AAA 2007 No. 30 190 00358 07 USADA vs Nathan Piasecki

24 Sep 2007

Claimant USADA and respondent Nathan Piasecki: a sample taken on January 10, 2007 for an out-of-competition doing test, was tested positive on DHEA.
Respondent claims to have used supplements contaminated with substances on the prohibited list. By tests of the Aegis Sciences Corporation (Aegis) the supplements tested positive for contamination with steroid or steroid precursors. Also the UCLA Laboratory, testified that the supplements contained an anabolic androgenic steroid and an aromatase inhibitor.
Decision: respondent shall be ineligible to compete for a period of two years beginning on February 8, 2007, due to his provisional suspension.

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. 77 190 514 09 USADA vs Val Barnwell - Preliminary Award

12 Nov 2009

Preliminary Award Regarding Provisional Suspension

This matter came before the North American Panel of Arbitration for Sport Panel as a consequence of the United States Anti-Doping Agency's ("USADA") determination that a provisional suspension should be imposed upon Val Barnwell ("Athlete").

The United Medix Laboratories (Helsinki, Finland) reported an Adverse Analytical Finding on Athlete's A Sample collected in competition on August 3, 2009 for a Prohibited Substance. USADA is required in such circumstances to Impose a provisional suspension promptly after review as to whether an applicable therapeutic use exemption has been granted or there is any apparent departure from the standards applied to laboratories.

USADA notified Athlete by letter dated October 29, 2009, which was received on November 3, 2009, that he had until November 5, 2009, to accept a provisional suspension. Since Athlete did not accept the provisional suspension
proposed by USADA by November 5, 2009, USADA requested that the Panel Schedule a Provisional Hearing and render its determination on or before December 11, 2009.

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 Athlete. To establish probable cause it is not necessary for any B Sample analysis to have been completed.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel, being duly advised, hereby finds:

- USADA complied with the review and notification requirements of the Code and by supplying Athlete prior to the Provisional Hearing, on December 10, 2009 with any and all laboratory documentation in the possession of USADA for the 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 Athlete. The Panel therefore upholds USADA's decision to impose a provisional suspension against Athlete (the "Provisional Suspension").
- The Provisional Suspension shall make Athlete ineligible to participate in any "Competition or Event", as such are defined in the Code, or from membership or inclusion upon any team organized or nominated by the United States Olympic
Committee or any National Governing Body.
- The Provisional Suspension shall be in effect until the final hearing has been held and an award issued by the Panel or until the earlier of one of the following events: USADA and Athlete agree to a sanction, USADA withdraws its case against Athlete, or Athlete withdraws his request for arbitration or fails to prosecute his case resulting In imposition of a sanction.
- If within three (3) business days, Athlete submits to AAA any evidence in opposition to USADA's application for a provisional suspension, the Panel shall make a determination as to whether or not to reopen the Provisional Suspension hearing, failing which the Provisional Suspension shall be effective December 11, 2009.
- Athlete 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 December 11, 2009.
- The parties shall bear their own costs and attorney's fees.

AAA 2004 No. 30 190 01080 04 USADA vs Faruk Sahin

23 Mar 2004

Claimant USADA and respondent Faruk Sahin. Respondent's urine sample tested positive on the stimulant phentermine.
The substance was related to a pill he used from his wife in order to release back pains.
FILA Anti-Doping Regulations applying to this matter: The presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Wrestler's bodily Specimen; Imposition of Ineligibility for Prohibited Substances and Prohibited
Methods; Elimination or reduction of Period of Ineligibility based on Exceptional Circumstances.
Decision and Award: the two-year suspension which began on May 18, 2004 when respondent accepted a provisional suspension, is affirmed.

AAA 2002 No. 30 190 000912 USADA vs Pavle Jovanovic

29 Jan 2002

Claiment USADA and respondent Pavel Jovanovic, in the samples of the respondent traces of 19-norandrosterone where found. The Arbitrators conclude that Respondent should be suspended from any competition for nine months from January 26,2002, the date of the expedited decision.

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 00675 04 USADA vs Torri Edwards - Final Award

10 Aug 2004

Respondent, Torri Edwards, is an elite sprinter who was the gold medalist in the 100 meter event at the 2003 World Championships. She qualified for the 2004 United States Olympic Team in the 100 and 200 meter events.

On July19, 2004, the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel conducted a hearing pertaining to Respondent's positive doping test which occurred at the April 24, 2004 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) competition in Martinique known as the Meeting du Conseil Général.
At the hearing before the Panel, Respondent admitted that she had committed a doping offens through the ingestion of the prohibited stimulant nikethamide, but contended that exceptional circumstances existed which should result in the reduction of elimination of any period of ineligibility to be imposed in connection therewith. At the hearing, Respondent was given the opportunity to make a complete record regarding her claim of exceptional circumstances. She submitted document and testified about the circumstances surrounding her ingestion of nikethamide and submitted to cross examinations.
After the hearing the evidence and the arguments of counsel presented at the hearing the Panel concluded "that exceptional circumstances may here exist" and that " referral to the IAAF pursuant of Rule 38.16 is the proper course of action"

Acting upon the referral, the Doping Review Board of the IAAF issued a determination dated August 3, 2004. In this determination the IAAF Doping Review Board noted that it had reviewed the interim award, certain relevant correspondence, the exhibits presented at het hearing before the Panel and the transcript of the hearing before the Panel. That determination notes that Claimant and Respondent were given the opportunity to submit to the Doping Review Board evidence not presented during the hearing before the Panel.

The IAAF Doping Review Board summarized its conclusion on the question of the existence of “exceptional circumstances’ as follows: “The Doping Review Board does not consider the circumstances of this case to constitute Exceptional Circumstances as required by IAAF Rule 38.12. By reason of the factors, the Doping Review Board considers that Ms. Edwards is unable to establish that this anti-doping violation took place without significant fault of negligence on her part. On the contrary, in the Board’s view, the athlete was at significant fault and, in consequence of this, there are no Exceptional Circumstances in this case.

The presumptive sanction for Respondent’s doping offense is a minimum two year period of ineligibility to run from the date of the hearing pursuant to IAAF Rule 40.19a0, and disallowance of results obtained between the date of her positive drug test and the date on which her period of ineligibility begins, as set forth in IAAF Rule 39.4.
USADA had not sought a sanction of longer than the minimum two year period of ineligibility mandated by IAAF Rule 40.1(a), and the Panel has been presented with no evidence reflecting that a lengthier period of ineligibility is warranted.

Accordingly, pursuant to IAAF Rule 40.1(a)(i), the Panel hereby imposes a two year period of ineligibility upon Respondent to expire on July 17, 2006, and , in accordance with IAAF Rule 39.1 and 39.4, orders disqualification of all results obtained by Respondent at the April 24, 2004 competition in Martinique and all of Respondent’s subsequent competitive results through the date of this decision, including the forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money received as a result of competitions or appearances occurring during this period.

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 00675 04 USADA vs Torri Edwards - Interim Award

22 Jul 2007

The Respondent, Torri Edwards, is an elite athlete who has repeatedly been through doping control, with no positive results during her five year professional career. She exercised caution by not using the previously opened container offered by het trainer for fear of contamination, and the did take from his a locally purchased scaled glucose packet which was in a rare (and, at least on the individual packet, unmarked) combination with the prohibited substance shown in het subsequent test.
Respondent states that she had no reason to suspect, in spite of the highly charged environment of contaminated supplements and doping violations in the elite athlete community, that sealed packages of glucose would ever be combine with other substances, as it is always packaged alone (except, she had now learned to her detriment, in France and Vietnam.

The Panel find that exceptional circumstances may here exist. The Panel further determine, based in part of the lack of precedent under these newly promulgated rules as to what may constitute "no fault of negligence" under Rule 40.2 and "no significant fault or no significant negligence" under Rule 40.3, that referral to the IAAF pursuant to Rule 38.16 is the proper course of action. Accordingly, we adjourn these proceedings as set forth in subpart (o) thereof, and await the decision of the IAAF.

The Respondent concedes that she failed in her "personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his body tissues of fluids. Athletes are warned that they shall be held responsible for any prohibited substance found to be present in their bodies (IAAF Rule 38.12(i). Respondent accepts responsibility and stipulated that there was a doping violation. Therefore, the only issue submitted to the panel is whether to impose the requisite sanction, or to find that there may be exception circumstances under Rule 38,12(iii).

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 2002 No. 30 190 00814 02 USADA vs Kyoko Ina

25 Oct 2002

USADA claiment and repondent Kyoko Ina. Respondent failed No Advance Notice(NAN) test attempt on March 18, 2002, June 3, 2002, July 16, 2002. Also she refused a test on July 18, 2002. Hereby she committed a violation under section 5.2 (b) of the International Skating Union Anti-Doping Code. USADA proposed a 4 years suspension, this was rejected and arbritration followed.
USADA will not impose additional sanctions.
Respondent claims procedural infirmities, her privacy was invaded by testing late in the evening, the severe sanction doesn't comply.
However a violation has been made, the penalty will be a 4 years suspension.

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 2012 No. 77 190 00074 12 USADA vs Mark Jelks

23 May 2012

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.

AAA 2001 No. 30 190 00701 01 USADA vs Barney Reed

22 Apr 2002

Related case:

  • AAA 2007 No. 30 190 000548 07 USADA vs Barney Reed
    May 21, 2008
  • CAS 2008_A_1577 USADA vs Barney Reed
    December 15, 2008

Mr. Reed's sample tested positive for 19-norandrosterone (|Nandrolone). The award is two year suspension firom July 6, 2001, the date of the test, and cancellation of all sanctioned results and prizes firom that date.

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 2007 No. 30 190 000548 07 USADA vs Barney Reed

21 May 2008

Related cases:

  • AAA 2001 No. 30 190 00701 01 USADA vs Barney Reed
    April 22, 2002
  • CAS 2008_A_1577 USADA vs Barney Reed
    December 15, 2008

Claimant USADA and respondent Barney Reed.
This case involves respondents second anti-doping violation, a positve test for the prohibited substances, metabolites of Cannabinoids as a result of a legitimate medical condition. In his first anti-doping violation, he tested positive for an anabolic steroid in 2001, obtained from an over the counter product purchased at a vitamin supplement store.
By the rules of the Anti-Doping Code he faces a period of ineligibility of 2 years.
Through his pleadings, pre-hearing brief, oral argument, testimony given on March 31, 2008 at the evidentiary hearing and post-hearing brief, the respondent argued that the penalty sought by USADA should be reduced substantially. Repondent suffers from insomnia, stress and anxiety. He was treated by a physisian, who ultimately prescribed medical marijuana for Mr. Reed’s treatment, which is legal in the State of California. He didn't apply for the Therapeutic Use Exemption because he didn't knew the process. Marijuana is not a prohibited substance if taken out of competition, also it is not a substance which enhances sport performance.
The Panel considered the fact that the penalty for a firs time offense for marijuana could include as little as a warning. Having found that the respondent was not significantly negligent, the Panel reduces his
two year period of ineligibility to 15 months.

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