Stilger VG, Yesalis CE.
J Community Health. 1999 Apr;24(2):131-45.
West Virginia University, Morgantown 26506, USA.

Eight-hundred seventy-three Indiana high school football players were surveyed to investigate the use of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS). Subjects were varsity football players that were randomly selected from 27 high schools throughout Indiana. Out of a possible 1,325 subjects, 873 or 66% participated in the study. Subjects completed a 50 item questionnaire that measured demographic information, perceived use of AAS, reasons for use, and how AAS are taken.

The results indicate that 6.3% of Indiana high school football players were current or former AAS users. The average age at time of first use of AAS was 14 years and 15% began taking before the age of ten. Almost half of respondents indicated they could obtain AAS if they so desired, and that other athletes, physicians, and coaches were listed as sources for AAS.

Athletic trainers can play a vital role in disseminating accurate information about AAS abuse, including the long-term adverse health risks. These messages should begin with students and athletes as early as the fourth and fifth grades and delivered as often as possible throughout the school years.

PMID:
10202692
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Curry LA, Wagman DF.
Percept Mot Skills. 1999 Feb;88(1):224-33.
Department of Health and Human Performance, University of Montana, MT 59812-1055, USA. curry58@selway.umt.edu

Powerlifters have been suspected to be a population wherein use of anabolic androgenic steroids is prevalent (Yesalis, Herrick, & Buckley, 1988). To access commentary from these athletes on issues related to these drugs and the effectiveness of doping controls, a survey was developed. From 28 U.S. Powerlifting Team members who competed internationally since 1988, 26 were contacted by mail, and 15 questionnaires were returned. The questionnaire solicited yes/no responses and qualitative descriptions about current and previous use of anabolic androgenic steroids in powerlifting. Analysis indicated that ten U.S. Powerlifting
Team members admitted to using these drugs, and five athletes admitted to beating the International Olympic Committee's doping control procedures. Reported use of anabolic androgenic steroids by these athletes was consistent with data presented by Yesalis, et al. and illustrated continued discrepancy between admitted use of these drugs prior to or during national and international events and the lack of reported positive test data. Discussion focused on the value of this study to elicit in an athlete's own words commentary specific to the use of anabolic androgenic steroids and the need for more effective doping controls.

PMID:
10214647
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Doping control analysis : the 6th World Championships of Athletics, Athens, Greece / Costas G. Georgakopoulos, Christina Tsitsimpikou, Maria-Helen E. Spyridaki, Emmanouel Lyris, Efstathios G. Cookeas, Detlef Thieme. - (TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 18 (1999) 1 (January); p. 1-13)

• https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-9936(98)00101-0

Abstract

The first official report on the organization, analytical methodologies, and the results of the doping control analysis performed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)-accredited Doping Control Laboratory of Athens, Greece, during the 6th World Championships of Athletics, held in Athens on 1–10 August 1997, is presented. The significance of the various analytical parameters of the doping control is shown. The results include 20 positive cases, of which two were detected in screening procedures and confirmed exclusively by high resolution mass spectrometry. The screening results and analytical data on the excretion of a new black-market doping agent, phenylpiracetam or carfedon, which was unknown in the literature, are also presented.

TAS 97/180, P. & consorts / Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA)

• Swimming
• Doping (metandienone)
• Burden of proof

1. According to FINA Rules, only the presence of a prohibited substance, such as steroids, constitutes a violation and results in a suspension for a minimum of four years plus a retroactive sanction resulting in the cancellation of any results obtained during the competitions which took place over a period of six months before the violation occurred. However, the sanction may be mitigated in proportion to the circumstances in the particular case.

2. As consequence of testing positive in a doping control, competitors have the onus to reverse the burden of proof. In the case of exculpatory evidence, strict demands need to be made for the evidence showing absence of guilt or weak guilt of the sanctioned athletes.

In October 1997 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the 3 Russian Athletes K., M. and P. after their samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone.

All 3 Athletes were members of the Russian Swimming team and as a consequence of the positive tests criminal investigations were conducted in Russia. Another Russian Athlete T. admitted that she had spiked the food of the Athletes with the prohibited substance because of her frustration about her exclusion of the national swimming team.

Considering the burden of proof the FINA Anti-Doping Commission found that the Athletes could not explain how the prohibited substance came into their body and could not reverse the burden of proof with their statements and evidence that the violation was committed intentionally.
On 24 December 1997 the FINA Anti-Doping Commission decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athletes K., M. and P.

In December 1997 the Court of Arbitration (CAS) dismissed the request of the three Russian Athlete to lift the suspension ordered by the FINA for their participation in the World Championships in January 1998.
Hereafter in February 1998 the three Russian Athletes appealed the FINA decision of 24 December 1997 with CAS.

The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the decision of the FINA Anti-Doping Commission and to impose no sanction on the Athletes or a sanction reduced to a 6 month period of ineligibility.

The CAS Panel did not accept the evidence and statements produced by the Athletes about the Russian criminal investigation and the admission of the Athlete T. that she had spiked the food of the Athletes with the substance 13 days before the doping test.
The Panel also upholds the FINA conclusion that the Athletes failed to explain how the substance came unintentionally into their body. Considering the circumstances in this case the Panel holds that the imposed sanction wasn’t disproportional.

Therefore on 14 January 1999 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides to dismiss the appeal of the Athletes K., M. and P. and confirms the decision of 16 December 1997 of the FINA Anti-Doping Commission.

1999 List of Prohibited Classes of Substances and Prohibited Methods / IOC Medical Commission. – International Olympic Committee (IOC), 1999

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE MEDICAL CODE

PROHIBITED CLASSES OF SUBSTANCES AND PROHIBITED METHODS

31st January 1999

I. PROHIBITED CLASSES OF SUBSTANCES
A. Stimulants
B. Narcotics
C. Anabolic Agents
D. Diuretics
E. Peptide hormones, mimetics and analogues

II. PROHIBITED METHODS
A. Blood doping
B. Pharmacological, chemical and physical manipulation

III. CLASSES OF DRUGS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN
RESTRICTIONS
A. Alcohol
B. Cannabinoids
C. Local anaesthetics
D. Corticosteroids
E. Beta-blockers

SUMMARY OF IOC REGULATIONS FOR DRUGS WHICH NEED THE WRITTEN NOTIFICATON OF A PHYSICIAN

SUMMARY OF URINARY CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE WHICH IOC ACCREDITED LABORATORIES MUST REPORT FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC SUBSTANCES

LIST OF EXAMPLES OF PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES

Source: Bibliothèque du CIO / IOC Library

CAS 98/213 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) / C. & Federazione Ciclistica Italiana (FCI)

• Cycling
• Doping (testosterone)
• Jurisdiction of CAS
• Endogenous substance

1. By applying for a licence and by participating in races belonging to the international calendar of the UCI, athletes agree to comply with and to be bound by all provisions of the Regulations applying thereto, i.e. the UCI rules including the AER.

2. For endogenous steroids, a sample is deemed positive if the T/E ratio is higher than 6, unless it can be proven that this ratio is due to physiological or pathological condition.

3. Pursuant to the UCI Regulations, a sanction, in order to be effective, must be served during the period of normal activity. As a consequence, a suspension falling to a considerable extent within a “dead period”, which means a period where the athlete does usually not compete, cannot be regarded as an effective sanction.

In Juni 1998 the Italian Cycling Federation (FCI), initiated by the International Cycling Union (UCI), has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian Athlete C. after his A and B samples, provided in April and May 1998, tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold. Thereupon the Athlete underwent an endocrinological examination which showed that the Athlete did not have naturally elevated T/E ratio.

On 31 August 1998 the FCI Disciplinary Commission decided to impose on the Athlete C. a 6 month period of ineligibility and a CHF 2’000,-- fine without specification of the starting and or ending of the suspension.

Hereafter the UCI appealed in October 1998 the FCI decision of 31 August 1998 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The UCI requested the CAS Panel for disqualification of two competition results and to impose a sanction on the Athlete of at least 9 months including a higher fine.

The Panel – with the approval of the UCI – decides to consider the different positive results as one single offence. The Panel thus holds that the analysis of the A-samples, confirmed by the analysis of the B-samples, revealed the presence of prohibited substances, which as such constitutes an infringement of the UCI Rules.

With regard to the sanction, the Panel only partially agreed and therefore modifies the decision of the FCI.
The Panel notices that the discussion about the dead period is a consequence of the particular sanction system of the UCI, which provides for a minimal duration of suspension of less than one year. The discussion could be avoided if the UCI would harmonize its sanctions with other sport federations and provide for minimum suspension of at least twelve months.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 February 1999:

1.) The appeal by the UCI is partially upheld.

2.) The decision of the Federazione Ciclistica Italiana (FCI) dated 31 August 1998 is partially modified:

a.) The disqualification from the “Giro del Trentino” 1998 is cancelled.

b.) The Athlete C. is sanctioned as follows:
- disqualification from the “Tour de Romandie” 1998;
- suspension for nine months from 6 September 1998 to 5 June 1999;
- fine of CHF 2’000.-- (two thousand Swiss francs).

(...)

CAS 98/212 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) / M. & Federazione Ciclistica Italiana (FCI)

• Cycling
• Doping (nandrolone)
• Determination of the competent appeals tribunal
• Endogenous substance
• “Effective” sanction
• Probation

1. Quantities up to 2 ng/ml are not considered to constitute a doping offence. The laboratories do normally not report concentrations below 2 ng/ml to the Federation. There is uncertainty among experts as to the maximum concentration of Nandrolone produced by a human body. Consequently, the mere finding of Nandrolone in a concentration between 2 and 5 ng/ml may constitute a doping offence, but requires further investigations in order to confirm the result of the analysis. However, within the “grey zone” the likelihood that Nandrolone is produced endogenously, is decreasing exponentially. The probability of an endogenous production of Nandrolone in quantities beyond 5 ng/ml was held to be very unlikely. Therefore quantities beyond 5 ng/ml are very likely to be confirmed by further investigations and may be regarded as sufficient evidence to constitute a doping offence.

2. Pursuant to the UCI Rules, a sanction, in order to be effective, must be served during the period of normal activity. As a consequence, a suspension falling to a considerable extent within a “dead period”, which means a period where the athlete does usually not compete, cannot be regarded as an effective sanction.

In May 1998 the Italian Cycling Federation (FCI), initiated by the International Cycling Union (UCI), has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian Athlete M. after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances norandrosterone and noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone) in a low concentration.
On 31 August 1998 the FCI Disciplinary Commission decided to impose on the Athlete a 6 month period of ineligibility and a CHF 2’000,-- fine without specification of the starting and or ending of the suspension.

Hereafter in September 1998 the Athlete M. appealed the decision of the FCI Disciplinary Commission both with the FCI Appeal Commission and with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Also the UCI appealed in October 1998 the FCI decision of 31 August 1998 with CAS. Meanwhile in October 1998 the Athlete withdrew his appeal with CAS.
UCI requested the CAS Panel to impose a sanction on the Athlete of at least 6 months and to increase the fine.

The Panel finds that the Athlete M. was not able to give any reasonable explanation for the origin of the prohibited substances. He further failed to submit any evidence in order to support the motion that in his particular case the endogenous production of Nandrolone could reach or even exceed the threshold of 5 ng/ml. The Panel therefore held that the analysis of the A-sample, confirmed by the analysis of the B-sample, revealed the presence of prohibited substances in a concentration not only higher than 2 ng/ml but also beyond the unofficial “grey zone” and as such established an infringement of the AER.
With regard to the sanction, the Panel only partially agrees and therefore modifies the decision of the FCI.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 February 1999:

1.) The appeal by the UCI is partially upheld.
2.) The decision of the Federazione Ciclistica Italiana (FCI) dated 31 August 1998 is partially modified:
The Athlete M. is sanctioned as follows:
- disqualification from the “Settimana Bergamasca” 1998;
- suspension for nine months from 14 July 1998 to 13 April 1999;
the suspension is lifted by 21 January 1999 and M. is granted probation for the remaining period of suspension, i.e. two months and three weeks (according to Art. 95 UCI AER);
- fine of CHF 2’000.-- (two thousand Swiss francs).
(...)

TAS 98/214 B. / Fédération Internationale de Judo (FIJ)

Related case:

CAS 1999_A_230 B. vs Fédération Internationale de Judo
December 20, 1999

• Judo
• Doping (nandrolone)
• Extension of a national decision to international level
• CAS Power to investigate
  strickt liability of the athlete
• Endogenous substance
• Mitigating circumstances

1.) It is imperative that international sports federations have the possibility to revise the decisions of national federations in anti-doping cases. The purpose of the power assigned to the International Federation is in particular to prevent the risk that international competitions are disrupted, in the situation that a national federation doesn’t sanction or sanctions too lenient one of its members, to enable it to participate in an important event or on the basis of an international convention.

2.) In accordance with Article R57 of the Code of Sports Arbitration, CAS reviews the facts and law with full power to investigate. The Court can scrutinize again the facts of the case to pass a new judgement about the case in its entirety. Consequently, given the devolving effect of the appeal, it is not necessary to refer the case back to the respondent authority for a new decision, the CAS award substitutes the contested decision.
Observed in this matter is that, according to a rule known in most legal system, a complete investigation, before a body of appeal which has full power of complete cognition, it can repair the procedural faults of the lower bodies, such as the violation of the right to be heard. Such a procedure is also in accordance with the principle of procedural economy.

3.) Every athletes has the advantage of the presumption of innocence until the presence is established of a prohibited substance in his or her body. According to the constant CAS jurisprudence, the system of strict liability must prevail when sports fairness is at stake. The presence of a prohibited substance in the body of an athlete has two consequences. The first consequence is that the athlete is disqualified from the competition where the anti-doping control took place. This sanction is imposed due to sports fairness towards the other athletes who participated in the competition. The second consequence is that the presence of the prohibited substance involves a presumption of guilt which can be reversed by the athlete.

4.) According to CAS jurisprudence, a fixed tariff system for anti-doping sanctions is not preferable and a more flexible system, which extends over de duration of the suspension, is preferable. Thus, an anti-doping rule of an international federation, providing for a system of fixed sanctions, maybe modulated considering the specific circumstances in each case, provided that this modulation is specifically motivated.

In October 1997 the French Judo Federation, Fédération Française de Judo (FFJ), has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French Athlete B. after his A and B sample tested positive for the prohibitied substances 19-norandrosterone, 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance; disputed the validity of the testing method; and argued that the positive test could be the result from the possible ingestion of food contaminated with nandrolone.

A scientific commission of experts concluded that the test results of the accredited laboratory were valid, showing the presence of nandrolone, and rejected the Athlete’s arguments.
On 18 April 1997 the FFJ Anti-Doping Commission decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete with the second year as suspended sanction.

The Athlete filed for an appeal, however on 25 May 1998 the FFJ Appeal Commission concluded that it had no jurisdiction.

The Athlete’s case was referred to the French National Anti-Doping Commission (CNLD), who had doubts about the origin of the presence of nandrolone metabolites in the Athlete’s samples and decided on 9 July 1998 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In the meantime in May 1998 the test results were reported of a second more elaborate counter analysis performed on the Athlete’s samples and confirming the presence of the prohibited substances.

The International Judo Federation (IJF) was already informed in October 2007 about the Athlete’s anti-doping violation and on 10 October 1998 the ordered suspension was extended by the IJF pending a final decision was redenered against the Athlete. Hereafter in October 1998 the Athlete filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

With full power to investigate and all the facts reviewed in this case the CAS Panel finds that the Athlete failed to prove that he was not at fault and therefore that he is guilty.

Considering the circumstances and the proportionality in this case the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 17 March 1999 to cancel the IJF decision of 10 October 1998 and to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, ending on 19 March 1999.

Lov om forbud mod visse dopingmidler / Government of Denmark. - Copenhagen : Government of Denmark, 2017. - (LOV nr 232, 21/04/1999)

https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/r0710.aspx?id=21128

CAS 98/218 H. / Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA)

• Swimming
• Doping (cannabinoids)
• Adoption of IOC Medical Code by International Federations
• Out-of-competition testing for cannabinoids

1. The requirement of an agreement between the IOC and the relevant federation in order to proscribe cannabinoids applies only in the context of Olympic competition. Outside that context, the IOC Medical Code is applicable only to the extent it is voluntarily adopted by the relevant federation.

2. According to FINA Regulations, cannabinoids fall within the list of prohibited substances which are the target of out-of-competition testing.

On 6 November 1998 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) Doping Panel decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete H. after he tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.

Hereafter on 24 November 1998 the Athlete appealed the FINA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
On 30 November 1999 the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division of CAS dismissed the Athlete’s appeal for preliminary relief.

Also on 30 November 1999, the Athlete H. obtained a Temporary Restraining Order from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona which purported to order FINA not to enforce the suspension of H. decided by the Doping Panel, and furthermore purported – without any explanation of the basis for its jurisdiction with respect to events taking place outside Arizona and indeed the United States – to declare that H. was permitted “to participate in any activities of FINA or any of its member federations, including international competition, as a competitor until further notice of this Court.”

The Athlete H. accordingly competed in a World Cup competition in December 1998 in disregard of both the FINA Doping Panel’s decision and the Order of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division.

The CAS Panel is not impressed with H.’s reliance on alleged oral representations made to him and to his father to the effect that cannabinoids were not the target of out-of-competition testing. The proper reflection of such concern on their part would have been for them to read the relevant rules, rather than to rely on any oral statements that there was a “policy” of, in effect, selective application.

Given H.’s unwillingness to accept rules of competition designed to be applied in the interest of all athletes, his persistence in pursuing an unmeritorious challenge, and his de facto evasion of sanctions legitimately imposed upon him by going outside the dispute resolution mechanism to which both he and FINA are subjected, the Panel awards costs to FINA.

Therefore on 27 May 1999 the Court of Arbitration for Sport:

1.) Rejects the appeal against the FINA decision dated 6 November 1998.

2.) Declares that any results achieved by H. in competitions during the period of his suspension shall be considered null and void.

3.) Orders H. to pay FINA the amount of CHF 10’000.-- with interest running at 5% per annum starting with the 30th day after notification of this Award.