Link to: documents, information about the experts and articles that have been in the media.

To be able to get a better picture of the case which I have been through, I have posted several of the documents. Openness has been important for me from day one, in order to understand what led to the false positive test of my urine sample taken May 1, 2010.

You will here find the reports for the A- and B-samples, in addition to a number of other documents from the proceedings. You can also find information about some of the scientific experts who have helped me. There is also a list of articles published about this case.

There are a few things with this case that I want to make you as a visitor aware of:

We asked both NIF (The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation) and CAS (COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT) to use independent experts (not only their own employees), but they did not. When the main judge in the case in Norway, said to the media that much of what the experts discussed “went over his head”, it indicate that the judging panel should have used independent experts with experience of the analyses used.

There are 94 experts that have signed a document stating that the data do not show the presence of CERA in my urine sample, which the doping laboratories state that contain CERA.

CAS: When it finally was decided (in February 2011) that the case should go directly to CAS and not as according to the NIF's rules to the Appel utvalget(Appellate court), we had about a month to deliver our documents. They were sent to CAS on March 30. According to the CAS regulations the IAAF then had 30 days to return with their reply.

From the day we delivered our papers until the start of the case in Lausanne, there are several issues that make me question if I got a fair procedure. I will here mention some of them.

It started with IAAF criticizing what we had submitted so they would "win" more time, and the CAS allowed them. An example of this was that the IAAF criticized that my medical papers, from my doctor, was not in English (the agreed language). I found that strange since the medical papers were written in "medical language" which doctors/professionals understand! Thus we had to resend these documents, this time in English.

In late April 2011 CAS informed both parties that the witness lists and expert opinions had to be delivered to CAS within May 5 2011. Both parties (we and IAAF) submitted a witness list by this date. IAAF said that they would have Lasne, Botre and probably one more witness.

We received the main documents from IAAF on Friday (June 24 2011), approximately 84 hours before the start of the hearing in Lausanne. The “package” contained more than 700 pages and was delivered by e-mail to my lawyer from 17.22 to 19.05 that evening. When we arrived in Lausanne on Monday (the day before the trial began), we received another 150 pages from IAAF. I wonder how CAS could allow IAAF to deliver such a huge amount of documents so close to the hearing. My experts and my lawyer, who had to go through the document package of 700 pages during the weekend, had to work very late the night before the start of the trial to read the documents received that day. The documents received during the last days before the start of the trial in Lausanne, included reports from a total of 6 witnesses, not 3 as IAAF reported within the timelines given to both parties. When the trial started in Lausanne, my lawyer commented upon these changes and the huge amount of pages received in the "last minute". He demanded that the IAAF only could use the three witnesses that they had disclosed the 5th of May. To this the CAS judge panel answered that although it was not optimal to receive such quantities of paper so close to the hearing, they would let IAAF use all documents and all witnesses. In this case CAS used one set of rules for me and my experts and another set of rules for IAAF.

Link to: documents, information about the experts and articles that have been in the media.