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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT