Double Jeopardy: CAS 2011/0/2422 USOC v. IOC

Read the CAS verdict; IOC rules; WADA Code

The case of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) (CAS 2011/O/2422) concerned the validity and enforceability of a particular IOC regulation prohibiting drug violators from competing in the next edition of the Olympic Games following their period of suspension.

The IOC rule was known as the “Osaka rule” and was enacted in Japan on 27 June 2008:

“The IOC Executive Board, in accordance with Rule 19.3.10 OC and pursuant to Rule 45 OC, hereby issues the following rules regarding participation in the Olympic Games:

1. Any person who has been sanctioned with a suspension of more than six months by any anti-doping organization for any violation of any anti-doping regulations may not participate, in any capacity, in the next edition of the Games of the Olympiad and of the Olympic Winter Games following the date of expiry of such suspension.
2. These regulations apply to violations of any anti-doping regulations that are committed as of 1 July 2008. They are notified to all International Federations, to all National Olympic Committee and to all Organizing Committees for the Olympic Games.“

While this rule applied to all Olympic athletes, in practice only a certain sub-set of athletes were affected:

• Athletes not guilty of a doping violation – rule does not apply
• Athletes guilty of a doping violation (with less than 6 months suspension) – rule does not apply
• Athletes guilty of a doping violation (over 6 months suspension) who wish to compete in non-Olympic competitions  – rule does not apply
• Athletes guilty of a doping violation (over 6 months suspension), but not selected by their National Olympic Committee (NOC) – rule does not apply
• Athlete guilty of a doping violation, still serving their suspension – rule has no immediate effect
• Athlete guilty of a doping violation at an Olympic Games  – rule has no immediate effect
• Athlete guilty of a doping violation (over 6 months suspension), and selected by their National Olympic Committee (NOC) – RULE APPLIES

The case was brought against the IOC because one of those affected athletes, LaShawn Merritt was prevented by the rule from representing the USA at London 2012. Merritt had previously tested positive in an out-of-competition test for ExtenZe (a ‘male performance’ product containing the banned substance DHEA); and while the doping panel accepted that the substance was used inadvertently and that there was no intention to dope, Merritt still received a ban from competitions.

The crux of the case can be seen from Merritt’s current position. His ban ended earlier this year on 27 July 2011, however despite his eligibility to compete in any other competition, Merritt was still prevented from competing in next summer’s 2012 Olympics Games. He and USOC argue that this additional ban is unfair for two main reasons, because it violated the principle of double jeopardy (ne bis in idem) [7.2] and that the imposition of an additional doping sanction was in contravention of the WADA Code (article 23.2.2). USOC also argued that the rule resulted in unjustifiable discrimination between athletes and that the IOC rule should be “cancelled and declared null and void, or alternatively, that a mechanism be allowed for a case by case review of the appropriateness of the applicability of the Decision to each specific athlete” [2.9]

By contrast, the IOC argued that the rule constituted an eligibility rule [7.4] as to who could qualify as a competitor in the Olympics under Rule 45.2 of the Olympic Charter rather than as an additional sanction, that the rule protected the values of the Olympic Movement from the “scourge of doping” [7.5], that athletes had no automatic right to participate in an Olympic event [7.8] and that the rule did not conflict with double jeopardy (ne bis in idem), as it pursued a wholly different purpose than an anti-doping ineligibility sanction [7.8].

 

THE CAS RULING

All parties recognised that uncertainty surrounding the application of the decision was unhelpful, particularly since CAS had previously provided two Advisory Opinions in this area, one requested by the IOC had concluded that Rule 45.2 was an eligibility rule [8.7], while a Confidential Opinion to an unnamed International Sporting Federation (ISF) held that the application of a similar rule by an ISF was intended to be penal in nature and therefore could not constitute an eligibility rule [8.8].

It was therefore agreed that CAS had the ability to definitively settle the dispute (R27 of the CAS Code) and three arbitrators were chosen to hear the case: Professor Richard H McLaren (Canada), Me. Michele Bernasconi (Switzerland), and David w. Rivkin, Esq. (USA).

Both parties agreed that the applicable regulations of the arbitration (R58 of the CAS Code) should be:

• Swiss Law (including fundamental principles)
• the Olympic Charter (OC), in particular, rules 41 (eligibility), 44 (applicability of WADA Code) & 45 (Olympic participation)
• and the WADA Code, in particular, s.10.2 (sanctions for 1^st violation), s20.1.1 (IOC implementation of Code), 23.2.2 (prohibition against substantive changes to the Code) and appendix 1 (definition of ineligibility)

WADA also independently submitted an amicus curiae brief on 13 July 2011 to ensure that the arbitration panel would have as comprehensive a view as possible of the potential issues surrounding the IOC regulation, particularly since there was a suspicion that tribunal doping sanctions were being manipulated to stay under 6 months to avoid being caught by this rule [3.11].

 

ELIGIBILITY RULES

Previous CAS Jurisprudence (RFEC v. Alejandro Valverde v. UCI (CAS 2007/O/1381 [76]) suggested that: “qualifying or eligibility rules are those that serve to facilitate the organization of an event and to ensure that the athlete meets the performance ability for the type of competition in question.” [8.9]. In particular it was noted that qualifying (eligibility) rules define certain attributes or formalities required of athletes, rather than sanctioning undesirable behaviour.

Because IOC Rule 44 expressly incorporated the WADA Code as underpinning the Olympic Games, the IOC were bound by WADA’s definition of ineligibility. Unfortunately for them, under Article 10 of the WADA Code, ineligibility was held to be a sanction. In making this decision, the Panel held that the fact that an athlete could participate at other International competitions was irrelevant [8.16].

From this conclusion, the IOC was always going to lose as under Article 23.2.2 of the WADA Code, signatories of the Code could not add any additional provisions “which change the effect of […] the periods of eligibility provided for in Article 10 of the WADA Code.”

Because Rule 44 increased the period of ineligibility from the original doping violation (between 6months to 2 years) to the number of days until the next Olympics Games, the IOC regulation was not in compliance with the WADA Code and as such had to be struck out as invalid [8.44].

The Panel did not state that such an additional sanction could never occur, simply that such a rule needed to be incorporated within Article 10 of the WADA Code when the Code was next reviewed. To satisfy any proportionality requirements, the Panel also recommended that a first instance adjudicatory body should review any appeals [8.27].

 

The British Olympic Association (BOA) By-law

Much of the talk this week has been over whether the BOA by-law is legitimate in the wake of this ruling, and what implications this might have for Dwayne Chambers and David Millar. BOA Bylaw 25 sets out that:

“any person who is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation will be ineligible for membership or selection to the Great Britain Olympic team”.

Importantly, the bye-law also gives individuals the right to appeal (something that distinguishes the BOA Bye-Law from that of other NOCs).

Taken at face value though, the same issues from the USOC case apply, in that any athlete guilty of a doping violation is ineligible for selection on a British Olympic team. If this USOC decision was extended to the BOA, then it is strongly arguable that this requirement also constitutes a sanction attributable to the same behaviour and resulting in the same consequence (ineligibility from competition) [8.36]. Or more colloquially, If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck!

Again, taken at face value, the only significant difference between the two rules would seem to be that the BOA by-law has an inherent appeals process, which would negate any proportionality requirement.

Is this enough though, arguably no.

There is one alternative argument though that may solve the BOA problem. At footnote 11 of the USOC decision, the CAS Panel noted that:

“If the IOC issued a rule that persons convicted of a violent felony were not eligible to participate in the Olympic Games, such a rule would likely not violate the principle of ne bis in idem, because the effective purpose of that sanction would be different from the purpose of the criminal penalty associated with that violent felony.”

Therein might lie a possible defence for the BOA. If the BOA rule was based around a different purpose than simply a sanction associated with taking drugs, but was linked to eligibility, for example an athlete’s role as an ambassador representing their country, then following footnote 11, it could be argued that the by-law had a different purpose and was therefore valid and enforceable. Such a stance echoes the comments of Colin Jackson, interviewed immediately after the judgment by the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/15199159.stm

If the BOA by-law was interpreted as a ‘moral / ethical behaviour clause’, should it be limited to just drugs and doping violations though? Do we want athletes representing our country who were guilty of criminal offences? If the by-law was extended this would also help in removing the WADA ‘consistency’ argument, as different jurisdictions around the world impose different criminal sanctions and offences.

Or should we just fall into line with WADA and the rest of the world and reduce our rules to the lowest common denominator?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/15159569.stm

 

Concussions are a Headache for the NHL and NFL

Sports Litigation Alert (Volume 8 Issue 7) just published an article I wrote entitled, “Concussions are a Headache for the NHL and NFL.”  Here are a few excerpts:

—–

Brian Burke, Harvard-trained lawyer and General Manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs of the National Hockey League, referred to concussions as the “topic du jour” earlier this year. While Burke may be guilty of not being politically correct in his characterization of brain injuries sustained in the course of playing a game, his colorful comments may properly place the issue into perspective.

…

The National Football League doesn’t care about intent. It only cares about the harm suffered. If the head shot is deemed dangerous, the offending player is penalized. It doesn’t matter that he didn’t mean to do it.

Even the International Ice Hockey Federation and the NCAA prohibit any hit to the head regardless of whether it was intentional or unintentional.

The International Olympic Committee and World Anti-Doping Agency have the same strict liability approach to doping. WADA holds an athlete strictly liable for substances found in his or her bodily specimen, and that an anti-doping violation occurs whenever a prohibited substance (or its metabolites or markers) is found in a sample, whether or not the athlete intentionally or unintentionally used a prohibited substance.

If the National Hockey League is serious about hits to the head and brain injuries, they should tear a page from the playbooks of the NCAA, the IOC, and WADA and adopt a strict liability approach to hits to the head.

—–

Playing Catch-Up

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This expression is just as appropriate now as it was when coined by – depending on whom you believe – either Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) or Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153).

It predictably seems that as the tsunami of essays and exams approach with the end of our respective universities’ semesters (plus sundry other projects including working on writing and conference presentations, Kris’s recovery from some unidentified pernicious parasite or amoeba thing, coaching kids’ soccer/football teams, the start of the NHL playoffs, etc.), our pseudo-journalistic responsibilities to The Canary suffers.

Whilst our intent has been to offer educational or informational commentary in response to contemporary events in sports law, I am compelled to play catch-up to clear the backlog and break the bottleneck of events which are fading from view in the rear-view mirror. Accordingly, what follows is a brief synopsis of things from the not-so-distant past.

• The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration has just fined Wolf Creek Ski Area $17000 for serious workplace violations following an investigation into the death of the area’s ski patrol director in an avalanche on 22 November 2010 (see story here). The employee was alone was not wearing a helmet as required by state and federal laws. State intervention and regulation into the affairs of adventure activities is not new. California state regulators have fined Mammoth Mountain Ski Area $50,000 for several job safety violations related to the deaths of three ski patrol members on 6 April 2006 (see story here). The Wyoming Department of Employment cited Jackson Hole Mountain Resort in 2009 for failing to protect ski patroller Kathryn Miller with a helmet when she died in a fall in Spacewalk Couloir in 2008. The resort did not require its patrollers or other ski workers to wear helmets (see story here). Not that we needed any more convincing but this is yet further proof that adventure activities are not immune from the long arm of the law.
• Women’s ski jumping was approved by the International Olympic Committee at its meeting in London on April 6 for inclusion at the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. Ski half-pipe, biathlon mixed relay and team events in luge and figure skating were also approved (see story here). As a footnote, Kris and I wrote a piece in 2009 in the International Sports Law Review entitled ‘Ski jumping through Olympic-sized hoops: An analysis of Sagen v Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) for the 2010 Olympic & Paralympic Winter Games.
• The family of a 17 year old girl killed in a skiing accident in Ontario two years ago filed a $2 million lawsuit last month against the school board, the resort, the superintendent of education, the director of education, the supervising teacher, and employees of the resort. Elisabeth Steel Reurink had received less than one hour of instruction before being permitted to ski at Collingwood’s Blue Mountain Resort. She was skiing in the company of a teacher employed by the London District Catholic School Board at the time of the accident. The trip was part of her school’s physical education curriculum. Permission and consent forms were signed along with a waiver. The lawsuit alleges Elisabeth did not want to ski L-Hill – the run on which she was killed – but was encouraged to ski it by her teacher. The lawsuit does not identify what conditions on the hill were like or its level of difficulty; however, according to Blue Mountain’s website retrieved in March 2011, L-Hill is an intermediate or expert run. Elisabeth lost control, hit a tree and was killed instantly. She was wearing a helmet. The suit basically alleges negligent instruction and evaluation. It is noteworthy that Elisabeth was encouraged to ski L-Hill rather than ski it against her will. There is a world of difference between being coerced or under duress to do something as opposed to being politely pushed or emboldened to ski a run under the supervision of a teacher. None of the allegations have been proven.
• The Manitoba Junior Hockey League recently suspended a player for 40 games for driving an opposing player into the boards (see story here). Hockey Manitoba past president Brian Sarna was bang on when he said that players who set out to deliberately injure someone don’t belong in the game. The National Hockey League could learn a thing or two and tear a page from the MJHL’s rule book.
• Also courtesy of my home province comes this unusual lawsuit that’s the first of its kind in Manitoba. The province has filed a civil suit aimed at seizing the Winnipeg home where a soccer coach allegedly abused a preteen girl who played on his team. Under the province’s Criminal Property Forfeiture Act, people can lose their property to the government if a court rules they used it for unlawful activity. The lawsuit says the man’s home was “an instrument of unlawful activity” because on at least two occasions the man allegedly sexually touched the girl while she was there (see story here). Child abuse in sport remains a problem. A 2010 study by the University of Huddersfield found that 52% of abused children were abused in community-based organizations which include sports teams (see story here). Whilst progress has been made, significant work needs to be done. As a small but sad example, USA Swimming, released a list last year which showed 46 people – including former director of the national team Everett Uchiyama – who received lifetime bans or permanently quit the organization, most for sex-related offenses (see story here). Lawsuits are not uncommon (see here for example). In this light, any legal device which aids in the reduction of child abuse in sport ought to be welcomed.
• Between Georgian lugar Nodar Kumaritashvili’s death and allegations that the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) may have violated International Olympic Committee (IOC) ethics rules with targeted visits (see story here), the squeaky clean image of John Furlong – who led Vancouver’s winning bid and the 2010 organizing committee – is in dire jeopardy. I wonder if VANOC’s foreknowledge of the luge track’s dangerously high speeds was disclosed to Nodar’s family when they accepted $150,000. On the world stage of the Olympics, VANOC blamed Nodar for his death while conveniently absolving themselves of responsibility. If Mr. Furlong didn’t tell them about VANOC’s and the International Luge Federation’s concerns over “extremely high speeds” that presented an “unreasonable demand” on the athletes and that the main cause was in fact a track that was too fast that they knew about in advance and did nothing about, then Mr. Furlong has some explaining to do. Maybe he’ll get around to that once he’s finished spinning and explaining his questionable behavior to the IOC. It all brings to mind a Sir Walter Scott quote: “Oh what a tangled web we weave … when first we practise to deceive.”

Extreme sport is no longer the last refuge of scoundrels

For further proof that extreme sport has gone mainstream, look no further than the Olympics. The Olympics have co-opted subculture sport. No longer the last refuge of scoundrels, extreme sport makes millionaires and Olympians.

Sensing ESPN’s success with their first Winter X-Games which showed that big air meant big money, the International Olympic Committee added snowboarding to the Nagano 1998 Winter Olympic Games, BMX racing to the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympic Games, and ski cross to the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games.

The IOC is now looking favourably at approving ski and snowboard slopestyle, women’s ski jumping and ski halfpipe at the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics and kiteboarding at the Rio 2016 Summer Olympics.

In its press release, the Executive Board of the IOC said that the criteria used in recommending these extreme sports for inclusion into the Olympics included whether the changes would increase universality, gender equity and youth appeal, and in general add value to the Games plus the cost of infrastructure, and the impact on the overall quota and the number of events.

Fair enough.

However, the IOC has mandated all international sports federations to re-evaluate the marketability of their events. Christophe Dubi, sports director for the IOC, said, ‘The IOC has moved from using a quantitative list to select events to an overall value-added selection process. The criteria could be provenance or universality. It’s an issue of maximizing the platform we offer at the Olympics.’

So there we have it. The IOC’s business model accommodates adding value through the maximizing of revenue streams across multiple media platforms. Perhaps the IOC should add ROI to its Fundamental Principles of Olympism!

Sagen & Others v. VANOC 2010 (case report)

Sources: see an interesting blog account of the trial: http://vanessapierce.wordpress.com/ or read the full case report here: http://www.vancouver2010.com/dl/00/69/78/-/69784/prop=data/1y2401t/69784.pdf

The facts of the case of Sagen & Others v. Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic & Paralympic Winter Games (VANOC) has been reported in brief earlier on the blog. Here is the full case report.

The case was brought by 16 highly-ranked (current and retired) female ski jumpers who all claim that female ski jumpers are being excluded from competing at the 2010 Winter Olympic Games because of their sex, in violation of their equality rights under s.15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [1]

They argued in the Supreme Court of British Columbia that as the VANOC is a federally incorporated organisation, it had duties under the Charter to make provision for women’s events if it is also hosting male ski jumping competitions. The claimants therefore wanted VANOC to stage a female ski-jumping event, or alternatively to remove the male ski-jumping event (although the claimants suggest at [6] that the IOC would authorize VANOC to host a female event rather than cancel the male event).

By contrast, VANOC suggested that the claimants were suing the wrong defendants and that they were sympathetic to female ski jumping (and indeed remained ready to host an event), but their hands were effectively tied by the IOC [4].

Although the Court ruled that the exclusion of women’s ski jumping from the Winter Olympic was discriminatory and was for no other reason than their gender [7], her Honorable Madam Justice Fenlon then went on to state that as not every discrimination is actionable, and given the degree of IOC control, VANOC was not in breach of the Charter.

The main arguments of the case can be summarised by the following two questions:

1)       Does the Charter apply to VANOC?

Broadly speaking, the Charter only applies to government responsibilities [10]. For the claimants to succeed, they therefore had to argue that VANOC was either controlled by government, or carrying out a governmental program.

The problem for the claimants was that although the Canadian, British Columbia, Vancouver and Whistler governments were all represented on VANOC, there was no evidence of any governmental day to day governance [24] or control over VANOC finances [29], and indeed VANOC operated ‘more like a franchisee of the IOC, than a purchaser of a product’ [39]. Even the degree of control operating under s9 of the Trade Marks Act was not conclusive evidence [48].

However the claimants did succeed on the latter argument, and at [58] the Supreme Court held that staging the 2010 Winter Games was a governmental activity, even though it had created a private entity (VANOC) to deliver the actual event.

 

2)       Is VANOC in breach of s15 of the Charter?

Having established this, the next problem to be overcome was whether VANOC was in breach of the Charter. In doing this, the Court considered three issues:

i)                     What was the benefit at issue? – the opportunity to participate in the 2010 Winter Games at an Olympic Ski Jump Event [75]

ii)                   What is the appropriate comparator group? – Male ski jumpers [75], indeed the court held that Lindsey Van holds the facility record at Whistler [66]

iii)                  What is the discrimination? That the claimants are being treated less favourably on account of their gender [75]

Having established that this discrimination exists, it is then important to understand why and this effectively is the crux of the claimant’s case. The IOC criteria for the inclusion of new events were governed by rule 47 of the Olympic Charter (which effectively laid down certain criteria regarding participation and standards of competition). The problem is not that the rule itself is discriminatory (if anything while it applies equally to men and women, the rule sets a lower standard for participation in women’s events), but rather that its application to ski jumping is discriminatory. This is because while women’s ski jumping does not meet the criteria, neither does the men’s events [86], but they are still included under a ‘grandfather clause’ because they had previously been an Olympic event. As women’s ski jumping had not historically been included, this event was not eligible and therefore constituted discrimination.

The problem with this argument is that the claimants were not asking for a women’s ski jumping exhibition event, but rather an Olympic event [108] and this was beyond VANOC’s capacity. Indeed, the claimants agreed at [116] that VANOC does not have the authority to stage an Olympic Event without the consent of the IOC (while VANOC itself could stage a women’s ski jumping event at the venue, without IOC approval it would not be an Olympic event. Similarly, both the International Ski Federation (FIS) and many National Olympic Committees (NOCs) have stated that they will only participate in IOC sanctioned events during the Olympics).

Given this conclusion, and the IOC’s degree of control, VANOC was not therefore in breach of s15 of the Charter by implementing the IOC Programme of events.

New EPO test confirmed

Source: http://sports.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090227.wsptepo0227/GSStory/GlobeSportsOther/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20090227.wsptepo0227

Olivier Rabin (Science Director for WADA) has announced last month that it now has a new test for erythropoietin (EPO), a cancer and kidney drug that boosts red blood cell production allowing athletes to compete for longer periods of time.

Although WADA has been testing for EPO since 2000, the drug is difficult to detect as traces of the substance do not stay in urine for long. The new test will not just test for EPO, but will also detect biosimilar substances which create the same effects but are not easily detectable.

Suspicious samples that had previously been stored in freezers will now be able to be retested with the new test, although neither the IOC or WADA will confirm how many or which competition’s samples will be retested.

Brace yourselves then for a new set of drugs scandals in May / June……….

New broadcast partner for IOC

Source: http://sports.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090218.wsptioctv0218/GSStory/GlobeSportsOther/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20090218.wsptioctv0218

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has awarded the European broadcast rights for both the 2014 (Sochi, Russia) and 2016 (as yet undecided) Winter Olympics to Sportsfive, a sports marketing agency in a deal thought to be worth about $316-million.

Sportfive was granted rights for all media platforms (including free and subscription television, Internet and mobile phones) across 40 countries in Europe. The agreement does not however include broadcast rights for Italy and Turkey (where the IOC already has deals with Sky Italia and Fox Turkey) or for France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Britain as the IOC will negotiate directly with these countries. Once all these figures are added together, the IOC is hopeful of achieving a 30% increase on its current $850-million deal with the European Broadcast Union (EBU) for the 2010 and 2012 rights.

2016 Candidate Cities bids submitted

 

Four Candidate cities (Chicago, Madrid, Tokyo and Rio de Janeiro) have submitted bid details to the International Olympic Committee for the Games of the XXXI Olympiad in 2016 in advance of the final vote in Copenhagen on 2^nd October this year.

The Spanish bid team profess not to be worried by suggestions the Games will not stay in Europe for a second successive Olympiad after London 2012.

 

While Brazil has already secured the football World Cup in 2014 – and the president of the Rio bid committee, Carlos Nuzman, believes this will count in their favour. “Several expenses included in our budget are on the budget of the World Cup……Security, stadiums, technology, accommodation, transportation are all very expensive and will be ready two years before.”,” he told BBC Sport.

 

Sources: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/7884249.stm

Analysis of the four cities and links to their bids can be found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/7884296.stm

Phelps Photograph surfaces

** UPDATE: ESPN reports that the South Carolina sheriff in charge of the investigation into the cannabis allegation will not be pressing any charges against Michael Phelps. Apparently, although the sheriff has the bong in his possession, there is no evidence that Phelps did anything illegal, indeed Phelps only apologised for ‘inappropriate behaviour’

Source: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/swimming/news/story?id=3911474&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

 

Original Story:

US Swimmer Michael Phelps said his three-month ban from competition is a “fair” punishment after photographs of were published in the News of the World newspaper of him appearing to smoke cannabis at a student party in November 2008.

The swimmer said: “It’s something that USA Swimming came up with. Obviously, for a mistake you should get punished.”

USA Swimming (the sport’s governing body in the US) said no “anti-doping rule” had been violated by Phelps. But the federation said it wanted to send a strong message to Phelps because he had disappointed so many people. The ban will end in time for him to prepare for the US Championships on 7 July, which act as a trial for the World Championships in Rome two weeks later.”

Both FINA (Swimming’s International Governing Body) and the IOC have accepted Phelps’ apology. WADA have also confirmed that they will take no action either now or for in relation to the medals he won at Beijing, as smoking cannabis out of competition is not an offence under sport’s international doping laws.

Kellogg has reportedly said  though that it will not renew a sponsorship contract with Phelps, on the grounds that his behaviour is “not consistent with the image of Kellogg”.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/7873669.stm

The Photographs of the Bong can be found here: http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/150832/14-times-Olympic-gold-medal-winner-Michael-Phelps-caught-with-bong-cannabis-pipe.html