A panel of international sports arbitrators hearing a doping case against Olympic sprinter Torri Edwards went out of their way to sing her praises.
They described Edwards, then a 27-year-old USC graduate, as "a diligent and hardworking athlete" who had "conducted herself with honesty, integrity and character."
They acknowledged that her purported breach of doping regulations was entirely unintentional, caused by the obscure additive nikethamide in a couple of otherwise innocent glucose tablets she took at an exhibition race in Martinique.
"She has not sought to gain any improper advantage or to 'cheat' in any way," they wrote in August 2004.
But the arbitrators, while expressing "unease" about the rules and acknowledging their "harshness," still found Edwards guilty of doping. Her sanction: a two-year suspension from international competition.
The punishment was indistinguishable from what could have been imposed on an athlete caught deliberately injecting steroids. It wiped out Edwards' eligibility for the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens.
Edwards' case and others like it illuminate the flaws in the appeals process for elite athletes accused of doping violations. A Times examination of the appeal system found that:
* Athletes are presumed guilty and denied routine access to lab data potentially relevant to their defense.
* Trivial and accidental violations draw penalties similar to those for intentional use of illicit performance-enhancing substances.
* Anti-doping authorities or sports federations have leaked details of cases against athletes or made public assertions of their guilt before tests were confirmed or appeals resolved.
* Arbitrators, theoretically neutral judges, are bound by rules drafted and enforced by the World Anti-Doping Agency and its affiliates, including the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. They have almost no discretion to adjust penalties to fit individual circumstances.
The WADA rules govern the admissibility of evidence, the burden of proof and the selection of the arbitrators themselves. In each category they tend to favor the accusers. Athletes wishing to compete in national, international and Olympic events subject to WADA jurisdiction have no option but to agree to this system.
Anti-doping authorities argue that these rules -- indeed, the very requirement that appeals be heard by arbitrators, rather than in court -- are crucial to ensuring a fast and efficient process.
