TAS - Laudo Arbitral CAS 2014A3488 Wotld Anti-Doping Agency WADA v Mt Juha Lallukka

TribunalArbitral du SportCourt of Arbitrationfor Sport

ARBITRAL AWARD

Wotld Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), Montreal, Canada v/ Mt Juha Lallukka CAS 2014/A/3488 - Lausanne, November 2014Tribunal Arbitral du SportCourt of Arbitration for Sport 4/4/3488 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Mr Juha Lallukka ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT sitting in the following composition: President: Prof, Luigi Fumagalli, Professor and Attorney-at-Law, Milan, ItalyArbitrators: Mr Quentin Byme-Sutton, Attorney-at-law, Geneva, SwitzerlandMr Philippe Sands Q.C., Barrister, London, EnglandAd hoc Clerk: Mr Patrick Grandjean, Attorney-at-law, Lausanne, Switzerland in the arbitration between World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), Montreal, CanadaRepresented by Mr Olivier Niggli, Attorney-at-law, and Mr Ross Wenzel, Solicitor, Lausanne,Switzerland Appellant and Mr Juha LallukkaRepresented by Mr Hannu Kalkas, Attorney-at-law, Helsinki, Finland Respondent Chateau de Béthusy Av. de Beaumont 2 CH-1012 Lausanne Tél: +41 216135000 Fax: +41 216135001 www.tas-cas.orgTribunal Arbitral du SportCAS 2014/A/3488 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Mr Juha Lallukka— Page 2 Court of Arbitration for Sport Il. 11.1 11.2

PARTIES The World Anti-Doping Agency (hereinafter “WADA”) is a Swiss private-lawfoundation. Its seat is in Lausanne, Switzerland, and its headquarters are in Montreal,Canada. WADA was created in 1999 to promote, coordinate and monitor the fight againstdoping in sport in all its forms. Mr Juha Lallukka (hereinafter the “Athlete”), born on 27 October 1979, is of Finnishnationality. He is a cross-country skier of national level and is affiliated to the FinnishSki Association, which is a member of the International Ski Federation (hereinafter“FIS”. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Background facts Set out below is a summary of the relevant facts and allegations based on the Parties”written submissions, pleadings and evidence adduced. Additional facts and allegationsfound in the Parties” written submissions, pleadings and evidence are addressed, whererelevant, in connection with the legal discussion that follows. The Panel has carefullyconsidered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by theParties in the present proceedings, but will refer in this Award only to the submissionsand evidence it considers necessary to explain or support its reasoning. The isoform differential immunoassays for the detection of doping with humangrowth hormone in sport. The appeal is brought against a decision of the Finish Sports Arbitration Board, whichfound that some of the parameters of the test for human growth hormone (hereinafter“hGH”) abuse as validated by WADA (hereinafter “WADA’s Growth Hormone Test”)were unreliable. One of the specificities of this case derives from the fact that the appealeddecision is broadly based on a recent award issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport(CAS 2011/A/2566 Andrus Veerpalu v. FIS ~ hereinafter “Veerpalu Case” — rendered on25 March 2013), which declared the said testing method for hGH to be reliable butnevertheless found that the risk of having false positive tests was too high. As a matterof fact, the CAS Panel in the Veerpalu Case held that the disciplinary body, which handledthe matter in the lower instance, failed to meet the applicable standard of proof withrespect to the procedure followed to set the decision limits.

Against this background, and in order to fully appreciate the facts of the case as well asthe issues to be addressed, it appears appropriate to briefly describe WADA’s GrowthHormone Test. For the detection of doping with hGH in sport, WADA developed guidelines on “hGHisoform differential immunoassays for anti-doping analyses”. A first version waspublished in June 2010 (hereinafter the “2010 hGH Guidelines”). Its objective was statedto “ensure a harmonized approach in the application of the Isoform Differentialimmunoassays for the detection of doping with human Growth Hormone (hGH) in sport.The guidelines provide direction on the Sample pre-analytical preparation procedure, theperformance of the test(s) and the interpretation of the test results” (chapter 1, page 3 ofTribunal Arbitral du Sport CAS 2014/A/3488 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Mr Juha Lallukka — Page 3 Court of Arbitration for Sport 9, the 2010 hGH Guidelines). Importantly, the 2010 hGH Guidelines also contain theWADA’s Growth Hormone Test’s decision limits. In June 2014, WADA released version 2.1 of the above guidelines (hereinafter the “2014hGH Guidelines”), which had the same objective as its first version. The 2014 hGHGuidelines reflect the latest revised decision limits, based on work carried out by twoteams of statisticians.

As far as the testing method itself is concerned, the following description can be found inthe Veerpalu Case (para. 83, page 18): “HGH is a hormone that is synthesized and secreted by cells in the anterior pituitarygland located at the base of the brain. It is naturally produced in humans andnecessary for skeletal growth. However, hGH is also available artificially and isbelieved to be abused by athletes on a wide scale in order to increase performance.The hGH isoform Test has been developed as part ofan effort to combat hGH dopingin sports. The major challenge in developing a doping test for hGH is the fact thatthe level of total concentration of hGH in a human’s blood will naturally varysubstantially in the course of time. HGH is naturally released in a rhythmic,pulsatile manner, so that the total hGH concentration level may vary as much as500-times between the pulses and the basal periods. Normally there are around tenhGH pulses during any 24-hour period, so the total hGH concentration will differsignificantly depending on the time of measurement. For this reason, developing atest based merely on the measurement of the total hGH concentration is, in practice,impossible. However, the administration of exogenous hGH changes theproportional shares of various hGH isoforms in a human’s blood by increasing theproportional share of one hGH isoform compared to other isoforms. Accordingly,the Test has been designed to detect hGH administration by looking at the ratiobetween two types of isoforms of hGH. Even though the levels of total hGHconcentration will vary substantially, it is assumed that the ratio between therelevant types ofhGH isoforms measured by the Test will naturally remain relativelystable. The administration of exogenous hGH can thus be detected from an elevatedratio of the relevant hGH isoforms. The testing is done by using two distinct sets ofreactive tubes coated with two different combinations of antibodies, which arereferred to as Kit 1 and Kit 2 (or the “Kits”). The so-called decision limits determinethe thresholds needed to assess whether an athlete’s blood contains natural ordoped levels of hGH”.

In other words, to detect hGH doping in sport, the WADA accredited laboratories use the“proportion of hGH isoforms found under normal physiological conditions and thosefound after recombinant (rec) hGH injection (...). The method is essentially based on theestablishedprinciple that the normal composition ofhGH in blood is a mixture of differentisoforms, present at constant relative proportions. In contrast, recGH is only comprisedof the 22-KDa molecular form. The administration of exogenous recGH not only leads toan increase in the concentration of the 22-KDa isoform but also causes a reduction of thenon-22-kDa concentrations, thus altering the natural ratios established between thesehGH isoforms” (chapter 4, page 3 of the 2010 hGH Guidelines). We note that there is nomaterial change to this approach in the 2014 Guidelines (Chapter 4, page 3 of the 2014hGB Guidelines). The ratio of the concentrations of recombinant hGH (recGH) versusTribunal Arbitral du Sport CAS 2014/A/3488 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Mr Juha Lallukka — Page 4 Court of Arbitration for Sport 10. 11. 11.3 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

17. 13. other “natural derived” isoforms of hGH (pitGH) are measured with two different kitsdeveloped specifically to detect the administration of exogenous hGH. The decision limitsdetermine whether the recGH/pitGH ratios in kit 1 and kit 2 qualify as an adverseanalytical finding. Any value above these limits will trigger the report by the laboratoryof a positive test.

Under the 2010 hGH Guidelines and as regards to male athletes, the decision limit valuesfor ratios derived from these kits were the following: - kit 1: 1.81 — kit 2: 1.68.

The kits use different antibodies and, therefore, lead to different values and differentdecision limits. The Athlete’s adverse analytical findings On 7 September 2011, the Athlete was subject to an out-of-competition doping control inKouvola, Finland. His blood samples were dispatched in bottles with the code number441131. The WADA-aceredited “United Medix Laboratories Ltd.” in Helsinki, Finland,(hereinafter the “Laboratory”) was instructed to conduct the analysis of the Athlete’sblood samples. On 22 September 2011, the Laboratory analysed the Athlete’s A-sample, which testedpositive for extraneous hGH. More precisely, and according to the “full documentationpackage on A-sample 441131” dated 21 November 2011, based “on the data ofRecombinant growth hormone, immunology assay, human serum sample SOP DO-122,batch JDO1 63 the analysis of the [Athlete’s] serum A-sample 441131 using the CMZhGH differential immunoassays produced the following analytical vales (sic) of assaysratios: 3.74 for kit ‘1’ and 2.82 for kit 2”, The ratios are greater than the correspondingdecision limits (DL) of 1.81 and 1.68, respectively. The combined standard of uncertainty(...) estimated by the laboratory at the DL is 0.19 for kit “1? and 0.16 for kit 2”, Thisconstitutes an adverse analytical finding.” It is not disputed that exogenous hGH is a non-specified substance included in thecategory S2 (a) (“Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors and Related Substances”) on the2011 WADA Prohibited List. The substance is prohibited both inand out-of-competition.

On 25 October 2011, the adverse analytical findings were reported to WADA, the FinnishAnti-Doping Agency (hereinafter “FINADA”) and to the FIS. On 27 October 2011, the Athlete was provisionally suspended. In a statement dated 7 November 2011, the Athlete denied having used exogenous hGHor any other medications prohibited in sports. He claimed that the test results could onlybe incorrect and requested the analysis of the B-sample, which was carried out on 14November 2011. According to the “full documentation package on B-sample 441131”Tribunal Arbitral du SportCAS 2014/A/3488 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Mr Juha Lallukka— Page 5 Court of Arbitration for Sport 11.4 19. 20. 21.

22. 23, dated 30 November 2011, the “confirmation tests using the CMZ hGH differentialimmunoassay kit ‘1’ and kit ‘2’ for the detection ofgrowth hormone in serum gave positiveconfirmation results for both assay ratios in B-sample 441131. The determined assayratios (3.44 for kit 1”, 2.65 for kit 2”) were greater than the corresponding decisionlimits of 1.81 and 1.68, respectively, and thus constituted an adverse analytical finding.(...). The result is in good agreement with the result of the A-sample 441131.” The proceedings before the FINADA Supervisory Board FINADA Supervisory Board initiated a disciplinary action against the Athlete and was incharge of adjudicating whether a violation of the applicable anti-doping rules occurred.

On 3 January 2012, the Athlete requested the FINADA Supervisory Board to suspend theproceedings against him until the publication by the Court of Arbitration for Sport(hereinafter the “CAS”) of its decision in the Veerpalu Case. The Athlete’s request wasgranted.

On 28 August 2012, the Athlete’s assay ratio for hGH was measured again with the resultbeing 1.86 for kit 1. On 25 March 2013, the final award in the Veerpalu Case became public and theproceedings before the FINADA Supervisory Board resumed. In a decision dated 19 June 2013, the FINADA Supervisory Board observed that theAthlete had always denied having used prohibited substances, but had not challenged theresults of the Laboratory. Under these circumstances, the FINADA Supervisory Boardfound that the Athlete had the burden of establishing that a deviation from the relevantanti-doping standard occurred. It held that, by referring to the findings of the VeerpaluCase, the Athlete had successfully proven that the decision limits of WADA’s GrowthHormone Test were unreliable due to insufficient scientific proof and that the deviationmight have caused the adverse analytical finding. Consequently, the burden shifted backto FINADA to provide satisfactory evidence to substantiate its claim on the insignificanceof the unreliability of the decision limits. FINADA failed to convince its SupervisoryBoard, which found as follows (as translated from Finnish into English by WADA):“WADA’s current decision limits have indisputably been shown to be unreliable andcurrently there are no absolute decision limits. FINADA has admitted that thedecision limits may decrease or increase with new studies, even though they willprobably remain close to the current decision limits.The Supervisory Board states that since the decision limits are unreliable, theycannot be used for analysing the results ofgrowth hormone tests. Merely comparing[the Athlete’s] values to unreliable decision limits is therefore not sufficient forfulfilling FINADA’s burden ofproof. The Supervisory Board has not been able toascertain that the correct decision limits will not be higher than [the Athlete’s]values.

FINADA’s view has been that the decision limits will not change to higher than thevalues observed in [the Athlete's] sample. However, FINADA has not producedsufficient rationale to support this claim. Fulfilling the burden ofproof would haverequired, instead of assessing the difference between [the Athlete’s] values and theTribunal Arbitral du SportCAS 2014/A/3488 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Mr Juha Lallukka — Page 6 Court of Arbitration for Sport 24. unreliable decision limits, sufficient scientific evidence of the current limits beingcorrect or at least close enough to the correct ones, for example. Such evidence wasnot presented to the Supervisory Board. Because FINADA has not fulfilled its burden of proof of the deviation fromantidoping rules showed by [the Athlete] has not caused the adverse analyticalfinding, [the Athlete] cannot be considered to have committed an antidoping ruleviolation”. As a result, on 19 June 2013, the FINADA Supervisory Board decided the following: “The Supervisory Board has ruled that the case is not an antidoping violationpursuant to Section 2 of Finland’s Antidoping code. tem 7.6.4 of the Code is as follows: “If ineligibility has been imposed on an athlete or another person on a basisthat is not an adverse analytical finding in the A sample of the doping test, andthe Supervisory Board decides on the basis ofstatements presented to it that thecase is not an antidoping rule violation, the athlete’s or another person'sineligibility ends immediately.” [The Athlete] has been ineligible since 27 October 2011. Since this is not anantidoping rule violation, [the Athlete’s] temporary ineligibility from sports will beended immediately”.

IL.5 The proceedings before the Finnish Sports Arbitration Board 25, 27. On 18 July 2013, FINADA filed an appeal against the decision of its Supervisory Boardwith the Finnish Sports Arbitration Board. During this appeal proceeding, the Finnish Sports Arbitration Board took note of the factthat, as a consequence of the Veerpalu Case, WADA commissioned additional scientificstudies to determine reliable decision limits for its Growth Hormone Test. In this respectand in support of its appeal, FINADA produced before the Finnish Sports ArbitrationBoard, a report dated 11 August 2013, prepared for WADA by representatives of theDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational health and Department ofMathematics and Statistics of the McGill University, in Montreal, Canada (hereinafter the“McGill Study”). Nevertheless, FINADA confirmed to the Finnish Sports ArbitrationBoard that new decision limits were still to be decided on by WADA, but that they wouldnot be higher than the values detected in the Athlete’s A and B samples. Ina decision dated 5 December 2013 (hereinafter the “Appealed Decision”), the FinnishSports Arbitration Board dismissed FINADA’s appeal, namely on the following grounds: “(...) relevant decision limits must be determined in a reliable and sufficientlyaccurate manner. The uncertainty related to decision limits, as described in thedecision issued by CAS, can be eliminated in various ways. It is essential that thedetermination of decision limits be based on sufficient scientific proof. The newreport presented by FINADA constitutes a part of a procedure that aims at thereliable determination of decision limits. The result of the new study on decisionTribunal Arbitral du S port CAS 2014/4/3488 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Mr Juha Lallukka — Page 7

Court of Arbitration for Sport 28. I. 29.

30. 31. limits indicates that the decision limits previously set by WADA have been in theright direction. However, despite adjustments having been made to the material andmethodological aspects, a single study does not necessarily constitute sufficientscientific prooffor the determination of decision limits.The new study submitted by FINADA has sought to consider the shortcomings in themethodology used in the determination of decision limits that were stated in thedecision issued by CAS. However, because the research results have not yet beenpublished and scientifically examined, it is unclear, at least at this stage, howsuccessfully the issues have been addressed and what type of uncertainty factors arepossibly related to the new study and the results based on it. Taking into accountthe ambiguities detected by CAS related to earlier studies presented by WADA, sucha possibility cannot be ruled out. The study that has now been presented is the firstscientific statement on the decision limits for growth hormone after the decisionissued by CAS pertaining to Veerpalu. It has not yet been subjected to properscientific discussion. In addition, the study has not resulted in the confirmation ofnew or previous decision limits, at least not yet.The Finnish Sports Arbitration Board states that, taking into account the athlete’slegal status and equal protection of the laws, the study submitted by FINADA cannotbe seen as sufficient proof of the accuracy of the decision limits that were deemedto be unreliable by CAS”.This being the case, the Finnish Sports Arbitration Board states that it has not beenproven that [the Athlete] has conducted the alleged antidoping rule violation. Forthis reason, the appeal submitted by FINADA must be rejected”.

It is undisputed that on 21 January 2014, WADA received from the Athlete’s legalrepresentative “a large number of Finnish-language documents relating to the AppealedDecision”. At that moment and according to WADA, it had not yet received “the casefile relating to the Appealed Decision through the customary and official channels”.

SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT On 11 February 2014, WADA filed its statement of appeal with the CAS in accordancewith Article R47 et seg. of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (hereinafter the “Code)and requested an extension of the deadline to file its Appeal Brief in order to translate a“voluminous amount of Finnish-language documents”. The Appellant selected Englishas the language of the proceeding, and nominated Mr Quentin Byrne-Sutton, attorney-at-law in Geneva, Switzerland, as arbitrator. On 14 February 2014, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Appellant’sstatement of appeal and requested that the Athlete comment on WADA’s request for anextension within three (3) days. On 19 February 2014, the Athlete informed the CAS Court Office that he objected toWADA’s application for the extension of the deadline to file its appeal brief, allegingthat “the actual reason for [WADA’s] request is to wait for an Award in the Sinkewitz-case before filing the appeal” and that “the documents are already largely translated andTribunal Arbitral du SportCAS 2014/A/3488 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Mr Juha Lallukka — Page 8 Court of Arbitration for Sport 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

41. 42, WADA is well informed about the merits of the case”. Separately, the Athlete nominatedMr. Philippe Sands, Q.C. as arbitrator.

On 25 February 2014, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that the President ofthe Appeals Arbitration Division granted WADA’s request and thereafter invited WADAto file its appeal brief on or before 22 April 2014.

On 20 March 2014, the President of the International Council of Arbitration for Sportissued an Order granting the Athlete legal aid sufficient to cover the travel andaccommodation costs of the Athlete and his Counsel to a hearing, as well as the costs ofany experts, witnesses, or interpreters in connection with a hearing, if necessary. Six days later, on 26 March 2014, the Athlete filed a renewed request for legal aid seekingadditional financial aid. On 3 April 2014, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that the Panel to hear thecase had been constituted as follows: Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, President of the Panel,Mr Quentin Byrne-Sutton and Mr Philippe Sands Q.C., arbitrators. On 22 April 2014, WADA filed its appeal brief in accordance with Article R51 of theCode, which contains a statement of the facts and legal arguments accompanied bysupporting documents. On 4 June 2014 and within the granted extended deadline, the Athlete filed his answer inaccordance with R55 of the Code. On 10 June 2014, the Parties were invited to inform the CAS Court Office on or before17 June 2014 whether their preference was for a hearing to be held. The Parties werealso reminded that such participation at a hearing, if necessary, could be done by videoor telephone conference. On 13 June 2014, the Athlete confirmed to the CAS Court Office that he preferred forthe matter to be decided solely on the basis of the Parties’ written submissions, whereas,on 17 June 2014, WADA deferred to the Panel on whether it was necessary to hold ahearing. On 17 June 2014, WADA filed before the CAS the updated 2014 hGH Guidelines andconfirmed that the authors of the McGill Study together with Prof. Jean-ChristopheThalabard of the University Descartes in Paris, France, produced a joint paper, whichhad, subsequent to the peer-review process, been accepted for publication on 2 June 2014.The supporting documentation was attached to WADA’s letter.

On 26 June 2014 and on behalf of the Panel, the Athlete was invited to file his commentswithin seven (7) days on the documents submitted by WADA on 17 June 2014, which hefailed to do, even after a reminder sent on 15 July 2014. On that same day — the President of the International Council of Arbitration for Sportdenied the Athlete’s renewed request for additional legal aid.Tribunal Arbitral du Sport CAS 2014/A/3488 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Mr Juha Lallukka — Page 9Court of Arbitration for Sport

43. 44, On 31 July 2014, the Parties were advised that the Panel had decided notto hold a hearingin accordance with Article R57 of the Code.

On 9 September 2014, the Appellant signed and returned the Order of Procedure in thisappeal; on 15 September 2014, the Athlete signed (subject to modifications) and returnedthe Order of Procedure as well.

TV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

(i) The Appeal 45. 46. WADA submitted the following requests for relief: “WADA hereby respectfully requests CAS to rule that:1. The Appeal of WADA is admissible.2. The decision rendered by the Finnish Sports Arbitration Board in the matter ofMr. Juha Lallukka on 5 December 2013 is set aside.3. Mr. Juha Lallukka is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of between two andfour years starting on the date on which the CAS award enters into force. Anyperiod of provisional ineligibility effectively served by the Athlete before theentry into force of such award, shall be credited against the total period ofineligibility to be served.4. All competitive individual results obtained by the Athlete from 7 September 2011through the commencement of the period of ineligibility imposed pursuant to theCAS award shall be annulled.”

WADA’s submission, in essence, may be summarized as follows: As a consequence of the Veerpalu Case, WADA mandated two independentstatistical studies, ie. the McGill Study and a study from Prof. Jean-ChristopheThalabard of the University Descartes in Paris, France, “to recalculate the decisionlimits for hGH based on a larger data set and with the objective of establishingdecision limits with a 99.99% specificity ie. the risk offalse positives being lessthan 1 in 10,000”. These two studies have been merged into a peer-reviewed jointpublication paper (hereinafter “Joint Publication Paper”), accepted for publication.These studies establish a) that the decision limits as set by the 2014 hGH Guidelinesare reliable, and b) that the Athlete’s assay ratios measured in the Aand B-samples441131 can only be explained by the use of exogenous hGH. The Joint Publication Paper addresses all the issues raised by the Panel in theVeerpalu Case and the Athlete can no longer derive any advantage from this CASprecedent. The Athlete’s analytical values of assay ratios (3.74 for kit 1 and 3.44 for kit 2 - A-sample, and 2.82 for kit 1 and 2.65 for kit 2 - B-sample) are significantly higherthan those of:Tribunal Arbitral du Sport CAS 2014/A/3488 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Mr Juha Lallukka — Page 10 Court of Arbitration for Sport o His own samples measured on 28 August 2012 with a ratio of 1.86 for kit 1.The Athlete did not advance any explanation for the substantial differencebetween the values recorded in September 2011 and those recorded less thana year later. Values of a given individual should not considerably change overtime, and not by such a magnitude.

o Mr Veerpalu (CAS 2011/A/2566), whose analytical values of assay ratioswere 2,62 for kit 1 and 3.07 for kit 2 (A-sample) and 2.73 for kit 1 and 2.00for kit 2 (B-sample). o Mr Sinkewitz, who was found guilty of an adverse analytical finding by aCAS Panel in CAS 2012/A/2857 Nationale Anti-Doping AgenturDeutschland v. Patrick Sinkewitz, delivered on 21/24 February 2014.Mr Sinkewitz’s (hereinafter “Sinkewitz Case”) with analytical values of assayratios were 2.45 for kit 1 and 2.43 for kit 2 (A-sample) and 3.16 for kit 1 and2.34 for kit 2 (B-sample). In the Sinkewitz Case, the Panel was “convincedthat the ratios found in [Mr Sinkewitz’s] samples clearly indicate thepresence of exogenous recGH and that those elevated ratios cannot beexplained by natural sources but only by the administration of recGH”. o Athletes who either admittedly took exogenous hGH (Mr Terry Newton) orwho admitted the violation or did not challenge the sanction. - “Even taking the lowest ratio values for Kit 1 and Kit 2 (3.44 and 2.65respectively), the results are amongst the highest values which have been recordedin the thousands of hGH determinations which have been made on athletes’ dopingcontrol samples (...). Indeed, the A sample value of 3.74 is the highest Kit 1 resultwhich has ever been reported by a WADA-accredited laboratory”. - The Athlete’s values recorded in September 2011 are so high that they constituteoverwhelming evidence of administration of exogenous hGH, irrespective ofwhether the decision limits as set in WADA’s Guidelines are reliable or not. Thisfinding is consistent with the CAS Panel’s position in the recent award in theSinkewitz Case, which was rendered almost a year after the Veerpalu Case.

• The Athlete has violated both Article 2.1 (presence of a prohibited substance or itsmarkers or metabolites in an athlete’s sample) and Article 2.2 (use or attempted useby an athlete of a prohibited substance or method) of the applicable Finnish Anti-Doping Code. - “As a number of aggravating circumstances set out at article 10.6 WADC are met,it is both legitimate and appropriate to impose an increased period of ineligibilityof up to a maximum offour years.”

(ii) The Answer

47. The Athlete submitted the following requests for relief: “Mr. Juha Lallukka hereby respectfully requestsfor relief:Tribunal Arbitral du Sport CAS 2014/A/3488 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Mr Juha Lallukka — Page 11

Court of Arbitration for Sport 48.

1. Dismiss the requestsfor relief of WADA:1.1, The Appeal of WADA shall be rejected as inadmissible.LIZ The decision rendered by the Finnish Sports Arbitration Board on 5December 2013 shall be affirmed.

Il, If against the Respondent's view, the Appeal of WADA is admissible and thedecision of Finnish Sports Arbitration Board on 5 December 2013 is setaside, it shall be confirmed that the sanction of ineligibility period hasalready been served by Mr. Lallukka.ILI WADA shall be ordered to pay legal costs of Mr. Juha Lallukka totalof 28.912,11 Euros.

I. The Appellant shall be ordered to pay damages and legal costs of Mr. JuhaLallukka total of 95.328,78 Euros (damages 66.416,67 Euros and legal costs28.912, 11 Euros).”

The Athlete’s submission, in essence, may be summarized as follows: - WADA’s appeal brief is inadmissible as it was filed late. — At the time of his blood sample collection in September 2011, the decision limitsof WADA’s Growth Hormone Test were unreliable. The McGill Study as well asthe Joint Publication Paper leave unanswered some issues raised by the CAS Panelof the Veerpalu Case. Hence, the decision limits are still not reliable and “WADA ’sappeal must be dismissed as the requirement set by the Veerpalu are still not met”.Unfortunately, the Athlete does not have the financial means to substantiate hisallegations in this regard. —- The Athlete “has always