DOCSLIB.ORG

The Court of Arbitration for Sport

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Court of Arbitration for Sport Issues relating to doping matters William Sternheimer Managing Counsel & Head of Arbitration Table of contents I. Introduction II. Proof of doping III. Sanctions on individuals IV. Consequences to teams V. Conclusion I. Introduction • In 2003, the World Anti-Doping Code was adopted • The WADA Code was amended in 2009 • A new revision of the WADA Code is scheduled for 2015 • Under Article 13.2.1 of the WADA Code, in cases arising from participation in an international event or in cases involving international-level athletes, the decision may be appealed exclusively to CAS in accordance with the provisions applicable before such court • Approximately 35% of the cases before the CAS are related to doping • The present presentation will focus on the main issues which may arise before the CAS in relation to doping matters • It is each athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters her/his body. Athletes are responsible for any prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers found to be present in their samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on the athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation (Article 2.1.1) I. Introduction • The delegation of the athletes’ anti-doping duties does not excuse the athletes from their responsibility. It would indeed be to the severe detriment of the fight against doping if athletes were in a position to assign their obligations to third persons and consequently to avoid any liability for the presence of a prohibited substance in their sample (CAS OG 04/003 Torri Edwards v. IAAF, CAS 2006/A/1032 Sesil Karatancheva v. ITF, CAS 2012/A/2763 IAAF v. AFI & Akkunji Ashwini, Priyanka Panwar, Tiana Mary Thomas & Sini Jose) • All the anti-doping rule violations concerning athletes are provided under: Article 2.2 - use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or method Article 2.3 – refusing or failing without compelling justification to submit to sample collection, or evading sample collection Article 2.4 – violation of applicable requirements regarding athlete availability for out- of-competition testing, including failure to file required whereabouts information and missed tests (three within 18 months) I. Introduction Article 2.5 – tampering or attempted tampering with any part of doping control Article 2.6 – possession of prohibited substances and methods Article 2.7 – trafficking or attempted trafficking of any prohibited substance or method Article 2.8 – administration or attempted administration to any athlete in- competition or out-of-competition of any prohibited substance or method, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation or any attempted violation II. Proof of doping • The anti-doping organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the ADO has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt (Article 3.1) • Where the WADA Code places the burden of proof on the athlete alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability, except if provided otherwise (Article 3.1) • Facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions (Article 3.2) Testimonies (CAS 2004/O/645 USADA v. Tim Montgomery, CAS 2004/O/649 USADA v. Chryste Gaines) Athlete’s biological passport (CAS 2010/A/2174 Francesco De Bonis v. CONI & UCI, CAS 2010/A/2235 UCI v. Tadej Valjavec & OCS) DNA analysis (TAS 2009/A/1879 Alejandro Valverde c. CONI) II. Proof of doping • WADA-accredited laboratories are presumed to have conducted sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the international standard for laboratories. The athlete may rebut this presumption by establishing that a departure from such standard occurred which could reasonably have caused the AAF. If the athlete rebuts this presumption, then the ADO shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the AAF (Article 3.2.1) Some athletes have failed to rebut this presumption: CAS 2005/A/884 Tyler Hamilton v. USDA & UCI, CAS 2007/A/1394 Floyd Landis v. USADA, TAS 2007/A/1444 & 2008/A/1465 UCI c. Iban Mayo & RFEC Others succeeded: TAS 2006/A/1119 UCI c. Iñigo Landaluce, CAS 2008/A/1607 Varis v. IBU, CAS 2009/A/1752 & 1753 Devyatovskiy & Tsikhan v. IOC, CAS 2010/A/2161 Wen Tong v. IJF • The same applies to other standards (Article 3.2.2) • The hearing panel may draw an inference adverse to the athlete who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation based on her/his refusal to appear at the hearing and to answer questions from the hearing panel (Article 3.2.4) III. Sanctions on individuals • The period of ineligibility imposed for a first violation of Articles 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6 shall be 2 years, unless the conditions for eliminating or reducing the period of ineligibility or the ones for increasing it, are met (Article 10.2) • For violations of Articles 2.3 or 2.5, the period of ineligibility imposed shall be 2 years unless the conditions for eliminating the period of ineligibility or the ones for increasing it, are met (Article 10.3.1) • For violations of Articles 2.7 or 2.8, the period of ineligibility imposed shall be a minimum of 4 years up to lifetime unless the conditions for eliminating the period of ineligibility are met (Article 10.3.2) • For violations of Article 2.4, the period of ineligibility imposed shall be at a minimum 1 year and at a maximum 2 years based on the athlete’s degree of fault (Article 10.3.3) III. Sanctions on individuals • Article 10.4 – Elimination or reduction of the period of ineligibility for specified substances under specific circumstances Where an athlete can establish how a specified substance entered her/his body or came into her/his possession and that such specified substance was not intended to enhance the athlete’s sport performance, the period of ineligibility of Article 10.2 shall be replaced by, at a minimum, a reprimand and, at a maximum, 2 years of ineligibility To justify any elimination or reduction, the athlete must produce corroborating evidence which establishes to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel the absence of an intent to enhance sport performance or mask the use of a performance-enhancing substance. The athlete’s degree of fault shall be the criterion considered in assessing any reduction of the period of ineligibility • Examples of cases where Article 10.4 has been applied and where the intent to enhance sport performance was not an issue (the sports-body agreed to the absence of intent to enhance performance): CAS 2011/A/2495 FINA v. Cielo & CBDA, CAS 2011/A/2518 Robert Kendrick v. ITF III. Sanctions on individuals • On the intent to enhance sport performance, there are some contradictory CAS awards: CAS 2010/A/2107 Flavia Oliveira v. USADA: the athlete did not know she was taking a prohibited substance as it was labelled on the product differently than on the WADA list of prohibited substances. Only the use of the substance should be taken into consideration when assessing the intent (CAS 2011/A/2645 UCI v. Alexander Kolobnev & RCF) CAS A2/2011 Kurt Foggo v. National Rugby League: the use of the product shall be taken into consideration when assessing the intent, not only the substance CAS 2012/A/2804 Dimitar Kutrovsky v. ITF: an athlete’s knowledge or lack of knowledge that he has ingested a specified substance is relevant to the issue of intent but cannot of itself decide it. Foggo approach must be followed • When the Panel does not have to address the issue of intent, it automatically looks at the product itself and not the substance (CAS 2011/A/2495 FINA v. Cielo & CBDA) • The first draft of the WADA Code for 2015 clearly states that the Oliveira approach should not be favored. WADA now seems to go towards a deletion of the intent III. Sanctions on individuals • Article 10.5 – Elimination or reduction of period of ineligibility based on exceptional circumstances Article 10.5.1 No fault or negligence If the athlete establishes that she/he bears no fault or negligence, the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility shall be eliminated. The athlete must also establish how the prohibited substance entered her/his system (for Article 2.1 cases). If this article is applied, the anti-doping rule violation shall not be considered a violation for the purpose of determining the period of ineligibility for multiple violations under Article 10.7 Cases where CAS held that the athlete proved how the substance entered her/his system and established the she/he bears no fault or negligence: CAS 2005/A/990 Oleksandr Pobyedonostsev v. IIHF, CAS 2009/A/1926 & 1930 ITF & WADA v. Richard Gasquet III. Sanctions on individuals Article 10.5.2 No significant fault or negligence If an athlete establishes that she/he bears no significant fault or negligence, the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility may be reduced but such reduction may not be less that one-half of the period of ineligibility otherwise applicable. If the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility is a lifetime, the reduced period may not be less than eight years.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Track Superstar Marion Jones' Duty and Liability to Her Olympic Relay Teammates
    DePaul Journal of Sports Law Volume 5 Issue 1 Fall 2008 Article 4 Passing the Baton: Track Superstar Marion Jones' Duty and Liability to Her Olympic Relay Teammates Jolyn R. Huen Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jslcp Recommended Citation Jolyn R. Huen, Passing the Baton: Track Superstar Marion Jones' Duty and Liability to Her Olympic Relay Teammates, 5 DePaul J. Sports L. & Contemp. Probs. 39 (2008) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jslcp/vol5/iss1/4 This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Journal of Sports Law by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PASSING THE BATON: TRACK SUPERSTAR MARION JONES' DUTY AND LIABILITY TO HER OLYMPIC RELAY TEAMMATES I. INTRODUCTION In October of 2007, millions of avid sports fanatics, track and field aficionados, and Marion Jones enthusiasts felt the pain of their hearts breaking as the gold medal track star admitted to taking performance enhancing drugs.' The Olympian confessed to ingesting the steroid tetrahydrogestrinone (THG or "the clear") before the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia. 2 After seven years of denial, Marion Jones pled guilty to lying to federal investigators about using the ster- oids and was subsequently punished by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the International Olympic Com- mittee (IOC).3 The question then remains:
    [Show full text]
  • For Release, December 16, 1998 Contact
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Kelsey Rhoney (312-729-3685) GATORADE® NATIONAL GIRLS TRACK & FIELD ATHLETE OF THE YEAR: KATELYN TUOHY 2016-2017 National Girls Track & Field Winner and Female Athlete of the Year Sydney McLaughlin Surprises Winner with Honor Thiells, NY. (June 26, 2018) – In its 33rd year of honoring the nation’s best high school athletes, The Gatorade Company today announced Katelyn Tuohy of North Rockland High School (Thiells, NY) as its 2017-18 Gatorade National Girls Track & Field Athlete of the Year. Tuohy was surprised with the news by 2016-2017 National Girls Track & Field Winner and Female Athlete of the Year Sydney McLaughlin. Tuohy is the first athlete in history to win the Gatorade Player of the Year national title for two different sports, cross country and track & field. Check out the surprise video here. “With national records from the mile to the 5,000 meters, Katelyn Tuohy has reached a level in high school distance running that we’ve seen only once before, with Mary Cain a few years ago,” said Doug Binder, Editor-in-Chief for Dyestat.com. “But to do this as a sophomore, Katelyn’s even beyond Mary’s level of accomplishment. No one in modern times has ever held the outdoor high school records in both the mile and the 2-mile [converted from her national record in the 3200], and Tuohy got both records in high school-only races where she had to do all of the work. Her record-breaking mile in 90-degree heat in North Carolina this June is one of the most impressive things I’ve ever seen.” The award, which recognizes not only outstanding athletic excellence, but also high standards of academic achievement and exemplary character demonstrated on and off the field, distinguishes Tuohy as the nation’s best female high school track & field athlete.
    [Show full text]
  • Division I Women's Indoor Track Championships
    DIVISION I WOMEN’S INDOOR TRACK CHAMPIONSHIPS RECORDS BOOK 2015 Championship 2 History 5 All-Time Results 17 2015 CHAMPIONSHIP HIGHLIGHTS Arkansas wins first national championship: The top-ranked University of Arkansas women’s track and field team made history Saturday night at the Randal Tyson Track Center with the program’s first national championship. The victory is also the first at the Division I level for head coach Lance Harter and the first for any women’s program at Arkansas. The Razorbacks won three national event titles during the weekend to score a program-best 63 points atop the team standings. Prior to Saturday’s result, the program had a previous high finish of third place at the 2000 national meet in Fayetteville. The Razorbacks entered the meet with a top-five finish in three of the previous four years before ascending to the top of the team podium. With 63 points, the Razorbacks posted the third-highest team total in meet history. Arkansas scored 50 of its points Saturday. Doubling back from Friday’s anchor of the victorious distance-medley relay, Scott claimed her first NCAA individual title with a first-place run at 3,000 meters. The Razorback senior crossed the finish line to a standing ovation from the home crowd in a time of 8:55.19, more than three seconds ahead of the runner-up. Scott is the second runner in program history to win an indoor title at 3,000 meters, joining Sarah Schwald who won in 1995. Morris tied the NCAA indoor meet record in her victory in the pole vault, posting a final clearance of 4.60m/15-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Women's Olympic Trials
    Volume 7, No. 40 July 11, 2008 Version 1 Anderson 10.98w; 5. Joyce 11.16w; 6. Roseby 11.19w; 7. Layne 11.27w; 8. — Women’s Olympic Trials — Jordan 11.29w. II(0.7)–1. Jeter 10.97 PR; 2. Felix 10.98; EUGENE, OREGON 11.16; 3. A. Williams 11.06; 4. Knight 11.07 PR (5, JUNe 27–30, JULy 3–6 6. Tawanna Meadows (Troy) 11.48. =5 WJ; 2, 2 AJ); 5. Weatherspoon 11.08 PR; II(3.5)–1. Felix 11.01w; 2. Gloria Asumnu 6. Solomon 11.16; (adidas) 11.10w; 3. Lynne Layne (Tn) 11.18w; 7. Gaines 11.24; 8. M. Barber 11.29. — 100 METERS — 4. Alexis Joyce (unat) 11.21w; III(2.3)–1. Edwards 10.85w (0.143); 2. Lee FINAL 5. Amber Robinson (unat) 11.38w; 6. 10.89w (0.149); 3. Asumnu 11.02w; 4. Moore (June 28; wind +0.5) Melinda Smedley (unat) 11.42w; 7. Juanita 11.04w; 5. L. Barber 11.10w; 1. Muna Lee (Nike) ........................... 10.85 Broaddus (LSU) 12.44w. 6. Guy 11.17w; 7. Myrick 11.19w; 8. PR (9, x A) III(1.1)–1. Edwards 11.16 (rt 0.112); 2. A. Durst 11.26w. Williams 11.26; 3. Alexis Weatherspoon (unat) 2. Torri Edwards (Nike) ..................... 10.90 11.30 PR; 4. Wyllesheia Myrick (unat) 11.33; SEMIS (defending US champ) 5. Stephanie Durst (unat) 11.34; (June 28; qualify 4) 3. Lauryn Williams (Nike) ................. 10.90 6. Jessica Onyepunuka (USC) 11.48; 7. I(3.2)–1.
    [Show full text]
  • Indoor Track and Field DIVISION I Women’S
    Indoor Track and Field DIVISION I WOMEN’S Highlights Lady Vols show world-class distance dominance: Tennessee dominated Division I women’s indoor track March 13-14 – and dominated the world for more than 10 minutes. The Lady Vols captured the school’s second team title in five years at the Division I Women’s Indoor Track and Field Championships and won two events during competition at Texas A&M – including a victory in world-record time in the distance medley relay. Tennessee’s time of 10 minutes, 50.98 seconds, in that event sliced more than three seconds off Villanova’s 21-year-old world mark in the 1,200-/400-/800-/1,600-meter medley, and eight seconds off UCLA’s 2002 meet record. The relay squad was anchored for the second straight year by Sarah Bowman, who figured in both Lady Vols’ event titles and collected a second meet record when she out- leaned Texas Tech’s Sally Kipyego to win the mile run. “Oh, my gosh, look at what we’ve done this weekend,” said Bowman, who also was a member of the 2005 indoor championship team. “I couldn’t ask for a sweeter weekend my senior year. I can’t even put it into words. It’s so amazing. “The heart that this team has, I could actually tear up just talking about them. Just to be out here with these girls who are putting their hearts on the line for the team, and it makes you want to do it all the more. It’s awesome to be part of a team like that.” Tennessee coach J.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Master Track Referee Examination 2009-2012 Olympiad Edition
    USATF National Officials Committee Master Track Referee Examination 2009-2012 Olympiad Edition nstructions: This is an open book test but it is required that you take it as an individual. The questions are I not in any particular order. You should not discuss your answers with anyone else. You should use the 2008 or later USATF Competition Rules and NCAA Rules to complete this test. You will need to give the appropriate rule references when completing the questions in Section 3. Section 1 contains true-false or multiple choice questions. Generally each question is worth one point unless otherwise indicated. Section 2 contains various rule applications. The value of each question is shown in the parenthesis. Section 3 contains situations that you might rule on as a referee. To get full credit for these discussion questions, please list as many alternatives as you can think of, indicate your chosen decision, reference the appropriate rule by number and explain why you have made the decision you have chosen. Some questions have no clear right answer. The goal of this examination is to assess your approach to refereeing and your application of the rules when there is no direct answer in the book. The rational for your answer is the most important element of your answer. This section contains the majority of the points. Please write or type your answers clearly on the ANSWER SHEET provided and return it to your Certification Chair for review and grading. If you need more room for a particular answer, clearly label any additional sheets with the question number and indicate on the main answer sheet that there is additional discussion on an attached sheet.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Kit Contents
    2005 IAAF World Outdoor Track & Field Championship in Athletics August 6-14, 2005, Helsinki, Finland Saturday, August 06, 2005 Monday, August 08, 2005 Morning session Afternoon session Time Event Round Time Event Round Status 10:05 W Triple Jump QUALIFICATION 18:40 M Hammer FINAL 10:10 W 100m Hurdles HEPTATHLON 18:50 W 100m SEMI-FINAL 10:15 M Shot Put QUALIFICATION 19:10 W High Jump FINAL 10:45 M 100m HEATS 19:20 M 10,000m FINAL 11:15 M Hammer QUALIFICATION A 20:05 M 1500m SEMI-FINAL 11:20 W High Jump HEPTATHLON 20:35 W 3000m Steeplechase FINAL 12:05 W 3000m Steeplechase HEATS 21:00 W 400m SEMI-FINAL 12:45 W 800m HEATS 21:35 W 100m FINAL 12:45 M Hammer QUALIFICATION B Tuesday, August 09, 2005 13:35 M 400m Hurdles HEATS Morning session 13:55 W Shot Put HEPTATHLON 11:35 M 100m DECATHLON\ Afternoon session 11:45 M Javelin QUALIFICATION A 18:35 M Discus QUALIFICATION A 12:10 M Pole Vault QUALIFICATION 18:40 M 20km Race Walking FINAL 12:20 M 200m HEATS 18:45 M 100m QUARTER-FINAL 12:40 M Long Jump DECATHLON 19:25 W 200m HEPTATHLON 13:20 M Javelin QUALIFICATION B 19:30 W High Jump QUALIFICATION 13:40 M 400m HEATS 20:05 M Discus QUALIFICATION B Afternoon session 20:30 M 1500m HEATS 14:15 W Long Jump QUALIFICATION 20:55 M Shot Put FINAL 14:25 M Shot Put DECATHLON 21:15 W 10,000m FINAL 17:30 M High Jump DECATHLON 18:35 W Discus FINAL Sunday, August 07, 2005 18:40 W 100m Hurdles HEATS Morning session 19:25 M 200m QUARTER-FINAL 11:35 W 20km Race Walking FINAL 20:00 M 3000m Steeplechase FINAL 11:45 W Discus QUALIFICATION 20:15 M Triple Jump QUALIFICATION
    [Show full text]
  • December 31, 2010}
    Volume 12, Number 2 {coverage from July 1 Æ December 31, 2010} AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION DECISIONS United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) v. LaShawn Merritt, AAA No. 771900029310 (Oct., 2010). Merritt tested positive for the prohibited substance DHEA and pregnenolone three separate times. Merritt claims that he ingested the substance by accident, but he does admit that he tested positive as a result of ingesting ExtenZe, a product used for enhanced sexual performance. USADA agreed that the positive results were caused by ExtenZe, and as such represent an accidental ingestion. The panel found that Merritt was not significantly negligent and reduced the required two-year ineligibility status to twenty-one months, starting October 28, 2009 and ending July 27, 2011. He is also prohibited from participating in and accessing the U.S. Olympic Training Facilities during this period. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) v. Kirk O’Bee, AAA No. 771900051509JENF (Oct., 2010). Cyclist O’Bee committed his second anti-doping violation when he tested positive for recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO), eight years after testing positive for testosterone. USADA was also able to prove that O’Bee either used or possessed HGH as early as September 2005, and used testosterone after his first suspension. The panel imposed a lifetime suspension and disqualified his cycling results from October 3, 2005 through July 29, 2009, the date of his suspension from the sport. ANTITRUST LAW Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 614 F.3d 57 (3d Cir. 2010). Plaintiff, a specialty tire manufacturer filed a complaint, naming Hoosier (a competitor tire manufacturer) and DMS (a motorsports sanctioning body) as Defendants.
    [Show full text]
  • Alumni in the Olympics
    ALUMNI IN THE OLYMPICS OLYMPIC YEAR - CITY - SEX NAME COUNTRY OLYMPIC EVENTS 1984 - Los Angeles - M&W Andrea Thomas Jamaica 400m, 4x400m Gus Envela Equatorial Guinea 100m, 200m 1988 - Seoul - Women Andrea Thomas Jamaica 400m, 4x400m Barbara Selkridge Antigua & Barbuda 400m Leslie Maxie USA 400m Hurdles Cathy Schiro O'Brien USA Marathon Juliana Yendork Ghana Long Jump 1988 - Seoul - Men Dennis Mitchell USA 100m, 4x100m Steve Lewis USA 400m, 4x400m Gus Envela Equatorial Guinea 200m, 400m Hollis Conway USA High Jump Randy Barnes USA Shot Put 1992 - Barcelona - Women Suzy Favor Hamilton USA 1,500m Tonja Buford Bailey USA 400m Hurdles Janeene Vickers-McKinney USA 400m Hurdles Cathy Schiro O'Brien USA Marathon Carlette Guidry USA 4x100m Esther Jones USA 4x100m Tanya Hughes USA High Jump Sharon Couch-Jewell USA Long Jump 1992 - Barcelona - Men Dennis Mitchell USA 100m, 4x100m Gus Envela Equatorial Guinea 100m Michael Bates USA 200m Steve Lewis USA 400m, 4x400m Reuben Reina USA 5,000m Bob Kennedy USA 5,000m John Trautman USA 5,000m Todd Williams USA 10,000m Darnell Hall USA 4x400m Hollis Conway USA High Jump Darrin Plab USA High Jump 1996 - Atlanta - Women Carlette Guidry USA 200m, 4x100m Maicel Malone USA 400m, 4x400m Kim Graham USA 400m, 4X400m Suzy Favor Hamilton USA 800m Juli Henner Benson USA 1,500m Amy Rudolph USA 5,000m Kate Fonshell USA 10,000m ALUMNI IN THE OLYMPICS OLYMPIC YEAR - CITY - SEX NAME COUNTRY OLYMPIC EVENTS Ann-Marie Letko USA Marathon Tonja Buford Bailey USA 400m Hurdles Janeen Vickers-McKinney USA 400m Hurdles Shana Williams
    [Show full text]
  • Nsaa State Track & Field Championships
    $3 Some of our best investments have nothing to do with banking. FIELD & For more than 15 years, U.S. Bank has applauded students throughout the state on their accomplishments in the classroom and the field. Through our support of NSAA STATE Nebraska Schools Activities Association, our company and our employees are pleased to champion programs that help provide today’s youth with opportunities TRACK & FIELD that inspire personal achievement and positive lasting memories. Because today’s students are tomorrow’s leaders. CHAMPIONSHIPS 2012-2013 NSAA OFFICIAL CHAMPIONSHIP PROGRAM You can count on every U.S. Banker to serve you – and to cheer on the spirit of MAY 17-18, 2013 • OMAHA teamwork – from the start of the game to the final minutes of play. Proud to Support the Nebraska School Activities Association usbank.com Member FDIC NEBRASKA SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION TRACK NSAA TRACK & FIELD 2013 ODER OF EVENTS Friday, May 17 – Preliminaries except 3,200-meter events. NSAA Classes C and A Classes D and B The first running event will begin at 9:00 a.m., with the The first running event will begin at 3:30 p.m. with girls’ girls’ Class C event being run first, followed by the girls’ Class D events, followed by girls’ Class B, boys’ Class D, Class A, boys’ Class C, and boys’ Class A events. The and boys’ Class B. Events will follow this time schedule & Field Championship Schedule 2013 State Track schedule will progress in this order through all of the as closely as possible. These times are approximate.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Rankings — Women's
    U.S. Rankings — Women’s 400 Places for 1956–75 reflect The ’17 WC gold helped only those Americans who made the World Rankings Phyllis Francis to her first No. 1 1956–63 (no U.S. in World Ranks) 1964 1 ....................Janell Smith 1965 1 ....................Janell Smith 2 ..........Madeline Manning 1966 1 ............. Charlette Cooke 1967 1 ............. Charlette Cooke 2 ............ Kathy Hammond 3 ..............Lois Drinkwater 1968 1 .................... Jarvis Scott 2 ............ Kathy Hammond 1969 1 ............ Kathy Hammond 2 ................... Esther Stroy 1970 1 ............ Kathy Hammond 2 .................... Mavis Laing 1971 (no U.S. in World Ranks) © GIANCARLO COLOMBO/PHOTO RUN © Track & Field News 2020 — 1 — U.S. Rankings — Women’s 400 1972 1978 1981 1 ............ Kathy Hammond 1 ...............Rosalyn Bryant 1 ..................... Denean Hill 2 ............ Mable Fergerson 2 ....................Pat Jackson 2 ...............Rosalyn Bryant 3 .......... Essie Washington 3 ...............Evelyn Ashford 1973 4 ...............Sharon Dabney 4 ...................Ericka Harris (no U.S. in World Ranks 5 ................... Kim Thomas 5 ....................Delisa Floyd 1974 6 ..................Brenda Finch 6 ..........Madeline Manning (no U.S. in World Ranks) 7 ..................Freida Cobbs 7 ...............Arlise Emerson 8 .......... Veronica Williams 8 ....................Lorna Forde 1975 9 ...............Arlise Emerson 9 ....................Kelia Bolton 1 .............. Debra Sapenter 10 ................ Yolanda Rich
    [Show full text]
  • Press Release
    Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport PRESS RELEASE ATHLETICS – WOMEN ’S 4X100 M AND 4X400 M RELAY OF THE 2000 SYDNEY OLYMPIC GAMES THE APPEAL OF THE US ATHLETES IS UPHELD Lausanne, 16 July 2010 - The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has upheld the appeal filed by the American relay athletes Andrea Anderson, Latasha Colander Clark, Jearl Miles-Clark, Torri Edwards, Chryste Gaines, Monique Hennagan and Passion Richardson (the Athletes) against the decision of the Executive Board of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) of 10 April 2008. Consequently, IOC Executive Board’s decision has been set aside, and on the basis of the IOC and IAAF Rules in force and applicable at the time of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the CAS Panel has ruled that the United States’ teams that competed in the women’s 4x100m and 4x400m athletics relay events at the Sydney Games shall not be disqualified and the medals and diplomas awarded to the Athletes shall not be returned to the IOC. The Athletes, together with Nanceen Perry and Marion Jones, competed in the 4x100m and/or 4x400m relay events at the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. In October 2007, following the so- called ‘BALCO’ case, Marion Jones signed an ‘Acceptance of Sanction’ form in front of the United States Anti-Doping Agency admitting that she had used a prohibited substance during the Sydney Olympic Games and accepted various sanctions including the return of all medals won by her at the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. Furthermore, the IOC Executive Board decided to disqualify Marion Jones from all track and field events in which she had competed at the Sydney Games, including the 4x100m and 4x400m relay races.
    [Show full text]