Related case:
JBN 2011 JBN Appeal Committee 2011034 B
December 29, 2011

The Judo Bond Nederland (JBN) has reported an anti doping rule violation against this person after he tested positive for methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
Person filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Committee.
Person stated he had used a supplement prior to fitness training and didn’t know it contained a prohibited stimulant. Person received the supplement from his brother, a medicine student. Person didn’t inquire about the ingredients in the supplement and stated he wasn’t informed about doping and supplements by the JBN.
The committee concluded that person violated the anti doping rules and didn’t accept person's statement about the supplement. Without mitigating circumstances the Disciplinary Committee declared the person ineligibility for competition for 2 years and disqualified his previous competition results.

Antonino Bianco, Caterina Mammina, Antonio Paoli, Marianna Bellafiore, Giuseppe Battaglia, Giovanni Caramazza, Antonio Palma, and Monèm Jemni
J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2011; 8: 25.

Background: It is known that supplement use is a widespread and accepted practice by athletes and people who attend commercial gyms. Little is known about protein supplement amongst people undertaking strength trainingin commercial gyms in Italy when compared to the US.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the use of protein supplementation, alone or in association with other supplements, and dietary behavior amongst regular fitness center attendees in Palermo, Italy.

Design: Resistance training information have been collected from 800 regular fitness center attendees for the initial analysis. A specific questionnaire was generated for the experimentation. Data were collected using a face-toface interview method. Supplement users were then compared to the non users and analyzed using a one-way ANOVA, Kruskall-Wallis, chi-square test or exact test of Fisher when appropriate.

Results: 30.1% of the respondents use dietary supplements during their training as a believe it is the “way to gain muscles and strength”. Whey protein shakes (50.0%) mixed with creatine and amino-acids (48.3%) were the most frequent choices amongst the users. A majority of the subjects (34.0%) appeared to rely on their gym instructors’ advice for their intake; a lower proportion (13.0%) consulted physicians, while none of them consulted nutritionists.
A high consumption of milk has been noticed in both users (67,7%) and non-users (52,8%); supplement non-users consumed significantly more snacks and bakery products than users per week (P < 0.001), while users consumed significantly more protein-rich foods (P < 0.01) with a particular preference for meat (48.0%).

Conclusions: A considerable number of regular strength training adepts consume protein supplements mixed with other products (mainly creatine and amino-acids). Limited numbers consult “dietary specialists” and rely mainly on their instructors. We emphasize on the importance of the dissemination of scientifically based
information about supplementation in this environment and the promotion of updated educational programs for the instructors.

CAS 2011/A/2403 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG) & Anastasiya Melnychenko

• Gymnastics
• Doping (furosemide)
• Panel’s evaluation of experts working on the account of one of the parties
• Panel’s considerations before imposing the appropriate sanction on the athlete

1. When appraising conclusions raised by experts working on the account of one of the parties, a panel takes into consideration the fact that such persons are not acting as independent experts in the case.

2. An athlete bears a high responsibility in the choice of his medical attendant and caution must be exercised in the ingestion of medication. However, for an athlete of 15 years of age at the time of the offence, much of the responsibility normally accorded to the athlete must be expected of the athlete’s coaches and the federation. When considering the appropriate sanction, the panel must also consider if the decision relating to the health of the athlete had to be taken quickly, or if the athlete did ask the treating doctor whether the medication prescribed could lead to a violation and the response given was inaccurate.

In December 2010 the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Ukrainian Athlete Anastasiya Melnychenko after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide. The Athlete admitted the use of prescribed medication Lasix when she underwent treatment in a hospital.

Consequently the FIG Disciplinary Commission decided on 25 February 2010 to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

Hereafter in April 2010 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the FIG Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Undisputed in this case between the parties is that the medication Lasix was justifiably prescribed for the treatment of the Athlete's medical condition.

The Panel determines that it was justified for the FIG Disciplinary Commission to reduce the standard period of ineligibility and to exercise its discretion under Article 10.4 of the FIG Rules, however not to the extent they did.

The Panel considers that a suspension of 4 months from the date of the present award, less the 2-month ban already served would better reflect the seriousness of the offense, the fundamental responsibility of the athlete and her young age and lack of experience.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 25 August 2011:

1.) The appeal filed by WADA on 7 April 2011 against the decision issued on 25 February 2011 by the FIG Disciplinary Commission is partially upheld.

2.) The FIG Disciplinary Commission’s decision dated 25 February 2011 is set aside.

3.) Ms Anastasiya Melnychenko is sanctioned with a 4-month period of ineligibility as from the date of the present award; any period of ineligibility already served from 25 February 2011 to the date of this award shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

6. All other or further claims are dismissed.

Motives for illicit use of doping substances among athletes calling a national antidoping phone-help service : an exploratory study / Jean Bilard, Gregory Ninot, Denis Hauw. - (Substance Use & Misuse 46 (2011) 4; p. 359-367)

• PMID: 20735214
• DOI: 10.3109/10826084.2010.502553

Abstract

This study aimed to construct a hierarchy of motives linked to doping behaviors. Between 2000 and 2005, calls to a national antidoping phone-help service by 115 cyclists, 203 bodybuilders, and 40 footballers were analyzed. The results showed that the main motives were preserving health for cyclists, increasing muscular strength for bodybuilders, and personal recreation for footballers. However, in contrast to the literature, group influence was low and health preoccupations were high for cyclists; the influence of body image was relatively low for bodybuilders; and footballers cited muscular strength enhancement as a motive. The study's limitations are noted. The prevention campaigns therefore need to be specific.

The Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) has reported and anti-doping rule violation against Simon Favaro (the Driver) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance THC (Cannabis).
The FIA notified the Driver and ordered a provisional suspension.
On 24 August 2011 the Anti-Doping Committee - FIA Medical Commission (ACMC) decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Driver starting on 9 July 2011.

CAS 2010/A/2293 Saeid Ali-Hosseini v. International Weightlifting Federation

CAS 2010/A/2293 Saeid Ali-Hosseini vs IWF

• Weightlifting
• Doping (metandienone)
• Athlete’s notification of the date, time and place of the B-sample test
• Federation’s policy imposing lifetime bans on athletes and revision of the WADA Code

1. There is no violation of an athlete’s rights with regard to the testing of the B sample if the athlete returned the filled-out doping control report requesting the B sample be tested and declining to be present for the B sample analysis. Under these circumstances, there is no reason for the federation to notify the athlete of the date, time and place of the B sample test, and the federation does not violate the athlete’s rights in failing to do so.

2. Even if under earlier versions of the WADA Code a federation had a policy of imposing lifetime bans in an effort to deter doping, it is article 10.7.1 that provides for the range of possible sanctions on athletes who committed a second anti-doping rule violation under the revised 2009 WADA Code and IWF Anti-Doping Policy. In light of this, a federation’s past policy is not necessarily relevant in deciding the appropriate sanction under the current version of article 10.7.1.

On 20 September 2010 the IWF Hearing Panel decided to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility in the Iranian weightlifter Saeid Ali-Hosseini for his second anti-doping rule violation after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methandienone.

Hereafter in November 2010 the Athlete appealed the IWF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to annul the imposed sanction.

The Athlete contended that there are 3 different grounds for annulment of the Appealed Decision. However, in his Appeal Brief and at the hearing the Athlete only developed his argument that the Panel should annul the Decision because he was not given an opportunity to attend or be represented at the opening and testing of his B sample.

Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that:

• The Athlete’s request to annul the Decision is rejected in its entirety.
• The Iran WF was acting on the Athletes behalf when it requested testing of the his B sample and declined to be present during the B-sample analysis.
• Under these circumstances, IWF did not violate the Athlete's fundamental rights when it failed to inform him of the time, date and place of the B-sample analysis.
• The results of the B-sample analysis stand and confirm the results of the A-sample analysis.
• IWF has established that the Athlete committed a second doping violation.
• Taking into account the particular facts and circumstances of this case a sanction of 12 years is imposed.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 August 2011:

1.) The appeal of Mr. Hosseini is partially upheld.

2.) The Decision dated 20 September 2010 of IWF’s Doping Hearing Panel is annulled only to the extent it imposed a lifetime ban on Mr. Hosseini.

3.) Mr. Hosseini’s period of ineligibility shall be for twelve years from 24 October 2009.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

6.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

CAS 2011/A/2499 Albert Subirats v. Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA), award of 24 August 2011

Related case:
FINA 2011 FINA vs Albert Subirats
May 7, 2011

• Aquatics
• Swimming
• Doping (Whereabouts filing failure)
• Responsibility of the athlete for making accurate and complete whereabouts filings
• Responsibility of the anti-doping organization in the notification of the filing failures

1. It is the responsibility of each swimmer registered in the FINA Registered Testing Pool to report the required whereabouts information to the FINA office. Even when the athlete chooses to delegate whereabouts filings to a third party such as a national federation, he or she remains ultimately responsible at all times for making accurate and complete whereabouts filings. In particular, the athlete must make sure that such third party effectively forwards the whereabouts information to the anti-doping organization on time.

2. The anti-doping organization is responsible for making an accurate notification to the athlete. If it decides to notify the filing failure communication to the athlete’s national federation instead of directly to the athlete, it has to make sure that the athlete receives such communication from the national federation. If the athlete does not receive the filing failure communication from the national federation, he or she may not be declared to have committed any filing failure.

On 21 June 2011 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) Doping Panel decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Venezuelan swimmer Albert Subirats for 3 Whereabouts Filing Failures in 2010 and 2011.

Hereafter in July 2011 the Athlete appealed the FINA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Uncontested in this case is the fact that the Athlete always sent the whereabouts information timely to the Venezuelan Swimming Federation (VSF). However the VSF failed to forward such information to FINA, neither for the first quarter of 2010, nor for the fourth quarter of 2010, nor for the first quarter of 2011.

In addition, uncontested and supported by the documents in the file, is the fact that the FINA notified all three filing failures by letters of 25 February 2010, 11 November 2010 and 2 February 2011 addressed only to the VSF.
No failure notices were ever sent by FINA to the Athlete directly. Also uncontested is the fact that VSF forwarded these communications to the Athlete for the first time on 2 February 2011, i.e. after the third violation had already occurred.

Since it is undisputed that the Athlete did not receive any filing failure notice before the third whereabouts filing failure, the Panel concludes that the existence of a second and a third violation cannot be reproached to the Athlete.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 August 2011:

1.) The Appeal filed by Mr Albert Subirats is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered on 21 June 2011 by the FINA Doping Panel is overturned.

3.) The second and the third filing failure for the fourth quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011 are cancelled.

4.) Mr Albert Subirats’ results are fully reinstated.

5.) (…).

6.) (…).

7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

The 2012 Prohibited List International Standard : The World Anti-Doping Code / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2011.

- The official text of the Prohibited List shall be maintained by WADA and shall be published in English and French. In the event of any conflict between the English and French versions, the English version shall prevail.
- This List shall come into effect on 1 January 2012

The frequency of doping in elite sport: Results of a replication study / Werner Pitsch, Eike Emrich. - (International Review for the Sociology of Sport 47 (2011) 5 (23 August); p. 559-580)

• DOI: 10.1177/2F1012690211413969

Abstract

The difficulty of measuring the prevalence of doping in elite sport is a recurring topic in the scientific literature on doping. The Randomized Response Technique is a method for asking such embarrassing or even threatening questions while allowing the respondents to answer honestly. It was used to measure the prevalence of doping among German squad athletes by Pitsch et al. (2005, 2007). In a replication study with better sampling control, it was possible to replicate the general trend of the data from the 2005 study. Nevertheless, there are differences in the details between the two sets of findings. An additional explorative analysis reveals that gender has an important impact on doping decisions. Most theories of doping, especially those derived from systems theory or economic game theory address neither the central findings nor the influence of gender. Based on these findings, we will discuss questions of theory development in relation to empirical evidence.

The motives for doping drug use in nonprofessional drug use in nonprofessional athletes  and methods of prevention / Petar Mitić, Dragan Radovanović. - (Facta Universitatis - Physical Education and Sport 9 (2011) 11; p. 203-212)

Doping is commonly associated with proffesional sport. Unfortunately, doping is not only used by athletes competing ’for medals,’ it is also common in various recreational sports activities. Studies carried out in different countries reveal the necessity of preventive action and the reduction of the incidence of doping drug use in this group of athletes. The clear identification of the motives in nonprofessional athletes for using these dangerous substances is the core of the problem and the sole adequate basis fordeveloping operative preventive plans.

Results obtained from various relevant studies have been presented. They point out thatthe athlete’s morality, personality characteristics, reference groups and the individuals themselves play vital roles in the process of starting to use doping drugs. Based on these findings, authors propose a comprehensive plan for the prevention and reduction of theincidence for doping drug use among nonprofessional athletes. The plan is based on: informative-educative work on the effect of doping on health, optimal nutrition planning, supplementation planning, and individual training system planning, all in accordance with the personality features, sports discipline and goals that a recreational athlete sets for himself. It is also of vital importance to work on improving the psychosocialcharacteristics of an individual.