ATP MEDIA CONFERENCE

July 9, 2003

Dr. Christiane Ayotte

Mark Miles

Mark Young

Richard Young

MARK MILES: Thank you for joining us. I want to welcome you and thank you for participating. We wanted to organize this call in order to answer your questions regarding an unfortunate set of circumstances involving contaminated supplements. We have several people on the call that have been part of this process and I'd like to introduce you to them. They will be prepared to help answer your questions when we get to that part of this call. First I will be introducing Mark Young. Many of you know Mark. He is the ATP's Executive Vice-president and our General Counsel. He's here with me in Florida. Mark has managed this investigation looking at the situation on a daily basis as it developed over the past few months. As the ATP's general Counsel for more than ten years he has been involved in every aspect of our anti-doping program from its inception in the early 1990s. Second, we have Rich Young, who is not related to Mark Young, who is joining us in the call from Barcelona where he's attending a FINA conference for ongoing discussions on their adoption of the World Anti-doping Agency Code. Rich helped lead the team that drafted the WADA Code and he has been at the forefront of a number of developments in anti-doping over the years. We asked him, as an outsider, to lead our investigation of this situation when it first came to us. Rich serves as an arbitrator for the Court of Arbitration For Sport (CAS) and was selected to the special CAS panel seated to resolve disputes at the 1998 winter Olympics and the 2000 summer Olympics in Sydney. He previously has served on a number of tennis anti-doping tribunals. Finally I'd like to introduce to you Dr. Christiane Ayotte who is Professor and Director of the Doping Control Laboratory in Montreal, Canada. Dr. Ayotte was the person who first noticed an unusual pattern in the player samples registering traces of nandrolone and she will be able to explain how this situation first came to her and our attention. These people should be able to answer any and all your questions, but before they do, I'd like to thank Rich Young and Dr. Ayotte and all those who have worked with us in an intense sort of way over the past several weeks. They have been thorough and diligent and focused on this matter for some time now and we appreciate it. With those introductions, let me just turn the mike, as it were, over to Mark Young who will explain the chain of events that led us to investigate the situation and to adopt new practices with our trainers. Mark.

MARK YOUNG: For the last couple of years the ATP has sent notices to its players advising them against the use of any dietary supplements as the use of those supplements would put them at risk for ingesting prohibitive substances under the Tennis Anti -doping Code. The reason for this risk is due to market and manufacturing conditions that have occurred in recent years. Specifically there has been an increase in among the general public for products that include the substance 19-norandrostedione, that substance is a prohibitive substance under the Tennis Anti-doping Code and the IOC list and it's a related substance to the anabolic steroid nandrolone. In fact, when the labs do a urinalysis the metabolites of 19-norandrostedione show up similar to those of nandrolone. Many manufacturers produce products with this in it and it's available over the counter and over the Internet without prescription in many markets including the United States. Sometimes these products do not contain labels that identify themselves as having the 19-norandrostedione prohibitive substance. In addition, however, the manufacturers that make those products also produce common vitamins and mineral supplements and so they use sometimes the same equipment and it poses a risk of contamination to products as simple as vitamins and mineral supplements that -- such that they may become contaminated with this substance 19-norandrostedione. By the end of last year, ATP had been notified by its anti-doping program administrator of five players testing positive for low levels of nandrolone metabolites. Nandrolone is a substance under the Tennis Anti-doping Program List and the IOC list that has a threshold beyond which players are considered to have tested positive for a doping offense. This is because some believe that nandrolone is a naturally occurring substance in the human body. So there's a threshold of two nanograms per milliliter which is considered to be a conservative cutoff level and it eliminates the possibility that the substance could have been naturally produced. As I said, by the end of last year, ATP had been told that we had five players that were above that cutoff level. To put this in perspective, in the entire history of the Tennis Anti-doping Program there have only been seven cases; only one of those seven has involved a low level nandrolone case. So it certainly got our attention when in a short period of time we were put on notice that there were five of these cases. Those cases under our rule went through the Review Board process and would be doping offenses subject to the players' rights to a hearing. All of these cases, the players requested hearings and they were set to go before independent tribunals. The first such case came up in April and that was the case of Bohdan Ulihrach. In his tribunal in April Mr. Ulihrach did not identify any substance that he had taken and he was unable to identify the source of the prohibitive substance. Therefore, in a decision in early May the tribunal held that Mr. Ulihrach was guilty of a doping offense and gave him the maximum penalty under the Tennis Anti-doping Program Rule. The second case that was scheduled to go before a tribunal, while we were preparing for it in mid-May, we reviewed the players' papers prior to the tribunal and in those papers there was an allegation that ATP trainers have been dispensing an electrolyte supplement. And that that was the only substance that the player had taken and therefore the player alleged that that had to be the source of the prohibitive substance if there was one in the player's body. We quickly looked into this and confirmed that it was true that our trainers had been distributing an electrolyte tablet as well as other vitamin and mineral supplements. This was the first time that we became aware that our trainers were dispensing these types of products since we began our player warnings approximately two years ago. That information is material in and of itself because obviously it means that the ATP trainers were dispensing products that the ATP itself was advising players not to take. We immediately at that point on learning this contacted Rich Young, who has the credentials that Mark Miles just described, and asked him to help us in launching an investigation into this matter. The investigation included in-depth study of player lab tests, player interviews, and investigation of the manufacturer and distributor of the electrolyte tablet. The results included the following: First of all, we discovered upon further study of the laboratory test that there were an unprecedented number of players showing traces of nandrolone beyond what would be naturally produced. Specifically there were seven such cases, including the five that I mentioned we were aware of earlier, at the end of 2002, that were above the cutoff of 2.0, that might be considered a doping offense. As well as 36 others that included trace amounts below the threshold and therefore would not be doping offenses but were certainly a number that got our attention of players that had trace amounts in them beyond what you'd expect to be naturally occurring. Secondly, the investigation showed that every one of these 43 cases, or 43 instances were low-level concentrations; that being consistent with an ingestion of a contaminated product. Finally, with the help of Dr. Ayotte, it was discovered that there was a common analytical fingerprint in these tests that indicated that the source of the contamination was a common source. The conclusion of the investigation was that the players had ingested a common source of a contaminated product. We were unable in the investigation to prove that the electrolyte tablet was contaminated, but it was the only common denominator that we were able to identify among this diverse group of players of many nationalities, with different coaches, playing in various continents throughout the world. At the conclusion of the investigation we had a duty to disclose this information to the affected players including Mr. Ulihrach. Mr. Ulihrach asked the tribunal to reopen his case and his request was granted. The tribunal found that there was an inference given the information that I have just described, that the ATP trainers were the source of the prohibitive substance and as a matter of law, if the ATP could not prove that it was not the source, it would be equitably estopped or in other words, legally prohibited as a matter of fairness from enforcing its rule against Mr. Ulihrach. The fact is ATP could not prove that the product was not contaminated and therefore, ATP could not meet the burdened and the tribunal set aside its earlier finding of a doping offense against Mr. Ulihrach and it removed all of the penalties that it had previously imposed. The above information has been or will be disclosed in the matters of the remaining six players who tested above the 2.0 threshold and they will be dealt with on a case by case basis by the Review Board or the tribunals consistent with the procedures specified in the anti-doping rule. I want to thank again also Rich Young and Dr. Ayotte for making themselves available with us today and with that we'll take your calls.

Q. Mark, this question I suppose is for you, but how could it be that for two years ATP trainers are dispensing a product which the ATP itself is telling players not to take; where is the oversight and why did it take this to get to this point before you discovered this?

MARK MILES: It really goes back to the problem with contaminated supplements itself. As I said in the beginning, the problem in this instance with 19-norandrostedione is that there was an increased demand by the general public for products containing this and several years ago the warning to players in all sports was generally understood to be that you shouldn't take energy- or muscle-building powders because those powders were available over the counter with this prohibitive substance in it. Sometimes identified on the label; sometimes not. The problem as it got to be better understood, we realized it was a greater problem than that because there were so many manufacturers making this type of product, they also made common vitamins and common mineral supplements and that those things, even though they weren't intended to have any type of prohibitive substance in them, were at risk for contamination. The bottom line is that for the last two years we have warned players not to take any kind of supplement but our trainers did not understand that electrolyte tablets, mineral or vitamin supplements were the type of product that was also included in the category of products that were at risks.

Q. Has there been any experience of other sports, finding the same problem anywhere?

RICH YOUNG: I can take a crack at that, John. I have been doing this for ten years and I haven't seen anything like this where you have such a huge number of elevated tests and then a considerable number of positives at low levels and Christiane, what is your take on that?

DR. CHRISTIANE AYOTTE: I would say that from the beginning when we have alerted the ATP, when we noticed what I have worded in my -- along with the certificate of analysis, an unusual situation. We test about 5,000, 6,000 samples a year and the analysis in Montreal have been involved in that for more than nearly 30 years. That was unprecedented for us. And we do another parenthesis. We do the testing for the Canadian Domestic Program, but most of our samples are coming from the International Sports Federation. So that was unusual for us to see to see such a high prevalence of low-level nandrolone in the same sport, the same competition. We were not talking about body building, if I may say so, where we would expect a number of positives that would be quite substantial. So that was significantly strange and unusual to us that I have alerted the ATP right at the moment. So I can tell you that in our experience that was not seen before.

Q. Can you see any sport that tends to take these substances or is there some other explanation?

DR. CHRISTIANE AYOTTE: If I may just complete, I don't know -- at the moment when I have wrote that letter, I was not pointing to any potential explanation. We have seen in some competition held in countries where it's not usual to have such testing, to see, for example, ^ Clortestusthan, in two or three competitors, but from different sports. So this is the only time that I have seen this occurring in a single sport in a single competition. I wouldn't say that the tennis players are to be singled out. As you know, and this is the trend that we have in our lab and in most of the IOC lab the athlete we know, that most of the athletes are taking those supplements putting themselves at risk of testing positive.

MARK MILES: The type of product we are talking about here as I have referred is an electrolyte supplement, it's to help prevent players from becoming dehydrated. When I was younger and played sports we were referred to these as salt tablets. It's a very common supplement that historically athletes have taken. I can't speak to the present time.

Q. I was just wondering if there had been any experience of people playing squash or other similar sports where you get problems with sweating?

RICH YOUNG: In my experience, no, and, you know, what we have seen in supplement contamination in the past is you get a batch that's contaminated and there are lots of batches that aren't contaminated and within the contaminated batch, you are going to have some pills that are hot that end up in some bottles. So you will have lots and lots and lots of clean bottles; some bottles with some hot pills. So you can end up, you know, all sorts of people could take the very similar product and have no issue, if they were from different patches and different pills.

Q. Presumably if there is one rogue batch it's probably all gone in one batch to the tennis players?

RICH YOUNG: Yeah, I think there's a chance of that.

Q. Hat happens to Korda and Coria?

MARK MILES: The Korda and Coria cases are completely unrelated. I described at the outset that there was a pattern here. Neither one of those cases fit in the pattern. First of all, the Korda case was not a low-level comparable to these cases. These cases were all 9 or under. The Korda case was between 50 and 100. So it's a completely different set of circumstances. In the Coria case, that case did involve a small amount of nandrolone metabolites that came from a contaminated supplement. However in that case, he identified the source of the contamination. It was a vitamin supplement that he had himself purchased and taken. So it's unrelated to this particular set of circumstances.

Q. You are not expecting either of those guys to come back and challenge the suspensions?

MARK MILES: No, absolutely not. Completely unrelated.

Q. Mark, who was the second player who identified the ATP trainers' tablets as the probable offender or at least made the allegation that that was the only thing that he took?

MARK MILES: Of course we wouldn't identify any player who was not found to be guilty of a doping offense. Our practice has been consistent over the years and it's clear under our rules that we are not able to do that unless and until it's confirmed by a tribunal that a player is guilty of a doping offense.

Q. As you know, in Lleyton Hewitt's lawsuit there's an allegation that the ATP tried to some way get him banned because of finding some paper which I suppose would have him banned under the anti-doping laws. Is this related in any way?

MARK MILES: It's completely unrelated and that allegation is without merit.

Q. As a follow-up, for your organization obviously this is a potentially, you know, quite a black-eye, I mean, to have to be telling players not to do something and then to have your own trainers essentially giving them the things that you are telling them not to take, what, you know, (A) how does this reflect on the way the organization is going and (B) what can you do to, I suppose, make this communication line a little better?

MARK MILES: I appreciate the question. First of all, with respect to what has been done to ensure that this kind of thing couldn't happen again, the first thing, of course, was to stop the distribution of these products immediately. And not long thereafter we had implemented a new clear enhanced set of procedures and guidelines and controls for the distribution of any products that are used by our trainers. This was developed by physicians who are part of our medical services committee. Reviewed by Rich Young and it is in place and should ensure that we couldn't have an issue like this again. So that's the sort of the specific. But I guess -- I think your question deserves a broader answer. I actually think as troubling as this is, the situation says a lot about the ATP or the character of the ATP as an organization. Mistakes happen and this one is a significant one. There's no doubt about that. But I think in many respects what matters most is how we respond. In this case, I think that it's clear we dealt with the issue directly and professionally and applied all the appropriate resources, internal and external to the ATP, and brought all of the expertise available in the anti-doping rule to the matter. Fundamentally I believe it has been handled with integrity and with openness. Finally I guess, to me, a very important thing that it says is the fact that it demonstrates that our Tennis Anti-doping Program itself is a first-class program and that it works. A player with only molecules of a banned substance in his system will be caught and he will be treated appropriately under our rules. So we would certainly have preferred that the problem in the training room had not occurred and we don't mean to minimize that, but I do think that it demonstrates the anti-doping program works and I think it says -- I hope that it will be clear from the information that we are distributing the way that this has been handled, that that we run things professionally and in an aboveboard way.

Q. With all due respect, I think what this shows is if it wasn't for a professor in Montreal who noticed a similarity in these cases there could be seven players who are not longer playing tennis for no good reason?

MARK MILES: Well, who is to say how the situation and when the situation might have been uncovered. In this case it was uncovered as you understand, but, you know, we have actually -- we have excellent trainers. Those guys are of a very high level professionally and they are absolutely committed to the health of the players. I think the players would be the first to tell you that if they were speaking. They simply did not recognize this electrolyte tablet product as a supplement and they should have. But they didn't. In part -- I think in large part because it was a product that had been used by them, they thought effectively, for more than 20 years.

MARK YOUNG: To add to that, with all due respect, and thanks to Dr. Ayotte, I don't think that's completely fair. When we learned that our trainers were distributing these products we brought Rich Young in who launched a thorough investigation and pulled all the pieces together; that included getting further lab data from other labs and we engaged Dr. Ayotte to help us analyze those. But our reaction was prompted by the information that we learned which was that our trainers were engaged in this practice.

Q. I understand that, but you know, you have got Bohdan whose career may have well gone down the tubes for not -- for something which was not, I think we can all say, was not his fault. That would have been quite a tragedy.

MARK YOUNG: That would have been a tragedy, but again, I think given circumstances we reacted as responsibly as we could. We immediately investigated it; took the information that we had, and disclosed it to everybody who maybe affected including Bohdan and his attorney.

Q. Has he indicated that he will file any sort of legal -- pursue this legally in any way or any of these guys?

MARK YOUNG: No, we haven't had any of those discussions with them. Our energies at this point have been focused on how we can assist him getting back to playing, true entry into tournaments and that nature. We are talking to go him about that and we expect a final decision by next week.

Q. It would be fair to say that you hoped that he would accept this -- accept a mea culpa and forget about it?

MARK YOUNG: The way you worded that, I suppose the answer is yes, I would hope that.

Q. You say that you have instigated new procedures that will stop this happening again, but players are always going to need help in avoiding dehydration, et cetera, so how can you guarantee that -- presumably something still has to be given. How can you guarantee now that these new substances or different substances won't be contaminated as well?

MARK YOUNG: Under our procedures, first of all, the ATP, through its trainers or otherwise, will not be distributing any non-medicinal products; that's part of the new policy. But your question really points out the problem with contamination. You are exactly right that athletes historically have wanted to take and needed to take a nutritional supplements and things to help them from becoming dehydrated. This is a huge problem the manufacturer of a supplement that developed the last few years and there are lobbying efforts in the United States, and probably elsewhere, to bring these manufacturers under greater regulation and stop these type of products from being sold over-the-counter and putting other seemingly innocent vitamins and mineral products at risk.

Q. What is going to be the answer to players who do need help against dehydrating, taking them off and putting them on a drip?

MARK YOUNG: I am not a trainer but unfortunately, I think for the time being it's going to be ingesting fluids, appropriate fluids.

RICH YOUNG: You have the same problem in the U.K. and you have got the same problem in Australia, sports bodies are in the awful position of telling athletes you can't take supplements. If you do it's at your own risk and I don't care whether you need them or not. The worst part about this case is that, you know, in the old days people used to think that supplements meant creatine and muscle builders and stuff like that. Now supplements means normal vitamins and minerals. And in the short-term the only answer for the sports bodies is to simply say, no, anything you take is at your own risk. In the long-term, we need to get our hands around the manufacturer of the 19-nor supplements, which are causing the contamination and there's legislation -- US is one of the big problem sources of this and there's legislation before Congress right now to get those off the health food and supermarket shelves.

Q. Is something like duralite (ph) involved in this or not?

RICH YOUNG: I don't know what that is.

Q. It's a supplement that you are given here if you are very dehydrated. It is not given to sports people particularly, but for other people I mean, if you have severe attacks of diarrhea or other sickness and you lose so many fluids the doctors will often given you duralite?

DR. CHRISTIANE AYOTTE: No, no, it's not the same thing. Again, I would like to stress that we are talking about a pill containing electrolytes and minerals. So this is not a medication to be administered and condition of severe debilitation such as what is being given for -- (inaudible).

Q. Yes.

DR. CHRISTIANE AYOTTE: -- we must really make sure that we are not confusing what was taken and the purpose for that. It brings us to the same -- to that point that the athlete should be well aware that they are responsible finally, ultimately of what they ingested. And it's important that they are made aware that each pill, if not made with strict regulation and properly prepared and manufactured, may contain steroids or stimulants that are not listed on label. That may be mineral, that may be vitamins that can be all of that. So ultimately they are responsible and they should be.

RICH YOUNG: I have seen cases where athletes test positive for stimulants that aren't on the label. But they are pretty healthy doses of contamination and sometimes you wonder whether they put the stimulant in there to make their product work. Because it takes a lot of Ephedrine or pseudo-Ephedrine to trigger a positive. But the tough thing about the 19-norandrostedione contaminations are that, you know, it takes a few millionths of a gram in contamination - tiny, tiny amounts in order to trigger a positive test. And so it wouldn't hurt you. It wouldn't help you. But it will cause you to test positive.

Q. Mark, are you going to compensate Bohdan for the couple of months that he missed?

MARK MILES: As I have said earlier, all of the penalties that were originally invoked have been removed. That includes any fine amounts that were assessed. Beyond that, the only thing we are considering at the moment is helping Bohdan get back to playing as quickly as possible.

Q. He missed, I think it's, what, almost nine weeks of play now so there's no -- assuming his level, there would be some type of prize money he would have earned even if he would have lost first round in every tournament.

MARK MILES: That's correct, we are not considering that. I guess at the risk of overcomplicating this your question really points out the differences in the legal burdens here. When we are acting as the governing body seeking to enforce our rule and penalize a player, the benefit of the doubt has to go in favor of the player. The set of circumstances we had here raised the inference that our conduct may have been responsible for the positive test and the burden shift to us to demonstrate that it was not our conduct. We couldn't do that. That's different from the burden that might be imposed in a civil liability case where one would have to prove that we in fact did it to him. Based on the information we have, frankly, it's inconclusive. I don't think that anyone could prove that.

Q. Why challenge in that manner? Why not just say a mistake was made and give him the thousands he might have earned because he could draw this out for a long time unless you already know that he's not going to?

MARK MILES: As I said, our focus at the moment has been No. 1, to do the right thing, give all of the information that we had available. He used that to ask the tribunal to reopen the case. They did that. They rendered the decision that we described. Our focus is now to help him get back to playing. We don't expect that there's going to be any legal dispute here.

Q. Following up, putting myself in the shoes of the players, the next time they get back on court how thrilled are they going to be now that the trainers can't help them -- give them any supplement or minerals or vitamins when they have been depending on the trainer for so long to do that thing?

MARK MILES: That was a concern we had some weeks ago when we first discovered that the trainers were giving these products out and that the players were accustomed to receiving them. When we discovered that we immediately halted that distribution and we sent a notice out to the players, through our weekly newsletter, notifying them that consistent with the warnings we have been giving to them our trainers would no longer be distributing the products. We have not really received much feedback since we did that. That has been the case now since Hamburg.

RICH YOUNG: I can offer a global perspective on that. Athletes would not be happy at all that they can't take any supplements or they can't be helped. I hear from athletes all the time when you say, you know, all you can tell me is just say no; that's not an acceptable answer. We need a better one. I agree with them. That's why you got to get the 19-nors off the market. It's silly that I can give my wife and kids, you know, vitamins and mineral replacement products, but, you know, if I had an elite athlete in the family, they'd be crazy to take it.

Q. Isn't there some type of product that the ATP and other sporting bodies can test before you bring it out to the players and go through all the anti-doping agencies and say okay, this type of supplement is okay for all players, and all sports and tennis specifically? The players are paying the trainers to help them.

RICH YOUNG: The rules in tennis are the same as the rules in all sports. The whole Olympic movement prohibits nandrolone and it has a cutoff of two nanograms per mil for men. And in order to give an assurance you would have to have a great deal of control and confidence in the manufacturing process because working from the assumption that a few billionths of a gram can cause a positive test, you need to know that there is no 19-nors manufactured in the same facility as your supplement product and that all the ingredients in your supplement product meet the same test and that all the ingredients in whatever they made in the facility before they made your supplement product meet your same test. So you'd almost have to have a virgin manufacturing line.

Q. Inform me on this. Does almost every electrolyte replacement product possibly have nandrolone in it even Pedialyte that is given to babies?

DR. CHRISTIANE AYOTTE: I am jumping into the conversation, and excuse me for this, Pedialyte is made by a pharmaceutical company. They are made with strictly stringent quality control that can't alter. What we are talking about, we are talking about products that are manufactured by an industry that's poorly regulated. And when Rich is describing the tiny amount of steroid, we should still remember that we are talking about hormones, male hormones, and we certainly wouldn't be happy to know that we may inadvertently ingest those hormone repeatedly. We would not be happy if that were the case with food stuff, or meat or things like that. It's very important that we get rid of those hormones. But again, we should not be losing site that we are not talking about medication prepared under strictly, good string subsequent quality control, but unregulated supplements. So it comes to the point where we have been asked to look for supplements that will be clean for the athlete. And that we are really reluctant to do. First, we have to ask the question: How many of those substances, miracle products, are really, really needed by the athlete? And the number would go from thousand to a handful of substances. And really what is the point? We must educate the athletes. All of us are talking as if it's really necessary to take a pill for this and that. And that's -- that may not be the case so there's a huge job of education first. We should get rid of hormones being legally freely distributed for our self administration for the athlete and for the usual population, for sure, and we must push that industry to maybe have lower profits, but to regulate itself properly. And they have not been able to do so in the past.

Q. With all that said, if a player is dehydrated and cramping, having a couple of glasses of water is not as good as having a product with electrolytes in it?

DR. CHRISTIANE AYOTTE: That would be all right but not pills from a manufacturer on the side.

Q. Why not take a product like Pedialyte, give it to the ATP trainers and tell them they can give it to the players?

DR. CHRISTIANE AYOTTE: But this is their own decision. I don't think that there's a relationship that some athletes and people must have with their physician and properly trained and knowledge of the individual. So athletes should always refer to knowledge of the individual before getting into taking whatever type of product - you are talking about the dehydration, it may be vitamin, it may be this stimulant and this and that. Athletes should be very careful and the people counseling athletes should also be aware of what they are doing for sure.

Q. One thing, from what I can tell and just from having covered a little bit of stuff at the Olympics, these minor levels are not in any way performance enhancing; why is this a problem?

DR. CHRISTIANE AYOTTE: I would like to explain this because this is very important. One cannot say that because three nanogram or four nanogram were measured in the urine sample, that automatically what has been taken is not performance enhancing. What Richard was giving to you, was explaining to you was that if the test results are due to a contaminated supplement the amount of steroid present in that supplement could be very low, something as a few microgram per ml and that's very tiny amount would not be performance enhancing. That being said, when we are having a positive test, if we see seven nanograms per ml in a urine sample we cannot say that because it's seven, what has been taken, is not performance enhancing. That could have been a seven coming from a past administration of a nandrolone pharmaceutical preparation dating from several weeks before that we have no way to know. But this -- in this specific set of circumstances we have possibly supplements that were or pills that were contaminated with minuscule, very low amount of the nor steroids; that will not be performance enhancing. You understand the difference?

Q. I do. And I see the distinction. I just from what -- I suppose the main distinction being that if somebody took a substance a month prior to testing then perhaps it had diluted at the point of testing to the point where it might be the same level as a contaminated and therefore you wouldn't know because you don't know intent?

DR. CHRISTIANE AYOTTE: Voila.

RICH YOUNG: You can give me the exact numbers on that following up on that, but if you take a vitamin that's contaminated with a few millionths of a gram of a 19-nor steroid, and you are tested within a couple of hours, you can have a positive seven nanogram per ml test. If you take 19-norandrostedione; which in the US you can buy at the health food store; and you test that within a few hours, you are going to be in the tens of thousands of nanograms per ml. But then how many days later?

DR. CHRISTIANE AYOTTE: Two days later you will be at 7 or 10, the same amount. And if you take a shot of nandrolone really the shot the form pharmaceutical preparation, you will go up to 100, 200 and then slowly decrease in the urine, the body will get rid of the substance and maybe five, six months after you will test at the same levels. This is what is very important. So we can't say -- you have to always remember that one can't extrapolate what is found in a urine sample to the dose taken to the time of administration, to the mode. But in that specific case we are not looking -- we are looking at the exit and the entry. And the entry we kind of -- we think we know, so it's in line. If the entry is a contamination by few micrograms of norandione, then it's not performance enhancing. That doesn't mean that it could not be detrimental to the health. That may be a difference also. We have no further questions at this time.

MARK MILES: We have nothing else to add at this end. If you have no further questions we truly appreciate you being on the call, making the special effort especially those who just worked the long two weeks at Wimbledon. We'll be around if you have any questions and if we can be of help. Thank you very much.

End of FastScripts….