Consequence of boar edible tissue consumption on urinary profiles of nandrolone metabolites. I. Mass spectrometric detection and quantification of 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone in human urine / B. Le Bizec, I. Gaudin, F. Monteau, F. Andre, S. Impens, K. De Wasch, H. De Brabander

• Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 14 (2000) 12 (30 June), p. 1058-1065
• PMID: 10861987
• DOI: 10.1002/1097-0231(20000630)14:12<1058::AID-RCM991>3.0.CO;2-7

Abstract

For the first time in the field of steroid residues in humans, demonstration of 19-norandrosterone (19-NA: 3alpha-hydroxy-5alpha-estran-17-one) and 19-noretiocholanolone (19-NE: 3alpha-hydroxy-5beta-estran-17-one) excretion in urine subsequent to boar consumption is reported. Three male volunteers agreed to consume 310 g of tissues from the edible parts (meat, liver, heart and kidney) of a boar. The three individuals delivered urine samples before and during 24 h after meal intake. After deconjugation of phase II metabolites, purification and specific derivatisation of target metabolites, the urinary extracts were analysed by mass spectrometry. Identification was carried out using measurements obtained by gas chromatography/high resolution mass spectrometry (GC/HRMS) (R = 7000) and liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) (positive electrospray ionisation (ESI+)). Quantification was realised using a quadrupole mass filter. 19-NA and 19-NE concentrations in urine reached 3.1 to 7.5 microg/L nearby 10 hours after boar tissue consumption. Levels returned to endogenous values 24 hours after. These two steroids are usually exploited to confirm the exogenous administration of 19-nortestosterone (19-NT: 17beta-hydroxyestr-4-en-3-one), especially in the antidoping field. We have thus proved that eating tissues of non-castrated male pork (in which 17beta-nandrolone is present) might induce some false accusations of the abuse of nandrolone in antidoping.

Anabolic Steroids in Sport and Exercise / Carles E. Yesalis (ed). - 2 Human Kinetics, 2000

• ISBN-13: 978-0880117869
• ISBN-10: 0880117869

This revised and expanded second edition of 'Anabolic Steroids in Sport and Exercise' incorporates the latest research, experience, and insight of 15 experts on the clinical, historical, legal and other aspects of steroid abuse and drug testing. It provides a historical perspective on their use und abuse in exercise and sport; their physical and psychological effects; and issues relating to dependency, testing, intervention, withdrawal, treatment programs, end the legal ramifications of steroids use and abuse.

Effect of rhEPO administration on serum levels of sTfR and cycling performance / K I Birkeland  1 , J Stray-Gundersen, P Hemmersbach, J Hallen, E Haug, R Bahr. - (Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 32 (200) 7 (July), p. 1238-1243)

• PMID: 10912888
• DOI: 10.1097/00005768-200007000-00009

Abstract

Purpose: We assessed the possibility of using soluble transferrin receptor (sTfR) as an indicator of doping with recombinant erythropoietin (rhEPO).

Methods: A double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted with the administration of 5,000 U of rhEPO (N = 10) or placebo (N = 10) three times weekly (181-232 U x kg(-1) x wk-1) for 4 wk to male athletes. We measured hematocrit and the concentration of hemoglobin, sTfR, ferritin, EPO, and quantified the effects on performance by measuring time to exhaustion and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) on a cycle ergometer.

Results: Hematocrit increased from 42.7 +/- 1.6% to 50.8 +/- 2.0% in the EPO group, and peaked 1 d after treatment was stopped. In the EPO group, there was an increase in sTfR (from 3.1 +/- 0.9 to 6.3 +/- 2.3 mg x L(-1) , P < 0.001) and in the ratio between sTfR and ferritin (sTfR-ferritin(-1)) (from 3.2 +/- 1.6 to 11.8 +/- 5.1, P < 0.001). The sTfR increase was significant after 1 wk of treatment and remained so for 1 wk posttreatment. Individual values for sTfR throughout the study period showed that 8 of 10 subjects receiving rhEPO, but none receiving placebo, had sTfR levels that exceeded the 95% confidence interval for all subjects at baseline (= 4.6 mg x L(-1)). VO2max increased from 63.6 +/- 4.5 mL x kg(-1) x min(-1) before to 68.1 +/- 5.4 mL x kg(-1) x min(-1) 2 d post rhEPO administration (7% increase, P = 0.001) in the EPO group. Hematocrit, sTfR, sTfR-ferritin(-1), and VO2max did not change in the placebo group.

Conclusion: Serum levels of sTfR may be used as an indirect marker of supranormal erythropoiesis up to 1 wk after the administration of rhEPO, but the effects on endurance performance outlast the increase in sTfR.

On 4 June 1999 15 professional cyclist provided samples to the UCI prior to the course Predazzo to Madonna di Campiglio of the 82nd Giro d'Italia. Laboratory analysis of 13 of the 15 samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

Hereafter in October 1999 the Italian prosecutor of the Court of Brescia requested the Swiss Federal Office of Police and therefore the Swiss Tribunal Cantonal de Vaud (Vaud Cantonal Court) to capture the documents, at the UCI headquarter in Lausanne, identifying the Athletes who provided these samples. The Italian Prosecutor needed these documents for criminal investigations against organised trafficking of prohibited substances.

On 22 November 1999 the Vaud Cantonal Court ruled the UCI to provide the requested information. On 15 December 1999 and on 15 April 2000 the Vaud Cantonal Court dismissed two UCI appeals against the decision and UCI submitted the requested documents on 25 January 2000.

The UCI appealed the decision of 15 April 2000 of the Vaud Cantonal Court with the Swiss Federal Court. The UCI argued that:
- The decision of 15 April 2000 was disproportional.
- The provided documents have no interest for criminal proceedings in Italy, because the samples don’t constitute irrefutable proof of exogenous EPO.
- The content of the documents are ruining the UCI actions against doping and undermine their programm to protect the health of the Athletes.
- The UCI breached the medical confidentiality promised to the Athletes.

On 3 July 2000 the Swiss Federal Court rules that the arguments are without ground and therefore dismissed the UCI appeal.

CAS 2000/A/262 R. / International Basketball Federation (FIBA), preliminary award of 28 July 2000

Related cases:

• Swiss Federal Court 4P_230_2000 Stanley Roberts vs FIBA
  February 7, 2001
• DIS U (K) 1651_02 Stanley Roberts vs District Court Munich
  October 10, 2002
  
  

• Basketball
• Doping (amphetamines)
• CAS jurisdiction
• Arbitration clause referring to CAS

1. Swiss Law requires for an arbitration agreement to be valid, that it is made in writing. The written form has as a purpose firstly to warn the parties about the existence of an arbitration clause and secondly to serve as evidence. When reference is made to an external document, and particularly when this reference is of a global nature only (not specifically mentioning the arbitration clause) the question as to whether the
requirements of form are met, must be decided upon the principle of trust.

2. A global reference is not sufficient, when the party proposing an arbitration clause in this way knew or should have known by experience, that the other party did not want to agree to such a clause or if such a clause was unusual under the given circumstances. A global reference on the other hand is valid and sufficient between two parties, who are experienced in the field or when an arbitration clause is customary in the particular
sector of business, regardless of whether the other party has indeed read the document of reference and therefore knew, that it contained such a clause. The Swiss Federal Court has applied and confirmed this principle of trust also to sports related disputes.

3. A professional basketball player can be considered experienced in the field of professional sports. Arbitration clauses have become customary in most international sports federations and many By-Laws or procedural regulations of these organisations refer to CAS arbitration with the explicit exclusion of the right to appeal to ordinary courts. Arbitration is also a widely applied way of dispute settlement in the sport in the
US. An arbitration clause such as the one contained in the FIBA Rules can therefore not be considered as unusual.

On 24 November 1999 the U.S. National Basketball Association (NBA) imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for a prohibited substance Amphetamine .
Based on the NBA decision, FIBA also sanctioned the Athlete with a 2 year period of ineligibiltiy for FIBA competitions. As a consequence the Athlete’s contract to join the Turkish basketball team Efes Pilsen was cancelled.

The FIBA sanctioned the Athlete under a new set of rules in order to prevent basketball players go overseas without restrictions to resume their career after being expelled from the NBA. The Athlete claimed the FIBA decision damaged his career.

Between 2009 until 2003, the Athlete filed without success severals lawsuits before courts in the USA, Germany and Switzerland against the FIBA seeking cancellation of the sanction and damages of just under $1 million.

• The FIBA Appeal Commission dismissed the Athlete's appeal on 4 February 2000.
• On 31 August 2000 (CAS 2000/A/262) the CAS Panel ruled it has jurisdiction about the imposed FIBA sanction, but considered itself incompetent to rule about damages.
• The Swiss Federal Court decided to dismissed his complaint on 7 February 2001.
• The German Distric Court in Munich dismissed the Athlete's appeal on 20 December 2001.
• The German Institution of Arbitration dismissed his appeal on 10 October 2002).

Related cases:
CAS 2000_A_262 Stanley Roberts vs FIAB – Preliminary Award
July 28, 2000
DIS U (K) 1651_02 Stanley Roberts vs District Court Munich
October 10, 2002

On 24 November 1999 the U.S. National Basketball Association (NBA) imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for a prohibited amphetamines substance.
Based on the NBA decision, FIBA also sanctioned the Athlete with a 2 year period of ineligibiltiy for FIBA competitions. As a consequence the Athlete’s contract to join the Turkish basketball team Efes Pilsen was cancelled.
The FIBA sanctioned the Athlete under a new set of rules in order to prevent basketball players go overseas without restrictions to resume their career after being expelled from the NBA. The Athlete claimed the FIBA decision damaged his career.
Hereafter, between 2009 until 2003, the Athlete filed without success severals lawsuits before courts in the USA, Germany and Switzerland against the FIBA for cancellation of the sanction and damages of just under $1 million.

The Athlete’s appeal with the FIBA Appeal Commission was dismissed on 4 February 2000.
On 3 March 2000 the Athlete appealed his case with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
On 31 August 2000 (CAS 2000/A/262) the CAS Panel ruled it has jurisdiction about the imposed FIBA sanction, but considered itself incompetent to rule about damages.
The Athlete appealed hereafter with the Swiss Federal Court, which decides to dismiss his complaint on 7 February 2001.
Again the Athlete appealed his complaint with the German Distric Court in Munich (dismissed on 20 December 2001) and the German Institution of Arbitration (dismissed on 10 October 2002).

TAS 2000/A/272 UCI v/ Outchakov
CAS 2000/A/272 UCI vs Outchakov

In September 1999 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Ukrainian cyclist Sergiy Oukchakov after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) and Testosterone with at a T/E ratio above the UCI threshold.

The UCI notified the Cycling Federation of Ukraine (FVSU) about the Athlete’s violation but the FVSU deemed in November 1999 that there was no doping and the Athlete was not subject to sanction. After deliberations between the UCI and the FVSU about implementing disciplinary proceedings the FVSU decided on 22 March 2000 to acquit the Athlete.

Hereafter in April 2000 the UCI appealed the FVSU decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The UCI requested the Panel to set aside the FVSU decision of 22 March 2000 and to sanction the Athlete.

The FVSU requested the Panel to dismiss the UCI appeal and argued that in this case decisions were already rendered in November and December 1999. Here the UCI failed to appeal these decisions within the time limit and there were more delays attributed to the UCI.
Further the FVSU contended that the Athlete only had used homeopathic products, and not pharmaceutical. These products were not prohibited and when ingested could have produced an increased hCG reading and a positive test.

The Panel deems that a FVSU decision was made on or about 22 March 2000 which was appealed by the UCI within the time limit. The Panel establish that there was the admission of the positive test and that an anti-doping rule has been committed. The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to explain the concentration levels of hCG found in his system nor did he explain with evidence how and when he had used the homeopathic products.

The Panel also considers that the UCI could have responded in a more timely fashion, particularly between 23 December and 6 March and may have resolved this dispute earlier if it had been more specific between November 1999 and March 2000 on exactly what the FVSU was required to do.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 August 2000 and directs as follows:

1.) That the appeal of the Union Cycliste Intemationale (UCI), the Appellant, against the decision of the Ukrainian Cycling Federation (UCF), the Respondent, is granted and therefore the decision of UCF dated 22nd March, 2000 is hereby cancelled.
2.) That Mr. Outchakov is found guilty of a doping offence under UCI Regulations.
3.) That Mr. Outchakov is hereby disqualified from the "Vuelta a Espana 1999".
4.) That Mr. Outchakov is suspended under the UCI Regulations with effect from the 22nd March 2000 for a period of six (6) months ending on the 22nd September 2000 with the consequence that all results and points are cancelled and other penalties or sanctions, if any, under the aforesaid Regulations shall apply during this period.
5.) That Mr. Outchakov shall pay a fine under the UCI Regulations of CHF 4'000.--.
6.) That Mr. Outchakov shall pay the UCI costs of this appeal limited to the amount of CHF 3'000.-- inclusive of the UCI Court Office fee of CHF 500.--.
7.) That all financial amounts referred to above shall be payable within seven (7) days of the date of this award and any sums paid later shall attract interest at the rate of 6% per annum calculated on a daily basis.

Reversible hypogonadism and azoospermia as a result of anabolic-androgenic steroid use in a bodybuilder with personality disorder. A case report / N.P. Boyadjiev, K.N. Georgieva, R.I. Massaldjieva, S.I. Gueorguiev

• Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness 40 (2000) 3 (September); p. 271-274
• PMID: 11125771

Abstract

We report a case of reversible hypogonadism and azoospermia resulting from anabolic-androgenic steroid abuse in a body-builder with primary personality disorder. A keen body builder, a 20-year-old man, developed acute aggressive and destructive behavior after 10-month use of Bionabol (mean total dose of 1,120 mg per month), and Retabolil (mean total dose of 150 mg per month). He was found to meet the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV ed. (DSM-IV) criteria for Borderline personality disorder. On admission to the hospital the clinical profile of the patient showed extremely low levels of serum testosterone. Values increased to normal levels 10 months after withdrawal of steroids. The semen was azoospermic at the beginning of the study period, oligospermic five months later, and reached 20 x 10(6) sperm per mL ten months after the steroid discontinuation. Anabolic steroids can greatly affect the male pituitary-gonadal axis. A hypogonadal state, characterized by decreased serum testosterone and impaired spermatogenesis, was induced in the patient. This condition was reversible after the steroid withdrawal, but the process took more than ten months. His personal imbalance could be considered a personality trait rather than a result of the anabolic-androgenic steroid use. There were probably dispositional personality characteristics that contributed to anabolic steroid abuse in our patient. The hypogonadal changes which occurred after his long-term steroid abuse were for the most part reversible.

Recommendation on Common Core Principles to be introduced into National Legislation to combat the Traffic in Doping Agents / Committee of Ministers. - Strasbourg : Council of Europe (CoE), 2000. - (Council of Europe Recommendation (2000) 16). - Recommendation adopted by the Committee of Ministers at the 720th meeting, 13 September 2000)

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) charges Eric Lamaze (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping program (CADP). His doping test on July 22, 2000, revealed the prohibited substances ephedrine and pseudoephedrine.

History
The athlete had been banned in the past for a period of ineligibility of 4 years for the use of cocaine, he was succesfully reinstated in January 31, 1997. In this new case he had taken Advil Cold and Sinus in completely innocent circumstances. He also had been taking a nutritional diet supplement known as “Ultra Diet Pep” for approximately five years. It did not contain ephedrine and this substance had never appeared in Mr. Lamaze’s samples. However, the manufacturer subsequently began to distribute the same product with the addition of ephedrine. The name, print size, style of the product name and color of the label are identical for both categories of the product. Again the ingestion of ephedrine was completely innocent. His triumph over the previous doping infraction was inspiring. His notification by Dr. Pipe of a lifetime ban for a doping infraction he did not commit was a cruel twist of fate. Moreover, equestrian athletes do not merely complete for a short period of time and move on to other things. In the case of Mr. Lamaze, his competition is integrated with his other commercial activities such as operating his stables, teaching and coaching. The lifetime ban could have disastrous economic consequences for him.

Decision
Pursuant to my Summary of Decision issued on Monday, September 18, the application of Mr. Eric Lamaze is granted effective that date. Mr. Lamaze will bear the costs of the oral hearing facilities but no other costs are ordered. As pointed out in the Summary of Decision, this order does not resolve the Applicant’s eligibility to participate in the Sydney Olympics which falls within the authority of the Canadian Olympic Association to determine.
As a final observation, the evidence before me did not disclose in any way that Mr. Lamaze is a drug addict or that his positive test was an attempt to cheat. The evidence did disclose that his personal history has left him vulnerable in some respects. While he has shown incredible strength in many ways over the past four years and takes personal responsibility for his actions, it appears he would benefit from ongoing professional support. In particular, a professional support mechanism should be put in place in the event another catastrophic event, in the words of Dr. Harnick, should present itself. I considered imposing conditions along these lines but concluded it would be better to trust him to work out such arrangements with personal and professional assistance.