Related cases:

• AAA No. 30 190 00686 04 USADA vs Eddy Hellebuyck
  December 9, 2004
• CAS 2005_A_831 IAAF vs Eddy Hellebuyck
  May 5, 2006

The Respondent, Hellebuyck, was a member of USA Track & Field, Inc. ("USATF")' for the time period in question in this case.
Respondent was an elite-level distance runner in the sport of track and field. He has won over 20 marathons in his career. He was a 1996 Olympian and a member of 5 World Championship teams- combined for both his native Belgium and his adopted home of the United States. He has also been a Masters level runner for a number of years.

On January 31, 2004, Hellebuyck provided a urine sample as part of USADA's out of competition drug testing program. The WADA accredited laboratory at the University of California Los Angeles found Hellebuyck's sample positive for recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO).

Based on admissions by Respondent, Eddy Hellebuyck, that he took EPO on multiple occasions prior to January 31, 2004, the starting date for his doping sanction previously imposed by prior AAA and CAS panels, Claimant, United States Anti-Doping Agency ("USADA" or "Claimant") seeks to extend back in time the period of Hellebuyck's in eligibility to disqualify his prior results and cause forfeiture of any medals and prize money Hellebuyck may have obtained during that extended period.

In what the Panel believes is a case of first impression, the Panel determines that Hellebuyck’s perjury in a proceeding before the anti-doping tribunal established by the USOC, WADA and lAAF precludes Hellebuyck from arguing for any protection under lAAF or WADA Rules regarding limiting the time USADA has to pursue charges against him. Athletes" in AAA and CAS tribunals cannot be forced to testify against themselves, they can choose not to testify.
However, if they choose to testify before an AAA or CAS tribunal, they have a legal duty to testify truthfully. Hellebuyck breached that duty when he testified that he never used EPO in his 2004 hearing before the AAA and 2005 hearing before CAS. But for his perjury, Hellebuyck's records would have been expunged from 2001 through 2004. Hellebuyck cannot now come before this tribunal and in essence use his perjury as a means to avoid the consequences that should have been imposed in 2004. As a result, Respondent's sanction for his first anti-doping offense shall be modified to invalidate his competitive results from October 1, 2001 through January 30, 2004.

On the basis of the foregoing facts and legal aspects, the Panel renders the following decision:

• Respondent has committed a doping violation under Article 2.1 of the 2009 version of the WADA Code.
• The following sanction shall be imposed on Respondent: Respondent's sanction for his first anti-doping offense shall be extended and modified to invalidate his competitive results from October 1, 2001 through January 30, 2004.

True to oneself? Broad and narrow ideas on authenticity in the enhancement debate / L.L. Bolt. - (Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (2007) 4 (August). - p. 285-300)

Our knowledge of the human brain and the influence of pharmacological substances on human mental functioning is expanding. This creates new possibilities to enhance personality and character traits. Psychopharmacological enhancers, as well as other enhancement technologies, raise moral questions concerning the boundary between clinical therapy and enhancement, risks and safety, coercion and justice. Other moral questions include the meaning and value of identity and authenticity, the role of happiness for a good life, or the perceived threats to humanity. Identity and authenticity are central in the debate on psychopharmacological enhancers. In this paper, I first describe the concerns at issue here as extensively propounded by Carl Elliott. Next, I address David DeGrazia’s theory, which holds that there are no fundamental identity-related and authenticity-related arguments against enhancement technologies. I argue, however, that DeGrazia’s line of reasoning does not succeed in settling these concerns. His conception of identity does not seem able to account for the importance we attach to personal identity in␣cases where personal identity is changed through enhancement technology. Moreover, his conception of authenticity does not explain the reason why we find inauthentic values objectionable. A broader approach to authenticity can make sense of concerns about changes in personal identity by means of enhancement technologies.

Claimant USAD and respondent Frankie Caruso. Respondent was tested in the Men’ s Championship Tournament in March 2003 and selected for drug testing, he disclosed that within the three days had taken two hydroxy-cut pill; a water pill and a Centrum pill.
Furosemide was found in his sample, this is a prohibited or banned substance under the AIBA rules. Respondent was guilty of an anti-doping rule violation.
Frankie Caruso shall be suspended from all sanctioned USA Boxing competition for a period of two years, commencing April 10, 2003. The results of his boxing competitions at the U.S. Men’ s Championship held in March, 2003 are declared invalid.

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

The Respondent, Mark Hainline ("Hainline"), is an athlete in the sport of archery.
On April 16,2005, Hainline participated in the Arizona Cup and placed third.

As of August 13,2004, the USADA protocol implemented the mandatory provisions from the World Anti-Doping Code (the "WADA Code") into the USADA Protocol, "Which include the WADA definitions of anti-doping rule violations, burden, of proof prohibited list and sanctions.

The parties entered into Stipulations of Uncontested Facts and Issues on August 11, 2005. In addition to the agreement regarding the applicability of the USADA Protocol and the WADA Code, the parties agreed that:
- Hainline did not stipulate that he agreed to the application of or had knowledge of the provisions of the USADA Protocol or WADA Code at the time.
- Hainline refused to be tested when requested by USADA. ("Test Refusal")
- Hainline did not contest that his Test Refusal is a first doping offense.
- The period of ineligibility will be a maximum of two (2) years beginning on the date of the decision with credit being given for the time Hainline served a provisional suspension beginning on April 27, 2005, to a minimum of one (1) year.
- Hainline was disqualified from the Arizona Cup and forfeits any and all competitive results received subsequent to the Arizona Cup and this hearing.
- Hainline will testify that he used a prohibited substance immediately prior to competing at the Arizona Cup on April 16, 2005, and that he subsequently refused to allow the testing.

The Panel decides as follows:
- A doping violation occurred on the part of the Respondent.
- The minimum suspension for a first offender of two (2) years, to take place effective from April 16,2005, is imposed on the Respondent pursuant to WADA Code Article 10.2.
- The Respondent will receive credit for the provisional suspension that he began serving on April 27, 2005.
- The Respondent had already been disqualified from the Arizona Cup and had forfeited, any and all competitive results received subsequent to the Arizona Cup.
- During the same two-year period of ineligibility, the Respondent shall not have access to the training facilities of the USOC Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC, including grants, awards or employment.

The Appellant reached the semi-finals at the United States Men's National Boxing Championship, which was held at Colorado Springs on the 16th March 2001. He qualified for the final, and subsequently won the silver medal. After the semi-fïnal, the Appellant was required to submit to a drug test pursuant to USADA's Regulations. He provided a urine sample, and completed the appropriate USADA Doping Control Official Record. He declared on that form that, during the previous 3 days, he had taken multivitamins, chelate minerals, "alphalpha" , creatine, essential fatty acids and a green tea pill. The sample was divided, as usual into "A" and "B" samples. Both samples were transported to the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory in Los Angeles, California. They were received by the Laboratory on the 18 March 2001, and were there properly stored and labelled. The Appellant accepts that both the collection of the sample and the chain of custody were properly completed. The "A" sample was batch-screened, and it was determined that there was a possibility that it contained nandrolone metabolites. Accordingly, confirmation procedures were undertaken. These were completed on the 29th March 2001, when it was determined that the "A" sample contained a concentration of 19-norandrosterone greater than 2 ng/ml and 19-noretiocholanolone, both of which are nandrolone metabolites. USADA was notified of the result of the test of the "A" sample, and duly passed on that notification to the Appellant, who was given the option to have the " B " sample tested at the same laboratory. The Appellant elected to have that test carried out.
On the 1st May 2001 the UCLA Laboratory issued its report on the " B " sample. It concluded that the " B " sample contained 19-norandrosterone at a concentration greater than 2 ng/ml and 19-noretiocholanolone. On about the 4th May 2001, the
Appellant was notified of the positive result of the " B " sample. He was also notified that USADA was referring the matter to its Anti-Doping Review Board.

A doping offence is committed. A provided hairtest from the respondent is considered not to be valid. His suspension will reduced from 2 years to 18 months, and has to advice his football team about the dangers of taking supplements.

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

This case involves the first anti-doping violation for Joshua O'Neil ("Respondent").
He is a 24 year-old world class Judo athlete who placed second at the 2008 Olympic trials and won the USA Judo Senior National Championships in the 66K division in 2009. He has been in the United States Anti-Doping Agency ("USADA") Registered Testing Pool for several years and has been randomly tested on a number of occasions. He has never before tested positive or been found to have committed a doping offense.

Respondent gave a urine sample on April 18, 2009, as part of the USADA In-Competition testing program at the U.S. Senior Judo National Championships. Respondent's sample tested positive for ritalinic acid (Ritalin), a metabolite of methylphenidate, which is prohibited in the Class of Stimulants on the 2009 World Anti-Doping Agency ("WADA") Prohibited List (and is a Specified Substance). By stipulation, Respondent accepted the laboratory findings and agreed that the Positive Test constituted a first doping offense. The period of Ineligibility is a maximum of two (2) years. Respondent stated that he took a Ritalin tablet two (2)
days before the Championships to aid in studying for a firefighter's examination, and that he did not do so to enhance his athletic performance. He reserved the right in his stipulation, and thereafter argued, that the period of Ineligibility should be reduced under Article 10.4 (Elimination or Reduction of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances) of the World Anti-Doping Code ("WADC"), or under Article 10.5.2 (No Significant Fault or Negligence), that the concept of proportionality should apply, and that the period of Ineligibility should commence on the date of the sample collection (April 18, 2009) pursuant to Article 10.9.2.

The only disputed issues in this case are the period of Respondent's Ineligibility and the date upon which it begins. After full consideration of the briefs and the testimony in light of the required elements and the respective burdens of proof under Articles 10.4, 10.5.2 and 10.9.2 of the WADC (which has been adopted by the International Judo Federation (the "IJF"), the Arbitrator finds that the Respondent was significantly negligent in taking Ritalin approximately two (2) days prior to a major Championship and was unable to demonstrate to the comfortable satisfaction of the Arbitrator that such action was not intended to enhance his athletic performance.
The Respondent was, however, forthright about having made a serious mistake and took full responsibility for his actions. Moreover, he made a timely admission before competing again after being confronted with the anti-doping rule violation, and voluntarily accepted on June 10, 2009 a Provisional Suspension in writing from USADA. The Arbitrator recognizes the benefits of encouraging honest acceptance of responsibility on the part of athletes, and concomitantly, of reducing the time and expense associated with pursuing anti-doping rule violations. After due consideration, the Arbitrator hereby sets the period of Ineligibility at two (2) years, commencing on April 18, 2009.

George Hartman (“The Respondent”) is a member of the United States Judo Association (“USA Judo”). In 2005, Respondent was ranked number two in the United States under the 100kg weight category. Respondent has been in the USADA’s Out-of-Competition testing pool since November of 2004.

Respondent tested positive for testosterone in a March 2,2005 Out-of-Competition drug test. He admits being administered testosterone, but argues that his testosterone treatment was medically necessary as a result of his disability. Respondent requested that his two-year period of ineligibility be reduced under the Exceptional Circumstances provision of the World Anti Doping Code ("Code") Article 10.5. In addition, Respondent requested protection under the Americans with Disability Act ("ADA").
The Panel finds that Respondent failed to sustain his burden of proof that he suffers from a disability. As a consequence, the Panel imposes a two-year period of ineligibility, along with other sanctions as required by the Code.

Related cases:
AAA No. 77 190 00288 08 JENF USADA vs Jessica Hardy - Interim Award
August 1, 2008
CAS 2009_A_1870 WADA vs Jessica Hardy & USADA
May 21, 2010
CAS 2011_O_2422 USOC vs IOC
October 4, 2011

In July 2008 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jessica Hardy after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibitied substance clenbuterol.

After an Interim Award of 1 August 2008 the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel (AAA) considered the Athlete's negligence with the use of contaminated supplements and decided in a Final Award on 30 May 2009 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Related cases:
AAA No. 77 190 00288 08 USADA vs Jessica Hardy
May 30, 2009
CAS 2009_A_1870 WADA vs Jessica Hardy & USADA
May 21, 2010
CAS 2011_O_2422 USOC vs IOC
October 4, 2011

In the matter of the Arbitration between claimant USADA and respondent Jessica Hardy, agree that testing of the supplements used by Respondent JESSICA HARDY in July 2008, has not yet been completed; and agree that the completion of the supplement testing is potentially relevant to issues in this case; limited evidence on the issue of whether respondent Jessica Hardy has violated La Fédération Internationale de Natation ("FINA") Doping Control Rules DC 2.1 and 2.2. for the presence of the substance clenbuterol in her sample.
The hearing has been bifurcated into two phases.The first phase of the arbitration hearing (hereinafter referred to as “PHASE ONE”) was limited to the issue of whether Respondent Jessica Hardy has violated FINA DC 2.1 and 2.2 for the presence of the substance clenbuterol in sample and the imposition of any presumptive period of ineligibility. The second phase of the arbitrational hearing (referred to as "PHASE TWO") will be limited to the issue of wether exceptional circumstances exist pursuant to FINA DC 10.5 that might reduce or eliminate the presumptive periode of ineligibility.

Hiram Cruz (“The Respondent”), is a top ranked member of the United States Judo Association. He is currently ranked number one in the 55g weight category, and has been ranked as low as number eleven in the 60k weight category.

On February 18,2003, as part of an out-of-competition drug test, Respondent provided a urine sample at the request of a USADA Doping Control Officer. The UCLA accredited laboratory (“UCLA Lab"), which conducted the test, received the sample on February 20, 2003. On February 21, 2003, the laboratory screening test performed from the “A”-sample of Respondent’s urine specimen indicated the presence of a prohibited substance.

The A confirmation testing was performed on February 28, 2003, and it revealed the presence of Hydroxy-androstenedione, a metabolite of the prohibited anabolic steroid, 4-androstene-6 α-ol-3,17-dione (=6αOH-androstenedione) (“Hydroxy-androstendione”), in each of three “aliquots” from the “A” sample from which the three separate analyses were performed. This finding was reported to USADA. The Respondent was notified of such finding by letter of March, 2003. That letter advised Respondent that if he chose not to accept the “A” sample test results he had the right to request and observe the “B” sample analysis. On March 25, 2003, the UCLA Lab tested the “B” sample. The three replicates from the B sample also were positive for
Hydroxy-androstenedione. The UCLA Lab reported that Respondent’s urine sample was positive..

By letter of April 22,2003, the USADA Anti-Doping Review Board
recommended inter alia the minimum two-year suspension from the date the positive sample was collected, February 18, and the retroactive cancellation of all competitive results which occurred on or after that date. Respondent advised USADA of his election to proceed to arbitration, which USADA formally initiated in its May 5, 2003 letter to AAA and International Judo Federation (IJF).

Respondent is likewise responsible for the presence of the prohibited substance in his body. Respondent failed to meet his burden of proof to establish a defence that may have allowed for reduction in sanctions. USADA produced evidence supported by able argumentation that Respondent had not met the burden of proving that a reduction in the suspension period is warranted. The case law clearly indicated that the proportionality doctrine has to date been applied in a sports specific and conduct specific manner taking into account the specific international federation rules and, in the case of United States athletes, the USADA Protocol.

The panel of North American Court of Arbitration for Sport decides as follows:
- A doping violation occurred on the part of Respondent.
- The minimum suspension for a first offender of two (2) years to take place effective from February 18, 2003 is imposed on Respondent pursuant to IJF 17.
- All competitive results which occurred on or after that date are cancelled.
- A two-year period of ineligibility beginning February 18, 2003, from access to the training facilities of the USOC Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC, including grants, awards or employment is imposed.

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