”).
USADA also seeks disqualification of his cycling competition results from July 15, 2003 or when its non-analytical positive evidence establish his committed second doping violation, which USADA contends occurred prior to his May 20, 2009 positive test for rhEPO.
Respondent violated Article 21.2 of the International Cycling Union Anti-Doping Rules (“UCI ADR”) and Article 2.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code.
Respondent claims the appropriate sanction is an eight-year period of ineligibility and no invalidation of the cycling results prior to May 12, 2010.
The panel has jurisdiction over the doping dispute pursuant to to the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C. §220501 because this is a controversy involving Respondent’ s opportunity to participate in national and international competition representing the United States.
Trafficking was proved by examining respondent’s electronic mail and computer.
Decision and award: the respondent will receive a lifetime period of ineligibility from the date of the award, including ineligibility from participating in and having access to the training facilities of the United States Olympic Committee Training Centers or others programs and activities of the USOC including, but not limited to, any grants, awards or employment.

WADA - Play True Magazine
2002, issue 1
Play true!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content

Editorials
01 R.W. Pound

Features
01 Editorial: Play true!
02 WADA in brief
03 Glossary
04 Doping control
06 Awareness programme
08 Independent Observers
10 National Anti-Doping Organisations
13 World Anti-Doping Code
16 Interview
20 Sports Movement
22 Please contact us! + Schedule