The IAAF, in review of the 2001 case, stated that there was no intentional part on Gatlin's behalf to cheat, and it was discovered that Adderall in-and-of-itself provided no enhancement to Gatlin, but they did not remove the term "doping violation" from their ruling - a sticking point which would cause Gatlin problems in 2007.

The IAAF did warn Gatlin following their reversal of his original ban - though still a violation of their rules, however, that any future positive drugs test would result in a lifetime ban from the sport, which leads Gatlin to his current situation.

Now that Gatlin has been entangled in a second drug controversy, he's attempted to have the first IAAF opinion erased, and used a number of arguments with the AAA - including having been a juvenile whilst committing the first offense - to no avail. 

The majority of a three-member American Arbitration Association (AAA) panel banned Gatlin for his 2006 positive test, having ruled that it was Gatlin's second positive test. In theory, they were correct insofar as in their ruling they stated that had the IAAF previoulsy re-instated Gatlin and not deemed him to have committed an anti-doping violation, they did not specifically and unequivocally state that in their ruling, a split decision that included a 53-page opinion and 22-page dissent.

"If the IAAF “eliminated” any period of ineligibility because it believed that, under the circumstances either there should have been no finding of a doping violation or because Mr. Gatlin had “no fault” in that violation, then the first offense should not be considered to be a prior offense for purposes of the award for a second violation. This Panel is unable, on the record before it, to ignore the first doping violation, but shall retain jurisdiction to amend this award in the event that Mr. Gatlin receives from IAAF or otherwise, a ruling which might alter the view of the first offense in 2001."

"The Dissent hearing makes an impassioned case that the facts and circumstances of that first offense, namely the advice of the USATF and USADA that it was sufficient for athletes simply to discontinue their non-competition use of medications, and law, namely the Americans with Disabilities Act and Swiss Law, compel the conclusion that Mr. Gatlin essentially had no fault at all in the first offense. The Dissent does not explain, then, why that first panel found a doping violation. If the standard in 2001 was simply negligence, and Mr. Gatlin was not negligent because the actions and advice of the USATF and USADA had to be considered as part of the anti-doping rules or an interpretation of those rules, then the appropriate conclusion would, it appears to the majority, have been a finding of no doping offense. However, that was not the case."