## Facts

- Tim Montgomery was an elite U.S. track-and-field sprinter competing under International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) anti-doping rules.
- Montgomery did not record an adverse analytical finding in in-competition or out-of-competition testing.
- USADA alleged that Montgomery participated in the BALCO doping scheme and received prohibited performance-enhancing substances (including steroids, creams, and hormones) that were hard to detect through routine testing.
- USADA relied on BALCO-related documents and other materials that it argued connected Montgomery to prohibited substances and methods.
- USADA also pointed to certain blood and urine data from 2000–2001 that it characterized as abnormal or unusual (though not a positive test).
- In March 2001 at an international competition, Montgomery allegedly told fellow sprinter Kelli White (who later admitted doping) that he used a substance known as “the Clear,” said it made his calves tight, and asked whether White experienced the same effect.
- In 2004, USADA charged Montgomery with anti-doping rule violations and sought sanctions and disqualification of results.
- Montgomery agreed to bypass the domestic U.S. hearing process and submit the dispute directly to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a final and binding decision.
- The CAS panel first addressed jurisdiction and related objections in an Award on Jurisdiction dated February 9, 2005.
- The panel later issued a Decision on Evidentiary and Procedural Issues dated March 4, 2005 (addressing objections to the use of BALCO-related materials and other proof).
- At the merits phase, USADA presented multiple categories of non-analytical evidence; Montgomery challenged reliability and sufficiency and did not testify in his own defense.

## Issues

1. Whether CAS had jurisdiction and whether USADA had authority, under the applicable anti-doping rules and arbitration agreement, to pursue the case directly in CAS.
2. Whether an IAAF anti-doping rule violation could be established without an adverse analytical finding, based on documentary proof, admissions, testimony, and circumstantial evidence.
3. What burden and standard of proof applied to USADA’s allegations in CAS (including application of the “comfortable satisfaction” standard).
4. Whether the BALCO-related documents and witness testimony were admissible and, if admitted, what weight they should receive.
5. If a violation was proven, what sanction and what disqualification of results were required under the applicable IAAF rules.

## Decision

- CAS confirmed jurisdiction and rejected Montgomery’s objections to USADA’s authority in the February 9, 2005 Award on Jurisdiction.
- CAS rejected broad efforts to exclude categories of evidence and allowed the matter to proceed with documentary and testimonial proof, addressing admissibility and procedure in the March 4, 2005 decision.
- In the final award dated December 13, 2005, CAS held that USADA proved anti-doping rule violations even without a positive test.
- CAS applied the “comfortable satisfaction” standard—higher than a balance of probabilities but lower than beyond reasonable doubt—and required strong proof given the seriousness of the allegations and sanctions.
- CAS credited non-analytical evidence, including testimony describing Montgomery’s admission of using “the Clear,” together with BALCO-linked materials and other circumstantial proof.
- CAS imposed a four-year period of ineligibility and disqualified results from the relevant period, including the performance associated with Montgomery’s 100-meter world record.

## Legal Principles

- CAS jurisdiction may be established through applicable sport rules and the parties’ agreement to arbitrate; once a party submits the dispute to CAS as final instance, jurisdiction objections are narrowly construed.
- An anti-doping rule violation need not be proven by an adverse analytical finding; reliable non-analytical evidence (documents, admissions, testimony, and circumstantial proof) can be sufficient.
- The anti-doping organization bears the burden of proving the violation.
- The applicable standard of proof in CAS anti-doping matters is “comfortable satisfaction,” applied with greater rigor where allegations and consequences are serious.
- CAS proceedings apply flexible evidentiary rules; disputes about reliability generally go to the weight of the evidence rather than automatic exclusion.
- Credible testimony reporting an athlete’s admission to prohibited substance use may support a finding of a violation, especially when supported by other evidence.
- When a violation is established under the applicable IAAF rules, the sanction and the scope of result disqualification follow the governing rules, including annulment of results obtained during the disqualification period.

## Conclusion

In Tim Montgomery v. United States Anti-Doping Agency, CAS 2004/O/645 (2005), CAS exercised jurisdiction over a USADA prosecution brought without a positive test and held that doping could be proven through non-analytical evidence meeting the “comfortable satisfaction” standard; based on BALCO-linked materials and witness testimony describing Montgomery’s admission to using “the Clear,” CAS imposed a four-year ban and disqualified relevant results, including the performance tied to his 100-meter world record.
