Affidavit George Hincapie [USADA vs Lance Armstrong October 10, 2012] September 24, 2012

Mr. George Hincapie is a professional cyclist during the time period from 1994 until 2012 and rode in the professional teams of Motorola, U.S. Postal Service, Team High Road and BMC Racing Team.
Hincapie admitted the use of Actovegin, Erythropoietin (EPO), human growth hormone (hGH), testosterone and blood doping until 2006.
The Athlete testified to USADA about the widespread trafficking, distribution and use of prohibited substances and methods in the professional cycling teams, his involvement and the involvement of Lance Armstrong, accompliced riders, medical doctors and officials.

Affidavit Lory Testasecca [USADA vs Lance Armstrong October 10, 2012] September 23, 2012

Lory Testasecca testified to USADA about the conversations she had with her close friend Betsy Andreu who also testified to USADA.
Lory Testasecca stated that Betsy was upset after her visit with Mr. Andreu to Lance Armstrong in the Indiana University Hospital on 27 October 1996 where Armstrong was for a cancer treatment. In a full room she heard Lance Armstrong confessing to his doctors that he had used performance enhancing drugs. Also Betsy Andreu shared her concern about the use of doping by Mr. Andreu as professional cyclist.

Affidavit Betsy Andreu [USADA vs Lance Armstrong October 10, 2012]
September 21, 2012

Ms. Betsy Andreu is the wife of professional cyclist and later assistant cycling director Frankie Andreu.
Mr. and Ms. Andreu testified that they visited Lance Armstrong in the Indiana University Hospital on 27 October 1996 where Armstrong was for a cancer treatment. In a full room Lance Armstrong confessed to his doctors he had used performance enhancing drugs: EPO, testosterone, growth hormone, cortisone and steroids.

On several occasions she was with Mr. Frankie Andreu in Europe where he rode races as member of the professional cycling teams. As a result Ms. Andreu testified to USADA about the widespread trafficking, possession and distribution of prohibited substances and discussions about doping in these professional cycling teams. She stated about the involvement in doping of Mr. Andreu, Lance Armstrong, other accompliced riders, medical doctors and officials.
Also she testified about the altercations between Mr. Andreu and Lance Armstrong.

Affidavit Levi Leipheimer [USADA vs Lance Armstrong October 10, 2012] September 21, 2012

Mr. Levi Leipheimer is a professional cyclist from 1997 through 2012 and rode in the professional teams of Comptel – Colorado Cyclist, Saturn, U.S. Postal Service, Rabobank, Gerolsteiner, Discovery Channel, Astana, Team RadioShack and Omega Pharma-Quick Step.
Leipheimer admitted he used Actovegin, Erythropoietin (EPO), testosterone and blood doping.
The Athlete testified to USADA about the widespread trafficking, distribution and use of prohibited substances and methods in the professional cycling teams, his involvement and the involvement of Lance Armstrong, accompliced riders, medical doctors and officials.
Also Leipheimer provided USADA copies of text messages from Lance Armstrong.

CAS 2012/A/2756 James Armstrong v. World Curling Federation (WCF)

Related case:

World Curling Federation 2012 WCF vs James (Jim) Armstrong
March 6, 2012

• Wheelchair curling
• Doping (Tamoxifen)
• Relation between Article 10.5.1 and Article 10.4 WADA Code
• Use of utmost caution by an athlete when storing his medicine
• Strict approach in the CAS power reviewing the discretion enjoyed by the disciplinary body of an association to set a sanction
• Requirements to be met in case of “no significant fault or negligence”

1. Article 10.5.1 WADA Code is the applicable rule in the event that an athlete is able to establish that he bears no fault or negligence in connection with the presence of a Specified Substance in his sample. This follows from the fact that Article 10.4 does not provide for a complete elimination of any sanction, but rather stipulates a “reprimand” as the most lenient consequence of the presence of a Specified Substance in a sample. In a case where an athlete is found to bear no fault at all, he cannot be sanctioned, not even with a reprimand, and this is what is provided for in Article 10.5.1 which applies to Specified and non-Specified Substances. By contrast, when negligence in connection with a Specified Substance comes into play, Article 10.4 is lex specialis vis-à-vis Article 10.5.

2. The fact that the athlete stored his own medicine together with the medicine of his wife in a box and also reused containers of Tamoxifen, certainly does not constitute an exercise of utmost caution. It should have been more than obvious to the athlete that the medicine could have been easily mistaken. This consideration would and could have been made by any person and does not even require utmost caution, but rather any form of ordinary caution, no matter whether the respective person is a health professional or not.

3. CAS “enforces a strict approach in the definition of its power reviewing the exercise of the discretion enjoyed by the disciplinary body of an association to set a sanction”. This Panel confirms the CAS jurisprudence according to which the measure of the sanction imposed by a disciplinary body in the exercise of the discretion allowed by the relevant rules, can be reviewed only when the sanction “is evidently and grossly disproportionate to the offence”. According to CAS jurisprudence, the sanction imposed on an athlete must not be disproportionate to the offence and must always reflect the extent of the athlete’s guilt.

4. According to CAS case law “the requirements to be met by the qualifying element «no significant fault or negligence» must not be set excessively high … [nor] too low”.

In January 2012 the Wold Curling Federation (WCF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete James Armstron after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Tamoxifen.

The Athlete was notified but not provisional suspended thereafter. He filed a statement and supporting evidence in his defence and was heard for the WCF Case Hearing Panel.

The Athlete explained he had moved from the West Coast to Ontario after his wife died of breast cancer in 2009. All his prescription medications were moved in the same box, including those belonging to his wife. Occasionally when he became short of medications he would use the medication in this box and therefore unwittingly contamination occurred of his medication with old prescribed Tamoxifen medication of his deceased wife.

The Panel found that Athlete acted negligently in storing, repackaging and reusing medicine containers with or without their contents (in this case Tamoxifen), particularly containers of drugs prescribed for another person. The Panel was not convinced that in this case the level of Tamoxifen detected is compatible with a simple contamination but as a residue of and ingestion of the substance.

Considering that the Athlete was seriously negligently, yet without evidence of intent or actual enhancement of performance exists, the WCF Case Hearing Panel decided to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in March 2012 the Athlete appealed the WCF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

Following assessment of the case the Panel concludes that the Athlete indeed committed an anti-doping rule violation. However the Panel deems that the sanction of 18 months is disproportionate and that a reduced sanction must be imposed.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 September 2012:

1.) The appeal filed on 25 March 2012 by Mr. James P. (Jim) Armstrong against the decision issued on 6 March 2012 by the WCF under the provisions of the WCF Anti-Doping-Rules, is partially upheld.

2.) The decision issued on 6 March 2012 by the WCF Hearing Panel is set aside. A period of ineligibility of six (6) months commencing on 6 March 2012 is imposed on the Appellant.

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

5.) All other motions or prayers for relief submitted by the parties are dismissed.

Related case:
SAIDS 2012_05 SAIDS vs Johan Pieterse
March 6, 2012

On 6 March 2012 the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

WADA appealed this SAIDS decision to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
The Athlete stated regarding to the supplement he performed an internet search on the WADA and SAIDS website and the results did not cause any alarm as in fact the searches showed no results.
WADA argued that the WADA website contains a warning: “Extreme caution is recommended regarding supplement use”. In addition the WADA website warns that “the misuse of supplements and taking a poorly labelled dietary supplement is not an adequate defence in a doping hearing”.

The Appeal Tribunal concludes that the athlete voluntarily took a performance enhancing supplement with the precise aim of enhancing his performance. He was on guard as to the potential risks but still apparently satisfied himself with scant and inadequate internet checks. In addition the athlete failed to disclose his use of the supplement on the Doping Control Form.

The Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa decides as follows:
1.) The Appeal of WADA is admissible.
2.) The decision rendered by the SAIDS Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee on 6 March 2012 is set aside.
3.) The Athlete is sanctioned with a 2 period of ineligibility starting on the 20th September 2012. Any period of ineligibility, whether imposed on, or voluntarily accepted by the Athlete before such date shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.
4.) No order is made as to costs

Huidplooimetingen - minicollege Eigen Kracht (Dutch title)

Measuring bodyfat percentage can be a tricky thing to do correctly. Sportnutritionist Floris Wardenaar shows how to procede if you want to measure somebody's bodyfat percentage. At several points of the body the skinfolds are measured with a skinfold caliper and added to a sum that is compared to a skinfold table. To measure correctly you need a lot of experience. It is advised that the same person is taking the measurements in time to get a correct estimate.

This video is part of the True Strength (Eigen Kracht) campaign of the Dopingautoriteit. A campaign that warns gym users and bodybuilders for the health risks of doping use and offers healthy and effective alternatives (training, recovery, nutrition, nutritional supplements, mental techniques).

Nutrient Timing - minicollege Eigen Kracht (Dutch title)

Nutrient Timing is a concept in sportsnutrition that has gained considerable popularity with fitness enthousiasts and athletes alike. Sportnutritionist Floris Wardenaar discusses NT and it's different components (Energy Phase, Anabolic Phase and Growth Phase).

This video is part of the True Strength (Eigen Kracht) campaign of the Dopingautoriteit. A campaign that warns gym users and bodybuilders for the health risks of doping use and offers healthy and effective alternatives (training, recovery, nutrition, nutritional supplements, mental techniques).

Bewegen vs Voeding - minicollege Eigen Kracht (Dutch title)

Obesity and being overweight is becoming a worldwide health problem. Often more exercise is advised to combat this problem. In this True Strength minilecture sportnutritionist and exercise physiologist Tjeu Maas discusses the effectivity of exercise and nutrition. Conclusion: cutting calories is more effective than upping your exercise regimen in slimming down.

This video is part of the True Strength (Eigen Kracht) campaign of the Dopingautoriteit. A campaign that warns gym users and bodybuilders for the health risks of doping use and offers healthy and effective alternatives (training, recovery, nutrition, nutritional supplements, mental techniques).

Alcohol & herstel (Dutch title)

Alcohol can compromise the athlete's recuperation, and in doing so halts his progress. Sportnutritionist Floris Wardenaar in his True Strength mini lecture discusses alcohol consumption and sports, and why it's not the way to go.

This video is part of the True Strength (Eigen Kracht) campaign of the Dopingautoriteit. A campaign that warns gym users and bodybuilders for the health risks of doping use and offers healthy and effective alternatives (training, recovery, nutrition, nutritional supplements, mental techniques).