Robert D. Kersey, PhD, ATC, CSCS
San Jose State University in San Jose, CA 95192-0054.
Journal of Athletic Training - Volume 31 * Number 3 * September 1996

Objective: To determine the incidence of anabolicandrogenic
steroid use among a sample of community college
student-athletes; also, to compare various aspects of users and
nonusers, as well as to describe usage patterns.

Design and Setting: A survey following random stratified
cluster sampling techniques was administered to 10 California
community colleges.

Subjects: A group of 1,185 male and female studentathletes.
Measurements: An anonymous 27-item, valid, and reliable
questionnaire was administered surveying anabolic-androgenic
steroid use and usage patterns.

Results: Of all student-athletes sampled, 3.3% were anabolic-
androgenic steroid users. Gender-specific incidence rates
were 4.2% for males and 1.2% for females. Anabolicandrogenic
steroid users tended to be older males, usually intheir second year of college. The users were more often
minorities. Users believed that they were knowledgeable about
anabolic-androgenic steroids, and that the rates of usage were
higher than reported. Their sources of steroid information were
often lifting partners and fellow athletes. Use of these drugs
was most often in cycles (mean of 6.7 weeks) and was
frequently done using multiple anabolic-androgenic steroids at
a time. The average number of cycles completed was 2.9. A
wide variety of steroids were used by the student-athletes, of
which most were obtained from illegal sources.

Conclusions: Anabolic-androgenic steroid use among California
community college student-athletes were similar to other
previous research studies involving high school and university
student-athletes.

Key Words: anabolic steroid(s), athlete, ergogenic aid(s)

CAS OG_1996_03 Andrei Korneev vs IOC
CAS OG_1996_04 Zakhar Gouliev vs IOC
Arbitration No 003-4

Andrei Korneev is a Russian Athlete competing in the Men’s Swimming Events at the Atlanta 1996 Olympic Games and Zakar Gouliev is a Russian Athlete competing in the Men’s Greco-Roman Wrestling Events.

In July 1996 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported anti-doping rule violations against the two Russian Athletes after their samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Bromantan. As a result the IOC Executive Board decided on 28 July 1996 to disqualify and to exclude both Athletes from the Olympic Games including withdrawal and return of medals and diplomas.

Hereafter on 29 July 1996 both Russian Athletes appealed the IOC decisions with the Court of Arbitration for Sport Ad hoc Division Atlanta. Here case scientific literature was filed and expert witnesses heard.

In this case the substance Bromantan has apparently been used by Russian athletes for a considerable number of years. It appeared that it was used by athletes competing in the 1988 and 1992 Olympic Games. The use of Bromantan was unknown to the IOC Medical Commission and its use was not detected by the testing methods then available. The Russian Olympic Committee did not inform the Commission of the existence and use of Bromantan and no athlete disclosed its use during drug testing. The Medical Commission became aware of the existence and use of Bromantan in June 1996 and in July 1996 it was proposed to regard Bromantan as a related substance to the forbidden class 1A (Stimulants).

The CAS AD hoc Panel notes that in these cases the IOC Medical Commission acted with the following circumstances:

1. It was at about the beginning of the Olympic Games made aware of the covert use of an unknown substance substantially by Russian athletes over a number of years.
2. The existence of that substance only became known because of the disclosure by one Russian athlete in Canada in March 1996 of its use.
3. The substance was a product for the Russian military and was not available generally although it could apparently "be obtained in Moscow".
4. The scientific literature available relating to this substance was extremely limited and only in Russian.
5. That literature would reasonably lead a scientific reader to the conclusion that the substance possessed stimulant qualities.
6. The appellants did not declare their now undisputed use of the substance when tested for drugs although the use of vitamins was disclosed.
7. The denial of use was persisted in after testing disclosed the presence of the substance in samples which had been tested.

These circumstances would quite naturally and reasonably give rise to a suspicion that the substance possessed the qualities of a stimulant.

The Panel finds that the surrounding circumstances while suspicious do not form a basis for concluding, in the light of the scientific evidence, that Bromantan is a stimulant.
The surrounding circumstances, of themselves, are not evidence of the objective fact of the actual chemical composition and qualities of Bromantan. They could be evidence of the belief of those using the substance but not of the correctness of that belief.
While it may be that further study may establish that Bromantan is a prohibited substance the totality of the materiel before the Panel does not allow it to reach that conclusion.

Further in this case the Russian Olympic Committee offered to:

1. Cooperate fully in a study to determine whether Bromantan should be classed as a prohibited substance.
2. To make records relating to Bromantan available for that purpose.
3. To disclose to the Medical Commission all drugs which the Russian Olympic Committee recommend to Russian athletes for use on a general basis. The Russian Olympic Committee urged that consideration should be given to creating a rule that other national bodies should be required to make similar disclosures.
4. To discontinue the use of Bromantan pending further investigations.

The CAS Panel strongly urge the Russian National Olympic Committee to implement its offers. In particular the Panel believes that, in view of the probability that Bromantan can be indeed classified as a stimulant, its use should be discontinued forthwith.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport Ad hoc Division Atlanta Panel decides on 4 August 1996 that the appeals of the Athletes Andrei Korneev and Zakhar Gouliev are allowed and to set aside the IOC decisions of 28 July 1996.

Anabolic steroids and the mind / B. Corrigan

• Medical Journal of Australia 165 (1996) 4 (August); p. 222-226)
• PMID: 8773655
• DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1996.tb124932.x

Abstract

Anabolic steroids were first used by weight lifters and others involved in pursuits of strength, but are now taken, often in large doses, by young men interested in enhancing their appearance. The severe psychogenic side effects of these high doses include aggressive and violent behaviour. Problems with drug withdrawal and drug dependence are also common in users of anabolic steroids and these drugs may also provoke psychiatric disorders. I review these complications, as reported in the past decade, and comment on two recent violent murders in Sydney in which anabolic steroid use was implicated.

The effects of supraphysiologic doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men / Shalender Bhasin, Thomas W. Storer, Nancy Berman, Carlos Callegari, Brenda Clevenger, Jeffrey Phillips, Thomas J. Bunnell, Ray Tricker, Aida Shirazi, Richard Casaburi

• New England Journal of Medicine 335 (1996) 1 (4 July), p. 1-7
• PMID: 8637535
• DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199607043350101

Abstract

Background: Athletes often take androgenic steroids in an attempt to increase their strength. The efficacy of these substances for this purpose is unsubstantiated, however.

Methods: We randomly assigned 43 normal men to one of four groups: placebo with no exercise; testosterone with no exercise; placebo plus exercise; and testosterone plus exercise. The men received injections of 600 mg of testosterone enanthate or placebo weekly for 10 weeks. The men in the exercise groups performed standardized weight-lifting exercises three times weekly. Before and after the treatment period, fat-free mass was determined by underwater weighing, muscle size was measured by magnetic resonance imaging, and the strength of the arms and legs was assessed by bench-press and squatting exercises, respectively.

Results: Among the men in the no-exercise groups, those given testosterone had greater increases than those given placebo in muscle size in their arms (mean [+/-SE] change in triceps area, 424 +/- 104 vs. -81 +/- 109 square millimeters; P < 0.05) and legs (change in quadriceps area, 607 +/- 123 vs. -131 +/- 111 square millimeters; P < 0.05) and greater increases in strength in the bench-press (9 +/- 4 vs. -1 +/- 1 kg, P < 0.05) and squatting exercises (16 +/- 4 vs. 3 +/- 1 kg, P < 0.05). The men assigned to testosterone and exercise had greater increases in fat-free mass (6.1 +/- 0.6 kg) and muscle size (triceps area, 501 +/- 104 square millimeters; quadriceps area, 1174 +/- 91 square millimeters) than those assigned to either no-exercise group, and greater increases in muscle strength (bench-press strength, 22 +/- 2 kg; squatting-exercise capacity, 38 +/- 4 kg) than either no-exercise group. Neither mood nor behavior was altered in any group.

Conclusions: Supraphysiologic doses of testosterone, especially when combined with strength training, increase fat-free mass and muscle size and strength in normal men.

Metabolism of anabolic androgenic steroids / W. Schänzer. - (Clinical Chemistry 42 (1996) 7 (July); p. 1001-1020)

• PMID: 8674183
• DOI: 10.1093/clinchem/42.7.1001

Abstract

Anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) are misused to a high extent in sports by athletes to improve their physical performance. Sports federations consider the use of these drugs in sports as doping. The misuse of AAS is controlled by detection of the parent AAS (when excreted into urine) and (or) their metabolites in urine of athletes. I present a review of the metabolism of AAS. Testosterone is the principal androgenic steroid and its metabolism is compared with that of AAS. The review is divided into two parts: the general metabolism of AAS, which is separated into phase I and phase II metabolism and includes a systematic discussion of metabolic changes in the steroid molecule according to the regions (A-D rings), and the specific metabolism of AAS, which presents the metabolism of 26 AAS in humans.

CAS 96/150 Scott Alexander Volkers vs FINA

TAS 96/150 Volkers/FINA

CAS 95/150 V. / Fédération Internationale de Natation Amateur (FINA)

• Doping of a swimmer (dextropropoxyphene)
• Suspension of the coach for 2 years
• Strict liability principle
• Consideration of mitigating circumstances

1. Pursuant to the FINA Rules, the strict liability principle is applicable in the case of a coach giving a banned substance to an athlete. The coach's act (in giving the competitor a prohibited substance) is the material and operative cause of the offence. The general ban of doping is wide enough to encompass such acts, even if they lack the subjective element of intent.

2. The Court of Arbitration for Sport has the power to review and to vary a sanction involving suspension taken by the FINA authorities.

3. In deciding the length of a suspension, it is necessary to take into account the circumstances and, in particular, the subjective elements of each case.

On February 20, 1996 the FINA Executive suspended Mr. Scott Alexander Volkers, the appellant, from all swimming activities for a period of two years commencing on December 1, 1995 which upon the appellants' appeal to the FINA Bureau was reduced on April 26, 1996 to one year.

Miss Samantha Riley, a swimmer coached by the appellant, tested positive for the prohibited substance propoxyphene metabolite in a doping test conducted after the World Swimming Short Course Championships held in Rio de Janeiro, in November and December 1995. The suspension was imposed on findings made as to how Miss Riley came to have the prohibited substance in her body. Mr. Volkers admitted having given a di-gesic pill to her in circumstances which the FINA Executive held to amount to negligence.

On May 16, 1996 the appellant appealed FINA's decisions to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS affirms FINA's findings as to the appellant's guilt and the sanction
imposed taking into account all the circumstances in which he committed the offence. The CAS considers that infractions of the FINA's rules, such as that of the appellant, must be met with adequate sanctions to punish the offender, and to discourage others. The appellants' conduct fell far below the standard of care and vigilance required of him in his professional duty as a swimming coach.

The effect of the appellants' suspension has been to impede him in his career by disqualifying him from taking part in international events for almost seven months.The appellants' negligence has damaged his international reputation and the shadow of the finding will continue to hang over him for the remainder of his career. Not only the appellant damaged his own career by his actions but also endangered the careers of those in his charge. Propoxyphene metabolite is not considered to enhance the performance of athletes and the appellant was found to have administered it to Miss Riley without actual knowledge of what he was doing. The appellant was strictly liable for the offence he committed. Upon being asked to explain the facts of the matter the appellant readily admitted that he had given the banned substance to Miss Riley, albeit mistakenly. Until the FINA's findings the appellant was a man with an impeccable professional reputation.

The CAS considers that the appellant has been properly sanctioned by suspension, however taking into account the special facts of this case, in particular the state of mind FINA found the appellant to have had, and the mitigation which has been put forward on his behalf, it has been decided the suspension shall be commuted to seven months ending on June 30, 1996.

The shortening of the appellants' suspension detracts no liability from him. The appellants' appeal has been successful only in part, as to the sentence, which has been reduced because of very special circumstances.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

1.) Upholds the decisions of the FINA Executive of February 20, 1996 and the FINA Bureau of April 26, 1996 as to the issue of the Appellant's guilt.

2.) Declares that the Appeal is upheld in part, as to sanction. Accordingly the Appellant's suspension shall be commuted to a period of seven months ending on June 30, 1996.

Recommendation on Disciplinary Measures to be taken with regard to Members of the Athlete's Entourage in Application of Article 7.2.e of the Anti-Doping Convention / Monitoring Group of the Anti-Doping Convention. - Strasbourg : Council of Europe (CoE), 1996

• Council of Europe Recommendation (96) 1
• Recommendation adopted by the Monitoring Group of the Anti-Doping Convention at its 7th meeting, Strasbourg, 30-31 May 1996

CAS 1995/141 Anne Chagnaud vs FINA
TAS 95/141 C. / Fédération Internationale de Natation Amateur (FINA)

• Dopage d'une nageuse (étiléfrine)
• Disqualification et suspension de deux ans
• Responsabilité objective de la nageuse même en l'absence de faute
• Prise en considération de circonstances atténuantes

1. Selon le règlement de la FINA, la seule présence d'une substance interdite, telle que l'étiléfrine, dans le corps d'une athlète constitue une infraction, entraînant une suspension automatique de deux ans.

2. Le fait que la nageuse n'ait pas eu l'intention de se doper et qu'elle ait été dopée à son insu ne peut remettre en cause sa disqualification.

3. C'est au niveau de la sanction disciplinaire (suspension de l'athlète ayant subi un contrôle positif) que les éléments subjectifs de chaque cas doivent être pris en considération. Le principe de présomption de culpabilité de l'athlète doit demeurer, mais, par contre, l'athlète doit avoir la possibilité de renverser cette présomption en apportant une preuve libératoire.

FACTS
Anne Chagnaud, the athlete, appeals before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the decision, dated July 27, 1995, of the FINA Executive Office.

History
On January 28, 1995, the athlete provided a sample for an in-competition doping test. The sample tested positive for the prohibited substance etilefrine. Her trainer had given her a capsule of effertil which contained the prohibited substance, together with her nourishment. The French Swimming Federation (FFN) disciplinary body didn't sanction the athlete in her decision of July 7, 1995. In their view it had been impossible for the athlete to have known she ingested a prohibited substance.
The International Swimming Federation (FINA) Executive Office didn't agree with this decision and sanctioned the athlete with a period of ineligibility of two years.

On August 10, 1995, the athlete submitted a declaration of appeal before the CAS. But FINA had made a mistake in her decision of July 27, 1995, about where she could appeal. She could appeal to the FINA's Board. On September 1995 the athlete appealed to the FINA's Board against the decision of July 27, 1995, by the FINA Executive Office. The appeal was rejected because the panel regards the positive test as sufficient to establish the violation.

Submissions athlete
The athlete criticizes the system of responsibility without fault. Even though she does not contest the result of the tests, she however argues that the alleged substance was not substantial enough to improve her performance. Besides that she argues that her penalty is unjust, since she was doped without her knowledge by her trainer and she had no intention of consuming capsules of effortil (containing etilefrine), the athlete insists on the disproportionate nature of the penalty.

However the court concludes that the testimonies of her trainer did not permit to establish if he had acted without her knowing consuming the prohibited substance. However, in view of the facts of the brief, the court considers that the penalty pronounced against the appellant is not proportionate to the circumstance of the case. In view of what comes before and in application of the principle of proportionality, the court considers that the fault of the appellant is not sufficiently grave for a period of ineligibility lasting two years. The penalty will last till the day of this hearing, the period from January 28, 1995 through march 12, 1996, which is in corresponds to the guilt of the athlete and is consequently sufficient.

Decision
- The decision in partially upheld.
- The decision of suspension pronounced by FINA against the appellant on October 21, 1995 is terminated immediately.
- The decision is rendered without cost, except for the fee of 500 Swiss francs claimed by CAS.
- FINA will contribute 1,500 Swiss francs to the legal fees of the appellant.

[The attached file contains the French text and an unauthorized English translation]

CAS 95/122 National Wheelchair Basketball Association (NWBA) / International Paralympic Committee (IPC)

• Doping of an athlete member of a team (dextropropoxyphene)
• Disqualification of a national basketball team from the
• Paralympics
• Principle of strict liability

1. Pursuant to the rules applicable in casu, the presence of a drug in the urine is sufficient to constitute an offence, irrespective of the route of administration.

2. If a competitor, member of a team, tests positive for doping during a tournament, does it mean that the match during which the infringement took place must be forfeited by that team or that the team must be disqualified from the entire tournament? Interpretation of a rule, the wording of which is controversial.

The Paralympic Athlete K competed in the USA Wheelchair Basketball Team at the 1992 Barcelona Paralympic Games.

In September 1992 the International Coordinating Committee of World Sports Organizations for the Disabled (ICC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Parathlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance dextropropoxyphen.
Due to an injury the Athlete had used the painkiller Darvocet provided to him by his coach who had checked Darvocet on the list of banned drugs. However the coach did not know that one of the components in Darvocet is the prohibited substance dextropropoxyphene.

On 29 September 1992 the ICC decided that K. forfeit any medal with the recommendation to the IWBF to suspend him for six months.
As a consequence of the Athlete’s violation the ICC decided that the USA Basketball Team forfeit the match and to re-allocate their medals.

Hereafter in March 1995 the National Wheelchair Basketball Associaton (NWBA) appealed this decision with the Court of Arbitratio for Sport (CAS) against the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) as successor to the ICC.

The NWBA requested that the disqualification decision be reversed, and, in the alternative, either (a) that the USA wheelchair basketball team retain the 1992 Barcelona Paralympics championship, and that the USA team members retain the gold medals, or (b) that the USA wheelchair basketball team retain the 1992 Barcelona Paralympics championship, and that, with the exception of [K.], the USA team members retain the gold medals”.

The CAS Panel concludes that none of the NWBA’s filed contentions survive the Panel's analysis.
First, the ICC's reliance on Rule 1.1.4 was correct insofar as it declared the USA team to be the loser of the championship and therefore also of the gold medals.
Second, the ICC's conduct in administering its regime of penalties, while hesitant and confused, did not reach a level where it must be characterized as unfair or unreasonable; the result was the perfectly predictable consequence of a strict rule which the Panel can neither annul nor disregard.
That is also why the third contention must fail; as it stands, Rule 1.1.4 creates a regime that does not accommodate considerations of proportionality. Whether more flexible rules are desirable is a matter for debate within the appropriate governing bodies; they cannot be imposed by this Panel.

Therefore on 5 March 1996 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

1.) Rejects each of the NWBA's alternative prayers for relief, and accordingly.
2.) Invites the Secretary General of CAS to dispose of the medals in his custody in accordance with the instructions of the IPC, and to release the cheque in the amount of US$ 2,000 to the IPC upon written certification by the latter that it will apply said amount to the cost of replacing the two missing medals.
3.) Makes no award of costs.

Beliefs about steroids : user vs. non-user comparisons / M.J. Schwerin, K.J. Corcoran. - (Drug and Alcohol Dependence 40 (1996) 3 (March); 221-225)

• PMID: 8861400
• DOI: 10.1016/0376-8716(95)01211-7

Abstract

The differences in beliefs about the effects of anabolic steroid (AS) use between AS users and non-users provides potentially important clues to understanding AS use. Two groups of bodybuilders were used in this comparison: AS users (n = 20) and non-users (n = 27). Subjects completed a 40-item scale measuring their beliefs about the effects of steroids, both physical and psychological (Beliefs About Steroids Scale: BASS). MANOVA comparisons between AS users and non-users on the BASS items indicate that AS-using bodybuilders believe that AS enhance their physical strength, athletic ability, confidence, assertiveness, feelings of sexuality, and feelings of optimism.