CAS 2004/O/645 USADA v Montgomery

Abstract

The claimant, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (“USADA”), is the independent anti-doping agency for Olympic sports in the United States and is responsible for managing the testing and adjudication process for doping control in that country. The respondent, Tim Montgomery, was an elite and highly successful American track and field athlete. As a sprinter, he had won numerous track and field titles, including World Championship and Olympic gold medals, as well as a world record. In 2004, USADA informed Montgomery that it had received sufficient evidence to indicate that he was a participant in a wide-ranging doping conspiracy implemented by the Californian-based Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (“BALCO”). USADA sought to ban Montgomery for four years. The legal issue revolved around the fact that USADA had charged Montgomery with the violation of applicable IAAF (athletics’ world governing body) anti-doping rules, notwithstanding that Montgomery had never tested positive in any in-competition or out-of-competition doping test. The matter proceeded directly to a single final hearing before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”). A CAS Panel held that doping offences can be proved by a variety of means and thus, for instance, in the absence of any adverse analytical finding, other types of evidence can be substantiated. Among these “alternatives” could be uncontroverted testimony of a wholly credible witness, sufficient to establish that the athlete has admitted to the use of prohibited substances in violation of applicable anti-doping rules. In addition, CAS held that USADA bore the burden of proving, by strong evidence commensurate with the serious claims at issue, that the athlete had committed the doping offences. An important aspect of the CAS award was the discussion on whether a “beyond reasonable doubt” or “comfortable satisfaction” standard of proof should apply in determining doping claims against athletes.