My Journey to Expose the Truth in USADA’s Flawed System

First, I want to express my gratitude to everyone who has shown me support and kindness during this heartbreaking time. Your compassion has lifted my spirits as much as humanly possible.

To those who have expressed doubt or criticism on social media, I understand your concern for fairness in sports, and I share that commitment. It is crucial that we uphold the integrity of our sport through accurate and reliable testing methods.

However, I will continue to address and expose the accusations leveled against me by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). These allegations are deeply upsetting, and I want to state unequivocally that they are unfounded, flawed, and without merit. I can look into the eyes of my family, friends, coaches, teammates, and competitors, and I can look at myself in the mirror, knowing with absolute certainty that I am innocent of what I have been accused of.

Most of you reading this have either been a competitive swimmer or love someone who is. We put countless hours into our training and sacrifice so much in pursuit of achieving our goals. My dream since I was little was to be an Olympian like my mom. I accomplished that in 2021 by representing the United States at the Summer Olympics in Tokyo. I felt I had a great shot at making the team again. Even while going through this nightmare of a rollercoaster I was unfairly put on, I remained focused and positive knowing the truth.

Sunday night, I felt like I was having an out-of-body experience watching the 1500M Finals and wishing I was racing those guys. Here I sit, unfairly banned from doing what I love, training with my friends, with the potential to represent my country, and with an unknown future as I continue to fight.

Although I am still waiting for CAS’s full decision, in the spirit of transparency and a true commitment to clean sport, I want to provide insight into what has been occurring. You are reading about alleged abnormalities in my blood values. These abnormalities are being inaccurately molded into a narrative that expert medical testimony (a hematologist at the Mayo Clinic) and an independent arbitrator agreed did not add up, considering my documented COVID-19 infection, training and detraining periods, and improper handling of samples. Despite this and my consistent negative tests for any banned substance, USADA chose to ignore these factors.

Considering I won my appeal by an independent arbitrator and USADA pushed forward anyway, I can’t help but feel like a pawn in their attempt to appear clean while pointing fingers at other countries. Am I paying the ultimate price of my dreams and reputation while being innocent? I remain committed to proving my innocence and upholding the integrity of clean sport. Not only that, but I also don’t want any other athlete to suffer the same unfair fate, so I am eager to expose a flawed system.

This is going to be a little long-winded, so please bear with me, but I believe it’s important to lay out the facts.

To begin, the independent arbitrator found several key issues with USADA’s allegations, ruling in my favor and finding my explanations reasonable. In her ruling, the arbitrator stated:

“Based on all the evidence of record, the Arbitrator finds the values of Sample 9, Sample 10 and Sample 11 as well as the scientific analysis by the ABP experts of Respondent’s longitudinal profile, is not sufficient to establish Respondent committed an ADRV by the use of ESA, such as an EPO, or a Prohibited Method to the comfortable satisfaction of the Arbitrator. In so doing, the Arbitrator considered no blood samples were collected for a seven week period when Respondent was sick with the Covid-19 virus.

What USADA essentially argued before CAS was they should examine evidence in a vacuum, with no consideration of the surrounding circumstances whatsoever. This approach is fundamentally flawed and unfair, as it disregards the necessity of a holistic view of all evidence, including potential non-doping explanations for the alleged abnormalities.

The burden of proof in doping cases lies with the anti-doping agency, in this case, USADA. They must establish, to the comfortable satisfaction of the arbitrator, that a doping violation has occurred. However, USADA’s approach in this case effectively shifts the burden of proof onto me, requiring me to prove my innocence rather than them proving my guilt.

This is particularly problematic because USADA’s case relies heavily on interpretations of my Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) data, which can be influenced by numerous non-doping factors such as illness, hydration status, and training variations. By ignoring these factors and insisting that the tribunal consider only their expert interpretations, USADA is attempting to simplify a complex situation to fit their narrative.

USADA’s Allegations

Because I’ve never tested positive for a banned substance, USADA’s case hinges on alleged abnormalities in my Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) data — particularly samples collected in 2022, during a period when I was recovering from COVID-19 and had taken a significant break from training. They assert that my hemoglobin levels and reticulocyte percentages during this period could only be explained by the use of Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents (ESAs) or blood manipulation.

Yet, every urine sample collected alongside the ABP blood samples tested negative for any doping agent, ESA, or any other illegal substance.

Here are the samples in question:

• Sample 9: Collected on July 20, 2022
• Sample 10: Collected on August 5, 2022
• Sample 11: Collected on September 27, 2022

Since this gets technical very quickly, here is a brief explanation of what the ABP is.

The ABP tracks biological markers in athletes over time to detect doping. Blood values that fall outside the “normal” range are flagged for further investigation, but abnormalities don’t automatically mean doping has occurred.

For example, the first photo is an ABP with no “abnormalities.”

While this photo is an example that does record “abnormalities.”

In the above example, both the upper and lower limits are clearly breached several times; each breach may be considered an “abnormality.”

However, a breach of the upper and lower limit thresholds does not necessarily mean that any doping has taken place. Rather, it simply means that additional investigation is required to determine whether any of the observed “abnormalities” can be explained by non-doping causes — such as blood loss, changes in training regimen, physiological reactions to changes in altitude, etc.

In my case, USADA never considered any of the reasonable explanations that experts or I presented to explain their ‘abnormalities.’

USADA ignored the impact of COVID-19 on my blood values. I tested positive for COVID in early June 2022, and Dr. Ronald Go, a hematologist at the Mayo Clinic, explained that my blood values would have dropped during my illness and then increased as my body recovered, demonstrating the higher reticulocyte percentage (a type of blood cell) in my sample taken in late July 2022.

“If Mr. Brinegar did suffer from anemia / lowered hemoglobin values as a result of his COVID disease, then his hemoglobin values would have dropped far below any of the values seen in his ABP profile, and then his reticulocyte percentage would have gone up dramatically as his body attempted to recover from the COVID-induced anemia / lowered hemoglobin values.”

USADA dismisses the possibility that I developed anemia after contracting COVID-19 simply because they didn’t take any blood samples during the relevant time period. How can they make such a claim without any concrete evidence? This is particularly outrageous given that it was USADA and anti-doping agencies like it that had complete control over when and how many ABP blood samples were collected. For USADA to not collect ABP blood samples at all during this time period and then argue that those blood values, if they had bothered to collect them, would support its blood doping scenarios is egregious.

USADA’s so-called ‘expert’ then stated:

“Irrespective of whether the athlete developed anemia after his COVID infection in early June, Sample 9, collected on July 20, 2022, shows no signs of anemia — HGB is in the normal range both for the athlete (based on his upper and lower reference ranges) and for healthy males.”

This assertion contradicts the expert’s own earlier admission that by July 20, 2022, my blood values would likely have returned to normal even if I had been anemic earlier.

They also ignored the effect of hydration on my blood values. Experts have found hydration levels can significantly affect blood values. When dehydrated, hemoglobin levels can appear higher; when overhydrated, they can appear lower.

Using the Urine Specific Gravity (USG) information from the Doping Control Officer Reports (DCORs), it is evident that I was dehydrated when Sample 11 was collected, with a USG of 1.032 (anything above 1.030 is considered dehydrated). This dehydration likely caused the increased hemoglobin levels seen in that sample. Conversely, Sample 9 showed overhydration (USG of 1.013), which could lead to lower hemoglobin values. Consequently, my hydration state and the timing of sample collection contributed to the variability seen across the samples.

USADA also ignored the effects of my training and detraining periods. Leading up to Sample 9, I took a complete break from training due to COVID from May 28 to July 17, 2022, and then gradually resumed albeit with a reduced training load up to the competition in Canada in late August. By the time Sample 11 was collected on September 27, 2022, I had only been lightly training for a few weeks after taking a week off for my brother’s wedding in Virginia. Studies show that detraining in athletes causes a significant loss in plasma volume, leading to increased hemoglobin levels.

Research by Coyle (1986) indicates that in trained athletes, a 4-week detraining period can cause a 12% loss in plasma volume, resulting in a 6% rise in hemoglobin concentration.

Between Samples 10 (15.6) and 11 (17.2), this hemoglobin increase of approximately 10.25% can be largely attributed to plasma volume reduction during my period of reduced training.

Further, a recently published paper by Bastien (2024) supports that plasma volume shifts in elite athletes are greater than in the non-athlete population, emphasizing the need to consider these confounding factors.

Bastien states:

“The results of this study suggested a higher variability of multiple variables included in the hematological module of the ABP (e.g., ABPS) in elite athletes compared with healthy control subjects… increased occurrences of atypical variations in blood parameters (such as [Hb]) were observed in elite athletes, likely caused by PV shifts.”

Therefore, the detraining effects on hemoglobin values observed in the Coyle paper likely underestimated the effect on an elite athlete like me. The plasma volume loss caused by detraining would exceed the 12% seen in the older study. Additionally, attributing half of the hemoglobin increase from Sample 9 (15.6) to Sample 11 (17.2) to detraining brings the increase down to 16.6 — a normal value in my ABP.

USADA did not follow WADA guidelines on refrigeration samples either. Sample 11 was found to be in a hot car for one day, three hours, and 36 minutes. As a result, improper refrigeration of Sample 11 during transport as cannot be ruled out as a contributing factor to the elevated HGB concentration.

And finally, there is no plausible scenario where I would be doping. USADA’s case relies on the alleged pattern in Samples 9, 10, and 11, suggesting erythropoietic stimulation consistent with EPO use. However, no scientific basis supports that I administered EPO in May 2022. ABP sample 8 from May 14 was completely normal, and the elevated reticulocyte percentage in Sample 9 on July 20 could not have resulted from EPO use in May. Furthermore, the elevated hemoglobin in Sample 11 on September 27 cannot be linked to EPO allegedly used months earlier.

The only other theory advanced is that I used an ESA (such as EPO) in July and/or August. This is farfetched for several reasons:

• I withdrew from the World Championships on June 4, 2022, after a positive COVID test and took my longest ever training break. From May 28 until July 18, I did not train at all, and even when I resumed training, it was extremely light in comparison to my normal training all the way into October 2022. The use of an ESA during a period of no training (or light training) and no racing is not sensical.
• I did not compete at all for three months, from May 28 to August 27, 2022. My results at the August 27 competition were far below my normal standards due to my illness, the extensive training break, and the subsequent light training.
• At the first hearing, I testified that my intention for the August 27 competition was to gain more international experience and gauge my fitness post-COVID and post-training break. Taking EPO to improve my performance in a relatively inconsequential competition would be counter-productive to this goal.
• For nearly the entire period USADA alleges I was blood doping, I was either not training or training lightly. Their blood doping scenario is implausible in the extreme.

These factors led the independent arbitrator to rule in my favor. Here is her reasoning from her decision:

“Based on all the evidence of record, the Arbitrator finds the values of Sample 9, Sample 10 and Sample 11 as well as the scientific analysis by the ABP experts of Respondent’s longitudinal profile, is not sufficient to establish Respondent committed an ADRV by the use of ESA, such as an EPO, or a Prohibited Method to the comfortable satisfaction of the Arbitrator. In so doing, the Arbitrator considered no blood samples were collected for a seven week period when Respondent was sick with the Covid-19 virus.

The absence of blood samples during the period Respondent suffered from the Covid-19 infection coupled with the failure to establish a plausible doping scenario reduced the confidence of the Arbitrator below her comfortable satisfaction. Both Dr. MØrkeberg and Dr. Lewis indicated ESA can be used by an athlete to improve performance or to improve the athlete’s training and to increase aerobics capacity. ABP experts explained poor performance does not necessarily mean the athlete did not dope because the athlete’s performance can be affected by various factors, i.e., altitude or other physical condition. Regarding Respondent’s use of ESA, the ABP experts use of ESA took place after the May 14, 2022, when Sample 8 was collected, and before July 20, 2022, when Sample 9 was collected. In the alternative, Dr. Lewis indicated the use of ESA “did not necessarily stop” on July 20, 2022, because Sample 10, collected on August 5, 2022, still shows an elevated %RET value. Dr. Lewis suggested Respondent may have micro-doped to “catch up with his training” and due to his competition on August 27, 2022.

The Arbitrator is not persuaded by the plausible doping scenarios suggested by the ABP experts or by Claimant for the following reasons: A close review of the record shows that on May 14, 2022, Sample 8 was collected and no abnormalities were flagged or are at issue with Sample 8. From May 28, 2022, when Respondent returned from Portugal, until July 20, 2022, when Sample 9 was collected, Respondent did not participate in any competition and was essentially in the longest training break of his career as an elite athlete because he had contracted Covid-19 on June 4, 2022. In this regard, I considered that Respondent withdrew from the 25 K World Championship in Budapest due to his illness and lack of preparation. Thereafter, Respondent returned home to Indiana and on July 18, 2022, two days before Sample 9 was collected, began to train with his mother, a swimming coach, with a modified training routine with significantly less volume. At the time, the uncontroverted record shows he was sleeping over twelve hours and was training at a very low level. Therefore, from mid- May 2022 until July 18, 2022, (two days before Sample 9 was collected) there was no competition that may provide a plausible doping scenario and there is no record to show Respondent was training at a level that would have required the use of to “catch up” or to accelerate his training capacity.

The Arbitrator also considered the second plausible doping scenario that Respondent doped or micro-doped to “catch up” with his training and to improve his performance at the FINA Marathon Swim World Series on August 27, 2022, or because has no sponsors. In view of the totality of the record, the Arbitrator finds Respondent’s participation on August 27th is insufficient to establish plausible doping scenario. There is no record evidence to support the claim Respondent participated on the August 27th competition because he was searching for a sponsor. Additionally, the totality of the record supports Respondent’s claim that for the first time he participated in the FINA World Series to gain experience and that he did not expect to win any prize because he was competing with the best swimmer in the world after the longest training break in his career.

Lastly, as for the abnormalities found in Sample 11, the Arbitrator considered Respondent’s detraining explanation was rejected by the ABP experts based, in part, on his written explanation that he was training “much harder” at OSU. The Arbitrator also considered the ABP experts found the Coyle study inapplicable to Respondent because he described his training in September 2022, as “much harder.” Nonetheless, as part of this record Respondent provided additional evidence which shows that he was not training much harder by early September 2022. Thus, the Coyle study may be relevant when examining the values of Sample 11. In this regard, the Arbitrator considered the Coyle study showed that a 4-week period of detraining in trained athletes affected the plasma volume of the athletes and resulted in a rise of their HB. Thus, the Coyle study shows that it is “probable” the long period of detraining affected Respondent’s HB value in Sample 11.”

For those that read this in its entirety, I hope you better understand why this is the most helpless, crushed, and let down I have ever felt in my entire life. The United States is better than this. I will continue to fight to rightfully clear my name.

Thank you for your support. It means the world to me.

Michael