Calvin Harrison, the Respondent, gave a urine sample on June 21, 2003 following his participation in the U.S. Jr. and Sr. Outdoor National Track & Field Championships on that date. The existence of the substance “modafinil”, a prescription drug, was found in the Respondent’s bodily fluids in the urine sample.

Respondent denies that, when taken by him, modafinil was prohibited, and thus he did not commit a doping offense.
In 1993 Respondent provided an in-competition urine sample which tested positive for pseudoephedrine, ad drug then, but not currently, on IAAF’s prohibited substance list, for which he received a hearing resulting in the imposition, at that time, of the prescribed sanction. Since a finding that Respondent committed a doping offense would constitute a second offense under IAAF rules, USADA requests that the Panel impose a sanction that would include a minimum two-year period of ineligibility from July 26, 2004, the date of the evidentiary hearing and disqualification of Respondent’s result and award from the June, 2003 U.S. National Championships trough July 26, 2004.

The mere presence of a prohibited substance constitutes an offense. USADA is not required to prove any intent on the part of Respondent to take a prohibited substance, nor does Respondent allege a lack of such intent. The Panel find that Respondent, who admittedly took modafinil without a prescription, ingested a stimulant of the type specifically prohibited or pharmacologically related thereto
Since USADA met its burden of proving that Respondent ingested of prohibited substance, the Panel conclude that Respondent has committed a doping offense within the meaning of the applicable IAAF-rules.

Sanction:
- The North American Court of Arbitration for Sports Panel finds that Respondent committed a second offense.
- The Panel note that despite Respondent’s counsel’s undertaking that Calvin Harrison would be present at the hearing as a fact witness, to testify on his behalf and be examined by counsel and the Panel, he did not appear. In response to the Panel’ s inquiry, Respondent’s counsel affirmed that Respondent had been fully apprised of his rights to appear and express any “exceptional circumstances” for consideration by the Panel, but that he chose not to do so.
- Respondent’s counsel stipulated at the hearing that Respondent does not allege that there are any “exceptional circumstances” that might be considered by the Panel or IAAF in reducing the sanction prescribed under the IAAF Doping Control Rules.
- Accordingly Respondent is suspended for the minimum two-year period to commence from July 26, 2004, the date of the evidentiary hearing, to and including July 25, 2006. In addition Respondent is and shall be ineligible to receive any award or addition to his trust fund which would have resulted from his appearances or performances from June 21, 2003 through July 26, 2004.
The administrative fees and expenses of the AAA, the compensation of the aibitrators
and the costs of the hearing transcript shall be borne entirely by Claimant.

On May 13, 2007, respondent was tested during the Weightlifting National Championships in Schaumberg. Illinois, his test was positive for THC metabolite. This was a second in-competition positive test, respondent tested positive on December 3 , 2006 at the American Open in Birmingham Alabama. Respondent accepted a three months period of ineligibility from competition with the three months deferred if he completed USADA's Online education program.
The rules when the period of ineligibility of the IWF are in conflict with the World Anti-Doping Code. Respondent accepted a provisional suspension. At a pre-hearing on April 28, 2008, respondent argues that a 2 years suspension is too long.
The hearing decision: the appropriate period of ineligibility is two years, starting from de date of provisional suspension.

Damu Cherry, The Respondent, is an athlete in the sport of track and field (athletics. She has been in the USA Track and Field (USATF) out-of-competition (OOC) drug testing pool since the fourth quarter of 2001.

On February 18, 2003, as part of an out-of-competition drug test, Respondent provided a urine. The IOC accredited University of California at Los Angeles Olympic Analytical Laboratory (UCLA Lab) performed the testing on the A sample ant it revealed the presence of 19-norandrosterone. This finding was reported to USADA. The Respondent was notified of such findings and requested an analysis of the B sample. The USLA Lab tested the B sample and reported that Respondent’s urine sample was positive for 19-norandrosterone. Respondent declined to accept the two-year sanction recommended by USADA, but accepted a provisional suspension effective August 2, 2003. The evidentiary hearing took place on November 3, 4 and 5, 2003, in New York.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel is convince that Respondent’s positive test result was not due to endogenous production. Dr. Di Pasquale lacked the expertise and experience, in contrast to Drs. Catlin, Seifer, and Bulun, to support his endogenous production theory, which, in any event, was unsupported by credible, scientific evidence.
The Panel is convinced that the applicable threshold set by the IOC based on recommendation on the directors of the various IOC accredited labs is valid.
USADA produce evidence supported by able argumentation that Respondent had not met the burden of proving that a reduction in the suspension period is warranted.

The Panel 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 November 24, 2003 is imposed on Respondent pursuant to IAAF Rule 60. The Respondent is credited with the time of her provisional suspension, effective August 2, 2003
- All competitive results which occurred on or after February 18, 2003, are cancelled.
- A two-year period of ineligibility beginning August 2, 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.

Val Barnwell is a 52-year old athlete with an accomplished career in track (and field) events. He has participated in multiple 100 m and 200 m events. At the 2008 World Masters Indoors Championship, het set the Men’s 50 world record in the 60m dash. He participated in the 2009 World Masters as a member of the USA team, in which he won gold medals in the M50 100 m, and 200 m.

The Respondent, gave a urine sample on August 3. 2009, as part of the USADA In-Competition testing program at the World Masters Athletics Championships in Lahti, Finland. The Respondent later won gold medals in the 4 x 100 relay and the 4 x 400 relay.
The Helsinki Laboratory determined through carbon isotope ration (CIR) analysis that the sample contained values consistent with the administration of a synthetic anabolic androgenic steroid (androstendione) in the A bottle.
The WADA-accredited Cologne Laboratory determined through CIR analysis that the sample contained values consistent with the administration of a synthetic anabolic androgenic steroid (androstendione) in both the A and B bottles.

After a hearing the Panel provisionally suspended the Respondent effective December 11, 2009. The period of ineligibility will be a maximum of two (2) years, unless aggravating circumstance are established, in which case the maximum period of ineligibility will be four (4) years.

The hearing was held on February 25, 2010.
the Respondent failed to establish any "exceptional circumstances" that would entitle him to a reduction in sanctions since he admitted that he did not check the ingredients on the supplements that he took. that he had not read the lAAF ADRs, and that he did not take responsibility for what went into his body, exclaiming that the
statement regarding responsibility for what goes in an athlete's body does not belong due to the type of meet he was participating in at the World Masters. Instead, he called that requirement an "insult" since athletes participate in the events "to have fun".
The Respondent did not meet his burden of proof. He failed to prove how the banned substance got into his system, a precondition to qualify for any reduction in sanctions.

USADA did not meet its burden of proving that there were "aggravating circumstances'' present under the evidence which would justify the imposition of a period of ineligibility greater than the Standard sanction. lAAF ADR 40.6. USADA was required to bear the burden of proof with legal sufficiency that the Respondent used or possessed multiple prohibited substances or used prohibited substances on multiple occasions or engaged in deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection or
adjudication of an anti-doping rule violation.

Award:
- The Respondent has committed a doping violation under the WADA Code, Article 10.2, by reason of the use of the testosterone prohormone (androstendione).
- Regardless of an athlete's age, all are entitled to compete on a level playing field at all events, including Masters level events. Cheating and doping have no place in sports.
- The two-year suspension, which began on December 11,2009, the effective date of the provisional suspension, is affirmed.
- The Respondent is held to forfeit his medals from the 2009 World Masters' Events, lAAF ADR 40.1.

Related case:

CAS 2008_A_1473 Joe Warren vs USADA
July 24, 2008

The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the wrestler Joe Warren after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis. This is the Athlete's second violation due to he was sanctioned for 3 months in 2006 for the presence of Cannabis.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel (AAA).

The Athlete admitted the use of marijuana and that he had committed a second anti-doping rule violation. He asserted that exceptional circumstances justify a finding of No Significant Fauly or Negligence based on the facts of his case and therefore the imposition of a reduced sanction.

Additionally, he argued that the application of the principle of
proportionality applies to this sanction justifying a reduction below that allowed by the FILA Regulations.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete makes a good case for exceptional circumstances regarding his one use of marijuana in May of 2007. However the panel must consider his overall conduct of continued use after his first positive in 2006, a lifestyle conducive to placing his career and his liberty in jeopardy.

The Arbitrator considers that the Athlete failed to seek competent mental and medical advice despite the obvious need for it. He also made a calculated decision to take the chance on a possible positive test with full knowledge of the consequences.

The Arbitrator deems that these considerations do not justify a reduced period of eligibility based on the principle of proportionality nor do they justify afinding of No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the AAA Tribunal decides on 14 January 2007 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspenson, i.e. on 23 July 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.