Justin Gatlin's hopes of defending his Olympic 100metres title in Beijing this August have been dashed after his appeal against a doping ban was dismissed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The 26-year-old had appealed to CAS against a four-year ban for doping violations during a two-day hearing before a three-man panel in New York last week.
CAS released their verdict in Lausanne today, also rejecting an appeal from athletics' world governing body the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) to impose a life ban on Gatlin.
The decision means Gatlin will have to serve the remaining two years of his four-year ban, which itself was reduced on appeal to the American Arbitration Association from the IAAF's original eight-year sanction.
No reasoning was provided by CAS for their ruling but Gatlin, who had hoped to compete at this month's US Olympic trials in Eugene, Oregon, declared he would keep trying to get his ban reduced.
‘While I am pleased that the arbitrators rejected a life ban, I will continue to fight for my right to participate in the great sport of track and field in a time frame shorter than four years,’ Gatlin said in a statement issued by his lawyers.
‘I have never been involved in any intentional doping scheme, and I think that CAS would not have rejected IAAF's position unless it also believed that I had not participated in any intentional doping.’
Gatlin's attorney Maurice Suh also saw the defeat of the IAAF appeal as significant.
‘We are pleased that the Court of Arbitration of Sport rejected the IAAF's unreasonable attempt to ban Justin for life from the sport of track and field,’ said Suh, a Los Angeles-based partner with Gibson Dunn.
‘From the ruling, it appears that CAS have adopted our position that proportionality should apply in sanction cases, rejecting the IAAF's strict liability position.
‘Obviously, of course, we had hoped that the panel would have found that proportionality would have demanded a lower sanction.
‘Right now, Mr Gatlin is weighing his other legal options. We do not have the reasoning of the ruling from CAS yet.’
