Rusedski's drugs hearing explained

Greg Rusedski attended an Association of Tennis Professionals hearing in Montreal on Monday to find out whether he will face punishment following his positive test for nandrolone.

BBC tennis reporter Jonathan Overend explains the process and outlines the possible outcomes.

---

What happened on Monday?

Greg Rusedski, accompanied by his lawyer Mark Gay, appeared before an ATP anti-doping tribunal.

The tribunals usually consist of three members, and this one was chaired by L Yves Fortier QC.

The ATP, the governing body of the men's tour, is usually represented by Mark V Young, executive vice-president and general counsel of the ATP, although it is not clear who was prosecuting on this occasion.

The ATP has refused to elaborate on this case, or its involvement in the tribunal, because it operates a strict confidentiality rule, protecting the identity of players until after the due appeal process.

Who is Yves Fortier?

A Canadian lawyer in his late sixties, he had a spell as Canadian ambassador to the United Nations, later sitting on the UN security council and becoming president in 1989.

His distinguished legal CV includes five years as a member of the Court of Arbitration.

Who is Mark Gay?

An experienced lawyer, specialising in sports law, with the London-based firm Denton Wilde Sapte.

He has built an impressive reputation acting on behalf of sports governing bodies.

Recently, he represented the Football Association in the Rio Ferdinand case and, in previous nandrolone affairs, acted for UK Athletics and athletics' world governing body the IAAF.

Rusedski said of Gay: "He was so convinced of the exceptional nature of this case that he agreed to represent me."

What will be Rusedski's main line of defence?

Rusedski feeling confident

In his own words: "I am driven by the fact that seven other players with identical findings of metabolites of nandrolone and the same unique fingerprint were exonerated."

Those players included Bohdan Ulihrach, from the Czech Republic, whose legal team first raised questions about whether ATP supplements could be contaminated.

Rusedski says his positive test shows a similar level of nandrolone (about 5 ng/ml) which the Ulihrach tribunal concluded was consistent with contamination.

He believes because the other players were let off, he should receive similar treatment.

How strong an argument will that be?

His team will quote the legal principle of "equitable estoppell".

This prevents A from prosecuting B, if A was ultimately responsible for the offence.

Because the ATP could not prove they were not responsible for the nandrolone in players' systems, through their own trainers giving out supplements believed to be contaminated, they were legally unable to prosecute.

This is how Ulihrach was reinstated, how the six other players retained their anonymity and how Rusedski expects to be cleared.

What is the counter-argument?

The ATP will argue that the Rusedski case is completely different to the other seven.

Rusedski's positive test was on 23 July 2003 at the RCA tournament in Indianapolis.

On 19 May, more than two months previously, the ATP told players it had suspended distribution of electrolyte and mineral replacement tablets, which had been routinely available without incident for 20 years.

Between August 2002 and May 2003, an unusually high number of positive samples, and near-positive samples, were processed.

That figure has dropped considerably in the last six months.

Rusedski is the only player to have tested positive for nandrolone since these supplements were withdrawn in May.

So this case will hinge on whether Rusedski took supplements given to him by the ATP?

Possibly. Rusedski is known to diligently keep records of every tablet, drink or supplement he takes.

In full: How Greg could be cleared

The ATP physios also have detailed records of what they give out and to whom, so both parties will know what he took and when.

But Ulihrach tested positive on 3 October 2002.

He took three tablets per day for three consecutive days the week prior to his test, three tablets the day before his test and three on the day of his test.

In May 2003, these supplements were suspended. In July 2003, Rusedski tested positive.

Is there a chance the nandrolone stayed in his system between May and July?

Several experts believe that such relatively low levels of nandrolone would stay in the system for a matter of days rather than weeks, let alone months.

Could there be another explanation?

There was never firm proof that the ATP supplements were responsible for the previous tests. In fact, lab examination of the suspected contaminated pots proved negative.

Many believe, therefore, that the Rusedski legal team have a trump card up their sleeve, a new unexplored explanation, which may account for his ultra-confidence going into the tribunal.

But he will still have to explain why he is the only new nandrolone positive test since May, when supplement distribution was halted.

How long is the tribunal process likely to take?

It could take several days, perhaps weeks, before a verdict is announced.

Ulihrach's hearing was on 22 April 2003 and the verdict was given on 1 May.

On 16 May he appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. On 23 June, the ATP agreed to reopen his case.

He was finally cleared on 9 July.

If Rusedski is banned and appeals to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, it could be two months before we get a final verdict.

What will happen if he is found guilty?

The maximum ban is two years, but most recent cases for other banned substances have seen reduced sentences due to "exceptional circumstances".

A doubles player, Graydon Oliver, tested positive for a diuretic but, in the last few days, was banned for just two months.

He established that the reason for his positive test was a mislabelled, over-the-counter herbal sleep management product.

He is not alone. Earlier this year, the Argentine player Mariano Puerta received a reduced sentence after testing positive for methyl testosterone.

He argued that he took it to combat an asthma attack.

What does the World Anti-Doping Agency think about all this?

Its key officials, including chief executive David Howman and chairman Dick Pound, have frequently expressed concern.

They make the point that if a logical conclusion as to how something happened (ie. a series of positive nandrolone tests) cannot be reached, why stop investigating?

Seven players were cleared last summer because the ATP could not be sure they were not responsible for the positive tests.

ATP chief executive Mark Miles has said he does not think anyone will ever be sure.

In other words, the players were cleared because the ATP did not know what happened.

Wada has a major problem with this method of operation and has been conducting its own, independent review of procedures.