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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Respondent, Ms. LaTasha Jenkins (“Ms. Jenkins”) or “Respondent”, is an elite-level athlete in the sport of track and field. Ms. Jenkins has participated in USA Track an Field’s (“USATF”) Out-of-Competition testing pool since 2000. Prior to this period, Ms. Jenkins participated in the International Association of Athletic Federations (“IAAF”) drug testing program. With the sole exception of the test in issue, Ms. Jenkins has not previously tested positive for a prohibited substance.

On 22 July 2006, while competing in the KBC Night Hechtel Meet in Heusen, Belgium, The IAAF required Ms. Jenkins to submit to a drug test. On the same day, Ms. Jenkins participated and placed first in the women’s 100 meter event. Later that evening, Ms. Jenkins provided a urine sample at the doping control station at the venue, dividing the sample into two Berlinger collection bottles (“A” sample and “B” sample) each identified by control number 689699.
On the Doping Control Form, Ms. Jenkins declared that she had taken Voltaren, a prescription pain medication, Tylenol, and multi-vitamins over the course of the seven day period prior to administration of the test. The amount of urine collected and its pH at the time of collection were also measured and recorded on the Form.

The sample was then shipped on 25 July 2006 to the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”)-accredited laboratory in Ghent, Belgium (“Ghent Laboratory”)
On 31 July 2006, the Ghent Laboratory conducted an initial laboratory screen from Ms. Jenkins’s “A” sample using Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (“GC/MS”) and detected the presence of the anabolic steroid metabolite Norandrosterone.
On 2 August 2006, the Ghent Laboratory took three aliquots from the “A” sample bottle and performed three separate analyses of the urine, all of which revealed the presence of Norandrosterone at an average concentration of 7.80 mg/ml.
The Ghent Laboratory subsequently reported the “A” sample as positive to the IAAF.
On 4 August 2006, at the request of the IAAF, Ms Jenkins’s sample was sent to the WADA-accredited laboratory in Köln, Germany (“Cologne Laboratory”) for analysis by Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry (“IRMS”).
On 8 August 2006, the Cologne Laboratory reported the “A” sample as positive for Nandrolone.

Following notification that the “A” sample had tested positive for the presence of Norandrosterone in excess of the allowable threshold, Ms. Jenkins requested that the “B” sample be tested. Ms. Jenkins did not attend or request the attendance of a representative during the B sample test.
On 21 September 2006, the Ghent Laboratory took three aliquots from the “B” sample bottle and performed three separate analyses of the urine. Ms. Jenkins’s “B” sample tested positive for Norandrosterone at a level of 12.30 ng/ml. The Ghent Laboratory again reported its finding to the IAAF.
On 22 September 2006, USATF wrote to USADA requesting that the agency handle the positive testing result under the USADA Protocol.
Following notification of the “B” sample results, Ms. Jenkins agreed to serve a provisional suspension beginning on 23 October 2006.

USADA subsequently requested that IRMS analysis also be performed on Ms. Jenkins’s “B” sample. On 20 December 2006, the Cologne Laboratory reported that the “B” sample confirmed the finding of Nandrolone in Ms. Jenkins’s specimen.
On 16 January 2007, USADA informed Ms. Jenkins in writing that the result of the “B” sample IRMS analysis conducted by the Cologne Laboratory also confirmed the presence of Norandrosterone in her specimen.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel is of the view that:
- USADA has proven that the prohibited substance 19-Norandrosterone was found above the threshold level in urine specimen 689699 provided by the Respondent on 22 July 2006;
- The Respondent has successfully demonstrate that ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2 was violated by both the Ghent and Cologne laboratories;
- The Respondent has not demonstrated that ISL 5.2.5.1.1 was violated;
- And USADA has failed to prove to the Panel’s comfortable satisfaction that the failure by both laboratories to observe ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2. did not undermine the validity of the testing result.
In view of the Panel’s finding that USADA has failed to demonstrate that the violation of ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2 by both laboratories did not undermine the validity of the test results, the results must be set aside.

In closing, the Panel wishes to add two comments. Firstly, doping in sport is a scourge which must be eradicated. It is a strict liability offence and, just as the athletes who are subject to the anti-doping regime are expected to follow is rules and standard to the letter, so they are entitled by the anti-doping authorities themselves, including the WADA accredited laboratories that play such a vital role in the regime. Following the rules applicable to all stakeholders is the best method of ensuring the integrity of sport.
Finally, the Panel wishes to emphasize certain aspects of the findings which compel its award in this case. The Panel has found that two WADA-accredited laboratories detected prohibited levels of 19-Norandrostrone in the Respondent’s sample provide on 22 July 2006. The Panel has also determined that those test results must be set aside because of a violation of the ISL and because USADA was unable to prove that this violation did nor undermine the validity of the test results in question. However, the Panel has not found that the violation of the ISL caused the Respondent’s test result; nor has it determined whether the Respondent did or did not use a prohibited substance such as to account for the test result at issue.

The Panel therefore finds and awards as follows:
- The Ghent and Cologne Laboratories violated ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2 in the conduct of their analysis of Ms. Jenkins’s sample;
- The Ghent and Cologne Laboratories did not violate ISL 5.2.5.1.1 in the conduct of their analysis of Ms Jenkins’s sample;
- Claimant, USADA, has not demonstrated to the Panel’s comfortable satisfaction that the violation of ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2 did not cause the AAF arising from the analysis of the Respondent’s, Ms. Jenkins’s, sample by the Ghent and Cologne Laboratories;
- The testing results of Respondent are set aside.

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

Members of the Panel have deliberated and, unanimously, reached the following conclusions:
1. The Gent and Cologne laboratories have violated ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2;
2. Claimant, USADA, has not demonstrated to the Panel's comfortable satisfaction that this violation did not cause Ms. Jenkins' adverse analytical finding;
3. The testing results of Respondent, LaTasha Jenkins, are set aside.

Christopher L. Campbell, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur with the majority decision in finding that Mr. Gatlin should be sanctioned for his second violation. I dissent from the majority decision to increase Mr. Gatlin’s sanction on the basis of his first violation. The procedural and substantive status of the first violation makes it improper for the Panel to impose an increased sanction because there was no finding of fault by the arbitration panel or the IAAF Council. Moreover, given the facts, Mr. Gatlin was not at fault for his first violation.

The first violation was caused by the medication Mr. Gatlin was taking for his disability, Attention Deficit Disorder (“ADD”). Increasing Mr. Gatlin’s sanction for his first violation because of his disability is blatant discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
By imposing sanctions on athletes like Mr. Gatlin who take medication for their legitimate disability, the Anti-Doping Organizations are willfully violating the law behaving as if they are above the law. In these circumstances, they are nothing more than bullies preying on the vulnerable. The federal government should take a serious look at this practice.

It is deeply disturbing how the majority has played fast and loose with the facts and the law in justifying discriminating against Mr. Gatlin. To find fault and fail to provide a reasonable accommodation for the first violation of an athlete testing positive because of a legitimately disability is an affront to the federal law and human rights. Such discrimination is incompatible with the public policy of the United States and Switzerland.

The Respondent, Justin Gatlin, is a member of the USA Track & Field, Inc. (“USATF”).He is the 2005 World and USA Outdoor 100m and 200m champion; 2004 Olympic 100m gold, 200m bronze, 4x100m relay silver medalist.

The Panel notes at the outset that this case appears to be unique, and its circumstances are unlikely ever to be repeated. It has proved particularly nettlesome, involving as it does an earlier AAA Panel Decision, made in 2001 under a prior set of IAAF code provisions. That earlier 2001 AAA Panel rendered what appears to be an interim, non-final decision pending disposition of a petition for reinstatement by the IAAF. When the IAAF reinstated Mr. Gatlin in 2002, the 2001 AAA Panel did not resume its deliberations, nor render a final decision, nor in any way, modify its initial decision, finding a doping violation and imposing a 2 year suspension on Mr. Gatlin for what the Panel found, and evidently the IAAF found was a completely inadvertent, unintentional violation which would have been avoided through the simple step of seeking permission for the use of a therapeutic, prescription medication. Nevertheless, the 2001 AAA Panel found a doping violation, Mr. Gatlin, and all of his witnesses consistently testified that they considered and understood that finding to constitute a first doping violation. At no time did Mr. Gatlin claim it was not a violation, nor did he present any evidence that it was not a finding of a first doping violation.
Nevertheless, the Panel found itself constrained by its obligations to consider the implications on the present case, of the findings or lack of findings in that 2001 decision.
Turning to the present case, the Panel finds that the evidence presented supports a finding that Mr. Gatlin committed a doping violation in 2006, namely the use of exogenous testosterone, which was detected in his system on or about April 22, 2006. The Panel further finds that Mr. Gatlin failed to sustain his burden of proof to show how the Prohibited Substance entered his body, in order to rely upon a claim of no fault, or no significant fault in connection with the 2006 doping violation.
The doping violation which was established by the proofs herein, was Mr. Gatlin’s second doping violation, the first having occurred in 2001 while Mr. Gatlin was a student at the University of Tennessee2. Since that finding meant that the present matter constitutes a second violation and additional potential penalties be considered, the Panel considered arguments of Mr. Gatlin that the first violation should not be counted and USADA’s to the contrary.
Despite the arguments of Mr. Gatlin, detailed more fully hereinbelow, there is no evidence before the Panel which would sustain the argument that the first doping violation should not be considered and that the current doping violation was, therefore, effectively a first violation.
Mr. Gatlin’s period of ineligibility will be four (4) years from May 26, 2006 ( thirty (30) days following the date on which his urine sample was taken). He is disqualified from and forfeits any and all competitive results, if any, received on or subsequent to April 22, 2006 through the end of his period of ineligibility.
While the Panel has held that it has no basis upon which to ignore the first finding of a doping violation, for the reasons discussed below, we adjure the International Amateur Athletic Federation (“IAAF”) to determine whether, in the exercise of its discretion, if its decision reinstating Mr. Gatlin in 2002 and eliminating any further ban from competition should be held to have been based on or the equivalent of a finding that he had no contributing fault in connection with his first doping violation. Similarly, Mr. Gatlin may choose to present evidence that the anti-doping authorities in 2001 affirmatively represented to Mr. Gatlin that cessation of use three days prior to competition would be sufficient compliance with the rules, and therefore the first panel, which has never relinquished jurisdiction over that offense would have found “no fault..” If either be the case, then it ought not be counted for purposes of the present award, and the Panel will retain jurisdiction over the award set out herein below to adjust that award should a decision of the IAAF, or subsequently discovered facts or events so warrant.

As will be more fully discussed below, the Panel notes that no AAA or CAS Panel has ruled that proceedings by Anti-Doping Organizations are subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act or comparable Swiss laws that prohibit discrimination against the disabled. Given the abject failure of Mr. Gatlin to support his mere generalized statement about those laws, this Panel likewise does not have to rule on that issue as it was not properly presented to it. We do note that the task of this Panel is made more difficult by the complexity caused by those statutes, which have not been explored in detail before this Panel. The Dissent presents detailed argument and citation as to why those statutes should be considered and thereby either invalidate the 2001 AAA Panel decision, or prohibit its consideration. Had Mr. Gatlin presented such arguments, or indeed virtually any arguments, they would have been considered by the Panel but the Panel makes no conclusions as to the outcome had he done so.

On the basis of the foregoing facts and legal aspects, this Panel renders the following decision:
- Respondent has committed a doping violation under the WADA Code, Article 10.2, by reason of the use of exogenous testosterone in 2006.
- The 2006 doping violation was Respondent’s second doping offense.
- There was no finding of the nature, level or existence of “fault” as to the first doping violation, either by the 2001 AAA Panel in 2001, which referred the matter for a final determination to the IAAF, nor by IAAF in 2002 when it decided that such “exceptional circumstances” existed so as to justify the immediate reinstatement of Mr. Gatlin.
- It therefore falls to this Panel to construe the language of and the record in that prior doping offense decision, to determine if it qualifies as the equivalent of a “no fault” determination such as to justify not counting it as a first offense, solely for purposes of the award for a second offense.
- The lack of requested evidence, finding by the 2001 AAA Panel of a doping violation, the nature of the standard applied in 2001, and the actions of the IAAF clearly suggest at a minimum, a finding of “no significant fault” in 2001. However, there is no evidence from which this Panel may determine that a finding of “no fault” under the current WADA standard was made or could be inferred.
- Therefore, the totality of circumstances causes the Panel to conclude that the 2001 decision of the AAA Panel and the 2002 decision of the IAAF cannot be construed, on the record before this Panel, as constituting a “no fault” level of responsibility on the part of the Respondent under Code section 10.5.1.
- The following sanctions shall be imposed on Respondent:
A four-year period of ineligibility commencing on May 25, 2006 through May 24, 2010, including his ineligibility from participating in U.S. Olympic, Pan American or Paralympics Games, trials or qualifying events, being a member of any U.S. Olympic, Pan America or Paralympics Games team and having access to the training facilities of the United States Olympic Committee 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.
- The retroactive cancellation of all competitions results and awards occurring after April 22, 2006 through the date of this Award.

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

Claimant USADA and respondent Luis Arias.
USADA announced today that an independent American Arbitration Association (AAA) arbitrator has issued a decision finding that Luis Arias, of Oak Creek, Wis., a U.S. athlete in the sport of boxing, has committed an anti-doping rule violation and has received a one-year suspension for the offense.

Arias is a member of the USADA National Testing Pool, which consists of a select group of athletes subject to certain whereabouts requirements in order to be located for USADA Out-of-Competition testing. Arias failed to comply with the whereabouts requirements and, as a result, accrued three Whereabouts Failures within an 18-month period. Under the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing and the International Boxing Association (AIBA) Anti-Doping Rules, both of which have adopted the World Anti-Doping Code (“Code”), the combination of three Whereabouts Failures within an 18-month period constitutes a rule violation. A Whereabouts Failure for National Testing Pool athletes includes failure to provide required quarterly whereabouts filings and/or failure to be available for testing due to inaccurate or incomplete information provided by the athlete.

A hearing was held on February 23, 2012. Arias’ one-year period of ineligibility, began on February 24, 2012 the date the arbitrator issued the decision. As a result of the violation, Arias has been disqualified from all competitive results achieved on and subsequent to January 1, 2012, the date of his third Whereabouts Failure, including forfeiture of any medals, points, and prizes.