CAS 1999/A/230 B. vs Fédération Internationale de Judo
TAS 99/A/230 B. / Fédération Internationale de Judo (FIJ)

Related case:

CAS 1998_214 B. vs International Judo Federation
March 17, 1999

• Judo
• Doping (nandrolone)
• Absence of legal basis to sanction the athlete

1. Neither the IJF Anti-Doping Rules nor the IOC Medical Code provide for the disqualification in the case of an out-of-competition positive test result. In casu, the results of the appellant can’t be invalidated, from the moment he has obtained his title and medal, certainly after the positive out of competition control, but before the notification of the decision informing him of his suspension.

2. According to its jurisprudence, CAS can not invent sanctions, when these don’t exist. Where regulatory instruments define penalties and their conditions of application to specific facts, the principle of strict interpretation must be respected in all its rigor by sports bodies and by CAS. In casu, neither the IJF Anti-Doping Rules nor the IOC Medical Code provide for disqualification in the matter of an out-of-competition positive test result.

On 17 March 1999 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decided to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the French Athlete (TAS 98/214) after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibitied substances 19-norandrosterone, 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

As a consequence of the CAS decision of 17 March 1999 the International Judo Federation (IJF) decided in April 1999 to disqualify the Athlete’s results obtained at the World Championships in October 1997 including withdrawal of his medal. This decision was notified to the Athlete on 8 June 1999.

Hereafter in June 1999 the Athlete appealed the IJF decision of 8 June 1999 with the Court of Arbitation for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel finds that the imposed sanction on the Athlete started on the date of the notification of the anti-doping violation on 22 October 1997 and not on the date of his participation to the World Championships from 8 to 11 October 1997.

herefore the IJF was not authorized to invalidate the Athlete’s results obtained at this event and also neither the IJF Anti-Doping Rules nor the IOC Medical Code provide for disqualification in the matter of an out-of-competition positive test result.

Therefore on 20 December the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides to allow the Athlete’s appeal and to cancel the IJF decision for the Athlete’s to annul his results and medal won at the 1997 World Championships.

Ultra trace detection of a wide range of anabolic steroids in meat by gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry / P. Marchand, B. le Bizec, C. Gade, F. Monteau, F. André

• Journal of Chromatography A 867 (2000) 1-2 (January 21), p. 219-233
• PMID: 10670723
• DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9673(99)01114-0

Abstract

The control on use of anabolic agents in meat producing animals is generally based on urine, faeces or hair analysis. This exercise, which is usually performed in slaughterhouses or on farms, is not relevant to imported carcasses or retail meat. A single sensitive method for a wide range of anabolic steroids was developed. After extraction of the lyophilised meat, enzymatic hydrolysis was used for deconjugation. Solid-phase extraction on a polymeric stationary phase was performed prior to hydrolysis of ester residues under alkaline conditions. Liquid-liquid partitioning was used to separate the analytes into two main categories: phenol containing molecules, such as phenolic steroids, resorcylic acid lactones and stilbenes, and delta4-3-one containing molecules, such as most androgens and progestagens. Solid-phase extraction on silica columns was performed before applying a specific derivatisation for each compound sub-group. The combination of high-resolution chromatography with a quadrupole mass spectrometer permitted detection of 23 steroids in the 5-100 ng/kg range. Ion chromatograms for residue positive samples are shown and discussed.

Responses of Markers of Bone and Collagen Turnover to Exercise, Growth Hormone (GH) Administration, and GH Withdrawal in Trained Adult Males / Jennifer D. Wallace, Ross C. Cuneo, Per Arne Lundberg, Thord Rosén, Jens Otto Lunde Jørgensen, Salvatore Longobardi, Nicola Keay, Luigi Sacca, Jens Sandahl Christiansen, Bengt-Åke Bengtsson, Peter H. Sönksen. - (The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 85 (2000) 1 (1 January); p. 124-133)

• PMID: 10634375
• DOI: 10.1210/jcem.85.1.6262

Abstract

To examine the interactions between acute exercise and GH on markers of bone and collagen turnover and to assess the potential for detecting GH abuse in athletes using these markers, we studied 17 aerobically trained males (age, 26.9+/-1.5 yr). Sequential studies of exercise, GH administration, and GH withdrawal were undertaken. A randomized, controlled study of rest vs. exercise showed that exercise did not change serum osteocalcin; other markers of formation increased transiently (each P<0.001): bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (+16.1%), carboxyterminal propeptide of type I procollagen (+14.1%), and procollagen III N-terminal extension peptide (+5.0%). The carboxyterminal cross-linked telopeptide of type I collagen, a bone resorption marker, increased 9.7% (P = 0.018) in response to exercise. A randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study of recombinant human GH treatment (0.15 IU/kg x day) for 1 week increased serum osteocalcin (net increase preexercise, +/-10.0%; P = 0.017), carboxyterminal propeptide of type I procollagen (+17.6%; P = 0.002), procollagen III N-terminal extension peptide (+48.4%; P = 0.001), and carboxyterminal cross-linked telopeptide of type I collagen (53.3%; P = 0.009). Disappearance half-times after cessation of recombinant human GH for pre- and postexercise markers ranged from 248-770 h. We conclude 1) endurance exercise transiently activates bone and collagen turnover; 2) brief GH administration results in similar but quantitatively greater augmentation; and 3) these data will assist in designing a GH detection strategy.

2000 List of Prohibited Classes of Substances and Prohibited Methods / IOC Medical Commission. – International Olympic Committee (IOC), 2000

OLYMPIC MOVEMENT ANTI-DOPING CODE APPENDIX A

PROHIBITED CLASSES OF SUBSTANCES AND PROHIBITED METHODS

1st January 2000

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

II. PROHIBITED METHODS

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

Summary of urinary concentrations above whic IOC accredited laboratories must report findings for specific substances

IV. OUT-OF-COMPETITION TESTING

LIST OF EXAMPLES OF PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES

Source: Bibliothèque du CIO / IOC Library

Goldberg L, MacKinnon DP, Elliot DL, Moe EL, Clarke G, Cheong J.Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000 Apr;154(4):332-8.
Department of Medicine, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland 97201-3098, USA. goldberl@ohsu.edu

BACKGROUND:
Use of alcohol and other illicit drugs by adolescent male athletes is a significant problem. Participation in sports may encourage use of drugs that enhance athletic performance, especially anabolic steroids (AS). Because, to our knowledge, no other intervention has successfully altered substance abuse by athletes, we developed and assessed the efficacy of a team-centered, sex-specific education program designed to reduce adolescent athletes' intentions to use and use of AS and alcohol and other illicit drugs.

METHODS:
We studied 31 high school football teams that comprised 3207 athletes in 3 successive annual cohorts (1994-1996). The intervention included interactive classroom and exercise training sessions given by peer educators and facilitated by coaches and strength trainers. Program content included discussion of sports nutrition, exercise alternatives to AS and sport supplements, and the effects of substance abuse in sports, drug refusal role-playing, and the creation of health promotion messages. Questionnaires assessing AS, the use of sport supplements and alcohol and other illicit drugs, and potential risk and protective factors were administered before and after the intervention (before and after the football season) and up to 1 year after the program.

RESULTS:
At season's end, intentions to use (P<.05) and actual AS use (P<.04) were significantly lower among students who participated in the study. Although AS reduction did not achieve significance at 1 year (P<.08), intentions to use AS remained lower (P = .02). Illicit drug use (marijuana, amphetamines, and narcotics) was reduced at 1 year, whether alcohol was included (P = .04) or excluded (P = .02) from the index. Other long-term effects included fewer students reporting drinking and driving (P = .004), less sport supplement use (P = .009), and improved nutrition behaviors (P<.02).

CONCLUSIONS:
Use of alcohol and other illicit drugs and associated harmful activities can be prevented with a sex-specific, team-centered education. School athletic teams provide an optimal environment in which to provide drug prevention and health promotion education.

PMID:
10768668
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Maharaj VR, Dookie T, Mohammed S, Ince S, Marsang BL, Rambocas N, Chin M, McDougall L, Teelucksingh S.
West Indian Med J. 2000 Mar;49(1):55-8.
Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of the West Indies, Champs Fleurs, Trinidad and Tobago.

Self-administered questionnaires were completed by 1062 gym-users in 14 gyms in Trinidad from February 1997 to July 1997 to determine the knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding anabolic steroids (AS).

Five hundred and sixty (52.7%) females and 502 (48.3%) males completed the questionnaire. Half of the total sample were individuals in the 20 to 29 year age group. From the 17 questions that tested knowledge about AS, the median number of correct responses was 7 with a mode of 8. Increased muscle mass was correctly identified as one of the effects of AS by 841 respondents (79.2%), while 249 (23.6%) of the total sample thought asthma was treated with AS. Most (872 or 82.1%) felt that their knowledge about AS was inadequate and 700 (66.0%) were of the opinion that AS should be banned from use in competitive sports. Similarly, 733 (70.0%) of the gym-users thought AS should only be available by prescription. Thirty respondents reported having used AS (2.9%, 95% CI 2.0-4.1). The prevalence of AS use was higher among males than females (p < 0.001). Improvement of physical appearance and not competitive advantage in sport was the main reason cited for AS use. Anabolic steroid users knew more about the adverse effects of AS than non-AS users but the therapeutic uses of AS were comparatively less well known.

This study demonstrated a general lack of knowledge concerning AS use and that a small but significant proportion of persons using gyms admitted to abusing AS.

PMID:
10786454
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Compared interest between hair analysis and urinalysis in doping controls. Results for amphetamines, corticosteroids and anabolic steroids in racing cyclists / Y. Gaillard, F. Vayssette, G. Pépin

• Forensic Science International 107 (2000) 1-3 (10 January), p. 361-379
• PMID: 10689587
• DOI: 10.1016/s0379-0738(99)00179-6

Abstract

In France during a famous bicycle race, the newspapers documented the degree in which doping seemed to be supervised in some teams by managers and doctors. Use of anabolic steroids and other substances was officially banned in the mid-seventies by sports authorities. This policy has been enforced through urine testing before competition. It is well known, however, that a latency period is all that is necessary to defeat these tests. Nevertheless, hair analysis could be a promising tool when testing for periods that are not accessible to urinalysis any more. We have developed different sensitive methods for testing hair for amphetamines, anabolic steroids and their esters and corticosteroids. For amphetamines, 50 mg of hair were digested with 1 M NaOH, extracted with ethyl acetate, derivatized with TFA and analyzed by gas chromatography positive chemical-ionization mass spectrometry. For corticosteroids, 50 mg of powdered hair were treated with methanol in an ultrasonic bath and subsequently purified using a C18 solid phase extraction column. Analysis was realized by high performance liquid chromatography coupled to electrospray-ionization tandem mass spectrometry. For anabolic steroids and their esters, 100 mg of powdered hair were treated with methanol in an ultrasonic bath for extraction of esters, then alkaline digested with 1 M NaOH for an optimum recovery of other drugs. The two liquid preparations were subsequently extracted with ethyl acetate, pooled, then finally highly purified using a twin solid phase extraction on aminopropyl and silica cartridges. Residue was derivatized with MSTFA prior to injection. Analysis was conducted by gas chromatography coupled to a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer. Thirty cyclists were sampled and tested both in hair and in urine. Amphetamine was detected 10 times in hair (out of 19 analyses) compared to 6 times in urine (out of 30 analyses). Corticosteroids were detected 5 times in hair (methylprednisolone 1 case, triamcinolone acetonide 3 cases and hydrocortisone acetate 1 case) in hair (out of 12 analyses) compared to 12 times (triamcinolone acetonide 10 cases and betamethasone 2 cases) in urine (out of 30 analyses). Anabolic steroids were detected twice (nandrolone 1 case, and testosterone undecanoate 1 case) in hair (out of 25 analyses) compared to none in urine (out of 30 analyses).

2000 List of Prohibited Classes of Substances and Prohibited Methods / IOC Medical Commission. – International Olympic Committee (IOC), 2000

SUBSTITUTES APPENDIX A OF THE OMAC OLYMPIC MOVEMENT ANTI-DOPING CODE APPENDIX A

PROHIBITED CLASSES OF SUBSTANCES AND PROHIBITED METHODS

15th February 2000

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

II. PROHIBITED METHODS

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

Summary of urinary concentrations above which IOC accredited laboratories must report findings for specific substances

IV. OUT-OF-COMPETITION TESTING

LIST OF EXAMPLES OF PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES

Source: Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

• CAS 1999/A/234 David Meca-Medina vs FINA
• CAS 1999/A/235 Igor Majcen vs FINA
• TAS 1999/A/234 David Meca-Medina v/ FINA
• TAS 1990/A/235 Igor Majcen v/ FINA

Related case:
CAS 2000/A/270 David Meca-Medina & Igor Majcen vs FINA
May 1, 2001

On 8 August 1999 the FINA Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Spanish swimmer David Meca-Medina and the Slovenian swimmer Igor Majcen after their A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Hereafter in August 1999 both Athletes appealed the FINA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athletes argued that there were departures of the standards for testing and laboratories; the substance in question was not prohibited; the positive tests were caused by the ingestion of pork offal; and the imposed sanction was too severe.

The Panel rejects the arguments that it was not their urine which was analysed and finds that the duration of the transport to the laborary had no effect on the validity of the test. The Panel holds that the chain of custody including the documentation was complete and satisfactory.

Further the Panel finds that the Athletes failed to establish that any alleged departure from the procedure could lead to genuine doubt on the reliability of any finding. They also failed to demonstrate that the positive tests was the result of the ingestion of meat injected with Nandrolone.

The Panel establishes that the substances in question were prohibited as part of the “related substances” before they were expressly included in the newer lists of anabolic androgenic steroids.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 February 2000 with respect to David Meca-Medina:

1.) The appeal is rejected as far as it is filed on behalf of David Meca-Medina.
2.) The suspension of David Meca-Medina is confirmed for a duration of 4 years from August 20, 1999 under deduction of 77 days of provisional suspension (May 14, 1999 to July 30, 1999).
3.) All results achieved by David Meca-Medina between January 31, 1999 and August 19, 1999 shall be cancelled.
4.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500,- which shall be kept by the CAS (art. R65.2 of the Code)
5.) David Meca-Medina is ordered to pay an amount of CHF 4’000,- (together with interest at 5% from the date of the decision) to Respondent FINA as a contribution towards its legal fees and expenses (art. R65.3 of the Code).

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 February 2000 with respect to Igor Majcen:

1.) The appeal is rejected as far as it is filed on behalf of Igor Majcen.
2.) The suspension of Igor Majcen is confirmed for a duration of 4 years from August 20, 1999 under deduction of 77 days of provisional suspension (May 14, 1999 to July 30, 1999).
3.) All results achieved by David Meca-Medina between January 31, 1999 and August 19, 1999 shall be cancelled.
4.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500,- which shall be kept by the CAS (art. R65.2 of the Code)
5.) Igor Majcen is ordered to pay an amount of CHF 4’000,- (together with interest at 5% from the date of the decision) to Respondent FINA as a contribution towards its legal fees and expenses (art. R65.3 of the Code).

Evaluation of testosterone/epitestosterone ratio influential factors as determined in doping analysis / D.H. van de Kerkhof, D. de Boer, J.H. Thijssen, R.A. Maes. - (Journal of Analytical Toxicology 24 (2000) 2 (March); p. 102-115)

• PMID: 10732948
• DOI: 10.1093/jat/24.2.102

Abstract

The ratio of the concentration of testosterone glucuronide to the concentration of epitestosterone glucuronide (T/E ratio) as determined in urine is the most frequently used method to prove testosterone abuse by athletes. A T/E ratio higher than 6 has been considered as proof of abuse in the past; however, cases of naturally occurring higher T/E ratios have been described. Since the introduction of the T/E ratio in doping analysis, the parameters that may or may not influence the T/E ratio, possibly leading to false-positive results, have been debated. To achieve more insight on the influencing circumstances, an overview is given to obtain an objective view on the merits of the urinary T/E ratio. Relevant analytical aspects of the T/E ratio, potential parameters of endogenous and exogenous origins, as well as some alternative methods to determine testosterone abuse, such as the urinary testosterone/luteinizing hormone ratio, gas chromatography-combustion-isotope-ratio mass spectrometry, hair analysis, and high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, are discussed.