CAUSE NO. 201642848
IN RE: USADA,

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

§
§
§
§
§
§

Petitioner.

129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ict
 C
ler
k

(Jeffrey Stuart Brown, M.D.)

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM BOCK, III

COUNTY OF MARION

l D
ist
r

§
§
§

STATE OF INDIANA

nie

Before me, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, on this

Da

day personally appeared William Bock, III, and who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes

hr

"My name is William Bock, III. I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind, and

 C

1.

is 

and states as follows:

e 

of

capable of making this affidavit. The facts stated in this affidavit are within my personal knowledge

I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in the States oflndiana and Colorado. I am

y O

2.

ffic

and are true and correct.

Beginning in 2001, I served as outside counsel to USADA. I became the General

of
fic

3.

ial

 C

the U.S. Supreme Court.

op

also admitted to practice before several federal districts courts, the Sixth and Seventh Circuits and

Un

Counsel for USADA in 2007 and have served in that role ever since. Under the direction of our
CEO, Travis Tygart, my responsibilities include general supervision of USADA legal matters,
oversight and management of USADA investigations and, with the assistance of our legal team,
handling results management of our cases, including arbitration in cases where the individual
accused of a rule violation does not voluntarily accept a sanction.

AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM BOCK, III
2016-07-13 Affidavit of William Bock 4839-4927-2116 v. l

PAGEi

 4.

USADA is a Colorado not-for-profit organization. USADA is registered to conduct

business in Texas and has employees in Texas.
5.

USADA's mission is to protect the rights of clean athletes and seek a level playing

ict
 C
ler
k

field for all athletes by inspiring true sport and deterring the use of banned drugs. USADA was
created due to a perception that U.S. athletes representing our country in the Olympic Games were
using banned drugs. Before USADA, U.S. Olympic Sport had a "fox guarding the henhouse"

l D
ist
r

problem, with the same sports organization whose goal was to bring home medals being responsible
for enforcing anti-doping rules.

nie

As the unfolding Russian doping scandal illustrates, there is tremendous pressure in

Da

6.

is 

international sport to win at all costs. USADA is intended to help ensure that when we send athletes

hr

to represent America in the Olympic Games and in other international competition we can be proud

of

 C

of our athletes' efforts and that, to the greatest extent possible, we send teams of clean athletes who

USADA is independent of the U.S. Olympic Committee and is the congressionally

y O

7.

ffic

e 

are competing in the right way, in compliance with the rules.

op

authorized national anti-doping agency for the United States. In Olympic Sport and Paralympic

 C

Sport, there is a uniform set of anti-doping rules which are applied across all sports known as the

of
fic

ial

World Anti-Doping Code. The Code provides for independent national anti-doping agencies to be
organized in each country to oversee the anti-doping program for Olympic and Paralympic Sport in

Un

that country. USADA's role, therefore, is to operate as the U.S. national anti-doping organization in
the context of this global effort to achieve a level playing field and eliminate banned performance
enhancing drugs in sport.
8.

USADA's Olympic anti-doping program is funded 2/3 by Congress and 1/3 through a

contract with the U.S. Olympic Committee. USADA's responsibilities include the education of
AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM BOCK, III
2016-07-13 Affidavit of William Bock 4839-4927-2116 v.1

PAGE2

 athletes, maintaining a registered testing pool of some of America's best athletes, conducting in
competition and out of competition drug testing, investigating potential anti-doping rule violations
and bringing forward cases where we find that anti-doping rules have been violated.
Dr. Brown was for a number of years, including 2003, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, and

l D
ist
ric
t C
ler
k

9.

2013, amember of USA Track & Field ("USATF") which is a U.S. Sport National Governing Body
and a member organization of the U.S. Olympic Committee. As acknowledged in his court filings
in this proceeding, Dr. Brown has provided services as an athlete support person to a significant
number of elite U.S. athletes. Dr. Brown's activities as an athlete support person are well-known

Da

nie

within the sport community and he actively promotes his services to athletes as well as his

A true and correct copy of an email from USATF confirming Dr. Brown's

hr

10.

is 

connection to the U.S. Olympic Committee and USATF.

of

 C

membership in USATF is attached hereto as Exhibit A. As a member ofUSATF, Dr. Brown is

ffic

e 

subject to USADA's anti-doping rules and protocol. True and correct copies ofUSATF's 2012

Beginning earlier this decade, USADA began to observe that a number ofUSATF

op

11.

y O

Competition Rules and Governance Handbook are attached hereto as Exhibit B.

 C

athletes were traveling to Houston, Texas to be treated by Dr. Jeffrey Brown. This pattern of travel,

fic
ial

all to one out-of-state doctor, began to raise concerns about the nature of Dr. Brown's treatments and

Discussions we have had with athletes about Dr. Brown's treatments and their

Un

12.

of

whether his treatments violated anti-doping rules.

concerns about the services he has provided have furthered our concerns. For example, a number of
patients claim not to have been informed of the nature of the treatments given. There also appears to
be a nexus between the treatments and efforts to maximize sport performance. For instance, several
of the athletes believed their treatment was related to sport performance as opposed to treatment of a
AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM BOCK, III
2016-07-13 Affidavit of William Bock 4839-4927-2116 v.1

PAGE3

 medical condition. Some athletes even report that the treatments were both preceded by, and
followed by, treadmill tests, which they understood were meant to evaluate the impact of the
treatments on their sport performance. In addition, variability in blood profiles of some patients

ict
 C
ler
k

raises concerns about possible manipulation, and at least one athlete was asked to transport
testosterone, which is a banned substance, from Dr. Brown to a coach. Finally, there are apparent
inconsistencies between the claims made by coaches and athletes of the extent of Dr. Brown's

13.

l D
ist
r

involvement with their care and what is reflected in medical records USADA has reviewed.
As mentioned above, USADA has spoken with athletes concerning the nature of Dr.

Da

nie

Brown's treatments. A number of these athletes have been forthcoming, but like many patients do

is 

not know the specifics of what Dr. Brown was treating them with. Last year and continuing into this

hr

year, USADA provided to Dr. Brown a series of medical record releases signed by his athlete

of

 C

patients which requested two things of Dr. Brown. First, Dr. Brown was requested to provide

ffic

e 

complete medical records of these patients to USADA. Second, Dr. Brown was specifically

y O

requested by these patients to verbally discuss their care with USADA and to respond to any

Although Dr. Brown partially complied with his patients' requests by producing some

 C

14.

op

questions that USADA might have about their care.

of
fic

ial

records, he has refused to answer USADA's questions, which is a necessary component of our
investigation, particularly given the disorganized fashion and illegibility of the records Dr. Brown

Un

provided. A representative example of Dr. Brown's records is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
15.

Doctor Brown, through his counsel, also complained about the form of the releases

his patients provided.

USADA therefore obtained new directives/releases from each of the

following athlete patients of Dr. Brown:
;
AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM BOCK, III
2016-07-13 Affidavit of William Bock 4839-4927-2116 v. l

PAGE4

 ;
;
;

ict
 C
ler
k

;
; and
.

l D
ist
r

True and correct copies of these directive/releases, redacted to remove protected health information,
are attached hereto as Exhibits D 1-7. Un-redacted copies of these releases were provided to Dr.

Da

Through these releases, Dr. Brown's patients have (1) certified that they have been a

is 

16.

nie

Brown's counsel on July 11, 2016.

hr

patient or client of Dr. Brown and Endocrinology Associates of Houston, (2) authorized the release

of

 C

of all of their patient records to USADA, and (3) requested that Dr. Brown submit to a deposition

As a result, we filed the instant Rule 202 petition to further investigate our claims

y O

17.

ffic

e 

taken by USADA concerning their care. Dr. Brown refuses to abide by his patients' requests.

op

against Dr. Brown. We specifically want to discuss with him the patient records he has provided to

ial

USADA is only seeking information that Dr. Brown is authorized under the law to

of
fic

18.

 C

us, and the patient care which he has been authorized to discuss with us.

provide. We have detailed releases from seven athletes which authorize Dr. Brown to give a

Un

deposition under oath and to discuss their care in detail with USADA. Dr. Brown would, of course,
be entitled to raise the physician-patient privilege as to any area of questioning to which it properly
applies and relating to which USADA does not have a release authorizing him to speak with
USADA.

AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM BOCK, III
2016-07-13 Affidavit of William Bock 4839-4927-2116 v.1

PAGES

 19.

There are at least two areas in which US ADA may have potential claims against Dr.

Brown, and I specifically described these areas of concern to Dr. Brown and his legal counsel in a
meeting with them:
The first is a series of intravenous infusions given to athletes in 2011and2012 that

ict
 C
ler
k

(a)

may have violated sport anti-doping rules. As to these infusions, four of the athletes who
received them have given USADA releases to depose Dr. Brown.

These infusions are

l D
ist
r

referenced in the medical records from these four athletes for whom we have releases,
however, the records are very cryptic and illegible. We therefore have many questions about

Da

nie

these records.
(b)

is 

Second, we are aware that Dr. Brown may have participated in the administration of

hr

testosterone in a series of tests conducted in 2009 to discern the excretion time and

of

 C

detectability of testosterone administration. One of the seven athletes from whom we have

ffic

e 

consents was asked by Dr. Brown to transport testosterone from Texas to Oregon and has

Doctors like Dr. Brown who work in sport and with athletes are considered athlete

op

20.

y O

given us permission to question Dr. Brown about this request made to the athlete.

 C

support personnel and are covered by sport anti-doping rules. For instance, in the U.S. Postal

of
fic

ial

Service Cycling Team cases we successfully prosecuted cases against Lance Armstrong's doctors

Ferrari.

Un

including Spanish doctors Pedro Celaya and Luis Garcia del Moral and Italian physician Michelle

21.

As it relates to Dr. Brown, USADA's disciplinary authority is based on contract.

When Dr. Brown became a USATF member, he agreed to obey USATF rules and he agreed that any
claim for anti-doping rule violations would be handled under the USADA Protocol. Therefore,
USADA's claim against Dr. Brown is a contractual one based on his membership in USATF and his
AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM BOCK, III
2016-07-13 Affidavit of William Bock 4839-4927-2116 v. I

PAGE6

 violation of rules applicable to his relationship with USATF (including USATF, USOC and US ADA
anti-doping rules). Contractual claims would be susceptible to state court jurisdiction in Texas were
they not subject to Dr. Brown's agreement to submit those claims to arbitration and to the Ted

22.

ict
 C
ler
k

Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act which provides that they must be resolved in arbitration.
Dr. Brown's argument that the requested deposition will impose incredible burdens

on him is unfounded. We are only asking that Dr. Brown bring the original records to his deposition

l D
ist
r

for the seven patients for whom we have medical records releases. Dr. Brown has already produced
these records to USADA, but the records are very difficult to read and were produced in an

Da

nie

unorganized fashion to USADA. Our belief is that having the original records from the seven

is 

individuals who have provided medical record releases at the deposition may assist us with any

hr

issues oflegibility. We are not asking Dr. Brown to conduct any other review of his records beyond

of

 C

what he is required to do by law and based on his obligation to his patients, which is to identify and

ffic

e 

segregate those records that pertain to patients who have given him valid medical records

USADA is a Colorado not-for-profit organization, which is authorized by its bylaws

op

23.

y O

authorizations requesting that he produce their records to USADA.

 C

to take any action consistent with USADA's mission to promote clean sport. USADA can sue and

of
fic

ial

be sued. USADA can undertake any lawful activity authorized underthe laws of any State, including
the State of Texas. We have filed an out-of-state corporation authorization to conduct business in

Un

Texas. USADA is entitled to the same treatment as any other person or corporation under Texas
law."

AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM BOCK, III
2016-07-13 Affidavit of William Bock 4839-4927-2116 v. l

PAGE7

 FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

William Bock, III

USAM.HUGHES

r.tt~~
Mly11,2024

Un

of
fic

ial

 C

op

y O

ffic

e 

of

 C

hr

is 

Da

nie

l D
ist
r

ict
 C
ler
k

SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED TO before me, the undersigned notary, on this the / #day
of July, 2016.

AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM BOCK, III
2016-07-13 Affidavit of William Bock 4839-4927-2116 v. l

PAGES