Are you sure ??? wrote:
In my experience if the athlete was able to provide medical confirmation of the treatment then it would have been given favourable consideration. A letter from a coach or agent in support would not be sufficient.
I have been involved in a similar, but slightly different case that was, in my opinion, correctly resolved.
Can you tell us more about your case? Was this a WADA sanctioned test or an NCAA test? The NCAA operates under a different system with different rules and is a LOT more reasonable. Was it before 2003? The current rules of strict liability were adopted in the first WADA code of doping in 2003.
For more examples of non-dopers getting doping penalities, look at the series of articles in the LA Times in the last month. They detail case after case similar to this where the athlete still recieved a ban.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-doping10dec10,1,4211513.story?coll=la-headlines-sportshttp://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-doping11dec11,0,2817972.story?coll=la-headlines-californiahttp://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dopingside10dec10,1,5714330.story?coll=la-headlines-sportshttp://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-doping16jan16,1,2044249.story?coll=la-headlines-sportsIn most these cases the athlete was American and had a high priced Ivy league educated lawyer represeting them. Yet, they still could not escape the ban. Further, as the articles says, the arbritators acknowledged that the the athlete was not trying to intentionally dope and received no performance benefit but the rules forced them to ban them anyway.