The case involves an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) concerning professional triathlete Timothy Marr, who tested positive for amphetamine after competing in the 2010 Vineman Ironman 70.3 event. The UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory confirmed the presence of amphetamine in both his A and B samples, leading to an initial two-year ineligibility period starting August 13, 2010. Marr appealed to the AAA, which reclassified Adderall, the substance he ingested, as a Specified Substance under the World Anti-Doping Code, reducing his ineligibility to just over six months. WADA contested this decision, arguing that Adderall contains amphetamine, explicitly listed as a Non-Specified Stimulant under the WADA Prohibited List, and filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to reinstate the two-year ban and disqualify Marr’s results from August 13, 2010, onward. The World Triathlon Corporation (WTC) supported WADA’s stance, while Marr defended the AAA ruling, claiming Adderall’s specific amphetamine components were not listed as Non-Specified Stimulants and that ambiguities in the WADA Prohibited List should favor him.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators Maidie Oliveau, Richard McLaren, and Christopher Campbell, first addressed whether Adderall should be classified as a Specified Substance. After reviewing submissions, including an affidavit from WADA’s Dr. Olivier Rabin, the panel confirmed its jurisdiction under the WTC Anti-Doping Rules and the CAS Code, recognizing WADA’s right to appeal. The dispute centered on whether Adderall’s active ingredients—dextroamphetamine and amphetamine—qualified as Non-Specified Stimulants. Marr argued that the specific salt forms of these ingredients were not explicitly listed, warranting a lesser sanction. WADA and WTC countered that the active substances were amphetamine and dextroamphetamine, both listed as prohibited, and that the salts were merely additives. Laboratory tests confirmed amphetamine in Marr’s sample, consistent with Adderall.
The panel examined evidence, including Adderall’s manufacturer literature, which described it as a "mixed salts of a single-entity amphetamine product." Previous CAS rulings had classified Adderall as a Non-Specified Stimulant, and the panel upheld this interpretation, concluding that the active ingredient, not its chemical salts, determined its status under anti-doping rules. The panel rejected Marr’s argument, affirming that Adderall contained amphetamine, a Non-Specified Stimulant, and thus Marr was subject to stricter sanctions. The ruling clarified that the absence of specific salt forms on the Prohibited List did not alter the substance’s classification. The case was to proceed to determine Marr’s ineligibility period, with the panel emphasizing that its findings were limited to Adderall’s classification and did not address Marr’s intent or negligence. The decision reinforced the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations and set a precedent for similar cases.