It’s the spring
of the year 2000, and you are looking forward to your first summer of
the new Millennium. Baseball season has started, the NBA playoffs are
on the horizon, Wimbledon, the French Open, and the US Open are all
ahead of you. And best of all, this is an Olympic year. During the fall,
your television will be taken over by gymnastics, soccer, softball,
and track & field with interesting vignettes telling the amazing stories
of sacrifice and hardship leading up to Olympic glory. You even remember,
with misty eyed nostalgia, your days as a high school athlete; its not
important that it was in the sphere of intramural. YOU WERE A CONTENDER!
If you had applied yourself, you too could have been an Olympian. Now,
you are a hard working attorney looking forward to a summer of sitting
on your couch and watching other great athletes. Little did you know
that you would play a part in the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia.
Isn’t life funny?

A few months prior
to the start of the 2000 U.S. Olympic Team Trials for Track & Field,
Amanda, a top U.S. athlete, comes to your office seeking guidance. Although
she has been drug tested consistently throughout her career, she has
confessed that the recent media attention involving the creation of
new organizations involved with drug testing, ¹ the new methods of drug
testing, and the rise in the number of athletes that have recently tested
positive have been somewhat disconcerting to her, especially since this
is an Olympic year. Amanda is confident that she will make the Olympic
team and compete in the U.S., Canada, and Australia before reporting
to the Olympic Village in September of 2000. While she has professed
to be drug free, she would like to better understanding the changes
that have been made in the recent months with respect to drug testing.
Amanda has provided you with her training schedule to assist you in
your expect legal analysis.

Amanda’s
Training Schedule

1. Training
   for Olympic Trials in the U.S. (April – June 2000)
2. Competing
   in the Olympic Trials (July 2000)
3. Resting
   and Training in the U.S. (End of July)
4. Competing
   and training in Canada. (August 1-7, 2000)
5. Training
   and Competing in the U.S. (August 8-14, 2000)
6. Reporting
   to U.S. training camp in Brisbane, Australia
   (August 15-September 14, 2000)
7. Report
   to Olympic Village in Sydney, Australia
   (September 15, 2000)
8. Compete
   in Olympic Games (September 15-October 1, 2000)

Where do you begin
your research in order to provide adequate advice to Amanda? -1-

Introduction

While many top U.S.
Olympic caliber athletes have been drug tested throughout their careers,
few have truly understood the drug testing process. The ever-changing
rules and regulations, as well as the increase in number of doping control
programs, while appearing to assist in the fight against doping in sport,
have proven to be confusing and sometimes inconsistent. Many organizations
cannot interpret their own rules, nor do they fully understand the jurisdictional
issues that arise with respect to every sample taken until they are
caught in a crisis. This article attempts to untangle the web of rules
and regulations and provide both athletes, coaches, and athlete representatives
with a working knowledge of master: 1) when an athlete is subject to
drug testing, 2) which organizations oversee doping control², and 3)
the potential problems that arise when more than one organization is
involved.

Brief
History of Cheating

Ever since the ancient
Olympic games, athletes have sought to gain the glory of being an Olympic
champion, with all its attendant accolades, gifts and awards. Over time,
this quest for greatness has tempted athletes to obtain athletic prowess
by dishonest means. Drug testing of athletes, to route out performance
enhancing drug use, began within the Olympic Movement³ in 1968. It continues
today. In modern times, unscrupulous doctors have assisted athletes
in gaining an edge against their opponents. The most notorious and recent
Olympic exposure of cheating occurred during the 1988 Olympic Games
in Seoul, Korea, when Ben Johnson was exposed as a “steroid user.” However,
not all Olympic drug infractions are the product of intentional actions
on the part of the athletes. Recently, several former East German athletes
have brought suit in Germany alleging that they were unknowingly, given
performance-enhancing drugs, under the guise of “vitamins.” These cases
reinforce to the public what Olympic athletes have know for decades–drugs
in sports does exist.

Necessary
Tools

To being your research
and advise Amanda, you will need to obtain the following documents:

International Olympic
Committee Charter
International Olympic Committee Medical Code
International Amateur Athletic Federation Rules
International Amateur Athletic Federation Procedural Guidelines for
Doping Control
1998 Ted Stevens Olympic & Amateur Sports Act § 2250
United States Olympic Committee National Anti-Doping Program Document

United States Olympic Committee Memorandum of Agreement with USA Track
& Field
United States Olympic Committee Constitution & By Laws
United States Olympic Committee Code of Conduct 2000 Olympic Games
United States Olympic Committee Grievance Procedures for Code of Conduct
and Team Selection 2000 Olympic Games
United States Olympic Committee Bilateral Agreement with the Australia
Drug Testing Agency
United States
Olympic Committee Bilateral Agreement with the Canadian Centre for Ethics
in Sports
USA Track & Field Governance Handbook

When
is an Athlete subject to drug testing?

Now that you have
all the materials you need, you can begin your legal analysis. Amanda
tells you that she doesn’t understand why she gets tested during some
competitions and not others, and, more important, she tells you she
does not understand why she is tested at home.

Based upon your
exhaustive review of the relevant documents, you now understand that
there are two types of drug testing that Olympic-caliber athletes are
subject to “in-competition” and “out-of-competition.” Slightly different
rules apply to each category of testing.4

In-competition drug
testing occurs during a specified competition. Athletes are notified
that they will be tested upon completion of an event, during a competition.
Once notified, athletes are required to provide a urine sample while
at the competition site. The procedures by which an athlete is selected
for drug testing depends upon the organization that responsible for
process is random, based upon place-finish.

Out-of-competition
drug testing, on the other hand, occurs outside of competition. Usually,
out-of-competition drug tests are conducted with no advanced notice
to the athlete and may occur at any time. (i.e. home, work, or training
facility6). Once notified, athletes are required
to submit to the drug test, regardless of where s/he may be located
at the time of notification. 7 The process by
which an athlete is selected for out-of -competition drug testing is
also organization specific. For example, USATF, randomly selects a specified
number of athletes for testing each month. USATF selects athletes based
upon their ranking in a particular event.

Entities
responsible for carrying out drug testing

Now that Amanda
understands the types of drug tests that she is subject to, it is critical
that she understands what organizations have the authority8 to carry
out the drug testing process.

Almost every sport
organization today conducts or participates in some type of drug testing
program, regardless of whether its athletes are amateur or professional.
Professional sport organizations such as the NCAA, National Basketball
Association, Women’s National Basketball Association, National Football
League, Major League Baseball, and National Hockey League each conduct
their own drug testing programs, have their own drug testing protocol,
and coordinate their own list of prohibited substances.

Unlike those athletes
associated with professional organizations, elite Olympic athletes are
subject to drug testing by multiple organizations. Within the Olympic
Movement, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), some International
Federations (IF’s), the United States Olympic Committee (USOC), and
certain other national organizations, by agreement, all conduct drug
testing programs and have the ability to drug test U.S. athletes either
during competition, out-of-competition, or both. However, the likelihood
that an athlete will be subject to drug testing by all four (4) organizations
is heavily dependent on the level at which the athlete competes, for
reasons that are provided below. 9

In
the United States

Athletes that compete
on a national level can expect to be drug tested by the United States
Olympic Committee (USOC).10 The USOC, through
the National Anti-Doping Program (NADP), is responsible for coordinating
both in-competition drug testing for each National Governing Body (NGB).11
The NADP is implemented through individual memoranda of agreement
(MOA) between the USOC and each individual NGB. Each MOA establishes
the terms and conditions by which the USOC is responsible for conducting
drug testing for an NGB.

Under the USOC/USATF
MOA, USAFT is responsible for selecting certain domestic competitions
in which drug testing will occur, for determining the process by which
athletes are selected for domestic out-of-competition drug testing,
and for implementing the disciplinary process upon notice that a sample
has tested positive for a prohibited substance. 12
The USOC, on the other hand, is responsible for coordinating every other
aspect of the drug testing process. Thus, in the event that Amanda competes
in a domestic competition that has been selected for drug testing by
USATF, she can expect drug testing by USAFT, she can expect drug testing
to take place by the USOC, in accordance with the NADP, as amended by
the MOA. Furthermore, as the USOC is also responsible for conducting
out-of-competition drug testing, pursuant to the NADP and MOA, in the
event that Amanda ranks among the top athletes in her event, she will
be drug tested outside of competition as well.13

Internationally

Athletes competing
on an international level, either domestically or abroad, can also expect
to be drug tested by their respective international federation. The
international federation for track & field,14
the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF), is responsible
for coordinating all aspects of track & field on an international level,
including the implementation of a drug testing program.15
According to the rules associated with the IAAF’s drug testing program,
the IAAF is responsible for conducting drug testing during the following
competitions: World
Championships and World Cups, Grand Prix and Permit Meetings, and other
designated competitions.16 In addition, IAAF
rules authorize it to conduct out-of-competition drug testing on a member
federation’s athletes.17

Thus, when Amanda
competes abroad or in certain internationally sanctioned competitions
in the U.S.,18 the IAAF will have the authority
to drug test Amanda during that competition. Furthermore, since Amanda
is a world ranked athlete, she is eligible to be drug tested outside
of competition by the IAAF. Similar to the out-of-competition drug test
conducted by the USOC, an out-of-competition drug test conducted by
the IAAF can occur at any time and any place, with no notice to the
athlete.

Special
Testing Arrangements

When Amanda travels
to Australia for training and/or competition prior to the U.S. Olympic
Trials, she will be subject to drug testing by the Australian Sports
Drug Agency (ASDA), as well as the USOC. Pursuant to a “Trilateral Agreement”,
the ASDA, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES), and USOC have
all agreed to allow each country’s athletes. This Trilateral Agreement
has been implemented through individual bilateral agreements, which
set forth the terms and conditions pursuant to which the drug test must
be conducted.

According to the
bilateral agreement between the USOC and the ASDA.19
The ASDA has the authority to drug test an American athlete while s/he
is residing, training, and/or competing in Australia, and vice versa.20
The USOC has the authority to drug test an Australian athlete that USOC
also has the ability to drug test U.S. athletes while they are competing,
training, or residing in Australia. Notwithstanding ASDA’s and the USOC’s
ability to drug test a U.S. athlete in Australia, the responsibility
of conducting disciplinary procedures still rests with each athlete’s
federation.21

Finally, in some
instances, Olympic athletes may be subject to drug testing conducted
by the recently created World Anti-doping Agency (WADA). WADA was created
under the auspices of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) with
the goal of coordinating drug testing on a global level during the intervals
between the Pan American and Olympic Games. However, WADA’s limited
objective for the year 2000 is to conduct out-of-competition drug testing
programs.22 In addition, WADA will have the responsibility
of monitoring the conduct of both the USOC and IAAF have drug testing
programs, the likelihood that an American track & field athlete will
be subject to drug testing by WADA is minimal.

Drug
Testing At Olympic Trial Events

Each NGB has a
selection process for athletes who will represent the United States
at the Olympic Games. Some NGB’s evaluate performance over a series
of competitions, while other NGB’s base selection on performance at
a specific Olympic Trials event. USAFT’s selection process falls into
the later category.

All athletes participating
in the U.S. Olympic Team Trials for Track & Field are eligible to be
drug tested. Pursuant to its authority under the NADP, the USOC has
the authority to conduct drug testing at all Olympic an Pan American
Trials competitions.23 Thus, Amanda should be
informed that, if selected to the U.S. Olympic Team, she can expect
to be drug tested upon completion of her event.

Disciplinary
Procedures

Each sports organization
described above has a disciplinary process that is implemented once
an athlete’s urine sample reveals the presence of a prohibited substance.
Pursuant to the rules of the USOC NADP, IAAF, and the ASDA/USOC bilateral
agreement, disciplinary proceedings are to be held by the appropriate
NGB.24 Thus, once an NGB is notified by one of
these organizations that a urine sample has tested positive for a prohibited
substance, the NGB is responsible for implementing disciplinary proceedings.
For USATF, the disciplinary process begins with the implementation of
USATF Regulation 10–Doping Control.

USATF
Regulation 10

USATF Regulation
10 is the provision, within the USATF Bylaws, that authorizes USATF
to implement disciplinary proceedings against an athlete. Additionally,
it sets forth the disciplinary process that USATF is required to implement
once it has been notified that a urine sample has tested positive for
a prohibited substance.

Under Regulation
10, athletes are afforded certain rights and opportunities, which included
the following: (1) the right to have “B” sample analyzed,25
(2) the right to a full hearing26, and (3) the
right to an appeal. As of January 2000, the American Arbitration Association(AAA)
is responsible for adjudicating all hearings and appeals for USATF,
pursuant to USATF Regulation.27

USOC
Article IX

In addition to USAFT
Regulation 10, an athlete may utilize another forum designated by Article
IX of the USOC Constitution and Chapter IX of the USOC Bylaws to resolve
issues of eligibility. According to these provisions, an athlete who
believes that s/he has been denied the opportunity to participate in
a protected competition 28 has the opportunity
to have an expedited hearing before the American Arbitration Association
(AAA). 29 Arbitrations that are held pursuant
to this Article are held in accordance with special AAA rules and regulations
relating to Olympic and Pan American Games competitions. Athletes who
utilize this provision are entitled to a hearing and a decision within
forty-eight (48) hours of delivery of the notice of the hearing.30

Thus, in the event
that one of Amanda’s urine samples tests positive during either an in-competition
or out-of-competition drug test, or Olympic Trials competition, she
would have the opportunity to have the matter heard by a AAA panel,
pursuant to USATF Regulation 10. In the event that USATF denied Amanda
the opportunity to compete, she could utilize the AAA arbitration in
accordance with Article IX of the USOC Constitution and Chapter IX of
the USOC Bylaws.

Olympic
Trials–Nomination to the Olympic Team

According to the
USOC Constitution and Bylaws, the USOC has exclusive jurisdiction over
members of the U.S. Olympic Team and all matters relating to their participation
in the Olympic Games, once the Olympic team has been nominated by an
NGB. 31Consistent with this authority, set forth
the appropriate process for handling any disciplinary and/or grievance
matters. 32Members of the U.S. Olympic team are
required to utilize these procedures for any issue that may arise regarding
their eligibility and/or participation in the Olympic Games.

Post
Olympic Trails Jurisdictional Issues

Immediately upon
completion of the U.S. Olympic Trials and an athlete’s return to competition/training,
all of the organizations described above resume their authority to drug
test him/her. However, for all members of the U.S. Olympic team, the
USOC simultaneously retains its authority to handle all disciplinary
matters and grievance complaints, as they relate to a member of the
U.S. Olympic team and their Olympic Games. The USOC retains this authority
until the completion of the 2000 Olympic Games. Thus, notwithstanding
the ability of any organization to conduct drug testing on an athlete
and its authority to handle any subsequent disciplinary proceedings,
the USOC Constitution and Bylaws specify that the USOC has authority
over any issue related to discipline and/or grievance complaints. As
a result, a situation of overlapping jurisdiction is created, the resolution
of which remains unclear as of the date of this article.

Consider the following
possible scenario. Amanda, as indicated in her event schedule, competes
in Australia after the Olympic Trials and is selected for drug testing.
Assume that her sample reveals the presence of a prohibited substance.
ASDA is required to notify USOC of the positive finding. The USOC is
required to notify USATF, pursuant to the USOC/ASDA bilateral agreement.
Upon notification, USATF is required to notify Amanda that her sample
has tested positive for a prohibited substance and inform her that the
following disciplinary procedures will now be implemented. However,
it is unclear whether the USOC Grievance Procedures, or USATF Regulation
10 apply.

Because this sample
was taken pursuant to the ASDA’s authority, under the USOC/ASDA bilateral
agreement, the athlete’s hame federation is responsible for handling
the disciplinary process.33 However, because
Amanda is now a member of the U.S. Olympic team, the USOC also has jurisdiction
over the disciplinary process. 34 Which organization
is responsible for resolving the matter is unclear.35
This conflict exists not only with drug testing conducted pursuant to
the USOC/ASDA bilateral agreement, but also with drug tests that are
conducted pursuant to the USOC’s NADP, and the IAAF’s doping control
program, each of which specify specific procedures that must follow
in the event of a positive finding.

Olympic
Games–IOC Authority

As the “supreme
authority”36 within the Olympic Movement, the
IOC is responsible for conducting drug testing during the Olympic Games,
pursuant to the rules and regulations established by IOC Medical Code.
The IOC Medical Code also sets forth the disciplinary process that must
be followed once a drug test reveals the presence of a prohibited substance.
37According to those procedures, the IOC Medical
commission has the sole authority to decide issues relating to positive
drug tests.38 However, all decisions may be appealed
to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.39

Thus, if an American
athlete competing at the Olympic Games is drug tested and the sample(s)
given test positive, the Chief de Mission of the U.S. Olympic delegation
is notified tht the test has revealed the presence of a prohibited substance.
According the procedures set forth in the IOC Medical Code, the IOC
Medical Commission determines whether a doping violation has taken place
and refers its decision to the IOC Executive Committee for approval
and the imposition of a penalty. Any decision adverse to the athlete
may be appealed to CAS for a final determination.

Notwithstanding
the rights of an athlete to appeal the IOC’s determination, the USOC
Grievance Procedures continue to be effective. Thus, after the IOC determines
that a doping violation has occurred, an athlete could presumably invoke
the American Arbitration Association arbitration process to process
to prevent his/her removal from the U.S. Olympic Team.40
As a result, it is again unclear whether your athlete is required to
adhere to those procedures set forth by the IOC or whether s/he can
pursue an appeal before the AAA.

What
Does This Mean For Amanda?

A great deal. Prior
to the start of the U.S. Olympic Team Trails for Track & Field, Amanda
can expect to be drug tested by every one of the organizations mentioned
above, both in and outside of competition. For those competitions that
are conducted in the United States, drug testing will be conducted by
the USOC.41 If Amanda should expect to be drug
tested outside of competition in both the United States and Canada,
by either the USOC, IAAF, the ASDA, and/or WADA.

In the event that
any of the samples taken prior to, or during the U.S. Olympic Team Trials
for Track & Field reveal the presence of a prohibited substance, Amanda
can expect to be notified by USATF of the positive finding. At such
time, Amanda would be entitled to the opportunities afforded by USA
Regulation 10. In addition, Amanda would have immediate recourse through
Article IX of the USOC Constitution and Chapter IX of the USOC Bylaws
to reexamine her eligibility status for the U.S. Olympic Trials and
the Olympic Games. A great deal.

Upon completion
of the U.S. Olympic Trials, Amanda can still expect to be drug tested
by the USOC, IAAF, ASDA, or WADA. However, whether USATF will be responsible
for conducting disciplinary proceedings will be dependent on whether
Amanda has been nominated to the U.S. Olympic Team.

If Amanda is not
nominated to the U.S. Olympic Team for Track & Field, and a sample taken
after the Olympic Trials reveals the presence of a prohibited substance,
Amanda can expect disciplinary proceedings to be conducted by USATF,
pursuant to USATF Regulation 10.

However, if Amanda
is nominated to the U.S. Olympic Team, and a sample taken before
or after the Olympic Trials reveals the presence of a prohibited substance,
it is unclear which organization, USATF or the USOC, would have the
ability to implement disciplinary proceedings. What is clear is, however,
is that Amanda would have recourse through Article IX of the USOC Constitution
& Bylaws, if either the USOC or USATF first denied her the opportunity
to compete in the Olympic Games.

Conclusion

This article only
begins to touch on the many legal issues associated with drug testing.
Ultimately, it will be up to you, the attorney, to navigate successfully
the impossibly complicated body of rules and regulations associated
with each organizations’s drug testing program, in order to adequately
represent your client. Understanding the many organizations within the
Olympic Movement that are involved with drug testing, as well as the
different responsibilities of these organizations, will be a very challenging
task. However, one thing should be apparent, drug testing is certain
to occur, whether it be during a competition or outside a competition.
Thus, understanding the differences between the United States Olympic
Committee, the International Federation, the World Anti-doping Agency,
and any other organization that may have the authority to drug test
an athlete, may be the most important thing that an athlete can do to
prepare for the 2000 Olympic Games.

End
Notes

1.The term of art
for drug testing within the Olympic Movement is “doping control.” These
terms are interchanged throughout this Article. Drug testing is the
process that has been developed over time to ensure that an athlete
and analyzing that sample for both technique. It includes taking a urine
sample from an athlete and analyzing that sample for both prohibited
substances and techniques. While urine is the body fluid that is currently
analyzed during the 2000 sydeny Games.

2.See id.

3.The tem Olympic
Movement “stems from modern Olympism.” It “encompasses organizations,
athletes, and other persons who agree to be bound by the Olympic Charter.”
Criterion for belonging to the Olympic Movement is recognition by the
International Olympic Committee. See International Olympic Committee
Charter §§ 4and 5, The Olympic Charter (visited April 14, 2000)
http://www.olympic.org/ioc/e/facts/charter/charter_intro_e.html
[hereinafter IOC Charter].

4.See id

5.See generally,
Medical Commission (visited April 14, 2000) http://iisl.us.olympic.org/ioc/e/org/medcom%5Fintro%5Fe.html[hereinafter
IOC Medical Commission].

6.See generally,
IAAF Rules and Regulations (visited April 14, 2000) http://archive.www.worldsport/sports/athletics/rules/rules.html

7.See generally,
IAAF Division III (visited April 14, 2000) http://archive.www.worldsports/athletics/rules/32.html.

8.Authority, as
used throughout this article, is meant to include not only the ability
to conduct drug testing but also the ability to implement disciplinary
proceedings, if necessary.

9.For example, a
U.S. athlete that is ranked number two (2) in the world, in a particular
event, has much greater chance of being drug tested by all four (4)
organizations than a U.S. athlete that is ranked number ten (10) in
the United States.

10.The United States
Olympic Committee is the United States’ representative – the National
Olympic Committee (NOC) – in the Internationally Olympic Committee.
As such, the USOC is responsible for coordinating the activity of all
American based Olympic and Pan American sport organizations in the United
States.

11.Each sport within
the Olympic Movement has a national federation, which is responsible
for coordinating the activity for that particular sport in the country.
In the United States these federations are known as national governing
bodies (NGB). USA Track & Field is the NGB for track & field, long distance
running, cross country, and race walking, in the United States. For
more infomation on recognition of NGB’s in the United States see the
1998 Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sport Act §2205.

12.See NADP Section
9.1(b) and

13.The USOC implements
a No-Advance-Notice (NAN) out-of-competition drug testing program. This
means that athletes are given no notice that the out-of-competition
drug test is going to occur. For more information, see USOC NADP, Attachment
6.

14.Each national
federation within the Olympic Movement belongs to an international federation
– the worldwide governing body for that particular sport. The international
federation is responsible for all technical aspects of the sport outside
the Olympic Games.

15.It is a condition
of membership in the IAAF that each NGB abide by the IAAF Rules and
Regulations, which provide for both in-competition and out-of-competition
drug testing. See IAAF Rule 2 and 55-61.

16.See IAAF Rule
58.1.

17.See IAAF Rule
57.1(iii).

18.An example of
an IAAF sanctioned event held in the United States is the Prefontaine
Classic, which is held every spring in Portland, Oregon in honor of
the late Steve Prefontaine. This competition is an IAAF Grand Prix event.

19.A similar bilateral
agreement, between CCES and the USOC, is expected to be signed in the
next few months.

20.The ability to
drug test another federation’s athlete has a “reasonableness” standard
built in to the provisions. A party to the agreement cannot drug test
an athlete more than twice, during the same visit, without the consent
of the other party. Thus, a federation cannot abuse their authority
to drug test another federation’s athletes.

21.Thus, if your
client were to be drug tested in Australia and the drug test revealed
the presence of a prohibited substance, your client would have the ability
to have a hearing before USATF, the athlete’s home federation. For more
information, see USOC/ASDA Bilateral Agreement, Section IV, Provision
9.

22.It should be
noted that within the sport of track & field, of the 200 members of
the IAAF, only 8 have drug testing programs.

23.See USCO NADP,
Section 9.1.

24.See USOC NADP,
Section 6.20, IAAF 59.3, and USOC/ASDA Bilateral Agreement Section 4,
Provision 9.

25.The collection
of drug test includes dividing the urine sample into two (2) containers,
respectively known as the “A” sample and the “B” sample. The “A” sample
is always analyzed first. The “B” sample is only analyzed in the event
the “A” sample reveals the presence of a prohibited substance.

26.The USOC has
set forth a “due process” checklist that NGBs are required to comply
with. The list includes notice of the specific charges, reasonable time
between the receipt of notice of charges and the hearing, the right
to have the hearing conducted at a convenient time and place, the right
to be assisted in the presentation of one’s case at the hearing before
a disinterested and impartial body of fact finders, the right to call
witnesses and present both written and oral evidence, the right to cross-examine,
the right to a record of the hearing, the right to a written decision,
the right to written notice of appeal procedures. See USOC Constitution
and Bylaws Article IV, Section 4, (C)(6).

27.USATF was the
first NGB in the United States to out source its disciplinary process.
The USOC has recently indicated that they plan to follow in our footsteps.

28.Protected competition
includes Olympic Games, Pan American Games, Paralympic Games, a World
Championships competition, or other protected competition as defined
by Article I, Section 2 (H) of the USOC Constitution & Bylaws. See USOC
Constitution & Bylaws Article IX, Section 1.

29.An NGB would
first have to deny an athlete the ability to participate in a protected
competition. Thus, an athlete first would have had a hearing pursuant
to USAFT Regulation 10.

30.See USOC Constitution
& Bylaws Article IX.

31.See USOC Constitution
and Bylaws Article III, Section 5.

32.See Grievance
Procedures for Code of Conduct and Team Selection – 2000 Olympic Games.
These Grievance Procedures specify that the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) will handle any dispute that the Secretary General is unable to
resolve.

33.See USOC/ASDA
Bilateral Agreement, Section IV, Provision 9.

34.See Grievance
Procedures for Code of Conduct and Team Selection – 2000 Olympic Games.

35.An additional
issue that arises, but is not discussed in this article, is whether
one organization may pursue disciplinary action after action has been
taken by the first organizations.

36.See IOC Olympic
Charter, Section 5.

37.See IOC Medical
Code Chapter VI, Article IV and Chapter III, Article I. Athletes agree
to use the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to resolve all issues
relating to disciplinary action that may arise during the conduct of
the Olympic Games.

38.See id

39.See IOC Medical
Code Chapter III, Article I.

40.See Grievance
Procedures for Code of Conduct and Team Selection–2000 Olympic Games.

41.Unless the competition
falls into one of the categories specified by the IAAF Rules. In such
case, the IAAF would be responsible for conducting drug testing.

42.See above note.

Since the June 1995 U. S. Supreme Court ruling in support of random interscholastic student athlete drug testing, more schools then ever before have begun either mandatory, reasonable suspicion or voluntary types of drug testing as they battle drug abuse by their students. By far most student drug testing programs consist of mandatory testing of only student athletes since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this type of testing. Some schools have begun drug testing all co-curricular students or students wishing to drive to school. This latter action was challenged in Rush County, Indiana, and upheld by the District Court. When appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court they allowed the District Court ruling to stand.

Schools contemplating a drug testing program must first document their student athletes are using drugs to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Likewise it is imperative that they rally community support for such a program in order for it to be a helpful tool used both my school officials and parents. Urine drug testing is the industry standard and recommended over hair or saliva testing which may not be defendable in court.

Student Drug Testing Options

Drug testing programs can be mandatory, as with interscholastic student athletes, voluntary as part of a student assistance program, or based on reasonable suspicion only. Random urine drug testing by far is the most deterrent to drug use by students since the students may be selected at any time for testing. This type program gives the students another reason to say “No!” However such a program requires more testing be done which elevates the total cost of the program. Voluntary programs do help those students caught breaking the rules by using drugs or alcohol, but has little impact on students using and not getting caught. Reasonable Suspicion programs are very effective at keeping drugs out of schools but have little deterrence to use by students in general.

Drugs to Screen for

A student drug testing program must screen for the appropriate illicit drugs and banned substances. Most schools have student codes of conduct and/or athletic codes of conduct that state illicit drugs are not to be used and most include tobacco as a banned substance. The substance abuse coordinator from your school should be able to tell you what drugs or substances your students are using and abusing. This list will probably include Pre-Game Drugs like tobacco (smoked and chewed), marijuana, pain medications (often used with parent knowledge) and anabolic steroids. After games, the Post-Game Drugs will include tobacco, marijuana, alcohol, LSD, and inhalants. There are several “club drugs” that students are starting to use including ecstacy, a methamphetamine known as MDMA, and ketamine, a veterinary anesthetic. Ecstacy has stimulation and hallucinogenic effects and often used at parties called Raves where students dance wildly and often dehydrate from elevated body temperatures. Unfortunately one dose of ecstacy causes permanent brain damage. During a Rave a student may take as many as 15 hits of Ecstacy. Current urine drug testing can discover Ecstacy but only when ordered as a special test and at considerable expense. There is not a screening test yet available for Ecstacy or Ketamine.

Currently most certified laboratories offer a standard Substance Abuse Panel -10 (SAP-10) which screen for the following ten drugs:

• Amphetamines
• Barbiturates
• Benzodiazepines (Valium®)
• Cocaine
• Marijuana
• Methadone
• Methaqualone
• Opiates (Codeine)
• Phencyclidine
• Propoxyphene (Darvon®)

Many other chemical substances can be detected in the urine, and considering the drug use patterns of today’s youth, the following additional drug screens can be ordered:

• Alcohol
• Anabolic Steroids
• LSD
• Nicotine (Tobacco)
• MDMA (Ecstacy)

In the laboratory, the SAP-10 is automated and therefore less expensive to do. The other drugs must be tested for by different methods or at special locations, resulting in higher prices. The typical school will pay from $25 to $50 for each SAP-10 ordered, with urine alcohol costing $6 – $10 each, LSD $22-25 each, urine nicotine costs $10-12 each, and anabolic steroids costing $80-95 each. For this price, you should get MRO services as well (see Medical Review Officer section).

Since the drugs abused mostly by teenagers today consist of tobacco, marijuana, alcohol and LSD, a drug abuse intervention program must screen for these chemicals. Simply doing the industry standard of a SAP-10 is not enough. However, detection of alcohol in the urine is not very reliable since it is eliminated from the body very quickly. A drug screen for alcohol done on Tuesday is not likely to find alcohol that was consumed on Saturday night. LSD also leaves the body very quickly and is hard to catch. Therefore, schools often do weekend collection to deter the use of alcohol by their athletes.

A Certified Laboratory is a Must

There are many laboratories, both local and national, who advertise the ability to do urine drug testing. However, not every lab uses the same methods nor are they all certified by the Government. Therefore, it is imperative that only Government certified laboratories are used for any student drug testing program. This is the only way you can be assured that your results are accurate. If your policy will deny the privilege to participate in sports or other co-curricular activities when a positive test is found, your school will be in really hot water if your results are wrong. Any lab your medical vendor uses must be certified by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration(SAMHSA) and should have a minimum of ten years of experience in toxicology testing and chair-of-custody procedures. Sport Safe Testing Service uses Quest Diagnostics, Inc. exclusive for testing due to their many years experience with athlete drug testing.

Analysis of Specimens

There are two levels of analysis that occur routinely with urine drug abuse screens. The sample is first subjected to an automated screening test that quickly looks for the presence of specified drugs or their metabolites. This initial testing uses a highly accurate immunoassay technique commonly called an EMIT®. All presumptive positive results should be confirmed by a Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy (GC/MS) confirmatory tests. This confirmation method provides a “molecular fingerprint” of the drug and/or metabolite, providing a high level of accuracy and specificity. The quantitative results, in nanograms per milliliter, are usually reported as well. Currently the GC/MS confirmatory test is the only acceptable industry standard for drug abuse screen confirmations. Thin layer chromatography, as sometimes offered by non-certified labs, is not acceptable.

Second-Hand Exposure

The first words out of a teen’s mouth when told their urine showed marijuana is that they were in a car with someone who was smoking and therefore that is why their test came up positive. It is very true that detectable levels of both THC (active ingredient of marijuana) and nicotine can be found in those individuals having close exposure to the smoke of the burning tobacco or marijuana. The urine of young children whose parents smoke will have detectable nicotine. For this reason, a series of cutoff levels has been determined and proven scientifically so when a urine drug screen is positive, we know it is from use and not second-hand exposure. For THC the standard is 20-50 nanograms (ng) per milliliter in the screening test and 15 ng/ml by GC/MS. Nicotine has to be above 300 ng/ml to be called positive. When a drug screen is reported as positive, the actual quantitative levels are reported to the Medical Review Officer. This data is becoming more important in determining recent use verses natural decay of levels in the body. The levels for nicotine are less standardized and often take careful interpretation by the MRO.

Medical Review Officer

A Medical Review Officer (MRO) is a licensed physician who has additional training and certification in the area of drug testing. Specifically they have learned how drug testing is done, what affects the results, specifically medications and foods, and how individuals will try and adulterate the specimens to give false negative results. A physician can be certified by the Medical Review Officer Certification Council (MROCC) or the American Association of Medical Review Officers.

Any program of drug testing involving students should have a certified MRO to review all results and make a final certification as to being positive or negative. The MRO must be willing to phone parents when a positive result is found to verify if any medication has been prescribed. This is very important since medications like Tylenol® with codeine could be legally prescribed for a student following a tooth extraction and that student having a drug test would be positive for opiates. The MRO’s job is to verify if any medication has been prescribed for the student which could have resulted in the positive result. If the MRO receives from the prescribing physician or dentist documentation that a codeine containing medication was prescribed, the MRO will rule the test negative. However, if the parent happened to give the student one of his or her pills, and the student has no legal prescription for the medication, then the MRO must rule this test positive since a controlled drug was given and taken without the order of a licensed physician. (Believe it or not, athletes, with full knowledge of their parents, have taken pain medications prior to athletic competition to make their overused joints hurt less during that day’s events). Having an MRO adds significant credibility to any program and shares the burden of liability the school is placed under. For more information and contact Sport SafeTesting Service, Inc., 18 Grace Drive, Powell OH 43065 or call (614) 847-0847. Sample policies are available on our web site at www.sportsafe.com.

---

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Joseph C. Franz, Medical Director, SPORT SAFE Testing Service, Inc., 18 Grace Drive, Powell, OH 43065. Phone/Fax:(614) 847-0874. Sample policies are available at www.sportsafe.com.

1. USADA’s Relationship with the United States Olympic committee (“USOC”)USADA is an independent legal entity not subject to the control of the USOC. The USOC has contracted with USADA to conduct drug testing and results management for participants in the Olympic movement within the United States and to provide educational information to those participants. For the purposes of transmittal of information by USADA, the USOC is USADA’s client/ However, the USOC has authorized USADA to transmit information simultaneously to the relevant National governing Body (“NGB”), International Federation (“IF”) the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) and involved athlete.

1. Athletes Subject to Testing USADAThe USOC and NGBs have authorized USADA to test the following athletes:
   1. Any athlete who is a member of a NGB;
   2. Any athlete participating at a competition sanctioned by the USOC or a NGB;
   3. Any foreign athlete who would otherwise be subject to testing by USADA, the USOC or NGB; or
   4. Any other athlete who has given his/her consent to testing by USADA.
   5. Any athlete who has been named by the USOC or an NGB or is competing in a qualifying event to represent the USOC or NGB is in international competition.

USADA will not allow the testing process to be used to harass any athlete. In selecting athletes for testing, USADA will focus primarily on athletes who are participating or have the potential to participate, in international competition.

1. Choice of Rules In conducting drug testing and results management under this protocol, USADA will look to the following sources of rules:

 

1. The selection and collection procedures set forth in paragraphs 4, 5, & 6

herein shall apply to all testing done by USADA unless different procedures are agreed to between USADA and the party requesting the test for a particular event.

• All test performed by USADA shall be analyzed by IOC-accredited laboratories. In analyzing samples for USADA, those laboratories shall follow the standards established by the IOC.
• Tests performed by USADA shall be analyzed for the categories of prohibited and restricted substances set forth in the rules of the applicable IF unless agreed otherwise between USADA and the party ordering the test.
• USADA shall be responsible for results management of all tests performed by it and all other tests for which the applicable IF rules require the initial adjudication forth in paragraph 9 herein, unless otherwise referred by USADA to a foreign sports organization having jurisdiction over the athlete.

 

 

1. Selection of Athletes to be Tested In-Competition
   USADA shall have the authority to determine which athlete will be selected for testing in all competitions tested by USADA. In making this determination, USADA will normally follow NGB or IF selection procedures and will include at a minimum the selection formulas or requests for target selection on particular athletes which are proposed by the USOC or a particular NGB. USADA retains the right to test any athlete that it chooses, with or without cause or explanation.

 

1. Selection of Athletes to be Tested Out-of-Competition USADA shall have the authority to determine which athlete will be selected for testing out-of-competition testing by USADA. In making this determination, USADA will carefully consider selection formulas or requests for target selection on particular athletes which are proposed by the USOC or a particular NGB. USADA retains the right to test any athlete that it chooses, with or without cause or explanation.
   Each NGB will provide USADA with a regularly updated list of athletes to have included in No Advance Notice or other out-of competition testing. With respect to each athlete on such list and such additional athletes as may be designated by USADA, the NGB will provide USADA with the information as set forth on the athlete location form attached as Annex A. Thereafter it shall be the responsibility of each individual athlete to provide USADA with updated information as to his or her whereabouts.

 

1. Sample Collection Sample collection by USADA will substantially conform to the standards set forth by the IOC and the World Anti-Doping Agency.

 

1. Laboratory Analysis All samples collected by USADA will be sent for analysis only to IOC-accredited laboratories.

 

1. Notification USADA will provide the following notification will respect to each laboratory report received by USADA:

 

1. Upon receipt of a negative laboratory report, USADA will promptly forward that result to the athlete, the USOC and the applicable NGB.
2. Upon receipt of a positive laboratory A report or a report indicating an elevated testosterone, epitestosterone ratio or epitestosterone concentration, USADA will promptly notify the applicable NGB and athlete at the address on the Doping Control Notifications/Signature Form and shall advise the athlete of the date on which the laboratory will conduct the B sample analysis. The athlete may attend the B sample analysis accompanied by a representative at his or her own expense. Prior to the B sample opening, USADA shall provide to the athlete the A sample laboratory documentation set forth on Annex B. A sample shall not be considered positive until after the B sample analysis confirms the A sample analysis.
3. Upon receipt of the laboratory’s B sample report, USADA shall promptly notify the USOC, the applicable NGB and the athlete. USADA shall then provide to the athlete the B sample documentation package set forth on Annex C. The laboratory shall not be required to produce any documentation in addition to Annexes B and C unless ordered to do so by an arbitrator(s) during adjudication, in which case it shall be produced at the athlete’s expense.
4. In special circumstances where USADA is conducting testing for an IF, regional or continental sports organization or other Olympic movement sporting body, other than the USOC or an NGB, the notification described in this section shall be made exclusively to that sporting body, the athlete, and , if applicable, to the USOC and NGB.
1. Results Management Whenever USADA receives a laboratory report confirming positive test, elevated testosterone or epitestosterone ration or epitestosterone concentration, or when USADA has other reason to believe that a doping violation has occurred, such as admitted doping, address that case through the following results management procedures:
   1. USADA ANTI-DOPING REVIEW BOARD
      The USADA Anti-Doping Review Board (“Review Board”) is a group of experts independent of USADA with medical, technical and legal knowledge of anti-doping matters. The Review Board members shall be appointed for two year terms by the USADA Board of Directors. The Review Board shall review all B sample test results reported by the laborator7y as analytically positive or elevated in accordance with i below. Such review shall be undertaken by between three and five Review Board members appointed in each case by USADA’s Chief Executive Officer and composed of at least one technical, one medical and one legal expert.

   Upon USADA’s receipt of a laboratory report identifying an analytically positive or elevated B test result, the following steps shall be taken:

   1. USADA’s Chief Executive Officer shall appoint a Review Board as provided in Section (a) above.
   2. The athlete shall be promptly notified of the date by which the athlete shall submit any written materials, through USADA, to the Review Board for its consideration. The athlete shall also be provided the name and telephone number of the Athlete Ombudsman.
   3. The Review Board shall be provided the laboratory documentation and any additional information which USADA deems appropriate. Copies of this information shall be provided simultaneously to the athlete and the athlete shall be entitled to file a response with the Review Board.
   4. The Review Board shall be entitled to request additional information from either USADA or the athlete.
   5. Notwithstanding the forgoing, the process before the Review Board shall not be considered a “hearing.” The Review Board shall only consider written submittals. Submittals to the Review Board shall not be used in any further hearing or preceding without the consent of the party making the submittal. The Review Board’s recommendations shall not be admissible in any further hearing or proceeding.
   6. The Review Board shall consider the written information submitted to it and shall, by majority vote, make a recommendation to USADA with a copy to the athlete whether
      or not there is sufficient evidence of doping to proceed to a hearing.
   7. USADA shall also forward the Review Board’s recommendation to the USOC, the applicable NGB and IF and WADA.
   1. ADJUDICATION
      1. Following receipt of the Review Board Recommendations, USADA shall notify the athlete in writing whether USADA considers the matter closed or alternatively what specific charges or alleged violations will be adjudicated and what sanction, consistent with IF rules, USADA is adjudicated and what sanction, consistent with IF rules, USADA is seeking the have imposed (an other possible sanctions which could be imposed under the applicable IF rules). The notice shall also include a copy of the USADA Protocol for Olympics Sport Testing and the modifications to AAA Commercial Rules. Within ten (10) days following such notice, the athlete must notify USADA if he or she desires a hearing to contest the sanction sought by USADA. If the sanction is to contested, then it shall be communicated by USADA to the USOC, the applicable NGB and If and WADA and thereafter imposed by the NGB. If the sanction is contested by the athlete, then a hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the procedure set forth below.
      2. The hearing will take place before the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) using a single arbitrator (or a three arbitrator panel if demanded by either of the parties) selected from a pool of the North American Court of Arbitration for Sports (“CAS”) Arbitrators who shall also be AAA Arbitrators. The hearing will take place in the U.S., be administered by Decentralized Office of CAS in the Americas (the “Administrator”), and the conducted under modified AAA Commercial Rules attached as Annex D. The parties will be USADA and the athlete. USADA shall also invite the applicable IF to participate either as a party or as an observer. For their information only, notice of the hearing date shall also be sent to the USOC, the applicable NGB and WADA.
      3. Either the athlete or the IF(whether a party or not) shall be entitled to appeal the AAA arbitrator(s) decision to CAS. A CAS appeal shall be filed with the Administrator and the CAS hearing will automatically take place in the U.S. Otherwise the regular CAS appellate rules apply. The decision of CAS shall be final and binding on all parties and shall to be subject to further review or appeal.
      4. The athlete, within ten (10) days following the Notice described in section (i) above, shall be entitled, at his or her option, to elect to bypass the hearing described in section (ii) above and proceed directly to a single final hearing before CAS conducted in the United States. The CAS decision shall be final and binding on all parties and shall not be subject to further review or appeal.
      5. In all hearings conducted pursuant to this procedure the applicable IF’s categories of prohibited substance, definition of doping and sanctions shall be applied. In the event an IF’s rules are silent on a issue, the rules set for the in the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code shall apply. Notwithstanding the foregoing; (a) The IOC laboratories used by USADA shall be presumed to have conducted testing and custodial procedures in accordance to prevailing and acceptable standards a of scientific practice. This presumption can be rebutted by evidence to the contrary, but the accredited laboratory shall have no onus in the first instance to show that it conducted the procedures other than in accordance with its standard practices conforming to any applicable IOC requirements; (b) minor irregularities in sample collection, sample testing or other procedures set forth herein which cannot reasonablely be considered to have effected the results of an otherwise valid test or collection shall have no effect on such results; and (c) if contested, USADA shall have the burden of establishing the integrity of the sample collection process, the chain of custody of the sample, the accuracy of laboratory test results by clear and convincing evidence unless the rules of the applicable IF set a higher standard.
      6. All administrative costs of the USADA review and adjudication process will be borne by USADA except the CAS appeal fee which will be refunded to eh athlete by USADA should the athlete prevail on appeal.
      7. The results of all hearings shall be communicated by USADA to the athlete, the USOC, the applicable NGB and If and WADA. The NGB shall impose any sanction resulting from the adjudication process. The NGB shall not impose any sanctions until after the athlete has had the opportunity for a hearing pursuant to section 9(b)ii or 9(b)iv.
2. Ownership and Use of Samples All samples collected by USADA shall be the property of USADA. USADA may authorize the use of negative samples for research; however, in such event all markings on the sample which identify the ample as coming from a particular athlete shall be obliterated.
3. Confidentially Except for the notifications to the USOC, NGB, IF, WADA (or other sporting body ordering the test) as otherwise provided in this protocol, USADA shall not publicly disclose an athlete’s positive test result or other alleged doping violation until after the athlete has been found to have committed a doping violation in a hearing conducted under either article 9(b)(ii) or 9(b)(iv) above. USADA may release aggregate statistics of testing and adjudication results.
4. Expedited Procedures USADA may shorten any time period set fourth in these procedures where doing so is reasonable necessary to resolve an athlete’s eligibility before a protected competition.