Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 2012, 9:28
Paolo Borrione, Marta Rizzo, Federico Quaranta, Emanuela Ciminelli, Federica Fagnani, Attilio Parisi and Fabio Pigozzi

Background: A growing consumption of natural (plant-derived) dietary supplements with ergogenic aims, with particular regard for ecdysteroids, phytoestrogens and vegetal sterols, has been registered over the last years among “recreational” athletes. The present study was carried out in order to evaluate the real knowledge of plant-derived nutritional supplements among physically active people as well as their real consumption. Additional aim was to evaluate the effects of these supplements on the health profile of the users.

Methods: Twenty-three trained subjects who habitually used natural dietary supplements, and 30 matched controls
were analyzed for plasma biochemical markers and hormonal profile.
Results: The laboratory tests revealed the absence of any sign of organ toxicity/damage in both athletes and controls. On the contrary, hormone profiles revealed marked alterations in 15 (65%) out of the 23 of investigated athletes. Specifically, 10 males presented increased plasma levels of progesterone, 15 subjects presented abnormal estrogen levels, including 5 (2 F and 3 M) presenting a “dramatic” increased estrogen values and 2 two males with increased estrogen levels, increased testosterone levels and associated suppression of luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone.

Conclusions: The results of the present study highlighted that the habitual consumption of plant-derived nutritional supplements is frequently associated with significant hormonal alterations both in male and female subjects. Although these biochemical alterations were not associated with signs or symptoms of organ toxicity/
damage at the moment of the study, it cannot be excluded that, in the mid/long-term, these subjects would suffer of health problems secondary to chronic exposure to heavily altered hormonal levels. Further large scale studies are needed to confirm the results of this pilot study as well as to investigate the biological mechanisms at the base of the observed hormonal alterations.

Annual Report 2012 / South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS). - Cape Town : SAIDS, 2012
ISBN: 978-0-621-40324-4

On May 2012 the International Skating Union (ISU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete Pavel Kulizhnikov after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete submitted that due to a cold with fever he used a herbal medicine Umkalor for the treatment of his respiratory disease and he checked the ingredients of the product before using. The Athlete stated that he stopped using the medicine a few day before arriving in Japan on 21 February 2012.
The Athlete asserted that the positive test result could have been caused only by Umkalor because it contained the ingredient “pelagonium sidoides”, the Latin name for geranium (methylhexaneamine). However the Montreal laboratorium reported that “pelargonium sidoides” in the Umkalor is not known to contain the substance methylhexaneamine.
In addition the Tokyo laboratory reported that the concentration methylhexaneamine found in the Athletes sample cannot be explained by the use of Umkalor. With Umkalor excluded as the source of the prohibited substance, the ISU requested the Russian team physician for a detailed list of the nutritional supplements and drugs provided to the Athlete from 21 February to 4 March 2012. Nevertheless none of the products on the list could explain the positive test result.

Therefore the ISU Disciplinary Commission concludes that the Athlete could not establish how the prohibited substance entered his body and that there are no grounds for exceptional circumstances.
Therefore the ISU Discilinary Commission decides 31 August 2012 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 4 March 2012.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Organization (UKAD) charged Simon Carty (respondent) for a violation of the British Bobsleigh Association's (BBA) Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). On 28 February 2012, the Respondent provided sample for doping control purposes. His sample tested positive for for the prohibited substance clenbuterol. On 8 April 2012, the Respondent requested the matter be referred to the National Anti-Doping Panel ("NADP") for hearing and determination in accordance with the ADR and NADP procedural rules.

History
The Respondent hereby admits the use of the prohibited substance clenbuterol during January and February 2012. This use occurred via the respondent's intentional consumption of a tablet-form weight loss product that he understood to be a Chinese manufactured "fat burner", whilst recovering from surgery.

The parties have proposed a resolution of the matter, subject to the approval of the NADP Tribunal.

Decision
1. Respondent admits the use of the prohibited substance clenbutorol.
2. Respondent admits the violation of the BBA ADR.
3. As a consequence, a period of Ineligibility is imposed upon the Respondent of two years.
4. During tho two year period of ineligibility: the Respondent may not participate In any capacity in any Competition, Event or other activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) organized, convened, authorized or recognized by (a) the BBA or any body that is a member of, or affiliated to, or licensed by the BBA; (b) and Signatory; (c) any club or other body that is a member organixation; or (d) any professional league or any international or national level Event organization. In addition, save where the
Anti-Doping Rule Violation involved only a Specified Substance, some or all financial support or benefits (if any) that the BBA might have otherwise provided to the Participant shall be withheld. In addition, the BBA shall take all steps within its power to have the period of ineligibility recognized and enforced by all relevant parties, including other Signatories pursuant to Code Article 15.4; The Respondent shall remain subject to and bound to comply with the BBA ADR, including the obligation to submit to drug-testing under the rules. If requested, he will provide information as to his whereabouts to facilitate such testing.
5. There shall be no order as to the costs of these proceedings.
6. The disposition of these proceedings on the terms set out above will be publicly announced via UK Anti-Doping's website.
7. The Respondent has no further right of appeal against this order, but each of the International Bobsleigh and Tobogganing Federation (FIBT) and the World Anti-Doping Agency has a right of appeal against this Order or any part of it.

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 substance cannabis.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the Disciplinary Committee. The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 13 June 2012.

CAS 2011/A/2537 WADA v/ Toni Milanovic & Croatian Muay Thai Federation

On 28 July 2010 the Croatian Muaythai Federation decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Toni Milanovic after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Methylhexaneamine (1,3-dimethylamylamine), Boldenone and Salbutamol.

Hereafter in August 2011 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the Croatian Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealled Decision and to impose a sanction on the Athlete between 2 and 4 years.

During the CAS Proceedings the Croatian Muaythai Federation acknowledged that it had rendered an erroneous decision and that it shall start proceedings in order to render a new decision against the Athlete.

Thereupon in March 2012 WADA requested the Council of CAS to withdraw its appeal following the Croatian Muaythai Federation had set aside the Appealed Decision and imposed a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Therefore on 30 August 2012 the Court of Arbitration for Sport pronounces:

1.) The procedure CAS 2011/A/2537 WADA v/ Tom Milanovic & Croatian Muay Thai Federation is terminated and deleted from the CAS roll.

2.) The Appellant shall bear the costs of the present procedure in an amount of CHF 2394.- (two thousand three hundred ninety-four Swiss francs).

3.) Respondent 2 shall bear the costs of the present procedure in an amount of CHF 2394.- /788.- (two thousand three hundred ninety-four- Swiss francs).

4.) Each party shall bear its own legal costs.

CAS 2011/A/2562 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Federación Venezolona de Fútbol (FVF) & José Javier Villafraz Quintero

Football
Doping (modafinil)
Hierarchy of norms and exceptions to the principle
FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations as lex specialis for appeals regarding doping related issues
Scope of the appeal
Power of review of the International Federation over decisions taken at national level
Substantial delay

1. It follows from the principle of hierarchy of norms that rules and resolutions enacted by an association must be in compliance with the highest regulatory framework, i.e. the Statutes of the association. In case of contradiction between lower ranking norms and the Statutes it is the latter that take precedence. However, there are also exceptions to the principle of hierarchy of norms. One of them is a – certain – standing practice by the respective organs of the association. Obviously the threshold for such a deviating standing practice should not be set too low, because otherwise Statutes would lose their status as supreme and predominant rules of an association.

2. Doping cases within FIFA are on a constant basis handled according on the basis of the FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations. This happens even with the knowledge of the supreme organ of FIFA, the General Assembly, since the latter is not only competent to decide on amendments of the Statutes, but also enact the FIFA ADR. In view of all of this, FIFA for its appeals regarding doping related issues can rely on the provisions in the FIFA ADR, which constitutes a proper lex specialis.

3. When the appealed decision confirms (or modifies) the original decision, after a review by the same judging authority, it is that latter decision that forms the basis of any appeal and the receipt of which that starts deadlines running. This is different from two separate judging authorities (even where they are both constituted under one governing body or federation) where the second hears an appeal by a party from the decision of the first and often annuls, confirms or replaces the decision of the first judging body.

4. The role of an International Federation is to ensure that the national associations and federations are properly complying with its regulations, so it should “step in” only after all appeals or reviews at a national level are complete. The final decision (the appealed decision) of a national body is final and binding upon an athlete at national level only. It cannot be right to state that an internal review could have the effect of making a decision final and binding upon the International Federation.

5. 22 months from the sample date to a final hearing constitute a “substantial delay” for an adverse finding where the B sample had not been requested, the infraction itself not contested nor any arguments regarding fault or negligence advanced.

On 13 January 2011 the Consejo de Honor of the Venezuelan Football Federation (FVF) decided to impose a fine and a 1 year period of ineligibility on the football player José Javier Villafraz Quintero after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Modafinil. The Athlete appealed but on 22 June 2011 the FVF Consejo de Honor decided to uphold the decision of 13 January 2011.

Hereafter in September 2011 the International Football Federation (FIFA) appealed the FVF decision of 22 June 2011 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

FIFA requested the Panel to set aside the FVF decision of 22 June 2011 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. FIFA contended that the Athlete failed to produce any convincing evidence on how the prohibited substance entered his body. The Athlete had simply alleged that he felt unwell and took some medicine. The team doctor and physiotherapist of the Athlete’s club have both denied providing the Athlete with any medication containing Modafinil. The Athlete has also failed to provide any proof that the other medications he had allegedly taken were contaminated with a prohibited substance. The Athlete’s arguments therefore were pure speculations which were not substantiated with any proof whatsoever.

The Athlete and the FVF requested the Panel to dismiss the FIFA appeal and to confirm the FVF decision of 22 June 2011. The Athlete did not contest the violation itself but challenged the admissibility of the FIFA Appeal because it was filed after the deadline to appeal had expired as stipulated in the applicable FIFA Rules.

The Panel notes a potentional conflict between the FIFA Statutes and the FIFA ADR since both sources of regulation are in contradiction in respect of the time limit to appeal. Nevertheless the Panel establish that the appeal was admissible and been brought by FIFA expressly under article 62 par. 4 of the FIFA ADR. In the Panel’s opinion that was the most appropriate route and it constitutes a proper lex specialis for doping related issues. Further the Panel determine that only when it was in possession of the complete case file FIFA was in the position it could file its appeal with CAS in September 2011 for a de novo hearing.

The Panel notes that it is uncontended that the Athlete committed the anti-doping offence when the Laboratory confirmed the presence of the substance Modafinil in the urine sample. Accordingly the Panel finds that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation under the FIFA ADR without grounds for reducing the standard 2 year period of ineligibility in this case. Since there were substantial delays in the proceeding not attributed to the Athlete, the Panel deems that the sanction wil start on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 23 May 2010.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 28 August 2012 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Fédération Internationale de Football Association on 7 September 2011 against the decision of the Consejo de Honor of Federación Venezolona de Fútbol dated 22 June 2011 is allowed.
2.) Mr José Javier Villafraz Quintero is hereby sanctioned with a two year period of ineligibility starting on 23 May 2010 and therefore expiring on 22 May 2012.
(…)
5.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

The Royal Netherlands Power Sport and Fitness Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Krachtsport en Fitnessfederatie, KNKF) has reported an anti doping rule violation against this person after he tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone and the substance 3-hydroxy-e-methoxytamoxifen (a metabolite of tamoxifen). At het Doping Control Station Person stated he had used paracetamol with codeine and diclofenac with serum. KNKF notified the person of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension.

After notification person didn’t reply nor filed a statement in his defence. In absence of Person the Disciplinary Committee considers the violation of the Anti-Doping Rules proven. Without mitigating circumstances it decides an ineligibility of two years.
Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by person.

In June 2012 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Zane Killian after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance sibutramine.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that the source of the positive test is the product Simply Slim, a controversial fat burner and appetite suppresser. He argued that a shoulder injury prevented him from training properly and playing matches on a regular basis. Consequently he became depressed, ate more than usual, trained less and gained weight. Therefore he used the product Simply Slim to suppress his appetite and to lose weight. The Athlete read the label of the product and stated that the prohibited substance was not mentioned on the box.

Without intention to enhance his sport performance the SAIDS Disciplianry Committee decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the Athlete’s last competition he played, i.e. on 19 June 2012.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Organization ("UKAD") charged Lewis Gibbons (the "player") for a violation of the Anti-Doping rules. On May 27, 2012, the Player competed in the National Wheelchair Tennis Championships. Following competition, the Player provided a urine sample for doping control purposes. The analysis revealed the presence of 11-nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid (cannabis), this prohibited substance is included in the WADA 2012 Prohibited List.

History
On 13 July 2012, the player admitted the Charge in writing. On 5 August, he waived his right to have the B sample tested (also in writing). The Player has provided written and oral evidence as to the ingestion of the cannabis. He explained that he suffered a serious accident in 2008, resulting in lower limb paralysis. After extended treatment, the player began playing wheelchair tennis in 2009. He continued to suffer severe pain from his accident, despite the medication prescribed to him. He used cannabis to assist with the alleviation of pain. UK Anti-Doping accepts the Player’s explanation of how the Prohibited Substance entered his system. The Player asserts that he did not ingest cannabis with a view to enhancing his performance.

Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation according to Article C.1 has been established;
2. A period of Ineligibility of three months shall be the consequences imposed pursuant to Article M.4;
3. That period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced as from 13 July 2012, and will therefore end at midnight on 12 October 2012; and
4. The Player’s status during the period of Ineligibility shall be as provided in Article M.10.