AUSTRALIAN SPORTS DRUG AGENCY 1999-2000 ANNUAL REPORT
© Commonwealth of Australia
ISSN 1037-378

Table of contents
Abbreviations vii
1. Australian Sports Drug Agency 1
Purpose 1
Strategic direction 1
Key result areas 1
3. ASDA highlights 2
3. Chairperson's summary 3
4. Corporate governance 6
Constitution 6
Board Members 6
Accountability arrangements 8
Reporting Style 10
Ethical Standards of behaviour 10
Probity Audit 11
Athletes Rights , 11
Regulatory compliance 12
Issues management 12
Corporate structure 13
5. Critical success factors 14
Quality of products and services 14
Communication 30
Ghent focus . 34
Strategic alliances . 27
Accountability 32
Staff partnerships 35
6. Strategic breakthrough issues 40
Enhance the credibility and affordability of our drug testing service 40
Grow the business to achieve a sustainable economic future 43
Invest in our people to build a dynamic, innovative and
client focused organisation 45
Play a leading role in the development of drugs-in-sport policy
in Australia 47
7. Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee 49
ASDMAC financial report 51
8. Appendices 52
Appendix A — Powers of the Minister under the ASDA Act 52
Appendix B — The objects, functions and powers of the agency
as specified in the ASDA Act 53
Appendix C — Financial statements 55
Appendix D — Drug- testing for 1999-2000 99
Appendix E — Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code 107
Appendix F — Laboratories for doping control analyses accredited
by the International Olympic Committee 112
Appendix G — Register of Notifiable Events 120
Appendix H — International List of Incidences 124
Appendix I — International anti-doping and drug testing agreements 125
Tables
Table 1 — Relationship between old program structure and
the new outcome structure 9
Table 2 — Strategic planning/outputs matrix 10
Table 3 — Quality of products and services performance indicators 14
Table 4 — Communication performance indicators 20
Table 5 — Client focus performance indicators 24
Table 6 — Strategic alliance performance indicators 28
Table 7 — Accountability performance indicators 32
Table 8 — Staff partnership performance indicators 35
Table 9 — Enhance the credibility and affordability of our
drug testing service milestones _ 40
Table 10 — Grow the business milestones 43
Table 11 — Invest in our people to build a dynamic, innovative and
client focused organisation milestones 45
Table 12 — Play a leading role in the development of drugs-in-sport
policy in Australia 47
Figure 1 — ASDA corporate structure 13
Figure 2 — Drugs in Sport Handbook, Wallet Card and Drugs in
Sport Hotline comparative for 199S-1999 to 1999-2000 21
Figure 3 — External client satisfaction 25
Figure 4 — Staffing numbers, classifications and genders 37
Figure 5 — Staffing employment breakdown 38

Rapportage Audit Commissie Doping november 2000 / Segaar, C.A., Dam, J.G. van, Vervoorn, C. . - Arnhem : Audit Commissie Doping, 2000.
- half jaarlijkse rapportage aan de Algemene Vergadering NOC*NSF, het bestuur NOC*NSF, de Staatssecretaris van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport (VWS) en het bestuur van het Nederlands Centrum voor Dopingvraagstukken (NeCeDo).
- Afhankelijk van de rapportage periode zijn de gegevens over de periode 20-07-2000 tot 30-09-2000 of over de periode 01-01-2000 tot 30-09-2000 genoteerd.

Inhoud:

- Taakstelling audit commissie doping
- Stand van zaken werkzaamheden audit commissie doping
- Verzoek aan bonden met betrekking tot rapportage periode
- Verzoek aan bonden met betrekking tot het aanleveren van uitslagen en sancties
- Beveiliging netwerk
- Toelichting schema rapportage
- Conclusies rapportage november 2000

Performance characteristics of a carbon isotope ratio method for detecting doping with testosterone based on urine diols : controls and athletes with elevated testosterone / epitestosterone ratios / Rodrigo Aguilera, Thomas Edward Chapman, Borislav Starcevic, C.K. Hatton, D.H. Catlin. - (Clinical Chemistry 47 (2001) 2 (February) ; p. 292-300)

• PMID: 11159778

Abstract

Background: Carbon isotope ratio methods are used in doping control to determine whether urinary steroids are endogenous or pharmaceutical.

Methods: Gas chromatography-combustion-isotope ratio mass spectrometry (GC-C-IRMS) was used to determine the delta(13)C values for 5 beta-androstane-3 alpha,17 beta-diyl diacetate (5 beta A), 5 alpha-androstane-3 alpha,17 beta-diyl diacetate (5 alpha A), and 5 beta-pregnane-3 alpha,20 alpha-diyl diacetate (5 beta P) in a control group of 73 healthy males and 6 athletes with testosterone/epitestosterone ratios (T/E) >6.

Results: The within-assay precision SDs for 5 beta A, 5 alpha A, and 5 beta P were +/- 0.27 per thousand, +/- 0.38 per thousand, and +/- 0.28 per thousand, respectively. The between-assay precision SDs ranged from +/- 0.40 per thousand to +/- 0.52 per thousand. The system suitability and batch acceptance scheme is based on SDs. For the control group, the mean delta(13)C (SD) values were -25.69 per thousand (+/- 0.92 per thousand), -26.35 per thousand (+/- 0.68 per thousand), and -24.26 per thousand (+/- 0.70 per thousand), for 5 beta A, 5 alpha A, and 5 beta P, respectively. 5 beta P was greater than 5 beta A and 5 alpha A (P <0.01), and 5 beta A was greater than 5 alpha A (P <0.01). The means - 3 SD were -28.46 per thousand, -28.39 per thousand, and -26.37 per thousand for 5 beta A, 5 alpha A, and 5 beta P, respectively. The maximum difference between 5 beta P and 5 beta A was 3.2 per thousand, and the maximum 5 beta A/5 beta P was 1.13. Three athletes with chronically elevated T/Es had delta(13)C values consistent with testosterone administration and three did not.

Conclusions: This GC-C-IRMS assay of urine diols has low within- and between-assay SDs; therefore, analysis of one urine sample suffices for doping control. The means, SDs, +/-3 SDs, and ranges of delta(13)C values in a control group are established. In comparison, testosterone users have low 5 beta A and 5 alpha A, large differences between 5 beta A or 5 alpha A and 5 beta P, and high 5 beta A/5 beta P and 5 alpha A/5 beta P ratios.

WADA Independent Observer Report Olympic Games 2000 Sydney, Australia / Harri Syväsalmi. - Independent Observer Team. - World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2000

Contents:

- Introduction
- Laboratory
- Doping Control Command Centre
- Doping Control Stations
- Doping Control Officers
- Doping Control Procedures
- Courier
- Recommendations
- Annex 1. Medical Report
- Annex 2. Laboratory Report
- Annex 3. Result Management
- Appendices:
- IO Terms of Reference
- Confidentiality Document
- Conflict of Interest Doc
- IO Team
- Observation Summary

Prasterone (DHEA) and mania / C.E. Dean

• Annals of Pharmacotherapy 34 (2000) 12 (1 December) p. 1419-1422
• PMID: 11144700
• DOI: 10.1345/aph.10115

Abstract

Objective: To inform clinicians and investigators of the potential for severe mania in conjunction with the use of prasterone (DHEA; dehydroepiandrosterone).

Case summary: A 31-year-old Hispanic man was admitted on a 72-hour observation period from a neighboring hospital after threatening to kill himself, family members, and a friend. A loaded rifle was found under his bed. The family confirmed that he had begun using DHEA several weeks prior to his mood and behavioral changes. He denied any past violence, but had once been given an unsubstantiated diagnosis of bipolar disorder. He used alcohol episodically, and had difficulties controlling his anger while intoxicated. Although he improved with valproate, his threats of homicide led to involuntary commitment.

Discussion: Several studies and case reports strongly suggest that anabolic steroids can induce significant psychiatric difficulties, including mania, impaired cognition, and overt psychosis. Although the Food and Drug Administration noted in 1985 that the efficacy and safety of DHEA were never confirmed, the agent continues to be sold over the counter. Several groups have used DHEA in the treatment of AIDS, memory loss, and depression, but reported no serious adverse events; however, recent studies indicate that severe psychiatric symptoms can develop in a subset of users. Although uncertain, potential risk factors include high doses of DHEA; history of mood disorder; concurrent use of alcohol, street drugs, or antidepressants; and cytochrome P450 polymorphisms.

Conclusions: The use of DHEA in those under age 35 years may be especially risky, as endogenous DHEA concentrations peak at age 20-30 years. Those using or investigating DHEA should be cognizant of the potential for severe psychiatric complications.

Related case:
IOC 2000 IOC vs Andreea Raducan & Oana Ioachin
September 26, 2000
CAS OG_2000_011 Andreea Raducan vs IOC
September 28, 2000

Ms. Andreea Raducan is a Romanian Athlete competing in the Women’s Individual Gymnastics at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.

On 25 September 2000 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance pseudoephedrine in a concentration above the IOC threshold.
On 26 September 2000 the IOC Executive Board decided to disquality the Athlete and ordered to withdraw and return the gold medal and the diploma awarded to the Ahlete.
Considering the circumstances the FIG Executive Committee hereafter decided on 27 September 2000 not to impose any sanction on the Athlete.

On 28 September 2000 the Athlete appealed the IOC decision of 26 September 2000 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the CAS Panel to set aside the IOC decision and restoring the gold medal to the Athlete.
The Athlete argued that she bears no responsibility for the anti-doping violation, due to a cold and cough she suffered she used Nurofen medication provided to her by the Romanian team doctor. She also disputed the validation of the doping test.
The CAS Panel ruled that the Athlete’s arguments does not effect the fact that a prohibited substance was present in her system during a competition. Therefore the Court of Arbitration Panel agrees with the sanction imposed by the IOC and dismissed the Athlete’s appeal.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS Decision of 28 September 2000 with the Swiss Federal Court.
On 4 December 2000 the Swiss Federal Court considers the Athlete’s arguments and rules that these are without ground and therefore dismiss the Athlete’s appeal.

Hormone contents in peripheral tissues after correct and off-label use of growth promoting hormones in cattle: effect of the implant preparations / Filaplix-H, Raglo, Synovex-H and Synovex Plus / Iris G. Lange, Andreas Daxenberger, Heinrich H.D. Meyer. - (APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica 109 (2001) 1 (January); p. 53-65)

• PMID: 11297194.
• DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0463.2001.tb00014.x

Abstract

Certain hormonal growth promoters are licensed in several beef producing countries outside the European Union (EU). Use in compliance with Good Veterinary Practice is mandatory. As risk assessment of hormone residues in animal tissues up to now has neglected potential off-label use, the present study dealt with two topics: 1) multiple treatment with the implant preparations Finaplix-H (200 mg trenbolone acetate), Ralgro (36 mg zeranol) and Synovex-H (200 mg testosterone propionate plus 20 mg estradiol benzoate) in heifers (1-fold, 3-fold and 10-fold dose), and 2) non-approved treatment of female veal calves (1-fold dose of Synovex-H or Synovex Plus with 200 mg trenbolone acetate plus 28 mg estradiol benzoate). Residues of estradiol-17beta, estradiol-17alpha, estrone and testosterone, trenbolone-17beta, trenbolone-17alpha and trendione or zeranol, respectively, were measured in loin, liver, kidney and peri-renal fat by high performance liquid chromatography/enzyme immunoassay (HPLC/EIA) after liquid-liquid extraction and solid-phase clean-up. The hormone residues in the multiple-dose experiments were dose-dependent and partially exceeded the threshold values: in the liver in one animal after 3-fold dose and in two animals after 10-fold dose of Finaplix-H, and in the liver and kidney after 3-fold and 10-fold dose of Synovex-H. Mean hormone residues in calves were mainly below those of heifers and did not infringe threshold values.

CAS 2000/A/281 H. / Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM)

• Motorcycling
• Doping (ephedrine)
• Strict liability

1. As a general rule, in cases of strict liability offences it is sufficient that the federation is able to show that a forbidden substance was found in the urine of the athlete and that the positive test result of the sample was not affected by procedural defects in the laboratory. Under the FIM Rules it is not a requirement that the forbidden substance is contained in medication. The FIM Medical Code also expressly prohibits the use of chemical identical substances. This includes herbal or homeopathic substances. More generally, it can also be found in the jurisprudence of the CAS that it is sufficient that the active substance appears on the doping list. The name of the product is not relevant.

2. The established IOC testing procedures need to be applied strictly and do not leave room for the transfer of certain methods from one testing procedure to another on a case by case basis. If there was a need for the application of a correction factor in ephedrine cases this decision had to be taken by the competent authorities of the IOC. It cannot be the task of the CAS to amend on a case by case basis the rules established by the International Olympic Committee and applied by the IOC accredited doping laboratories.

3. In a case of strict liability it is irrelevant whether the athlete was aware that he was using a substance appearing on the doping list. The CAS considers that products and homeopathic substances that do not give the chemical name of the substances but the names of herbal substances need to be examined with great care by the athlete.

On 2 June 2000 the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM) decided to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete H. after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance ephedrine. Thereupon on 15 June 2000 the FIM International Tribunal of Appeal (TIA) decided to uphold the Athlete’s disqualification and to reduce the imposed sanction to 3 weeks.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the FIM TIA decision with the Court of Aribitration for Sport (CAS).
In addition the Athlete H. requested CAS for interim relief to stay the execution of the FIM TIA decision which CAS dismissed on 6 July 2000.

In favour of the Athlete the Panel considers that there is no evidence that the he acted intentionally. Furthermore it is not easy to recognise the substance MaHuang as a herbal sister of ephedrine.

The Panel also notes that the concentration of ephedrine in his urine sample tested was only slightly over the limit. Finally the Athlete presented himself as an honest man during the hearing and showed great regret for what he had done.

On the other hand, the Athlete also admitted that he made a terrible mistake and acted carelessly. His behaviour shows a certain degree of negligence which makes it necessary to raise the sanction above the minimum.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 December 2000:

1.) The appeal filed by H. on 4 July 2000 is partially upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the FIM International Tribunal of Appeal on 30 June 2000 is annulled.

3.) The CAS renders the following decision:

• a.) H. is disqualified from the second race of the FIM World Championship event held in Kyalami on 2 April 2000 and has to return all trophies, prizes and any other entitlements won;
• b.) The disqualification of H. in connection with the first race of the FIM World Championship event held in Kyalami on 2 April 2000 is invalid; H. is entitled to the trophies, prizes, points and any other entitlements on the basis of the result achieved;
• c.) H. is suspended from any competition under the governance of FIM for a period of three weeks beginning 12 October 2000, exclusive of the suspension already served (7 days).

2001 List of Prohibited Classes of Substances and Prohibited Methods / IOC Medical Commission. – International Olympic Committee (IOC), 2001

SUBSTITUTES APPENDIX A OF THE OMAC 1999 OLYMPIC MOVEMENT ANTI-DOPING CODE APPENDIX A

PROHIBITED CLASSES OF SUBSTANCES AND PROHIBITED METHODS

1 January 2001

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 AND PROHIBITED METHODS

Source: Bibliothèque du CIO / IOC Library

related cases:
CAS 2006_A_1025 Mariano Puerta vs ITF
July 12, 2006
ITF 2005 ITF vs Mariano Puerta
December 21, 2005

Player appealed against decision of the ATP Tour. During a doping test his A and B-sample revealed the prohibited substance clenbuterol. The ATP has adopted rules, the ATP Tour 2003 Official Rulebook, which is applicable to this case.
The lab reported the results of the doping test to the Anti-Doping program administrator(APA), he selects a review board (RB). The RB determines that the A-sample was positive and a medical Liaison (ML) contacts the player for further information. After consideration the B-sample was also tested. The B-sample was also positive on clenbuterol, the player is informed and advised to be in suspension till the hearing took place within the 60-day guideline. The hearing was held on December 1, 2003, the player provided written statements from himself, his brother, his fiancée, his attending physician, a friend and an expert report and a consultant in medical biochemistry. The player and his physician where cross-examined by the ATP-counsel.
Clenbuterol is considered as an anti-asthma medication that is also a powerful anabolic agent. Player has proof he suffered from an asthma attack and he will ask for a therapeutic use exemption. He didn't know the prohibited substance was in his medicine. The question remains if this can be regarded as special circumstances. The player had a moderate asthma attack and he didn't report this, his situation was solved with pills such treatment does not indicate an emergency situation. His physician can still apply for a exemption for the use of his medicine.
The tribunal also concludes that the RB did take appropriate steps to make a reasonable and well-documented decision on whether the A-sample should be disqualified.
The player submits that the APA did not administer the RB process with diligence when it permitted one member to miss the conference call.
The tribunal finds that the principle of proportionality ought to be applied to the forfeiture of prize money because the doping violation was had no performance enhancing effect.
The special circumstances the player claims for not knowing he used a prohibited substance is not valid. Elite Athletes are well aware of the problems for sport in the clandestine use of performance enhancing drugs. Especially with medicine he has to make inquiries as to what medicine had been prescribed. Also avoiding the substance was possible if he had told the physician that he was a professional tennis athlete.

Decision:
The sanction will be a suspension of 9 months, inclusive of the voluntary suspension and will end on July 1, 2004.
Ranking points and prize money earned at the tournament are to be forfeited. Only the prize money of the tournament in which the positive analytical result was found will apply to the principle of proportionality.