WADA - Play True Magazine (2009) - Engaging the Athlete

1 Jan 2009

WADA - Play True Magazine
2009, issue 1
Engaging the Athlete - Profiling WADA’s Athlete Outreach Program
and its evolution into an established and effective presence at major sporting events worldwide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content

Editorials
01 John Fahey: Are we Winning the Fight?
02 David Howman: Athletes at the Heart of our Global Efforts

Reaching out to Athletes
06 The Athlete Outreach Model
07 WADA’s Global Outreach Presence 2001–2010
11 VANOC’s Anti-Doping Commitment
12 An Effective Tool: WADA’s Anti-Doping Quiz

Features
13 Partner Profile: CROADA
15 Athlete Profile: Lindsay Davenport
17 RADO and NADO Expansion
19 Publishing Partnership
20 WADA’s 2009 Committees
23 WADA’s Education Tool Kits

WADA Updates & Calendar
25 Staff Announcements
25 Media Symposium Review
26ADAMS Updates
27 Revised Athlete Guide Available
27 Success for Anti-Doping Symposium
28 UNESCO Update
28 Call for Research Proposals
29 Calendar of Events

WADA - Play True Magazine (2009) - Special Tenth Anniversary Issue

1 Jan 2009

WADA - Play True Magazine
2009, issue 2
Special Tenth Anniversary Issue - Celebrating a decade of Play True ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content

Editorials
01 John Fahey
03 David Howman

Features
05 Our First Decade of Playing True
24 A Short History of Anti-Doping
31 Looking Forward With Fresh Ideas

Interviews
19 Common Goals (Jacques Rogge)
21 An Idea Whose Time Had Come (Richard Pound)

At a glance
17 All About Our Logo
27 WADA Milestones
29 WADA: What We Are
30 QuickFacts

WADA - Play True Magazine (2010) - Vancouver 2010: WADA’s Olympic and Paralympic Preview

1 Jan 2010

WADA - Play True Magazine
2010, issue 1
Vancouver 2010: WADA’s Olympic and Paralympic Preview
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content

Editorial
01 Editorial John Fahey
03 Editorial David Howman

Features
05 Vancouver 2010
10 WADA's role at a Glance
13 Olympic Independent Observer Team
15 Olympic Athlete Outreach Team
17 Paralympic Independent Observer Team
18 Paralympic Athlete Outreach Team

VANOC Highlights
19 VANOC’s Anti-Doping Commitment and Programs
20 Joint WADA/VANOC Doping Control Video
21 A State-of-the-Art Anti-Doping Laboratory for the Games

WADA - Play True Magazine (2010) - Sending the Right Message

1 Jan 2010

WADA - Play True Magazine
2010, issue 2
Sending the Right Message - Working to Inspire a New Generation
of Athletes and Coaches to Play True
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content

Editorials
01 Editorial John Fahey
02 Editorial David Howman

Features
03 Challenging Young Athletes to Play True
05 Advancing Social Science Research
08 Play True Generation at the Youth Olympic Games
09 WADA's Say NO! to Doping Program
12 Overview: WADA's Resources for Young People

WADA Updates
14 New Director for WADA’s Latin America Regional Office
14 New Online Anti-Doping Learning Tool for Coaches
15 WADA Programs Slated for upcoming Commonwealth
and Asian Games
15 Joint Declaration with Pharmaceutical Federation
15 WADA on the Web

AAA 2007 No. 30 190 00556 07 USADA vs Eric Thompson

31 Jan 2008

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

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

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

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

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

AAA 2009 No. 77 190 00543 09 USADA vs Jessica Cosby

5 May 2010

Respondent, a 27 year old world-class hammer thrower who tested positive in an out-of-competition urine sample test for hydrochlorothiazide and chlorothiazide which are used as Prohiblted Substances in the class of Diuretics and Other Masking Agents. This is a first offense for the athlete. Since 2005, Ms. Cosby has been in USADA' s Registered testing program, which means she has long been familiar with doping control testing.
Facing a suspension for 2 years she asks for a hearing. The key provision at issue in this case is as follows: World Anti-Doping Code 2009 10.4 Elimination or Reduction of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances. The positive drug test is related to a water pil (HCTZ) she took, a day before her drug test. She took this medecine because she was unable to urinate. Her condition is labeled as acute renal failure and in her family there is a history of high bloodpressure. Also her history of depression is regarded.
The Panel, having reviewed all the cases cited by the parties and having considered the life of this young athlete and her hopes for a future is of opinion that she should be suspended for four months and that the time should run from the date of her voluntary suspension which is September 21, 2009.

AAA 2005 No. 30 190 01114 05 USADA vs Rickey Harris

22 May 2006

On May 22, 2005 provided Mr. Harris an urine sample at the Adidas Track Classics in Carson, California. July 6, 2005, USADA notified Mr. Harris of positive A and B sample from the May 22, 2005 Adidas Track Classic.
August 29, 2005, Mr. Harris requested arbitration under USADA-protocol for Olympic Movement Testing. August 31, 2005, Mr. Harris submitted Standard Application Form for Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) to IAAF for the use of Dexedrine (Amphetamine) to treat Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).

Mr. Harris was first diagnosed with ADD in about 1992. He was initially treated for his ADD with Ritalin, and was later switched to Dexedrine. That in addition to ADD, he has been diagnosed with various learning disabilities.
On the first day at the University of Florida in the fall of 2000, where he was an member of the university track team, he was provided by the university’s athletic department with a number of forms to fill out so that he could continue to use Dexedrine before and during track competitions.
He believed, albeit mistakenly, that he had, in the fall of 2000, submitted all necessary paperwork to USADA and others to use Dexedrine (Amphetamine) before and during any track competitions, domestically or internationally. This fact was corroborated by the medical notes maintained and made available to the Panel by the University of Florida. One such note stated that “he does have proper authorizations for the track organizations for use of this medication based on his diagnosis. He declared the use op Dexedrine on his Doping Control Form on May 22, 2005, at the Adidas Track Classic. Even after testing positive for Amphetamine from his urine sample provided on May 22, 2005, he believed, albeit mistakenly, that he had the necessary paperwork on file with USADA for the use of Dexedrine in competition.
As a result of the provisional suspension that Mr. Harris accepted on August 30, 2005, he missed a number of track meets during the 2005 outdoor season, missed the entire 2006 indoor track season, and has already missed a number of track meets during the 2006 outdoor.

The North American Court of Arbitrage for Sports Panel finds that the written stipulations, documents and the testimony of Mr. Harris do support a finding of no significant fault of negligence. It appears that Mr. Harris does suffer from ADD. Mr. Harris was at all relevant times under the mistaken belief that he had submitted all necessary paperwork to use Dexedrine before and during any track competition, domestic and international. This mistaken belief was formed based on representations from the University of Florida.
Mr. Harris’ mistaken belief in this regard is supported by the fact that he openly declared the use of Dexedrine on his May 22, 2005 Doping Control Form.
The Panel agrees that given the unique circumstances presented in this case, and the evidence, Mr. Harris has satisfied that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, and, therefore, reduces the period of ineligibility from two years to one year.
The Panel further finds that the period of ineligibility should start on May 22, 2005, the date of the test. Respondent Mr. Harris did not abuse his defence rights or otherwise intentionally delay the proceeding in order to gain any competitive advantage, nor did he use Dexedrine with the intent of enhancing his performance. The Panel believes that for reasons of fairness, the period of ineligibility should commence on May 22, 2005, the date of the sample collection.
The parties propose that all competitive results achieved by Mr. Harris between May 22, 2005 and August 31, 2005 be disqualified. The Panel agrees with this proposal.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sports Panel renders the following decision:
- Mr. Harris’ period of ineligibility is for one year commencing on May 22, 2005, and concluding on May 21, 2006.
- All competitive results achieved by Mr. Harris between May 22, 2005, and August 31, 2005, shall be disqualified.

AAA 2010 No. 77 190 110 10 USADA vs Raymond Stewart

24 Jun 2010

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.

AAA 2004 No. 30 190 01334 04 USADA vs Larry Wade

9 Nov 2005

Larry Wade is an elite-level athlete in the sport of track and field. He is a member of the USA Track & Field (USATF) and has been serving on USATF’s Athlete Advisory Committee since 2002. Since the fourth quarter of 2000 and prior to the subject test of this arbitration, Mr. Wade had had no positive laboratory test reported by the IAAF or to USADA.

On May 11, 2004, Mr. Wade submitted to out-of-competition drug testing at the request of IAAF. As required by the collection process, Mr. Wade informed the Doping Control officer that he was taking multi-vitamins and minerals at the time of the collection.

The WADA-accredited Barcelona Laboratory conducted an initial test of Mr. Wade’s A sample and detected the presence of the metabolite of an anabolic steroid.
On June2, 2004 the Barcelona Laboratory took three replicates from Mr. Wades A sample and conducted three separate analyses. All three analyses indicated the presence of the anabolic steroid metabolite 19-norandrosterone. The Barcelona Laboratory subsequently reported the A sample as positive to the IAAF.

After being notified of the positive result, Mr. Wade requested that the B sample be tested in the presence of his representative.
On July 29, 2004, in the presence of Mr. Wade’s representative, the Barcelona Laboratory took three replicates form the B sample and performed three separate analyses. The results confirmed the existence of 19-norandrosterone.

On May 30, 2005, WADA issued a “Clarification about Nandrolone Testing” and an accompanying “ Explanatory Technical Note” discussing the phenomenon of “unstable urine” in which, in rare cases and under special conditions, a chemical reaction occurs in a vial of urine. WADA also provided some additional information about this phenomenon prior to the hearing.

On June 2, 2005, The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel held a hearing in Los Angeles. WADA provided further information on urine instability in response to Mr. Wade’s document request.

The Panel finds that Mr. Wade failed to provide any evidence that would indicate that his positive test result should be discounted due to instability of his urine. Mr. Wade’s Supplemental Brief and attached expert affidavit failed to provide any support for the specific proposition that Mr. Wade’s urine was unstable.
In Summary, the Panel is of the opinion that (1) USADA has proved that the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone was found above the cutoff level in Mr. Wade’s urine sample to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel; and (2) Mr. Wade has failed to rebut the doping violation and to meet his burden to prove any defences.

For these reasons, the North American Arbitration for Sports Panel finds Mr. Wade guilty of a doping violation under the IAAF rules. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Mr. Wade should be declared ineligible for two (2) years with credit for suspension time already served from July 12, 2004 until the date of this Award. Mr. Wade should therefore be eligible for competition on July 12, 2006.
The Panel therefore rules as follows:
- Mr. Wade is guilty of a doping violation under IAAF rules, so that he should be declared ineligible for two years, less the period of suspension he has previously.
- Mr. Wade shall be ineligible for two years from July12, 2004, under the IAAF rules, including from participating in U.S. Olympic, Pan American or Paralympic Games; trials or qualifying events, being a member of any U.S. Olympic, Pan American or Paralympic Games team and having access to the training facilities of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) 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.

AAA 2010 No. 77 190 00293 10 USADA vs Lashawn Merritt

15 Oct 2010

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.

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