Michelle Collins is a world-class sprinter. In 2000, she principally competed in the 400 meters, but in 2002, she began to compete more in 200-meter races. On March 15, 2003, she won the world indoor championship in that event. After that race, Collins was injured, and she did not reace again in 2003. In 2004, she ran the 200 meters twiece in May, but she has otherwise not competed.

In this case USADA seeks for the first time to sanction an athlete who has not tested positive in any of her in-competition or out-of-competition drug tests. Thus on the one hand, the case involves issues that have not previously had to be decided by Arbitral Tribunals. On the other hand, the straightforward application of legal principles to essentially undisputed facts leads to a clear resolution of this matter.

USADA seeks a lifetime ban of Michelle Collins for participating in a wide-ranging doping conspiracy implemented by the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO). USADA charges that, for a period of several years, Collins used various performance-enhancing drugs provided by BALCO. Collins has never had a single drug test found to be a positive doping violation, but USADA’s charges are based, in part, on all of the blood and urine tests at IOC-accredited laboratories that she has had in recent years. USADA also relies upon documents seized by the U.S. government from BALCO that have been provided to USADA; statements made by BALCO officials; documents obtained by other law enforcement means; and other documents about Michelle Collins.

For the reasons described in this Award, The Arbitral Tribunal holds that USADA has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Collins was guilty of doping through the use of prohibited substances and techniques for more that a year. This conclusion is bases principally on two sets of documents: emails from Collins in which she admits to using some of the prohibited substances and techniques, and undisputed blood and urine test results that together provide solid evidence of a pattern op doping.

The Arbitral Tribunal finds that USADA has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Collins took EPO, the testosterone / epitestosterone cream, and THG, and that Collins used these substances to enhance her performance and elude the drug testing that was available at the time. The Tribunal further finds that Collins’s use op EPO, testosterone and epitestosterone, and THG were violations of the IAAF’s prohibitions of banned substances and banned techniques, as set forth in IAAF rules.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel therefore rules that the following sanctions shall be imposed on Collins:
- The retroactive cancellation of all award or additions to Collins’s trust fund to which Collins would have been entitled by virtue of het appearance and/of performance at any athletics meeting occurring between February 1, 2002 and the date of this Award;
- A period of ineligibility under IAAF Rules for eight years beginning on the date of this Award, including from participating in 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.

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

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.

CAS 2011/A/2566 Andrus Veerpalu v. International Ski Federation

Related cases:

• CAS 2020_ADD_7 ISF vs Andrus Veerpalu
  March 17, 2021
• CAS 2020_A_6781 Andrus Veerpalu vs FIS
  July 21, 2020
• FIS 2011 FIS vs Andrus Veerpalu
  August 21, 2011

In February 2011 the International Ski Federation (FIS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Estonian skier Andrus Veerpalu after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant Human Growth Hormone (hGH) at the same time that the Athlete announced his retirement from professional cross-country skiing.

On 21 August 2011 the FIS Doping Panel decided to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of his retirement, i.e. 23 February 2011. The FIS Doping Panel ruled that the Adverse Analytical Finding of hGH in the Athlete’s blood had been proven in violation of the FIS ADR.

In first instance the FIS Doping Panel rejected the Athlete’s argument that the delay between the analyses of the A and B samples had affected the accuracy of the Test. In the matter of the collection and handling of the samples the FIS Doping Panel also rejected the Athlete’s argument that the samples were no longer fit for testing at the time they had arrived at the Laboratory.

Hereafter in September 2011 the Athlete appealed the decision of the FIS Doping Panel with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete denied having admitted the use of hGH, nor that he had violated the applicable doping rules. He asserted that the Test is unreliable for the following reasons:

• the Test is defective and scientifically invalid, particularly because of unreliable decision limits;
• the Laboratory was not accredited to perform the Test;
• the Test was improperly applied and administered by the DCO and the Laboratory; and
• the Athlete’s individual circumstances render any positive Test result meaningless.

FIS contended that the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation has been established by three different means:

• through the AAFs from the A and B samples;
• by the alleged admissions from the Athlete of hGH use; and
• from the Athlete’s longitudinal profile, that is, the common range of his previous test results.

The CAS Panel did not admit the FIS’s third submission regarding the Athlete’s longitudinal profile because the FIS failed to submit the relevant DCO reports and laboratory documentation for verification of such results.

Following assessment of the evidence the Panel concludes that the Athlete has failed to meet the required burden of proof regarding the reliability of the Test (except for that of the decision limits). Furthermore the Panel finds that FIS has failed to meet its burden of proof in relation to the reliability of the test’s decision limits and in establishing the violation of FIS ADR by means other than the Test, namely through admission.

Because FIS has not established, to the Panel’s comfortable satisfaction, that the test’s decision limits are reliable, the Panel finds that the Athlete’s AAF is not upheld. The Panel reiterates its view that FIS has proven that the Test itself is reliable, but that, as a matter of procedure, it has not proven the same in respect of the test’s decision limits.

The Panel notes that there are many factors in this case which tend to indicate that the Athlete did in fact himself administer exogenous hGH. However because the decision limits have not been proven as reliable in the course of this proceeding, the violation of the FIS ADR cannot be upheld on appeal. Consequently the ban imposed by the decision of the FIS Doping Panel is overturned.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 25 March 2013:

1.) The Appeal filed by Andrus Veerpalu on 12 September 2011 is upheld.

2.) The decision of the FIS Doping Panel of 22 August 2011 is set aside.

3.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Andrus Veerpalu, which is retained by the CAS.

4.) The FIS shall pay to Andrus Veerpalu CHF 10’000 (ten thousand Swiss francs) as contribution towards his costs incurred in the course of these proceedings.

5.) All further and other claims for relief are dismissed.

WADA - Play True Magazine
2011, issue 1
Tried, Tested and True - Profiling the Global Network of WADA Accredited Anti-Doping Laboratories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content

Editorials
01 Editorial John Fahey: Objectives for a New Mandate
02 Editorial David Howman: Maximizing Results

Cover Story
03 Anti-Doping Laboratories
05 The Accreditation Process
06 Quality Assessment (EQAS)
07 Map of WADA Accredited Laboratories
09 The New Concept of Approved Laboratories
10 Interview with Dr Günter Gmeiner
11 The importance of Research

Features
12 Code Compliance
13 Social Science Symposium
15 Athlete Profile: Daichi Suzuki
17 Revamped Outreach Model
19 New Anti-Doping Resources

WADA Updates
20 Fahey to Remain President
20 2013 World Conference
20 Staff Updates
21 CoachTrue Awards
21 UNESCO Convention

CAS 2004/O/645 United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) v. M. & International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF)

• Athletics
• Doping (THG)
• Absence of any adverse analytical finding (“non-analytical positive” case)
• Burden and standard of proof
• Uncontroverted testimony
• Adverse inference
• Admission of the use of a prohibited substance
• Sanction

1. USADA bears the burden of proving, by strong evidence commensurate with the serious claims it makes that the athlete committed the doping offences. It makes little, if indeed any difference, whether a „beyond reasonable doubt‟ or „comfortable satisfaction‟ standard is applied to determine the claims against the athlete.

2. Doping offences can be proved by a variety of means. In the absence of any adverse analytical finding (“non-analytical positive” cases), other types of evidence can be substantiated. Among these is the uncontroverted testimony of a wholly credible witness, which can be sufficient to establish that the athlete has indeed admitted to have used prohibited substances in violation of applicable anti-doping rules.

3. The admission of the use of prohibited substances merits a period of ineligibility under IAAF Rules of two years. The date of commencement of the sanction takes into consideration the numerous delays in the hearing process which are not attributable to the Athlete. The retroactive cancellation of all the athlete results, rankings, awards and winnings as of the date of admission of the use of prohibited substances has to take place.

In June 2004 USADA seeks a four-year sanction of the Athlete Tim Montgomery for participating in a wide-ranging doping conspiracy implemented by the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO). USADA charges that, for a period of several years, the Athlete had used various performance-enhancing drugs provided by BALCO.

Althought Montgomery has never had a single drug test found to be a positive doping violation, the charges made by USADA are based on:

• all of the blood and urine tests he had provided in recent years;
• documents seized by the U.S. government from BALCO that have been delivered to USADA;
• statements made by BALCO officials and other documents.

USADA contended that BALCO was involved in a conspiracy for the purpose of the distribution and use of doping substances and techniques. They were either undetectable or difficult to detect in routine drug testing.

Further BALCO is alleged to have distributed several types of banned doping agents to professional athletes in track and field, baseball and football. Among these agents were tetrahydrogestrinome (THG), otherwise known as “the Clear” by BALCO and its users.

THG is a designer steroid that could not be identified by routine anti-doping testing until 2003, when a track and field coach provided a sample of it to USADA. It is undisputed that the Clear is a prohibited substance under the IAAF Rules.

After deliberations between the parties this case was transferred in July 2004 to the Court of Aribitration for Sport (CAS).

The Panel has no doubt in this case, and is more than comfortably satisfied, that the Athlete committed the doping rule violation in question. It has been presented with strong, indeed uncontroverted, evidence of doping by the Athlete.

The Panel establishes that there is an admission contained in his statements made to W. and to others while in her presence. On this basis, the Tribunal finds that the Athlete Tim is Montgomery guilty of a doping offence.

Therefore on 13 December 2005 the CAS Panel decides that:

1.) Respondent is guilty of the offence of admitting having used a prohibited substance under IAAF Rules 55.2(iii) and 60.1(iii).

2.) The following sanctions shall be imposed on Respondent:

• a) A period of ineligibility under IAAF Rules for two years commencing as of 6 June 2005, including his ineligibility 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;
• b) The retroactive cancellation of all awards or additions to Respondent's trust fund to which he would have been entitled by virtue of his appearance and/or performance at any athletics meeting occurring between 31 March 2001 and the date of this Award.

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

5.) This Award deals definitively with all charges brought against Respondent by Claimant in this arbitration. All charges not expressly dealt with herein are dismissed.

CAS 2004/O/649 United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) v. G.

• Athletics
• Doping (THG)
• Absence of any adverse analytical finding (“non-analytical positive” case)
• Burden and standard of proof
• Uncontroverted testimony
• Adverse inference
• Admission of the use of a prohibited substance
• Sanction

1. USADA bears the burden of proving, by strong evidence commensurate with the serious claims it makes that the athlete committed the doping offences. It makes little, if indeed any difference, whether a ’beyond reasonable doubt’ or ’comfortable satisfaction’ standard is applied to determine the claims against the athlete.

2. Doping offences can be proved by a variety of means. In the absence of any adverse analytical finding (“non-analytical positive” cases), other types of evidence can be substantiated. Among these is the uncontroverted testimony of a wholly credible witness, which can be sufficient to establish that the athlete has indeed admitted to have used prohibited substances in violation of applicable anti-doping rules.

3. The admission of the use of prohibited substances merits a period of ineligibility under IAAF Rules of two years. The date of commencement of the sanction takes into consideration the numerous delays in the hearing process which are not attributable to the Athlete. The retroactive cancellation of all the athlete results, rankings, awards and winnings as of the date of admission of the use of prohibited substances has to take place.

In June 2004 USADA seeks a four-year sanction of Chryste Gaines for participating in a wideranging doping conspiracy allegedly implemented by the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO).

USADA charges that, for a period of several years, Ms. Gaines used various performance-enhancing drugs provided by BALCO. As noted, Ms. Gaines has never had a single drug test found to be a positive doping violation, but USADA’s charges are based, in part, on all of the urine tests at IOC-accredited and non-IOC-accredited laboratories that she has had in recent years.

USADA also relies, among other things, on documents seized by the U.S. government from BALCO that have been provided to USADA; statements made by BALCO officials; and other documents.

According to USADA, BALCO was involved in a conspiracy the purpose of which was the distribution and use of doping substances and techniques that were either undetectable or difficult to detect in routine drug testing. BALCO is alleged to have distributed several types of banned doping agents to professional athletes in track and field, baseball and football. Among these were tetrahydrogestrinome (THG), otherwise known as “the Clear” by BALCO and its users.

THG is a designer steroid that could not be identified by routine antidoping testing until 2003, when a track and field coach provided a sample of it to USADA. It is undisputed that the Clear is a prohibited substance under the IAAF Rules.

After deliberations between the parties this case was transferred in July 2004 to the Court of Aribitration for Sport (CAS).

The Panel has no doubt in this case, and is more than comfortably satisfied, that Ms Gaines committed a doping offence. It has been presented with strong, indeed uncontroverted, evidence of doping by the Athlete, in the form of an admission contained in her statements made to W. On this basis, the Tribunal finds Respondent guilty of a doping offence.

On 13 December 2015 the Panel unanimously finds and orders as follows:

1.) Respondent is guilty of the offence of admitting having used a prohibited substance under IAAF Rules 55.2(iii) and 60.1(iii).

2.) The following sanctions shall be imposed on Respondent:

• a.) A period of ineligibility under the IAAF Rules for two years commencing as of 6 June 2005, including her ineligibility 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;
• b.) The retroactive cancellation of all awards or additions to Respondent‟s trust fund to which she would have been entitled by virtue of her appearance and/or performance at any athletics meeting occurring between 30 November 2003 and the date of this Award.

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

5.) This Award deals definitively with all charges brought against Respondent by Claimant in this arbitration. All charges not expressly dealt with herein are dismissed.

Brian P. Brennan, Gen Kanayama, James I. Hudson, and Harrison G. Pope, Jr.
Am J Addict. 2011 Jan-Feb; 20(1): 9–13.

In a study of performance-enhancing substance use among 231 experienced young male weightlifters, we found that 27 (12%) reported illicit use of human growth hormone (HGH) or its bioactive derivative, insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-I). All of these 27 men also reported use of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) and 22 (81%) met criteria for current or past AAS dependence. Fifteen (56%) also reported current or past dependence on opioids, cocaine, and/or ecstasy. These findings suggest that among young male weightlifters, illicit HGH use has become a common form of substance abuse, frequently associated with both AAS dependence and classical substance dependence.

Background
One understudied approach to anabolic steroid (AS) prevention programs is the inclusion of parents. Parents are in a unique position to send consistent messages about AS that transcend changes in coaches and team affiliation. Additionally, parents are in the position to create age-appropriate communications consistent with their own personal values. Despite the potential of parent-based approaches, there is very little research to guide the development of such programs. The purpose of the present study was to test whether parent-based programs may be a useful approach in the prevention of AS and performance enhancing nutritional supplement (NS) use.

Methods
A sample of about 250 adolescent athletes from three high schools in the United States (US) completed a questionnaire. Three aspects of parent-adolescent communication were assessed: discussions about the performance effects (e.g., train harder), side effects and protective factors (e.g., morality) associated with AS use and NS use. Additionally, adolescents reported the extent to which they perceived their parents to be a good source of information (i.e., the quality of information) and whether they would go to their parents for information about AS and NS.

Results
For adolescents who did not perceive their parents to be good sources of information or who would not go to parents for information, more parent-adolescent communication about AS was associated with greater intentions to use AS in the future. This was true for all aspects of communication: discussions about performance effects associated with AS use, side effects of AS use, and protective factors. In contrast, for those adolescents who perceived their parents to be good sources of information or who would go to their parents for such information, increased communication did not lead to an increase in intentions to use AS and may lead to decreased intentions to use AS.

With respect to NS use, results showed that discussions about performance effects were associated with higher intentions to use NS, while discussions about protective effects were associated with lower intentions to use NS. Discussions about side effects appeared to be unrelated to intentions to use NS. The quality of information offered by parents and whether the adolescent would consult his/her parents for this information had no effect on intentions to use NS.

Conclusion
Results suggest that increasing communication about AS, which involves information about performance effects, side effects and protective factors, will not lead to increases in intentions to use AS when adolescents perceive their parents to be a good source of information and are willing to go to parents to get such information. This implies that parents can convey information about AS without fear that such discussions will necessarily place adolescents at higher risk of using AS in the future.

However, results also indicate that increasing communication about AS, which involves information about performance effects, side effects and protective factors, may lead to increases in intentions to use AS when adolescents do not perceive their parents to be a good source of information and when they are not willing to go to parents for such information.

With respect to use of NS, discussions about performance effects were associated with higher intentions to use whereas discussions about protective factors were associated with lower intentions to use NS.