Said the AAA panel regarding Gatlin's juvenile claim:

"He asserts that because the first event was in the 2001 U.S. Junior Nationals, an age restricted event, Mr. Gatlin, though 19 at the time, should be considered a minor for the purposes of the Panel’s evaluation under the Guidelines. This argument is similarly rejected with the same cautionary note as with the prior argument."

Prior to his 2006 bust, neither Gatlin nor the IAAF - or USADA for that matter - had acted on his behalf to have the first "offense" removed from record rather than accepting that he had committed a violation and was allowed to compete despite that anti-doping misdemeanour.  This has become Gatlin's Achilles heel, and he's attempting to recover from that earlier misstep stated by his counsel to be an administrative violation, not an anti-doping one. 

"With these filings, Mr. Gatlin is taking the next steps in recovering his right to defend his gold medal in the 100 meters, silver medal in the 400 meters relay and bronze in the 200 meters at the Beijing Olympics," Maurice Suh said in a statement on Tuesday.

The appeal was filed on Monday to Lausanne-based CAS, with Suh requesting the hearing take place in New York.

"While there are many possible avenues that we are currently exploring, the appeal of the arbitration panel decisions are a critical component of his defense," Suh's statement added.

"To use this (2001) sanction to bar him from participating in the Olympics is a prime example of unfairness to an athlete, and a grossly inappropriate balance of anti-doping efforts against the right of individuals to pursue their careers and their dreams," Suh said.

"Most troublingly, it constitutes a discrimination against a person with a diagnosed disability."

The dissenting member of the AAA panel, Christopher Campbell, furthered that sentiment in his ruling (referenced above):

"Mr. Gatlin’s first offence would be covered by art. 8 because it was a mental disability and he obviously faced a disadvantage because of it. Incidentally, so did Mr. Ricky Harris. These Fundamental Rights must be respected by private entities such as the USOC, USADA, USATF and the IAAF. Article 35 states:

Realization of Fundamental Rights
1. The fundamental rights shall be realized in the entire legal system.
2. Whoever exercises a function of the state must respect the fundamental
rights and contribute to their realization.
3. The authorities shall ensure that the fundamental rights also be respected in relations among private parties whenever the analogy is applicable.67 (emphasis added)

Mr. Gatlin, Mr. Harris and any other athlete who has received sanctions because of taking medicine for their disability have their fundamental rights violated. In the case of Mr. Gatlin, he will not be allowed to work in his chosen profession for two years above what he should have been sanctioned. In Mr. Harris’ case, he was not allowed to work for a year and faces the same draconian predicament that Mr. Gatlin is experiencing. As stated above, there is no justifiable reason to limit these athletes’ fundamental rights. There is no goal pursued by the Anti-Doping Organizations that a retroactive award would inhibit. The sanctions are a violation of the law."