Michael Brinegar Exhausts All Legal Options in Doping Case, Plans To Return To Competition

U.S. Olympian and former Indiana Hoosier Michael Brinegar has shared an update on the status of his appeal in an anti-doping case that first came to light at last summer’s U.S. Olympic Trials but stems from back in 2022.

Shortly before the final prelim session of the 2024 Trials, it was announced that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled in favor of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)’s allegations that Brinegar was blood doping throughout a three-month period in 2022.

USADA said Brinegar’s test results from June, July, and August of 2022 were higher than the benchmark for Erythropoietin (EPO).

Brinegar was handed a four-year ban at the time, in late June 2024, and then, in early March, received the official ruling in writing. He then had 30 days to make an appeal, which he made on April 2, and then the Swiss Tribunal had up to six months to issue a ruling on the appeal.

Brinegar, who has maintained his innocence since receiving the news, sent a statement to SwimSwam on Friday, announcing that the Swiss Tribunal has dismissed his appeal, meaning he has no more legal avenues to pursue.

However, he says he plans on returning to elite competition once his suspension is over, and plans to push for reforms so no athlete has to go through what he’s gone through.

His four-year suspension will now run through June 2028, four years after the CAS made its ruling. He said if he hadn’t appealed, the suspension would’ve ended in 2026, four years after the tests were taken (read more in his own words below.)

A two-time medalist at the 2017 World Junior Swimming Championships, Brinegar owns a bronze medal from the 2019 World Championships in the open water team event, and he’s represented the United States in the pool on the international stage at the 2018 Pan Pacific Championships and 2021 Tokyo Olympics. At the 2021 Games, he placed 17th in the men’s 800 and 1500 freestyle.

He was qualified to compete at the 2022 World Championships in open water, but withdrew due to COVID-19. He believes this played a role in his positive doping test that came around the same time (read more below).

Below is Brinegar’s full statement, along with a Q&A portion to answer questions he’s been receiving over the last year.

What Happens Next: My Case, the Swiss Tribunal, and the Fight for Fairness

Courtesy: Michael Brinegar

When I published my first post, I promised to keep you informed. This is that update.

After a year of fighting to clear my name, I’ve reached the end of my legal road. The Swiss Federal Tribunal dismissed my appeal against the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decision in my case.

Although this means my legal options are exhausted, this is not the end of my voice.

What this appeal was really about

From the beginning, I’ve maintained I never used any prohibited substances. I’ve never tested positive — not once. Not for EPO, not for any other banned substance.

The case against me has always rested on “abnormalities” in my Athlete Biological Passport (ABP). These are mathematical models of blood markers that can be influenced by training, illness, and other real-world factors. My defense, backed by a Mayo Clinic hematologist and peer-reviewed research, was that detraining and plasma-volume shifts after a COVID infection explained my blood values.

An independent arbitrator agreed, ruling that USADA had not proven its case. CAS disagreed. But instead of grappling with the science, CAS reframed my defense into something I wasn’t even claiming — a rare “overcorrection” phenomenon — and dismissed that. They brushed past the actual evidence supporting detraining and plasma-volume effects. That’s not true reasoning, it’s selective reasoning.

Why fairness matters

This fight has never been about avoiding accountability. It has been about fairness and consistency.

When sprinter Erriyon Knighton tested positive for a banned substance, but an independent arbitrator panel ruled it came from contaminated meat, USADA did not appeal that case. In fact, they said: “We did what the rules require us to do in all positive cases. We can take comfort that justice was served and transparency as required by the rules was achieved.” I have a history of clean testing. Not even a contaminated sample. Yet I was pursued relentlessly, even after an independent arbitrator cleared me.

When athletes who test positive are sometimes given reduced sanctions, or cleared outright, while an athlete with no positive test is handed the maximum, it raises serious questions about double standards and whether the system is truly even-handed.

The problem with one shaky sample

CAS itself admitted USADA’s case “crucially relies” on a single blood sample collected September 27, 2022. That sample wasn’t even refrigerated as the rules require. Instead of enforcing the rule, CAS said the sample was valid because its “Blood Stability Score” looked okay.

If one sample is going to jeopardize someone’s career, it should meet the rules to the letter — not by a creative workaround.

What’s next for me

The Swiss Tribunal’s decision closes the door on further appeals. I’ve paid a steep price for a process that was never designed to give me a fair chance.

But I’m not done.

I seek to return to elite competition when I’m cleared, with the same integrity, resilience, and passion that have always defined me. And just as importantly, I’ll use my voice to push for reforms so no athlete has to go through what I did — navigating shifting timelines, delayed notifications, and opaque reasoning that leaves more questions than answers.

Clean sport is essential. But clean sport requires accurate science and a fair process. Without both, the system punishes the wrong people and erodes trust in the very principles it claims to uphold.

To everyone who has supported me — my family, my coaches, my teammates, and the many people who reached out over these years — thank you. Your encouragement has carried me through the hardest moments.

This chapter of legal battles may be over. But my story, my career, and my fight for fairness are not.

— Michael

Appendix: Questions I’ve Received and My Answers

Q: Didn’t CAS explain its decision?

They wrote a long award, but they never really engaged with my defense. CAS reframed my argument into something I wasn’t even claiming — a rare “overcorrection after anaemia” — and dismissed it. My actual defense, supported by a Mayo Clinic hematologist and peer-reviewed studies, was about detraining and plasma-volume shifts after COVID. That’s a well-documented physiological effect. Ignoring it and calling something else “implausible” is more of a strawman than logical reasoning.

Q: If your blood passport values were abnormal, isn’t that enough?

No. The Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) is a flag, not a verdict. Even CAS acknowledged the ABP can’t prove doping on its own. My values can be explained by detraining, illness, and plasma-volume shifts. Instead of requiring USADA to prove doping, CAS flipped the burden of proof onto me: “Unless your explanation is perfectly proven, we’ll assume doping.”

Q: What about Sample 11 — wasn’t that the smoking gun?

CAS admitted USADA’s case “crucially relies” on a single blood sample. That sample wasn’t even refrigerated as the rules require. Instead of enforcing the clear standard, CAS invented a loophole: if the “Blood Stability Score” looks okay, the rules don’t matter. If one sample decides a career, the rules should be followed to the letter.

Q: But aren’t you just second-guessing experts?

I had experts too. CAS leaned on USADA’s experts, called them “concordant,” and sidelined mine, including a Mayo Clinic hematologist who explained why detraining and illness were sufficient explanations.

Q: So what’s the bottom line?

CAS wrote a lengthy award but sidestepped the science that didn’t fit its conclusion. They bent rules on sample handling, set up straw-man arguments, and shifted the burden of proof. This is not justice. This is protecting a system at the expense of an athlete.

Q: Why does your suspension now run until 2028 instead of 2026, when the flagged tests were in 2022?

Because I fought. When I was first charged, I went before an independent arbitrator in 2023 and won — I was cleared. USADA appealed that win, and CAS overturned it in June 2024. By doing so, they reset the start date of my ban to the date of their decision, not back to when the alleged issue occurred.

So instead of a sanction that would have ended in 2026, my punishment now runs through 2028. In other words, I am being penalized two extra years simply because I exercised my right to defend myself and initially proved my innocence.

That’s backwards. Athletes shouldn’t have to choose between fighting for fairness and risking a longer career-ending ban if they lose an appeal. And what makes it worse: CAS didn’t meaningfully address the science or reasoning that cleared me. It reframed my defense and overturned the first ruling without clearly explaining why that ruling was wrong.