E - mail

E - mail

HOME

No doubt about Merlene’s innocence

Those of us who support good science and have conducted any research on steroids and sports in general and Nandrolone in particular are not surprised at the decision by the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) arbitration panel in the case of Jamaica’s track legend Merlene Ottey. My worry was whether the panel would succumb to the pressure of the IAAF. Fortunately the panel demonstrated its integrity by making a decision based on the weight of the evidence presented, just as the local panel did.

The whole matter of setting limits and testing for metabolites of Nandrolone is fraught with uncertainty and disagreement. Searching questions are being asked about the limits set by the IAAF for this particular drug by several individuals and organizations, including FIFA, but in this instance I wish to address the other side of the issue – that of the analyses.

There seems to be the impression that Merlene has escaped on a "technicality". The fact is that sampling, storage and analytical methods affect results of analyses. Using inorganic geochemistry as an example, if I am testing rocks for the element sodium (found in common salt), I would get the sample into the appropriate solution and then carry out my analyses. But I cannot store the solution in glass flasks because the sodium in the glasd ) by mys will be leached (absorbe sample solution, giving me results which are higher than they should be. The significance of the error so introduced will depend on the level of sodium in my sample.

Other examples of samples being affected by various conditions could be quoted; the most familiar to readers would be substances which are placed in dark bottles because they are sensitive to light. In some cases the sample could be temperature sensitive, in others it could be pH, (acidity). Because of such reasons, the exact way of carrying out analyses and doing calculations for results are established, and analysts are required to follow them exactly and to do the correct thing every time.

If specific gravity (s.g.) is important in the calculation of the results in this particular test, and the specific gravity of the sample can change, this change must be kept to a minimum and it must be clearly stated which value of the s.g. is to be used. This is where the chain of custody of the sample becomes critical. The sample has to be kept under very controlled conditions if the analysis is not being done at the time of sampling. Some person or persons must take responsibility for ensuring that these conditions are met exactly until the test is completed. In the case of the samples of Merlene’s urine taken by the IAAF, this was not done. Not only was the chain of custody compromised, the conditions under which the samples were kept were, apparently, inappropriate.

Another consideration is that at low concentrations, very small errors can be significant. So going back to my rock sample, if my rock contains forty percent sodium, then if twenty parts per million leach into the solution from my container, it will not significantly affect my result. If however my sample concentration is five parts per million and one part per million leaches into the solution, I have a significant error. At the minute concentrations being analysed in the case of nandrolone metabolites, a small error in the s.g. can be significant.

Reduction of error is an integral part of all analytical work, and the amount of the error associated with each result must be calculated and stated. If the error introduced is too large, the result must be rejected. The analyst who does not diligently and carefully follow correct procedures can place no trust in the results obtained and should redo the analysis.

Based on the evidence presented to the arbitration panel, Merlene could have been exonerated on various grounds. The one stated, however, allowed the IAAF to save face. Hence, even though the panel of arbitrators did the right thing in the end, several fundamental questions remain to be answered about the Federation’s anti-doping programme.

Special commendations to those who supported Merlene during this difficult time, with honorable mention going to the JAAA which showed moral courage by not rushing to judgment in order to please its parent organization the IAAF.

Dr Barbara Carby (Red Hills P O, Kingston, Jamaica)

Athletics-Ottey fails to impress on reappearance

By Luke Baker

NUORO, Sardinia, July 12

Jamaican sprinter Merlene Ottey rejoined the international athletics fold on Wednesday, almost a year after failing a drugs test, but her form failed to impress 10 weeks ahead of the Olympics.

At a local meeting in the small town of Nuoro, tucked away in the mountains of central Sardinia, Ottey blew away the unrecognised opposition, but still ran home in only 11.42 seconds, far outside what she was hoping to achieve.

``Its too cold, I was kind of hoping the weather would be better,'' she said after the race.

Sardinia is normally warm at this time of year, and Nuoro is at a reasonable altitude of 500 metres, conditions Ottey said she was hoping would contribute to a run somewhere around 11.20, but the weather was unseasonally cold and blustery.

``Mentally, I didn't want a big meet, and there arent too many races elsewhere, but I thought conditions would be better,'' she added.

The time was way outside her personal best of 10.74, a benchmark she is hoping to better at the Olympics - her last major competition.

``I've already achieved my goals over the past 20 years. It's going to be time to give it a rest,'' she said.

Ottey, now 40, has been around at the top of athletics since the Moscow Olympics in 1980 when she took a bronze medal in the 200 metres, but a year ago she tested positive for the controversial anabolic steriod nandrolone and was banned.

The winner of 34 medals in major international championships, including seven Olympics and a record 14 in world championships, she denied ever knowingly taking the drug.

PANEL RULING

An International Amateur Athletic Federation arbitration panel ruled on July 3 that ``there were not the grounds to maintain her suspension from competition,'' ending the ban with immediate effect.

The suspension came after a meeting in Lucerne, Switzerland in July last year, when Ottey ran 10.97 in the 100 metres and 22.40 in the 200 metres.

With the enquiry behind her, Ottey is hoping to get her mind completely focused on the build up to Sydney, but she said the year-long saga had had a pyschological impact.

``It's been tough, and mentally it was difficult to focus, but now I have some time before the Olympics and I'm going to train hard and have a try,'' she said.

``I'm keen just to run, just to get back in the race,'' she added.

Coach Slovenian Srdjan Djordjevic said he was disappointed with Wednesday's race, but felt there was still time to get it right before September. He said Ottey was likely to compete in races either in Stockholm or Zurich during August, following the Jamaican Olympic trials on July 21-22.

``There's no doubt she can run faster, but it needs to be warmer. I think if the conditions are right, she can be fast enough for something under 10.90,'' he said.

NUORO, Sardinia

Jamaican sprinter Merlene Ottey rejoined the international athletics fold on Wednesday, almost a year after failing a drugs test, but her form failed to impress 10 weeks ahead of the Olympics.

At a local meeting in the small town of Nuoro, tucked away in the mountains of central Sardinia, Ottey blew away the unrecognized opposition, but still ran home in only 11.42 seconds, far outside what she was hoping to achieve.

"Its too cold, I was kind of hoping the weather would be better," she said after the race.

Sardinia is normally warm at this time of year, and Nuoro is at a reasonable altitude of 500 meters, conditions Ottey said she was hoping would contribute to a run somewhere around 11.20, but the weather was unseasonably cold and blustery.

"Mentally, I didn't want a big meet, and there aren't too many races elsewhere, but I thought conditions would be better," she added.

The time was way outside her personal best of 10.74, a benchmark she is hoping to better at the Olympics -- her last major competition.

"I've already achieved my goals over the past 20 years. It's going to be time to give it a rest," she said.

Ottey, now 40, has been around at the top of athletics since the Moscow Olympics in 1980 when she took a bronze medal in the 200 meters, but a year ago she tested positive for the controversial anabolic steroid nandrolone and was banned.

The winner of 34 medals in major international championships, including seven Olympics and a record 14 in world championships, she denied ever knowingly taking the drug.

An International Amateur Athletic Federation arbitration panel ruled on July 3 that "there were not the grounds to maintain her suspension from competition," ending the ban with immediate effect.

The suspension came after a meeting in Lucerne, Switzerland in July last year, when Ottey ran 10.97 in the 100 meters and 22.40 in the 200 meters.

With the inquiry behind her, Ottey is hoping to get her mind completely focused on the build up to Sydney, but she said the year-long saga had had a psychological impact.

"It's been tough, and mentally it was difficult to focus, but now I have some time before the Olympics and I'm going to train hard and have a try," she said.

"I'm keen just to run, just to get back in the race," she added.

Coach Slovenian Srdjan Djordjevic said he was disappointed with Wednesday's race, but felt there was still time to get it right before September. He said Ottey was likely to compete in races either in Stockholm or Zurich during August, following the Jamaican Olympic trials on July 21-22.

"There's no doubt she can run faster, but it needs to be warmer. I think if the conditions are right, she can be fast enough for something under 10.90,"

AFP's report on her first race in Italy

Merlene Ottey returns to competition
12 July 2000 - Nuoro, Sardinia

Jamaican sprinter Merlene Ottey returned to competition Wednesday by winning the 100 meters in a regional meet on this Italian island.

''It felt good to get started again,'' the 40-year-old five-time Olympian said moments after the race. ''My goal now is to get to Sydney and reach 20 years of Olympics.''

Ottey, a double silver medalist at the 1996 Games,had no problem cruising to the win in Sardinia on Wednesday over a field of regional runners, winning in a relatively slow time of 11.42 seconds under chilly conditions.

Ottey said the past week has been a whirlwind, since learning of her immediate reinstatement. ''I was so excited, it was one of the best pieces of news of my life,'' Ottey said. ''Now I have to step up my training and focus on the mental element.''

Her next competition will be the Jamaican national championship, July 20-22 where she will run the 100 and 200 meters, seeking to qualify for her sixth Olympic Games.

Ottey has won 34 individual medals in major international championships and is a former world 200-meter champion.

The latest by  Reuters

LJUBLJANA, July 11

Jamaican sprinter Merlene Ottey, who was cleared to run a week ago after failing a drug test, will make her comeback at a meeting in Sardinia on Wednesday, her coach Srdjan Djordjevic said on Monday.

"She needs to start competing to regain feeling and increase her form with competition," Djordjevic told Reuters.

Ottey, now 40, has been competing at the highest level for two decades and won two silver medals in the sprints at the 1996 Atlanta Games. The Sydney Olympics will mark her last major competition.

She was banned after testing positive for the controversial steroid nandrolone last July.

She denied ever knowingly taking the drug and an International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) arbitration panel ruled a week ago that "there were not the grounds to maintain her suspension from competition," ending it with immediate effect.

Ottey is presently training in Ljubljana and hopes to run below her personal best of 10.74 seconds at the Olympics.

"At present she is still well below her best form but she is training well and we have another 74 days before her Olympic appearance," said Djordjevic.

After the Sardinia meeting she will compete in the Jamaican Olympic trials on July 21-22 where she said she expected to finish in the top three

Ottey says she'll be faster than ever

LJUBLJANA

Jamaican sprinter Merlene Ottey, who was cleared to run on Monday after failing a drugs test, said on Wednesday she hoped to run faster than ever at this year's Sydney Olympics.

"I have not been competing for a year and I do not know what to expect. But I hope to run faster than ever, below my personal best of 10.74 [seconds]," Ottey told Reuters.

Ottey, now 40, has been competing at the highest level for two decades and won two silver medals in the sprints at the 1996 Atlanta Games. Sydney will mark her last major competition.

Asked whether she expected to get another Olympic medal, she said: "It's possible."

Ottey was banned after testing positive for the controversial steroid nandrolone last July.

She denied ever knowingly taking the drug and an International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) arbitration panel ruled on Monday that "there were not the grounds to maintain her suspension from competition," ending it with immediate effect.

"I was under stress because of the case and was not training a 100 percent ... but I am not worried about the time limit, I have nothing to lose and everything to gain," she said.

She said she would let her manager look at the possibility of getting damages for the suspension, saying her mind was now on training.

"I'm very relieved it is finally over after one year of total stress. I need to mentally and physically prepare. I do not think I will be in such a good shape for my first run but I think I will be ready for the Olympics," she said.

Ottey will attend the Jamaican Olympic trials on July 21 and 22 where she said she expected to finish in the top three.

She is presently training with her Slovenian coach Srdjan Djordjevic in Ljubljana.

"I am very satisfied with training here and with the warm weather," she said.

Former world sprint champion's drug ban overturned

MONTE CARLO, Monaco (AP)

Jamaican sprinter Merlene Ottey had her two-year ban for steroid use lifted Monday after an international track panel said the lab improperly tested her urine sample.

The decision meant the former world champion and Olympic silver medalist was immediately eligible to compete.

The IAAF, track and field's world governing body, said in a statement that its three-man arbitration panel had decided after a hearing last month "there were not the grounds to maintain the suspension of Merlene Ottey from competition."

"Accordingly, the suspension ... ended with immediate effect," the statement said.

The IAAF said the panel found fault with the testing laboratory, which "had not taken into sufficient account factors regarding the specific gravity of the sample which as a result did not exceed the IOC (International Olympic Committee) recommended reporting threshold."

Monday's ruling was the second issued by the IAAF in a week in a drug case involving a prominent athlete. Last week, it upheld the two-year suspension of Javier Sotomayor of Cuba, the only high jumper to clear 8 feet, for cocaine use. That decision appeared to knock Sotomayor out of September's Olympics in Sydney.

Ottey, winner of 34 individual medals in major international championships, hopes to compete in the Sydney Olympics at 40.

Ottey, a former world 200-meter champion, runner-up in the 100 and 200 at the 1996 Olympics and one of the most decorated athletes in the sport, tested positive for the steroid nandrolone at a meet in Switzerland in July 1999. She denied taking the drug and was cleared by the Jamaican federation.

The IAAF refused to accept the Jamaicans' ruling and sent her case to its arbitration panel, composed of Christoph Vedder of Germany, Monty Hacker of South Africa and James Murphy of the United States.

Nandrolone is a steroid that is easily detectable in standard drug tests. But there has been a spate of positive nandrolone cases around the world over the past year, prompting speculation that the drug is contained in nutritional supplements.

In March, the IAAF said it would conduct a research project to determine whether food supplements and herbal preparations can trigger positive tests for nandrolone and other banned substances. The project is being carried out in cooperation with UK Athletics, Britain's track governing body.

Nandrolone produced 343 positive tests in all sports around the world last year, according to official statistics.

Among the athletes embroiled in nandrolone cases is Linford Christie, the 1992 100-meter Olympic and world champion from Britain, who was suspended after testing positive for the steroid.

Earlier this month, the IAAF postponed Christie's hearing. It had wanted to hear the case against the 39-year-old between July 6 and July 9, but it couldn't agree on the dates with UK Athletics. A new date should be announced shortly.

The IAAF originally suspended Christie, but UK Athletics overruled the decision, and the case was sent to arbitration.

Hearings for two other Britons facing nandrolone charges, European 200-meter champion Doug Walker and hurdler Gary Cadogan, were postponed for the same reason.

Christie has retired from top competition, but Walker and Cadogan hope to compete in this year's Olympics.

Vedder, the panel chairman, said the case would be an important test for sports law regarding nandrolone.

News about Ottey's case at EUROSPORT

MONTE CARLO, July 3
Jamaican sprinter Merlene Ottey, who was banned after failing a drugs test last year, has been cleared to run in the Sydney Olympics.

An International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) arbitration panel ruled on Monday that "there were not the grounds to maintain her suspension from competition" and ended it with immediate effect. The IAAF said in a statement that the aribitraton panel "considered that the testing laboratory had not taken into sufficient account factors regarding the specific gravity of the sample which as a result did not exceed the IOC recommended reporting threshold".

Ottey, the winner of 34 medals in major international championships including seven in the Olympics and a record 14 in world championships, tested positive for the anabolic steroid nandrolone after a meeting in the Swiss city of Lucerne last July.

But Ottey has denied ever knowingly taking the drug and set out to clear her name so that she could compete in her final Olympics at the age of 40. She was cleared by the Jamaican Athletics Federation but the IAAF, athletics' governing body, was not satisfied with the decision and decided to refer the case to its arbitration panel.

Ottey appeared before the panel at the IAAF'S Monaco headquarters last month. Ottey's was the first of a recent rash of postive tests involving nandrolone to be dealt with by the IAAF. Former Olympic 100 metres champion Linford Christie will have to wait at least three weeks to have his positive drugs test considered by the panel. It was due to meet this week to consider the case of Christie and two other Britons, European 200 metres champion Doug Walker and 400 metres hurdler Gary Cadogan.

All three had tested positive for nandrolone and face two-year bans from competition if the panel decides they have committed a doping offence. Christie, who tested positive last year, has effectively retired from competition. IAAF spokesman Giorgio Reineri said the cases had been postponed because the arbitration panel had not received all the necessary documentation in time.

A brief transcription of what was published these days in our daily paper DELO - Ljubljana:

This is in brief & partly (most important statements) what Merlene's coach Mr. Srdjan Djordjevic told the journalist & sports reporter Vito Divac of Delo, Ljubljana:

According to recently published text in some English papers, Merlene's attorneys are about to demand some 15 million USD as a satisfaction for the damage caused to the athlete by the ban.

Mr. Zimmermann, Ottey's manager was not willing to comment the amount but added, that the procedure of getting any material satisfaction is likely to be as hard as had the ban withdrawal been.

Mr. Djordjevic, Ottey's coach in the past 2 years, however said, that the damage she had suffered while banned had been more of a psychological character and had caused "irreparable damage to Merlene's image. Anybody who knows her, knows how great had her input been to achieve the image she has in the world of sports. Part of it is most likely to mark her forever unless she does something really great to change that image.

Srdjan Djordjevic (by the way he has a University diploma in biology) among others explained the procedures they had to take to prove all the controversy of testing and proving nandrolone presence in human body. Besides all the controversy in testing the more disputable in Ottey's case was the procedure of urine analysis itself.

Djordjevic who played a very important role in one of the most controversial and suspicious "doping" cases lately, said he is more than happy now when all is over and he can finally concern of Merlene' training process solely (the same goes for Gregor Cankar and other athletes under his control). "It required a lot of my energy to be used to prove I was right and I'm more than happy I was!"

KINGSTON, Jamaica, July 22, (as reported by Reuters)

Merlene Ottey missed out on an automatic spot to run the 100 meters at the Sydney Olympics when she could only finish fourth in the Jamaica trials final on Friday night.

But she gets a second chance of making the Olympic squad on Saturday when she contests the 200 meters and she could also still make it as part of the relay team.

Ottey, 40, needing a top-three finish to guarantee selection for the 100 meters at the Games, ran 11.27 seconds in the final with Peta-Gaye Dowdie retaining her title in 11.19.

It was Ottey's slowest effort of the three appearances she made at the meet. She had clocked 11.09 in the first round Thursday and 11.15 in the semifinal earlier on Friday.

Dowdie, the U.S. Collegiate 200-metre champion, survived a tight finish, to beat 1999 world championship 200-metre silver medallist Bev McDonald (11.20) and Tanya Lawrence (11.21).

Ottey, winner of seven Olympic medals and 14 world championship medals including two gold, has been at every summer Games since Moscow in 1980.

She said on Friday her enforced absence from athletics as a result of the drug-taking allegation had been like a ``death sentence'' but she remained confident she would get in shape in time for the Games.

Ottey said: "In about six weeks I can get to running under 11 seconds ... I've done it in the past. I have the experience and I have the confidence.''

Ottey was banned after testing positive for the controversial anabolic steroid nandrolone but the ban was lifted on July 3 by an International Amateur Athletic Federation panel.

Kingston, Jamaica - July 20

Merlene Ottey, trying to qualify for her sixth Olympic team, advanced to the semifinals of 100 meters Thursday at Jamaica's Olympic trials. She won her heat race in 11.09 seconds.

Ottey, who has kept a low profile since arriving in Jamaica five days ago, had a slow start but made up ground on runner-up Tanya Lawrence then eased up at the line for the win.

"With 30 meters to go I was in a daze, but I got going and it was easy after that,'' she said and than added:

Merlene needs to finish in the top three of Friday's 100 m final to qualify for the event at the Sydney Olympics.

Details of the Merlene Ottey Decision

7 July 2000 - Monte Carlo - The reinstatement of the Jamaican athlete Merlene Ottey by the IAAF Arbitration Panel following an adverse finding for Nandrolone, has occasioned a number of speculative reports in the media and many requests for further information from all parts of the World Athletics Family. In the interests of information and transparency, the IAAF has decided to release the full text of the decision of the IAAF Arbitration Panel, which under the terms of the IAAF Constitution is final and binding on all parties.

"In the matter of an arbitration initiated by the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF), Applicant, under IAAF Rule 21 para 3 (ii) in a case where a member of the IAAF, the Jamaican Amateur Athletic Association (JAAA), Respondent, has held a hearing under IAAF Rule 59 "Disciplinary Procedures for Doping Offences" and the IAAF believes that in the conduct or conclusions of such hearing JAAA has misdirected itself or otherwise reached an erroneous conclusion.

Whereas:

1. A dispute between a Member and the Council of the IAAF may be submitted to the Arbitration Panel in a matter where a Member has held a hearing under Rule 59 in a doping offence and the IAAF believes that in the conduct or conclusions of such hearing the Member has misdirected itself or otherwise reached an erroneous conclusion (Rule 21 para. 3 (ii));
2. The JAAA is a Member of the IAAF and has held a hearing in Ms. Merlene Ottey’s case and the IAAF Rules are the valid rules to be applied in this case, when a doping test has been undertaken;
3. By Statement in support of its Reference dated 29 April, 2000 under cover letter of 4 May, 2000 the IAAF Council referred to the Arbitration Panel the matter of the decision of the JAAA of 7 December, 1999 to exonerate Merlene Ottey of a doping offence, based on the conclusion inter alia that on the material adduced before it, the scientific evidence does not support an exogenous source of the metabolites detected in the urine samples; accordingly, the JAAA’s tribunal was not sure that the substance reported was ingested by her and not produced endogenously.

Now we Christoph Vedder, chairman, Monty Hacker and Judge James Murphy, being the Arbitrators appointed from the Panel elected pursuant to the IAAF Rules,

Having taken note of the said Referral to Arbitration, the Statement of IAAF in Support of its Referral, the Response of both JAAA (dated 8 June, 2000) and of Ms. Merlene Ottey (dated 29 May, 2000) and the documents and references in the bundles collected by both IAAF and JAAA and on behalf of Ms. Merlene Ottey,

Having held a hearing on 16 and 17 June, 2000 and heard the various submissions made by Counsel on behalf of IAAF and JAAA and Merlene Ottey:

The Hon. Michael Beloff Q.C. assisted by Mark Gay Esq. and Ms. Karen Langlois appeared for IAAF.
The Hon. Charles Flint Q.C. appeared for JAAA
Dr. Lloyd Barnett appeared for JAAA
Dr. Stephan Netzle appeared for Ms. Merlene Ottey

And having heard the following experts:

- On behalf of the IAAF:
Dr. Martial Saugy

- On behalf of Ms. Merlene Ottey:
Dr. Simon Davis
Dr. John Honour

Do hereby make this decision:

1. On 5 July 1999, Ms. Merlene Ottey, an athlete under the jurisdiction of IAAF, was subject to a post-competition test in a meeting organised by the European Athletic Association, an Area Group, in Lucerne, Switzerland. The "A" sample was analysed at the IOC Accredited Laboratory in Lausanne, Switzerland on 9 July, 1999 and showed the presence of 19-norandosterone (NA) in a concentration of 15ng/ml and of 19-noretiocholanolone (NE) in a concentration of 10ng/ml. These two substances are metabolites of nandrolone.
2. On 2 September, 1999 at the Lausanne laboratory analysis was conducted on the "B" sample obtained from Ms. Ottey. This analysis was attended amongst others by Mr. Daniel Zimmerman representing the athlete, The results of the "B" sample analysis also showed the presence of ± 14ng/ml of 19-NA and ± 11ng/ml of 19-NE.
3. The results of the "B" analysis confirmed those of the "A" analysis and therefore Ms. Merlene Ottey was suspended pending a hearing before JAAA’s relevant tribunal. This tribunal heard the case on 30 November, 1999. A written judgement was produced on 2 December, 1999 which was formally ratified by a decision of JAAA’s Executive Board on December 7. It was determined that Ms. Merlene Ottey had not committed a doping offence and therefore her suspension was lifted. The JAAA based its decision primarily on the arguments that the JAAA had failed to prove that the sample tested positive had derived from Ms. Ottey and that the chain of custody had been established and that as IAAF Rules did not create an absolute offence, the burden lay upon the JAAA to establish an exogenous source for the finding of the prohibited substance. On the basis of the evidence it received, the tribunal decided that it could not be sure that the substance detected was ingested by Ms. Ottey rather than being produced endogenously.
4. By decision of 12 February, 2000 the IAAF Council suspended Ms. Merlene Ottey by virtue of Rule 59.2 as amended.
5. During the hearing, several applications were made. Following presentation of the opening statements by Counsel, the Arbitration Panel having considered the suggestions put before it issued the following decision concerning the admissibility of the reference and other preliminary matters.

1. The referral to Arbitration made by IAAF received by the Chairman of the Arbitration Panel on 4 May, 2000 is admissible.

1. Applying the rule of lenity in favour of the respondent and the athlete the latest application of the Rule change from 3 to 6 months would be 1 January, 2000, the date of the publication of the new Handbook. However, the JAAA was aware of the rule change from three to six months prior to the hearing in December as shown by their representation at Congress on August 17 – 19, 1999, when the change was adopted as shown by the Minutes. The rule change was outlined in the IAAF Newsletter of September 1999, sent to all Member Federations. Under these circumstances, the Arbitration Panel invokes Rule 21.1 sub para. 2 which allows it to accept the referral considering it to be fair and reasonable.
2. The alleged improper contact between IAAF and the athlete has no relevance to the issue of the admissibility and under Rule 55.11 it casts no doubt as to the reliability of the finding that a prohibited substance may be present in a sample.
3. The point of waiver attributed to the non-attendance by IAAF at JAAA’s hearing is rejected as having no substance.

1. The Arbitration Panel states that this is a hearing de novo.
2. During evidence, the only persons who may be present are the parties and their representatives and in the case of expert evidence, the opposing party’s experts.
3. The Arbitration Panel invites the parties to address them further if they consider it necessary on the issue of burden of proof.

1. Upon resumption of the hearing, IAAF applied for an adjournment to secure the attendance of their expert witnesses. Having considered the arguments put forward by both parties the Arbitration Panel issued the following decision:

1. The application is denied as far as the matter of endogenous production is concerned. The issue of possible endogenous production of nandrolone or its metabolites was raised in JAAA’s decision of 7 December, 1999 and was addressed in IAAF’s statement in support of the referral to arbitration dated 29 April, 2000.
2. It appears that the issues of "innocent substances" and the interaction of several causes, have not been previously addressed and therefore, if the Respondent wishes to adduce evidence on the subject, the IAAF will be afforded a postponement to allow to respond.

The Respondent and the representative of Ms Ottey declared that they do not continue to rely on the subject matter of "innocent substances" understood by common agreement as substances taken through exogenous administration.

1. At the continued hearing, IAAF made an application to allow Prof. Hemmersbach to give testimony by the production of a paper he had written himself and by means of a telephone conference. The Arbitration Panel dismissed the application.
2. The respondent and Merlene Ottey’s Counsel went on record and stipulated to acknowledge the chain of custody, the propriety of the collection procedure, the testing of the sample and the findings of the laboratory in respect thereof as well as the identification of the source of the sample as derived from Ms. Ottey. The parties agreed that the specific gravity readings and the nanogramme readings and the laboratory reports for the "A" and "B" samples were not disputed. What was challenged was the method of interpretation of these readings, regard being had to the degree of degradation of the samples between the times of voiding and the "A" and "B" sample laboratory analyses respectively.
3. In terms of Rule 55.2 (i) as read with Rule 60.1 (i) a doping offence occurs when a prohibited substance is found to be present in an athlete’s body tissues or fluids.
4. Nandrolone and its chemically or pharmacologically related compounds is a prohibited substance as provided for in Rule 55.3 as read with Schedule 1, Part I(a)(i) of the Procedural Guidelines for Doping Control. According to Rule 55.6, "prohibited substances" shall include metabolites of their substance. However, Rule 55.2 (i) does not distinguish between exogenous administration and endogenous production of a prohibited substance.
5. According to and applying Rule 59.5, the IAAF has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that a doping offence has been committed.
6. Hence, the Rules do not require that IAAF (or in the case under consideration the JAAA before its relevant tribunal) has to prove that the prohibited substance was exogenously administered. The decision of JAAA’s Tribunal is based on a wrongful construction of the pertinent rules.
7. Merlene Ottey disputed that she had committed a doping offence and contended that the level of 19-NA found in her samples was produced endogenously. A growing body of evidence suggests that 19-NA is naturally present in low but clearly detectable concentration in the urine of men and women. This concentration appears to be greater in women generally and particularly if pregnant or in their menstrual cycle. It is undisputed that Ms. Ottey was mid-cycle at the time of the Lucerne Meeting. This time is the most fertile in terms of hormone production.
8. Neither the Rules nor the Procedural Guidelines for Doping Control consider the existence of naturally produced nandrolone or its metabolites.
9. If the Arbitration Panel were to apply the Rules as they presently stand, the IAAF would have proved, beyond reasonable doubt that a doping offence has been committed. However, the panel considered the impact of naturally produced nandrolone and its metabolites and found that a lacuna exists in Schedule 1 Part I (a) of the Procedural Guidelines for Doping Control as read with Rule 55.2 (i). It is because the rules as read with the Procedural Guidelines for Doping Control provide, in the case of the endogenous production of testosterone beyond normally acceptable limits, a procedure designed to avoid prejudicing the athlete. By analogy and in fairness to the athlete the Arbitration Panel invokes and applies the underlying principle applicable to testosterone to the issue of nandrolone.
10. As stated, the IAAF bears the burden of proving all the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. To do so, it must prove that that the quantity of 19-NA found in Merlene Ottey’s samples so exceeds the range of values normally found in humans as not to be consistent with normal endogenous production. Had it done so, Merlene Ottey’s samples would be deemed to be positive and it would then become the burden of the athlete to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the quantity of 19-NA found is attributable to a pathological or physiological condition. Therefore, the construction of the Rules and Guidelines as relied upon by the tribunal of the JAAA and on behalf of Ms. Ottey cannot be sustained.
11. It was the IAAF’s contention that the "A" sample showing 15ng/ml of 19-NA exceeds normal endogenous production. Also noted was the Nagano study carried out at the Nagano Olympic Games on 251 women athletes following competition, none of whom produced a 19-NA sample in excess of 5ng/ml. This and other evidence suggest an upper limit for endogenous production of 19-NA by non-pregnant women of 5ng/ml.
12. The IOC produced a document for the guidance of accredited laboratories, entitled "Analytical Criteria for Reporting Low Concentrations of Anabolic Steroids" (August 1998), which was introduced into evidence by the parties at this hearing. The document recommends that a report should not be issued for non-pregnant females if the concentration in the test sample is less than 5ng/ml. It also recommends that adjustment of the reporting concentration must be made if the specific gravity of the urine sample is greater than 1.020. If so, the IOC recommends increasing this minimum with regard to the amount by which the specific gravity of the urine sample exceeds 1.020. This is recommended as the IOC recognises that among other factors, during intense physical activity a degree of dehydration may occur, causing urine to become concentrated. This may increase the measured concentration of excreted substances, possibly up to fourfold. The James Report, a report to the UK Sports Council from the Expert Committee, dated 18 January, 2000 referred to by all parties at this hearing, approves of this IOC recommended procedure as the most appropriate method of correction when necessary.
13. On 5 July, 1999 Ms. Ottey competed in both the 100m and 200m events in less than 90 minutes on a day that produced a temperature ranging from 25.5 – 28 C between the hours of 13h00 and 19h00. She had travelled to the meeting by air carrier. All factors tend to support a finding of urine concentration due to some dehydration justifying a specific gravity reading of 1.025 when her sample was collected at the time of the voiding.
14. Applying the correction recommended by the IOC and as approved by the James Commission, the urinary 19-NA concentrations detected equalled an average of 4.53 ng/ml of urine which does not exceed the IOC suggested reporting threshold of 5ng/ml for non-pregnant females. Thus Ms. Ottey’s urine failed to display the characteristics of a sample from an athlete who has exogenously administered nandrolone or its metabolites.
15. In applying the principles enunciated above, IAAF has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the quantity of 19-NA found in the Merlene Ottey’s samples exceeds normal endogenous production. According to the evidence and the literature placed before the Arbitration Panel, it is generally accepted that a finding of higher than 5ng/ml is not attributable to normal endogenous production. Nevertheless, the same scientific literature, including the IOC recommendation accepted by the parties, provides the correction formula mentioned in paragraphs 18 and 20. The parties also accepted that the specific gravity dipstick reading (as converted) would fall below 5ng/ml, if it were to be corrected.
16. Under these circumstances, the issue the Arbitration Panel had to determine was which specific gravity reading to rely upon, either the reading taken at the time of the voiding of the sample (1.025), or the later readings at the time of laboratory testing (1.019) for the purpose of triggering the correcting formula. The Arbitration Panel found that the correct specific gravity reading to accept would be that taken at the time of voiding, which would thus trigger the application of the correction formula. As a consequence, the Arbitration Panel accepts that the adjusted 19-NA reading falls below 5ng/ml and therefore would not require the reporting of the finding of a prohibited substance. In any event, the IAAF failed to discharge its burden of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that for the 19-NA reading to be at 15ng/ml, the time for the determination of the specific gravity had to be the time of the laboratory testing and not at the time of voiding. Therefore the IAAF has failed to discharge its burden of proof that a doping offence has occurred beyond reasonable doubt.
17. The JAAA and Merlene Ottey have each made application to the Arbitration Panel for an award of costs and disbursements occasioned by the IAAF referral to arbitration. We find that because the parties each prevailed in part and failed in part, it is equitable that each party bears its own costs.
18. We therefore decide:
    1. That the referral to arbitration is dismissed;
    2. That in terms of Rule 59.2 as amended, the suspension of Ms. Merlene Ottey expires upon the delivery of this decision;
    3. That as each of the parties have prevailed in part and failed in part, it is equitable that each party bears its own costs. "

 Christoph Vedder - Monty Hacker  - James Murphy

July 3, 2000

Copyright (c) 2000  - Edo Bogataj (Photo & Design) & Kabi, d.o.o.

obiskanost

hosted by