Cardiometabolic risks during anabolic hormone supplementation in older men / J. He, S. Bhasin, E.F. Binder, K.E. Yarasheski, C. Castaneda-Sceppa, E.T. Schroeder, R. Roubenoff, C-P. Chou, S.P. Azen, F.R. Sattler. - (Obesity 21 (2013) 5 (May); p. 968-975)

• PMID: 23784898
• PMCID: PMC3930448
• DOI: 10.1002/oby.20081

Abstract

Objective: To determine the cardiometabolic risks of testosterone and growth hormone (GH) replacement therapy to youthful levels during aging.

Design and methods: A double-masked, partially placebo controlled study in 112 men 65-90 years-old was conducted. Transdermal testosterone (5 g vs. 10 g/day) using a Leydig Cell Clamp and subcutaneous recombinant GH (rhGH) (0 vs. 3 vs. 5 μg/kg/day) were administered for 16-weeks. Measurements included testosterone and IGF-1 levels, body composition by DEXA, and cardiometabolic risk factors (upper body fat, blood pressure, insulin sensitivity, fasting triglycerides, HDL-cholesterol, and serum adiponectin) at baseline and after 16 weeks of treatment.

Results: Some cardiometabolic factors improved (total and trunk fat, triglycerides, HDL-cholesterol) and others worsened (systolic blood pressure, insulin sensitivity index [QUICKI], adiponectin). Cardiometabolic risk composite scores (CRCSs) improved (-0.69 ± 1.55, P < 0.001). In multivariate analyses, QUICKI, triglycerides, and HDL-cholesterol contributed 33%, 16%, and 14% of the variance in CRCS, respectively. Pathway analyses indicated that changes in fat and lean mass were related to individual cardiometabolic variables and CRCS in a complex manner. Changes in BMI, reflecting composite effects of changes in fat and lean mass, were more robustly associated with cardiometabolic risks than changes in fat mass or LBM individually.

Conclusions: Testosterone and rhGH administration was associated with diverse changes in individual cardiometabolic risk factors, but in aggregate appeared not to worsen cardiometabolic risk in healthy older men after 4-months. The long-term effects of these and similar anabolic therapies on cardiovascular events should be investigated in populations with greater functional limitations along with important health disabilities including upper body obesity and other cardiometabolic risks.

CAS 2012/A/2797 Attila Ungvári v. International Judo Federation (IJF)

Judo
Doping (stanozolol; furosemide; mesterolone)
New evidence justifying revision of the challenged decision
Admissibility of new evidence
Assessment of evidence under No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or Negligence

1. According to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, revision of a decision may be justified only as to facts or evidence which were not known to the petitioner at the time of the proceedings despite all due diligence. The new facts must be significant which means that they must be appropriate to change the factual basis of the award under review in such a way that their accurate legal assessment could lead to a different decision.

2. The only way of finding whether a witness statement may be true or not is to hear the witness testifying under the obligation to say the truth. Therefore, the statements or summary record of a witness who allegedly admitted sabotage but at no stage of the proceedings did appear before the international federation, or before the CAS are not admissible as means of evidence. However, a Police Investigations Department’ decision as an official document of a state authority establishing an act of sabotage by a sport fan to improve the athlete’s performance – which was not known to the athlete when the decision imposing a ban had been rendered by the IJF – should be considered as new evidence and admitted.

3. When the burden of proof is upon the athlete to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a “balance of probability”. In this regard, a decision of a national police investigations department and the respective investigations necessarily have to be done in the context of the applicable provision of the national Criminal Code. Therefore, the police cannot not focus on the establishment how the prohibited substances entered the athlete’s system and that he did not bear No Fault and No Negligence or at least No Significant Fault or Negligence. Therefore, such a document does not meet the requirements of articles 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 to establish whether there was No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or Negligence on the side of the athlete.

In March 2011 the International Judo Federation (IJF) has reported two anti-doping rule violation against the Hungarian judoka after his samples - provided in January 2011 in Azerbaijan and in February 2011 in Hungary - tested posisitive for the prohibited substances Stanozolol, Mesterolone and Furosemide. The IJF treated these two violations as one case and decided on 14 May 2011 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Athlete introduced new evidence and requested the IJF to re-opend his case in April 2012. In a notary declaration a Hungarian sport fan had admitted to the Budapest Police that he had acquired the prohibited substances and injected into the Athlete’s drinking bottle. The IJF Executive Committee did not accept this evidence and decided on 19 April 2012 to dismiss the request of the Athlete and to uphold its previous decision of 14 May 2011.

Hereafter in May 2012 the Athlete appealed the IJF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to annul the IJF decision of 19 April 2012. In his defence the Athlete filed several arguments, witness statements and evidence supporting he credibility.

The CAS Panel finds that this appeal is about the IJF decision of 19 April dealing with re-opening the original case for alleged new evidence: the admission of the Hungarian sport fan in the police document that he injected the prohibited substances at two occasions.
Considering the gaps in the police document the Panel finds that the information was not precise enough to allow the Panel to determine to the their comfortable satisfaction whether there was No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or Negligence on the side of the Athlete.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 18 October 2012:

1.) The appeal filed on 10 May 2012 by Mr Attila Ungvári against the decision of the Executive Committee of the International Judo Federation issued on 19 April 2012 is dismissed;
2.) The decision of the Executive Committee of the International Judo Federation of 19 April 2012 is confirmed;
(…)
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

In September 2012 the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against FC Basel and the football player Alexander Frei for his misconduct during the sample collection procedure at the Doping Control Station.

After the UEFA Europa League 2012/2013 match Sporting Clube de Portugal vs. FC Basel 1893 on 20 September 2012, the Disciplinary Control Officer indicated the FC Basel player Alexander Frei to report directly to the doping control station. The player ignored the instructions and entered the dressing room. After discussing with some officials and the Doping Control Liaison Officer, the player arrived several minutes later. In the doping control station, the player began to smoke and ignored the warnings given by the Disciplinary Control Officer and the team doctor.

The UEFA Control and Disciplinary Body considers the player’s misconduct and decides on 18 October 2012 to suspend the player for 1 UEFA competition and to impose a € 5,000 fine.
In addition a € 10,000 fine was imposed on FC Basel for their failure in their responsible for ensuring that the players selected to undergo doping control are taken by the respective team representative to the doping control station straight from the pitch, as soon as the match is over.

Anti-Doping controls and positives : statistical data 2010 / Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI). - Roma : CONI, 2011

Anti-Doping controls and positives : statistical data 2009 / Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI). - Roma : CONI, 2010

Anti-Doping controls and positives : statistical data 2008 / Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI). - Roma : CONI, 2009

CAS 2012/A/2843 International Association of Athletics Associations (IAAF) v. Hungarian Athletics Association (HAA) & Zoltan Kövago

• Athletics (discus)
• Doping (failure/refusal to submit to sample collection)
• Hearing de novo

Under the IAAF Competition Rules, the appeal is by way of a complete re-hearing and not by way of a review of the decision of the National Anti-doping Organization. The decision on the appeal must depend on the evidence made available to the CAS Panel, rather than a re-consideration of the evidence before the National Anti-doping Organization.

On 6 June 2012 the Doping Committee of the Hungarian National Anti-Doping Organisation decided that the athlete did not fail to fulfil his obligations under the IAAF Rules.

Hereafter in July 2012 the IAAF appealed the decision of the Hungarian Doping Committee and requested the Panel to set aside the decision of 6 June 2012 and to sanction the Athlete including disqualification of his results.

The IAAF asserted that there was no reason to disbelieve the clear account given by the Doping Control Officer, and supported by an Doping Control Officials. The DCO had no reason to invent a story and he was an extremely experienced DCO. The Athlete had been approached to be tested and had avoided giving the necessary sample by leaving the Gym and driving away.

Considering the circumstances the Panel was comfortably satisfied that the DCO did, as he said, make contact with the Athlete and that the Athlete then evaded the taking of an Out of Competition Doping Control Test by leaving the Gym and driving away. Accordingly the IAAF appeal must be allowed.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 18 October 2012:

1.) The appeal filed by the IAAF against the decision of 6 June 2012 rendered by the Doping Committee of the Hungarian National Anti-Doping Organisation is upheld.

2.) The decision of 6 June 2012 rendered by the Doping Committee of the Hungarian National Anti-Doping Organisation is set aside.

3.) Mr Zoltan Kövágó is sanctioned with a ban of two years starting from the date of the present award, with credit given for any period of suspension previously served.

(…)

6.) All further claims are dismissed.

First Impressions of United States Anti-Doping Agency v. Lance Armstrong
(“Reasoned Decision … on Disqualification and Ineligibility”)

Related case:
ANAD Comisia de Audiere 2011_18 ANAD vs Andrei Kiss
October 10, 2011

In September 2012 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Andrei Kiss after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.
At the hearing the Athlete admitted he smoked cannabis in a club two days before the competition and did not request the B sample analysis.
Due to this is the Athlete’s second violation the ANAD Hearing Commission decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-noranstrosterone and 19-noreticholanolone (metabolites of Nandrolone).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. The Athlete informed SAIDS that he accepts the 2 years suspension that may be imposed against him and stated he will not attend the hearing of the Disciplinary Committee.

Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting from the date of the notification, i.e. on 19 July 2012.