Annual Report 2010-2011 / India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA). - New Delhi : INADA, 2011
Contents:
Chapter-1 Introduction
Chapter-2 Organizational Set up, Budget allocation
Chapter-3 Anti Doping Rules, NADA
Chapter-4 Sample Testing
Chapter-5 Major Events Covered and Samples Collection Data
Chapter-6 Result Management
Chapter-7 Panels/Committee
Chapter-8 Education and Training
Chapter-9 International Relations
Implementation of the WADA Code in the European Union / Robert C.R Siekman, Janwillem Soek. – (International Sports Law Journal (2011) 1-2 : 73-74)
A.) Relationship between the national rules and regulations and the WADA Code
B.) Specific points of attention
Anti-Doping Law in Sport : The Hybrid Character of WADA and the Human Rights of Athletes in Doping Cases (Proportionality Principle) / Robert C.R. Siekmann. – (International Sports Law Journal (2011) 1-2 : p. 89-96)
Content:
1.) Introduction
2.) WADA: a public-private body
3.) The Dutch billiard social drugs case and the principle of proportionality
3.1.) First instance: Instituut Sportrechtspraak: Royal Dutch Billiards Federation (KNBB) (complainant) v N. Zuijkerbuijk (defendant)
3.1.1.) Comment
3.2.) Appeal: Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
3.2.1.) Comment
4.) Summary and conclusion
Content:
The special characteristic of “anti-doping law” from an institutional, organizational perspective is the fact that national governments and intergovernmental organisations (IGOs) directly participate in WADA and the close linkage between the UNESCO Convention and the WADA Code. This issue will be discussed in detail in the first part of this article. The hot issue of the legal aspects of the fight against doping in sport is the relationship between “anti-doping law” and the human rights of athletes in doping cases, that is the applicability of general public human rights law to doping in sport. In the second part of the article a case of this type in which in 2009 this author was personally involved as a member of the appeals committee of the Instituut Sportrechtspraak [Netherlands Institute for Sport Adjudication] will be presented. The Appeals Board’s decision was finally submitted to the CAS which was and still is the first time in history with regard to a Dutch case.
CAS 2010/A/2185 Alberto Blanco v. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)
CAS 2010/A/2229 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Fédération Internationale de Volleyball (FIVB) & Gregory Berrios
In January 2009 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Alberto Blanco after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Prasterone (DHEA).
Consequently on 14 July 2010 the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel (AAA) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 15 December 2008.
In first instance the AAA Panel deemed that the Beijing Laboratory had provided sufficient information to permit interpretation of the results for the A and B Samples. There was no violation of the ISL.
Hereafter in July 2010 the Athlete appealed the AAA 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 argued that the test results showing the presence of a prohibited exogenous substance in his urine Samples are unreliable. This unreliability arises from the fact that no negative controls were run by the laboratory during the analyses of his A and B Samples, and the alleged lack of robustness and reproducibility with regard to the test results.
The Panel assessed and addressed the issued raised by the Athlete and determines:
Therefore the Court of Arbitraton for Sport decides on 1 April 2011:
1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Alberto Blanco against the Award dated 14 July 2010 rendered by the AAA Panel is dismissed.
2.) Each party bears its own costs.
3.)The present award is rendered without costs, with the exception of the Court office fee of CHF 500, paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS.
4.) Any further claim is dismissed.
Discrimination of recombinant from natural human growth hormone using DNA aptamers / John G. Bruno, Maria P. Carrillo, Taylor Phillips, Allison Edge. - (Journal of Biomolecular Techniques 22 (2011) 1 (April) ; p. 27-36)
Abstract
Detection of athletes who use synthetic human growth hormone (hGH; or somatotropin) to enhance physical strength and obtain an advantage in competitive sports is a formidable problem, as rhGH is virtually identical to the natural pituitary hormone. However, some post-translational and other modifications have been documented by chromatographic separation and mass spectrometry (MS) in a small percentage of rhGH. In the present work, development of DNA aptamers against research-grade rhGH and natural hGH with adsorption of the rhGH aptamers against natural hGH was shown to produce a small family of aptamer sequences that bound consistently with greater affinity to rhGH over a low nanogram-to-microgram range in ELISA-like microplate assays. This collection of rhGH discriminatory aptamer sequences shared some short sequence segments and secondary structural features. The top rhGH discriminatory aptamers also appeared to cross-react with human myoglobin and BSA but not with bone collagen peptides and an unrelated viral envelope peptide. The cross-reactivity results suggested several strings of up to five consecutive amino acids that might serve as common epitopes for aptamer binding. SDS-PAGE revealed that the rhGH existed largely as a 45-kDa dimer, and the natural hGH was almost exclusively monomeric. The existence of the rhGH dimer suggests that a discontinuous "bridge" epitope may exist on the rhGH, which spans the subunits, thereby accounting somewhat for the difference in detection. Overall, these results suggest that aptamers might be useful for routine, presumptive laboratory screening to identify athletes who are potentially cheating by administration of rhGH.
Facts
The French University Sport Federation (Fédération Française du Sport Universitaire, FFSU) charges respondent M35 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a weightlifting event on March 12, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of oxymetholone and an abnormal high level testosterone in relation to epitestosterone. A spectrometric report on isotopes reveals testosterone of exogenous origin. These substances are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).
History
The respondent didn't provide any explanation about how the prohibited substances had entered his body.
Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized or authorized by the French sport federations.
2. The decision, dated October 7, 2010, from the disciplinary committee of the FFSU is cancelled.
3. All the results obtained at the weightlifting event on March 12, 2010, are cancelled. Medals, points and prizes are withdrawn.
4. The decision will start on the date of the notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.
Facts
The French Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M34 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On April 10, 2010, a doping test he had to attent to was not performed.
History
The respondent arrived to late for the doping test due to some official obligations, he also didn't sign the doping control papers.
Decision
1. The decision is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFBB.
2. The decision (acquittal) dated September 3, 2010, from the disciplinary committee of the FFBB is cancelled.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.
Facts
The French Federation for Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo and Associated Disciplines (Fédération Française de Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo et Disciplines Associées FFJDA) charges respondent M33 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The respondent didn't provide his whereabouts data within 18 months, as being part of the registered testing pool he is obligated to provide this information.
History
The respondent didn't gave any reason for not providing his whereabouts information.
Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of nine months in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized by the FFJDA.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served by the decision (3 months period of ineligibility), dated October 18, 2010, from the disciplinary committee of the FFJDA.
3. The decision, dated October 18, 2010, from the disciplinary committee of the FFJDA will be modified.
4. The decision start on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.
Facts
The French University Sport Federation (Fédération Française du Sport Universitaire, FFSU) charges respondent M32 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a beach-volley tournament on June 10, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and is regarded as specified substances.
History
The respondent didn't provide any explanation about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.
Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one year in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized or authorized by the FFSU, as pronounced in the decision, dated October 7, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFSU. The sanction is extended to related French sport federations.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served by the decision, dated October 7, 2010, from the disciplinary committee of the FFSU.
3. The decision will start on the date of the notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.
Facts
The French Handball Federation (Fédération Française de Handball, FFHB) charges respondent M31 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on May 29, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis above the threshold value but in a low concentration. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Cannabis is regarded as a specified substance.
History
The respondent used cannabis a few days before the doping test, and the consumption should be regarded as exceptional. There was no intention to enhance sport performances.
Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized by the FFHB.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served by the decision (2 months period of ineligibility) dated November 5, 2010, of the disciplinary committee of the FFHB.
3. The decision dated November 5, 2010, of the disciplinary committee of the FFHB will be modified.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.
