Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-009 Disciplinary Decision - Football
July 1, 2021

In December 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clostebol in a low concentration.

In this case cross contamination had caused the positive test due to the Athlete's wife had used the prescribed medication Novaderm - containing Clostebol - for her cervix. Through sexual intercourse thereupon the substance was transferred to the Athlete's system whereas he was unaware that his wife was using this medication.

As a result the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) concluded that the violation occurred in a context unrelated to sport performance and that the Athlete established No Fault or Negligence and Exeptional Circumstances. Therefore on 1 July 2021 the TJD-AD decides not to impose any sanction on the Athlete.

Hereafter in July 2021 ABCD appealed the TJD-AD decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal. ABCD requested the Panel to reform the Appealed Decision and to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that had been established how the prohibited substance had entered his system. Yet ABCD conteded that the Athlete acted with some degree of Fault or Negligence in this case.

Nevertheless in view of the evidence and exceptional circumstances in this case the Rapporteur finds that the Athlete No Fault or Negligence had been established on a balance of probabilities whereas there are no grounds for the imposition of a 12 month period of ineligibility.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal decides by majority on 15 September 2021 to uphold the Appealed Decision and to dismiss ABCD's appeal.

Anabolic androgenic steroids used as performance and image enhancing drugs in professional and amateur athletes : Toxicological and psychopathological findings / Daria Piacentino, Gabriele Sani, Georgios D. Kotzalidis, Simone Cappelletti, Livia Longo, Salvatore Rizzato, Francesco Fabi, Paola Frati, Vittorio Fineschi, Lorenzo Leggio. - (Human Psychopharmacology (2021) 15 September; 2815)

• PMID: 34528289
• DOI: 10.1002/hup.2815

Abstract

Objective: The use of anabolic androgenic steroids (AASs) as performance and image enhancing drugs (PIEDs), once restricted to professional athletes, now includes amateurs and regular gym visitors. AAS use is associated with psychopathology, yet this relationship is complex and not fully understood. We aimed to assess the presence of AASs and other misused substances in athletes' biological samples and link toxicological to psychopathological findings.

Methods: A multicentre, cross-sectional study in fitness centres in Italy recruited 122 professional and amateur athletes training in several sports (84 men; age range = 18-45 years). Athletes completed questionnaires, interviews, and toxicology testing for AASs, other PIEDs, illicit drugs, and non-prescribed psychotropics. Toxicology was conducted in blood, urine, and hair.

Results: Self-reported and toxicologically detected use rates of AASs and other misused substances showed slight-to-fair agreement (Fleiss' κ = 0.104-0.375). There was slight-to-moderate agreement among the three biological samples used for AAS testing (κ = 0.112-0.436). Thirty-one athletes (25.4%) tested positive for AASs. More sport hours/week, narcissistic or antisocial personality disorders, and higher nonplanning impulsiveness scores predicted AAS use (pseudo-R2 = 0.665). AAS users did not differ significantly from non-users in major psychopathology, but their Hypomania Checklist-32 score, which also predicted AAS use, was significantly higher (p < 0.001), suggesting increased odds for cyclothymic disorder or subthreshold hypomania.

Conclusions: Our results have implications for studying AAS users, as they identify a cluster of variables that may be relevant in future understanding of AAS use risks (e.g., personality disorders). Possible disagreements between AAS assessment methods should be considered when implementing harm reduction interventions, such as needle and syringe distribution, health education, and counselling, as well as surveillance programmes.

CAS 2019/A/6530 Jeffrey Brown v. USADA
CAS 2019/A/6531 Alberto Salazar v. USADA

Related cases:

• AAA 2017 No. 01 17 0003 6197 USADA vs Jeffrey Brown
  September 30, 2019
• AAA 2017 No. 01 17 0004 0880 USADA vs Alberto Salazar
  September 30, 2019

Dr. Jeffrey Brown is a physician and a consultant from 2009-2012 for the Nike Oregon Project (NOP), the NOP Athletes and Mr. Alberto Salazar.

Mr. Alberto Salazar is an American track coach and former world-class long-distance runner and the head coach of the NOP in Portland, Oregon.

In March 2017 USADA alleged that Dr. Brown was generally involved in the prescription of Testosterone by Dr. Brown to Mr. Salazar; and Dr. Brown’s was involvement in a Testosterone experiment conducted at the NOP facilities in June and July, 2009 (the Testosterone Experiment). Dr. Brown was involved in the administration of L-carnitine infusions in 2011 and 2012; and actions taken by Dr. Brown and his counsel in connection with the investigation and adjudication of the foregoing claims.

Also in March 2017 USADA alleged that Mr. Alberto Salazar was involved in the infusions/injections of L-carnite administered to the Athlete Steve Magness and NOP athletes; possession and use of Testosterone gel and tampering together with his attorneys during the investigation and arbitration. During the proceedings USADA did not pursue the Administration or Attempted Administration of Testosterone for personal use.

On 30 September 2019 the Tribunal of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on Dr. Jeffey Brown and Mr. Salazar for committing multiple anti-doping rule violations:

Dr. Jeffrey Brown:

• Complicity in trafficking of Testosterone
• Administration of a prohibited method
• Tampering of records

Mr. Alberto Salazar:

• Trafficking of Testosterone
• Administration of a prohibited method
• Tampering

Hereafter in October 2019 both Dr. Jeffrey Brown and Mr. Alberto Salazar appealed the AAA Decisions with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and requested for a consolidated procedure.

Dr. Jeffrey Brown and Mr. Salazar challenged the Appealed Decisions and denied they had committed any anti-doping rule violations.

USADA contended regarding Dr. Brown that:

• Dr. Brown’s prescriptions of Testosterone to Mr. Salazar were not medically justified and his involvement in the Testosterone Experiment amounted to an ADRV.
• Dr. Brown committed an ADRV in administering a prohibited method to Mr. Magness and committed ADRVs of administration or attempted administration in respect of NOP athletes.
• Dr. Brown inappropriately altered Mr. Magness and NOP athletes’ patient records, elicited false testimony from witnesses and was involved in establishing a false narrative to mislead USADA into believing that NOP athletes received their L-carnitine administrations via syringes rather than infusion bags.

USADA contended regarding Mr. Salazar that:

• Mr. Salazar’s possession of Testosterone was not medically justified and his application of Testosterone (a prohibited substance) to his sons in the Testosterone Experiment amounted to an ADRV;
• Mr. Salazar committed an ADRV of administration, attempted administration or complicity in Dr. Brown’s administration of a prohibited method to Mr. Magness and committed ADRVs of administration or attempted administration in respect of NOP athletes;
• Mr. Salazar committed ADRVs of tampering through a range of conduct, including giving false testimony during depositions held in relation to USADA’s anti-doping investigation, eliciting false testimony from witnesses and establishing a false narrative to mislead USADA into believing that NOP athletes received their L-carnitine administrations via syringes rather than infusion bags.

After assessment of all of the submissions and evidence presented throughout the cours of the proceedings the Panel dismissed specific charges against Mr. Salazar and Dr. Brown due to USADA had not established that they had contravened Articles of the WADC regarding Trafficking, Complicity, Possession, Administration and Tampering .

Nevertheless the Panel made the following findings:

• Dr. Brown contravened Article 2.8 of the 2009 WADC (Complicity) by assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting or otherwise engaging in complicity in relation to Mr. Salazar’s possession of testosterone in furtherance of the Testosterone Experiment.

• Dr. Brown contravened Article 2.7 of the 2009 WADC (Trafficking) by sending or delivering Testosterone to Mr. Salazar in relation to the Testosterone Experiment, either by delivering Testosterone to Mr. Salazar (i) for use in the Testosterone Experiment; or (ii) to replenish Testosterone used by Mr. Salazar in the Testosterone Experiment.

• Dr. Brown contravened Article 2.8 of the 2009 WADC (Administration) by administering a Prohibited Method to Mr. Magness on in November 2011.

• Dr. Brown contravened Article 2.5 of the 2009 WADC (Tampering) with respect to the issue of L-carnitine infusions/syringes.

• Mr. Salazar contravened Article 2.6.2 of the 2009 WADC (Possession) by possessing Testosterone in furtherance of the Testosterone Experiment.

• Mr. Salazar contravened Article 2.8 of the 2009 WADC (Administration by complicity) by assisting, encouraging and otherwise being complicit in Dr. Brown’s administration of a Prohibited Method to Mr. Magness in November 2011.

• Mr. Salazar contravened Article 2.5 of the 2009 WADC (Tampering) with respect to the issue of L-carnitine infusions/syringes.

Therefore Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 September 2021 that:

1. Dr. Jeffrey Brown committed the following anti-doping rule violations:

• a.) Complicity (2009 WADC Article 2.8) in Mr. Alberto Salazar’s possession of Testosterone in furtherance of the Testosterone Experiment;
• b.) Trafficking (2009 WADC Article 2.7) of Testosterone to Mr. Alberto Salazar in relation to the Testosterone Experiment;
• c.) Administration (2009 WADC Article 2.8) of a Prohibited Method, being an infusion in excess of the permitted volume, to Mr. Steve Magness;
• d.) Tampering (2009 WADC Article 2.5) with the Doping Control Process with respect to the issue of L-carnitine infusions/syringes.

2. The appeal filed by Dr. Jeffrey Brown on 21 October 2019 and the “cross-appeal” filed by USADA on 29 April 2021 are otherwise dismissed and the period of ineligibility imposed by the Brown AAA Panel, being a period of ineligibility of four years, is upheld.

3. Mr. Alberto Salazar committed the following anti-doping rule violations:

• a.) Possession (2009 WADC Article 2.6) of Testosterone in furtherance of the Testosterone Experiment;
• b.) Complicity (2009 WADC Article 2.8) in Dr. Jeffrey Brown’s Administration of a Prohibited Method to Mr. Steve Magness;
• c.) Tampering (2009 WADC Article 2.5) with the Doping Control Process with respect to the issue of L-carnitine infusions/syringes.

4. The appeal filed by Mr. Alberto Salazar on 21 October 2019 and the “cross-appeal” filed by USADA on 29 April 2021 are otherwise dismissed and the period of ineligibility imposed by the Salazar AAA Panel, being a period of ineligibility of four years, is upheld.

5. (…).
6. (…).
7. All other prayers for relief in the appeals and cross-appeals are dismissed.

• CAS 2020/A/7579 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Swimming Australia (SA), Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) & Shayna Jack; and
• CAS 2020/A/7580 SIA v. Shayna Jack & SA

Related case:

CAS A1_2020 Shayna Jack vs Swimming Australia & ASADA
November 16, 2020

• Aquatics (swimming)
• Doping (ligandrol)
• Proof of lack of intent
• Standard of proof for a panel deciding on a reduction of ineligibility
• Indiscriminate effect of the rules
• Lack of intent
• Type of proof
• Assessment of the evidence

1. Athletes who have committed an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) and seek to reduce the period of ineligibility under Article 10.2.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) need to prove both that they did not intentionally use a prohibited substance and (on the assumption that the explanation given in Article 10.2.3 is binding) that they did not take the risk of using a substance which might lead to an ADRV.

2. In reaching a decision as to whether an appellant deserves a reduction of ineligibility, it is sufficient that a CAS panel base this conclusion on a simple balance of probability, because this is not a decision involving the imposition of disciplinary measure, but rather a reduction of its consequences.

3. The one-size-fits-all characteristics of the rule on reduction of ineligibility may tempt adjudicating bodies to make allowances for specific circumstances – such as the great difference from sport to sport of the likelihood of being able to compete at an elite international level of competition, and thus the different impact of the same period of ineligibility on athletes whose international competitiveness may be of greatly contrasting duration given the physical demands of their sport. But the time and place for making such allowances is when such rules are drafted (and amended), not in making individual decisions.

4. The establishment of the source of the prohibited substance in an athlete’s sample is not mandated in order to prove an absence of intent. In other words, it is possible to prove – albeit with much difficulty – innocent exposure to prohibited substance in the absence of a credible identification of its source. However, as certitude with respect to the source of contamination decreases, so the athlete’s chances of prevailing depend on a counterbalancing increase of the implausibility of bad motive and negligence. The doping hypothesis must no longer (on a balance of probability) make sense in all the circumstances, and the charge of recklessness must (on a balance of probability) be overcome. This can be proved by any means. Identification of the source is often important (but not in and of itself sufficient), but it is not indispensable.

5. Speculations, declarations of a clear conscience, and character references are not sufficient proof. It is an unacceptable paradox to posit that the effect of the apparent unavailability of objective and probative evidence is to give an athlete the same benefit as if s/he had found and presented it. However, if uncorroborated speculation is said not to avail an accused athlete; it should not in fairness avail the accuser either.

6. Assessing evidence in a manner that (i) begins with the science and then (ii) considers the totality of the evidence (iii) through the prism of common sense, possibly (iv) “bolstered” by the athlete’s credibility, is a process that appears to be legitimate as a way of achieving its intended effect of enforcing the rules without finding comfort in the cynical view that occasional harm done to an innocent athlete is acceptable collateral damage.

On 16 November 2020 the Oceania Registry Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Australian swimmer Shayna Jack after she tested positive for the prohibited substance LGD-4033 (Ligandrol).

In this first instance case the Sole Arbitrator deemed that the Athlete could not demonstrate how the prohibited substance had entered her system but he was willing to accept that the violation was not intentional.

Hereafter the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) appealed this Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Appeals Division. They requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

WADA and SIA challenged the Appealed Decision on the grounds that while the Sole Arbitrator acknowledged that in order to reduce the period of ineligibility from 4 years to 2 years the Athlete had the burden to demonstrate that the ADRV was not intentional.

WADA and SIA contended that the Sole Arbitrator erred in relying excessively on the Athlete’s credibility to conclude that she had met that burden and in too readily accepting an absence of intent.

The Panel finds that the Appealed Decision, for all its admirable qualities of discernment and exposition, is not in accordance with the Policy and with what the Panel perceives as consistent strands of leading decisions which contribute to the uniformity of application which is desirable in the international community of elite sports.

The Panel nevertheless upholds the ultimate holding of that Decision in favour of the Athlete, on what it deems to be the balance of probability. It is a close call made with considerable hesitation, indeed by a majority decision with respect to the decisive issue of recklessness under the fact of this case, but close calls must be made, and it favors her for the reasons set forth below.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 September 2021 that:

1. The appeal filed by Sport Integrity Australia on 7 December 2021 against Ms Shayna Jack and Swimming Australia Limited concerning the Award rendered in the procedure CAS A1/2020 on 16 November 2020 is dismissed.
2. The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 7 December 2021 against Sport Integrity Australia, Swimming Australia and Ms Shayna Jack concerning the Award rendered in the procedure CAS A1/2020 on 16 November 2020 is dismissed.
3. The Athlete’s Period of Ineligibility of two years, commencing on 12 July 2019, determined in the Award CAS A1/2020 on 16 November 2020, is confirmed for the reasons set out in the present Award.
4. (…).
5. (…).
6. (…).
7. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Related case:

ADAK 2019 ADAK vs Joan Nancy Rotich
October 17, 2019

On 17 October 2019 the Kenya Judiciary Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Joan Nancy Rotich after she tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Hereafter the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) established that the Athlete had participated in 3 marathons in March 2019, October 2019 and in November 2019 during the period dat she was provisionally suspended and thereupon a 4 year period of ineligibility was imposed.

After notification in January 2021 ADAK ordered a provisional suspension while the Athlete failed to attend the proceedings. She submitted that she accepted the charges and requested the Tribunal to render a decision in her case.

Based on the evidence the Tribunal concludes that the Athlete had breached the prohibition of particpation during ineligibility and that the charges were undisputed by the Athlete.

Therefore the Tribunal decides on 16 September 2021 to impose an additional 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date the current period of ineligibility shall end, i.e. on 28 February 2023.

In April 2021 the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) reported that the hair sample of the apprentice Jockey Benoit De La Sayette tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. Hereafter a provisional suspension was ordered and in September 2021 the Jockey was heard for the BHA Judicial Panel.

The Jockey admitted the violation and stated that he had used Cocaine three or four times from summer 2020 until about mid January 2021. Then he quit with this environment and moved back to his parents in early February 2021.

Therefore the BHA Judicial Panel decides on 16 September 2021 to suspend the Jockey's license for 6 months, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 17 April 2021 until 17 October 2021.

The effects of anabolic-androgenic steroids on DNA damage in bodybuilders' blood lymphocytes / Abbasali Abbasnezhad, Miad Mahdavi, Mojtaba Kianmehr, Mohamad Ghorbani, Mahmoud Reza Motaghy, Mohammad Sohrabi, Jafar Hajavi

• Biomarkers 26 (2021) 8 (December); p. 685-690
• PMID: 34472401
• DOI: 10.1080/1354750X.2021.1976837

Abstract

Background: Nowadays bodybuilders use anabolic steroids frequently. Abuse of these substances can cause significant side effects; therefore, we aim to investigate the effect of anabolic steroids on DNA damage in bodybuilders' blood lymphocytes.

Methods and materials: This case-control study was performed on 36 male bodybuilders in Gonabad. The case group included bodybuilders with a history of taking anabolic-androgenic steroids (n = 18), and the control group composed of bodybuilders who did not use anabolic-androgenic steroids (n = 18). Intravenous blood samples were obtained and then the lymphocytes, cells and electrophoresis of blood were extracted. Afterward, the coloured slides and DNA damage were measured using a fluorescent microscope and CometScore software. The DNA damage was compared using t-tests .

Results: Results showed that there was no significant difference between age, marital status, BMI, systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the case and control group. However, parameters related to the DNA damage including tail length, percent tail DNA, and tail moment were significantly higher in the case group.

Conclusion: The use of anabolic-androgenic steroids increases DNA damage in the bodybuilders' blood lymphocytes.

Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and confirmation by liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry hair tests to evidence use of tizanidine by racing cyclists / Pascal Kintz, Laurie Gheddar, Jean-Sébastien Raul. - (Drug Testing and Analysis (2021) 21 September)

• PMID: 34549540
• DOI: 10.1002/dta.3164

Abstract

Tizanidine, an imidazoline derivative close to clonidine, is a central alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonist. Therapeutically, the drug is used as a muscle relaxant under the trade names Sirdalud™ or Zanaflex™. The drug is not prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency but, for therapeutic purposes, can only be obtained via a nominative temporary use authorization. The French public health police requested the laboratory to test for tizanidine in head hair specimens collected from international racing cyclists. Using Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS-MS) and confirmation by liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC/HRMS), after pH 9.5 borate buffer overnight incubation of 20 mg and subsequent solvents extraction, tizanidine was identified in the hair of three athletes at 1.1, 3.7, and 11.1 pg/mg. This is the first evidence that tizanidine is incorporated in human hair. However, it was not possible to interpret the data in terms of doses and frequency of use due to a lack of controlled study.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2020-019 Disciplinary Decision - Football
  September 3, 2020
• TJD-AD 2021-023 Disciplinary Decision - Football
  December 2, 2021
• TJD-AD 2022-001 Appeal Decision - Football
  March 10, 2022

On 3 September 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on a Doctor for complicity regarding the use of the substance Triamcinolone acetonide by a football player. The TJD-AD concluded that this Doctor deliberately had attempted to mislead the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) with falsified medical evidence.

Additionally the TJD-AD decided on 4 July 2019 to impose a sanction of 3 years on two other doctors for their involvement in producing falsified medical information. Following their conviction one of these doctors contacted TJD-AD and requested to receive all relevant documents because he had been unaware that in absentia a sanction was imposed.

TJD-AD established that in this case ABCD and TJD-AD had submitted their communications to the wrong e-mail address. As a result the TJD-AD deemed that the doctor had not received the opportunity to present his defence.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 23 September 2021 to annul the TJD-AD Decision of 4 July 2019 and to refer the case back to the TJD-AD for a new trial.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2021-003 Disciplinary Decision - Football
  April 22, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-017 Appeal Decision - Football
  June 30, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-027 Appeal Decision - Football
  November 12, 2021
  
  

In November 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Dexamethasone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered in June 2020. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained with medical evidence that he had received medication for his injury, which was administered by a physiotherapist. The Athlete nor the club's doctor were aware that the physiotherapist possibly had administered a medication containing a prohibited substance.

Thereupon his football club and its doctor confirmed the administration of the substance Cytoneurin to the Athlete on the date of the Doping Control.

ABCD contended that the Athlete was unable to establish how the substance had entered his system because the medication Cytoneurin does not contain Dexamethasone and there was evidence that this medication was purchased by the club 23 days after the sample collection.

The TJD-AD Rapporteur finds that the presence of the prohibited substance had been established and accordingly that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Rapporteur considers that the Athlete was tested before without issues, had cooperated with the investigations and that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

In view of the evidence and circumstances in this case the Rapporteur finds it plausible that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that he had demonstrated how the substance had entered his system. Although there were grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence, the Panel was devided in accepting the evidence in favour of the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides by majority on 27 September 2021 to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 12 August 2019. The Athlete already had served this period of ineligibility.