ILNews

Appeal dropped against Valpo clinic's client

Rebecca Berfanger
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The first athlete to win an arbitration against the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, a client of the Valparaiso University School of Law's Sports Law Clinic, has received another win. The World Anti-Doping Agency has dropped its appeal of last year's decision in favor of a record-breaking sprinter, the university announced April 22.

The ruling in United States Anti-Doping Agency v. LaTasha Jenkins in Jenkin's favor was initially announced Dec. 12, 2007, and the 44-page decision was released Jan. 25, 2008, clearing her of charges that she used the steroid nandrolone after testing positive during a routine drug test in July 2006. That story was reported in Indiana Lawyer Jan. 9-22, 2008, "Team Effort Prevails."

"Having carefully reviewed the scientific data of this case, which includes material not available to us from the initial hearing, WADA has reached the conclusion that the adverse analytical findings cannot lead to a sanction of Jenkins," WADA wrote about dropping the appeal.

Michael Straubel, director of the clinic and an associate professor of law, and four third-year Valparaiso law students, who are members of the clinic, represented Jenkins in the USADA arbitration, which was heard in October 2007.

In the USADA hearings for Jenkins' case, members of the Sports Law Clinic argued that the test results weren't accurate and those who conducted the testing didn't follow proper procedures.

Jenkins, who has competed in the 100- and 200-meter sprint events and won the silver medal at the 2001 World Track Indoor Championships and the bronze medal at the 2001 World Track Championships, said in a statement she intends to resume her career as a sprinter and is ready to move on, hoping that others will recognize that she has been cleared and that her reputation has been restored.

The charges took away nearly two years of her running career and an endorsement deal.

"It was a good day for athletes," Straubel said in a statement. "The panel acknowledged that an allegation of doping is a serious matter which profoundly affects an athlete, and laboratories therefore must ensure the highest scientific reliability of the testing process. We support efforts to stop the use of performance-enhancing drugs and are proud of our work in this case."
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT