Sports Law

USADA v Tyler Hamilton

Tyler Hamilton, the elite cyclist (Winner of many races, including the 2004 Athens Olympics Time Trial Gold Medal) was charged with an anti-doping violation, in September 2004. He was said, by USADA, to have “blood doped”, a charge based on a newly developed testing method.

A strong panel of CAS upheld the charge.

Christopher L. Campbell’s dissenting opinion (this seems to be the first ever such dissent in CAS) is very strong. he concluded that method did not meet the prevailing standards of the scientific community, the method applied subjective evaluation and had not been properly validated, and, further, questioned whether athletes would believe that they would get a fair hearing.

Campbell referred to public comments by IOC President Jacques Rogge:

The Olympic movement is a small community. The arbitrators who sit on panels in doping disputes may in fact do legal work for the IOC, the International Federations, the National Olympic Committees, and the National Federations. Indeed the IOC and WADA from time to time may select individuals as arbitrators in certain cases. There is nothing improper about these relationships. Howver, if it is at all desirable for athletes to believe that they will obtain a fair hearing, it is imperative that high-ranking officials within the Olympic community refrain from making statements demonstrating bias against an athlete before that athlete has a hearing.…….. athletes should not have to worry that high-ranking officials are sending clear messages to the arbitrators to find the athlete guilty regardless of the facts of the case. The IOC and WADA should consider making rules prohibiting such conduct to comply with a very important fundamental principle of the Olympic movement, fairness.