317.692.9000

William Bock USADA Anti-Doping General Counsel Promoting Athlete Safety

Return to Previous Page
View large
Ethics Investigations and Crisis Management, Sports and Entertainment Law

William Bock USADA Anti-Doping General Counsel Promoting Athlete Safety

Posted on October 31, 2019 at 3:44 pm by

 

“Bill Bock said USADA began investigating after Salazar released an open letter response to allegations against his coaching philosophies, brought by several NOP athletes and a staff member. Salazar’s letter was concerning, Bock said, because he admitted to experimenting with testosterone.”

Read the entire article here https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/web-exclusive-anti-doping-counsel-says-athlete-safety-trumps-self-preservation

Bill has extensive experience with athlete eligibility matters arising under specialized rules and statutes such as the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (the “Sports Act”).  Bill was involved in one of the early arbitrations under the Act in 1994 and in numerous arbitrations under the Sports Act since that time.

 

Previous
Bill Bock and the USADA Team

About Author

Kgrlaw

Kgrlaw

Related posts

More details
Blog, News, Sports and Entertainment Law

Bill Bock and the USADA Team

October 21, 2019 at 12:52 pm by

Kroger, Gardis & Regas partner, Bill Bock, who serves as General Counsel to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) recently concluded a high profile investigation into anti-doping rule violations engaged in by Alberto Salazar and Dr. Jeffrey Brown, who were affiliated with the well-known distance running group formerly known as the Nike Oregon Project (NOP). Salazar, once regarded as one of the best known running coaches in the world, and Brown, who served for years as a performance consultant to the Nike Oregon Project (NOP), are now suspended from the sport for four years. On September 5, 2019, a AAA arbitration panel found Salazar guilty of trafficking testosterone, tampering with the doping control process and administration of prohibited, over-limit L-carnitine infusions. The arbitration cases against Salazar and Brown were the result of a more than 6 year investigation into the conduct of Salazar and Brown by USADA and a 2 year arbitration process in which Salazar and Brown contested the charges against them and Bock served as USADA’s lead counsel. USADA’s investigation was aided by whistle blowers who came forward with their personal observations and provided USADA with access to their patient records with Brown and their email communications with Salazar. Fallout from the ban has resulted in the NOP being shuttered in an announcement made by Nike the week after the arbitration decisions. “The athletes in these cases found the courage to speak out and ultimately exposed the truth,” said USADA Chief Executive Officer Travis T. Tygart. “While acting in connection with the Nike Oregon…

News, Sports and Entertainment Law

Bill Bock helps keep the Olympic playing field level.

February 15, 2017 at 10:47 am by

KGR partner Bill Bock was profiled in the recent edition of Super Lawyers magazine. Bill has been named a Super Lawyer since 2015 and is most well known for his service as General Counsel for the United States Anti-Doping Agency. Bill began with USADA as outside counsel in 2000 and became General Counsel in 2007.  His time with USADA encompassed the BALCO scandal, the Lance Armstrong investigation, and most recently, investigation of state-sponsored doping. In addition to his extensive work in the field of sports law, Bill is also a skilled civil litigator and regularly counsels clients on election and municipal law.  We are extremely proud to have Bill as a leader of the KGR family. You can read the full profile here.  

Blog, Corporate Law, Ethics Investigations and Crisis Management

Documenting and follow-up for the investigation

October 7, 2016 at 4:59 pm by

In a prior posts, we wrote about why you may need an internal investigation, who should conduct the investigation, and the planning and conduct of the investigation. In this post, we will discuss documenting and following-up on the investigation. Documenting the investigation is crucial – the work isn’t done until the paperwork is completed.  You must evaluate the facts you discovered and determine the merits of the complaint. Segregate the facts into disputed and undisputed facts.  Can you reach a decision solely by looking at the undisputed facts?  If so, you do not need to move forward and consider the disputed facts. Review the witness statements and determine whether the statements were consistent. Where inconsistencies exist, consider whether a witness had any reason to be less than truthful. Do documents support one side or the other? In assessing the credibility of the statements, consider additional factors such as prior incidents that may reflect on credibility, the witnesses’ motives, demeanor and plausibility.  Generally, you will find that when conflicting evidence exists, one version of the events is more plausible than the other.  If does not mean that the less plausible version could not happen, only that it is less likely. After you have gathered and examined the facts and reached your conclusion, have someone else review the facts and conclusions.  A fresh set of eyes will point out missing evidence, conclusions not supported by the evidence, and may have alternative conclusions. Once you have determined what likely happened, you must apply the conclusions to determine if misconduct…

Blog, Corporate Law, Ethics Investigations and Crisis Management

Planning and conducting the investigation

September 14, 2016 at 3:21 pm by

In a prior posts, we wrote about why you may need an internal investigation and who should conduct the investigation. Once you decide an investigation is necessary – what’s next?  In this post, we will discuss planning and conducting the investigation. Planning the investigation The “5Ps” apply here: Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance.  A plan streamlines the investigation by giving it focus.  It results in a thorough investigation, completed swiftly, and thereby creating the least disruption for the institution. A good plan begins with understanding the allegation – who did what to whom?  If it is a written complaint, read the complaint, then read it again.  If you were to accept everything in the complaint as true, identify what witnesses you would need to interview to confirm the facts and what documents would support the allegation.  Then, look at the complaint from the other perspective, are there any other witnesses you would want to interview or documents you would want to review to disprove the allegation.  If electronic documents will be reviewed, contact IT or the person responsible to ensure all the documents are preserved.  Find out what back-up or archived materials might be available to rebuild evidence that might otherwise have been destroyed. Do you need others on your team?  Is the investigation so large or is speed so necessary to require multiple investigators?  Do you need to bring in a forensic accountant or computer examiner? With those thoughts in mind, develop a written plan for conducting the investigation.  Begin with the allegation and the…

Blog, Corporate Law, Ethics Investigations and Crisis Management

Investigating employee misconduct is not enough, the right person must lead the investigation.

August 15, 2016 at 2:59 pm by

In a prior post, we wrote about why you may need an internal investigation. Once you decide an investigation is necessary – what’s next?  In this post, we will discuss who how to select an investigator.  In follow-up posts we discuss planning and conducting the investigation, and documenting and following-up on the results of the investigation. Deciding who will conduct the investigation. Generally, internal investigations are conducted by someone inside the organization or by outside counsel.  Depending on the nature of the allegation, there may also be reason to hire private investigators or other professionals in order to conduct technical reviews such as audio or video surveillance, a computer forensic search or a forensic accounting examination.  But by and large, investigations are run in-house or through counsel. An in-house investigation should be led by someone with independence.  Of course it does little good if your “independent” investigation is led by someone who is not-so-independent.  Independence is not determined by the quality of the person nominated to run the investigation, but rather the perception of independence.  Below are just a few of the considerations. Does the nominee have a stake in the outcome?  Certainly you would not appoint someone who is in the department where the misconduct occurred.  But did the nominee work in the department in the past – a former head of the department, or someone currently in the chain of command, would be perceived as benefiting by not finding systemic misconduct that may be traced back to her leadership.  If the nominee wants to…

Comments are closed

©2017 Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP. All rights reserved.
close