In September 2010 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Sorin Mînerean after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.

At the hearing the Athlete denied the use of testosterone and stated that he only used the supplements Animal Pak and M-Stak.
The ANAD Hearing Commission decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

On July 8, 2010, the Royal Dutch Baseball and Softball Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Baseball en Softball Bond, KNBSB) Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the person after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine)

Person stated in his defence that he had used a supplement with the prohibited ingredient geranamine (methylhexaneamine), but didn’t know it was since 2009 on the prohibited list.
In September 2010 WADA published the 2011 prohibited list. The status of 4-methyl-2-hexanamine (methylhexaneamine) changed to ‘specified substance’. This status change was made after request of a number of anti-doping authorities, including the Dutch Anti Doping Authority, because free available supplements contain this substance.
This status change gives the committee the possibility to reduce the sanction due to the lex mitior. On 12 October 2010 the committee already lifted person’s ineligibility and on 8 February 2011 the KNBSB Appeal Committee decides to reduce the period of ineligibility until 12 October 2011. Fees and expenses for this Appeal Committee shall be borne by sport club.

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances clenbuterol and testosterone.
Therefore SAIDS recommends to the Disciplinary Committee to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the notification.

CAS 2010/A/2090 Finnish Ski Association & Aino-Kaisa Saarinen v. FIS

On 20 December 2009, the FIS disqualified Ms Saarinen after a World Cup 15 km race at Rogla, Slovenia for a violation of the ICR Article 392.5 (intentional obstruction during a race).
On 22 December 2009, the Appeals Commission of the FIS dismissed her appeal.

On 5 March 2010, the FIS Court dismissed her further appeal against the decision of the Appeals Commission, that this appeal is brought.

On 1 April 2010, Ms Saarinen and the FSA filed their statement of appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel has no means (any more than the FIS Court did) of comparing Ms Saarinen's case with others of necessity unexplored before it. It is in any event axiomatic that reasonable people (including sporting bodies) may reasonably have different views as to the gravity of different breaches of the rules of the sports and the sanctions appropriate to them.

While CAS enjoys the power to form its own view on the proportionality of any sanction, it ought not to ignore the expertise of the bodies involved in the particular sport in determining what sanctions are appropriate to what offence. It is notable that in this case three separate ski bodies reached the same conclusion as to penalty even if by different routes. The Panel considers that the FIS Court had a margin of appreciation not exceeded in this case.

The Panel finds that Ms Saarinen can at least be consoled by this that on the finding of the FIS Court she was not guilty of a deliberate effort to frustrate in an improper manner a competitor. She was guilty only of an offence of lesser seriousness. She is an experienced, successful and well respected cross country skier. This incident has caused, the Panel trusts, only a transient blow to her reputation.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport rules on 7 February 2011 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the Finnish Ski Association & Aino-Kaisa Saarinen on 1 April 2010 is dismissed.

2.) The decision rendered by the FIS Court on 5 March 2010 is confirmed.

3.) (...)

Determination of growth hormone releasing peptides (GHRP) and their major metabolites in human urine for doping controls by means of liquid chromatography mass spectrometry / Andreas Thomas, Sebastian Höppner, Hans Geyer, Wilhelm Schänzer, Michael Petrou, Dorota Kwiatkowska, Andrzej Pokrywka, Mario Thevis

• Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 401 (2011) 2 (August), p. 507-516
• PMID: 21298258
• DOI: 10.1007/s00216-011-4702-3

Abstract

A family of small peptides has reached the focus of doping controls representing a comparably new strategy for cheating sportsmen. These growth hormone releasing peptides (GHRP) are orally active and induce an increased production of endogenous growth hormone (GH). While the established test for exogenous GH fails, the misuse of these prohibited substances remains unrecognized. The present study provides data for the efficient extraction of a variety of known drug candidates (GHRP-1, GHRP-2, GHRP-4, GHRP-5, GHRP-6, alexamorelin, ipamorelin, and hexarelin) from human urine with subsequent mass spectrometric detection after liquid chromatographic separation. The used method potentially enables the retrospective evaluation of the acquired data for unknown metabolites by means of a non-targeted approach with high-resolution/high-accuracy full-scan mass spectrometry with additional higher collision energy dissociation experiments. This is of great importance due to the currently unknown metabolism of most of the targets and, thus, the method is focused on the intact peptidic drugs. Only the already characterised major metabolite of GHRP-2 (D-Ala-D-2-naphthylAla-L-Ala, as well as its stable isotope-labelled analogue) was synthesised and implemented in the detection assay. Method validation for qualitative purpose was performed with respect to specificity, precision (<20%), intermediate precision (<20%), recovery (47-95%), limit of detection (0.2-1 ng/mL), linearity, ion suppression and stability. Two stable isotope-labelled internal standards were used (deuterium-labelled GHRP-4 and GHRP-2 metabolite). The proof-of-principle was obtained by the analysis of excretion study urine samples obtained from a single oral administration of 10 mg of GHRP-2. Here, the known metabolite was detectable over 20 h after administration while the intact drug was not observed.

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis. After the notification a provisional suspension was ordered and Respondent was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation at the hearing, stated he had made a mistake and expressed remorse. He, and a witness, gave evidence that after playing the last game of the season for his club, several players went to a house warming party where there were also players from other clubs and at the party he shared a Cannabis joint with a group of older players. There was some evidence suggesting he may have taken the Cannabis due to peer pressure. His evidence was that this use of Cannabis was the source of the positive test at the later representative match. The Tribunal accepted that the Cannabis was not used for performance enhancing purposes.

The Tribunal notes he was an 18 year old athlete who has made a mistake and there were some mitigating factors. However, there is the aggravating factor that the week before the party Respondent had attended a training camp during which he received formal anti-doping education, including information about Cannabis being a prohibited substance. At the date of the party, when he smoked Cannabis, he knew that Cannabis was a prohibited substance.
The Tribunal considers the mitigating factors equated with the aggravating factors.
Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 November 2010 until 21 March 2011.

Mr. Virender is an Indian athlete in the sport of IPC Powerlifting, participating in the 2010 Asian Para Games.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Mr. Virender (the Respondent) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances epimetendiol and 17β-hydroxymethyl-17α-methyl-18-norandrost-1,4,13-trien-3-one (methandienone) and 19-norandrosterone (metabolites of 19-norandrostenedione).

The IPC notified Respondent of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension.
The notification letter enclosed a letter “Letter of Decision” for the Respondent to complete and return to IPC by no later that 18 December 2010.
Respondent returned the Letter of Decision to the IPC in timely fashion. In the letter, the Athlete singed that:
- he did not have a TUE granted for the prohibited substances in question;
- he accepted a provisional suspension starting on the date of the notification of an adverse analytical finding (18 December 2010);
- he accepted the results of the A sample analysis;
- he expressly waived the right to request the B sample analysis; and
- he accepted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.1 of the Code.

Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Committee.
Respondent admitted the us of Dianabol as well as the use of caffeine before the competition. He cannot explain the presence of 19-norandrostenedione.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends as follows:
(a) Respondent’s individual results obtained in the 2010 Asian Para Games from the date of 14 December 2010 onwards are automatically disqualified, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes won;
(b) A three year period of ineligibility is imposed on the Respondent;
(c) Respondent is declared ineligible form 14 December 2010 until 13 December 2013.

On 2 February 2011 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

Applications and biomonitoring issues of recombinant erythropoietins for doping control / Christina Tsitsimpikou, Demetrios Kouretas, Konstantinos Tsarouhas, Kenneth Fitch, Demetrios A. Spandidos, Aristides Tsatsakis. - (Therapeutic Drug Monitoring 33 (2011) 1 (February); p. 3-13)

• PMID: 21099742
• DOI: 10.1097/FTD.0b013e31820032c4

Abstract

The biochemical actions and side effects of recombinant erythropoietins (rhEPOs), their analogs and mimetics, their misuse as doping agents, and the principal analytical strategies developed to identify them in athletes' biologic fluids are reviewed. Patients who experience a range of pathologies have benefited from the administration of rhEPOs to correct severe anemia. Currently, monitoring the biologic effect of rhEPO in patients under treatment is by measuring the hemoglobin concentration. However, it may be valuable to directly monitor the actual levels of the administered drug and determine a dose-dependent correlation with any clinical adverse effect observed. This may permit the adoption of a patient-specific administration regime. Currently, the method of detecting EPO approved for doping control is an isoelectric-focusing, double-blotting, chemiluminescence assay based on charge differences between isoforms of rhEPOs and endogenous EPO in urine. The advantages and limitations of this method are presented. A new approach using sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis as a complementary tool to the established method is discussed. The application of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography combined with tandem mass spectrometry for the direct detection of the rhEPO molecules may prove to be promising. Indirect evidence of rhEPO abuse by athletes is based on the analysis of blood parameters (hemoglobin hematocrit, reticulocytes, macrocytes, etc) and serum markers (concentration of EPO and serum transferrin receptors, etc). Enrichment of the screened parameters with gene or biochemical markers revealing altered erythropoiesis and adoption of longitudinal monitoring of athletes' hematologic and biochemical parameters could also be a complementary approach in the fight against doping.

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 methylhexaneamine.
After the notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete stated he was provided with a supplement by his training partner that contained the prohibited substance unknown to all concerned and he had no intention to enhance his performance.
The Committee accepts the Athlete’s statement and finds that the evidence has established the criteria that will qualify for the elimination or reduction of the period of ineligibility for specified substance under specified circumstances.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 7 week period of ineligibility starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 15 December 2010 to 1 February 2011.

CAS 2010/A/2110 International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) v. Colombian Athletics Federation (CAF) & Johanna Trivino-Urrutia

• Athletics
• Doping (stanozolol)
• Obligation of IAAF Members to abide by the IAAF Rules and Regulations
• Election of the governing law by tacit agreement
• No participation of the respondent in doping proceedings and procedural fairness
• Obligation of a doping control officer to deliver the samples to the laboratory “as soon as practically possible”
• Departure from the ISL and cause of the adverse analytical finding

1. According to the IAAF Constitution, the IAAF members agree to abide by the IAAF Constitution and by its Rules and Regulations. Furthermore, the IAAF members have the obligations to comply with all applicable IAAF Rules and Regulations. In this regard, the application for membership to the IAAF by a national governing body for athletics must include a formal undertaking to observe and abide by the IAAF Constitution, Rules and Regulations.

2. The election of governing law by tacit agreement is possible. For instance, by their behaviour, the parties could have clearly given their assent to the application of a specific law. Nevertheless, to admit this, it must undoubtedly emerge through the parties’ conclusive acts, that they agreed on the applicable law when they entered into the disputed contractual relationship.

3. The participation of the respondent is mandatory in an appeal, otherwise the appeal would be inadmissible due to the absence of a valid legal procedural relationship between the parties to the proceedings. Especially in doping proceedings concerning the magnification of the sanction imposed on the athlete, it would be procedurally unacceptable to make a decision on the merits if the athlete concerned has not been properly included in the proceedings or, at least, received knowledge of the proceedings in such a way that enables the person to legally defend himself. If the respondent was aware of the proceedings and had the opportunity to present his case, the legal relationship can be adequately established between the parties and the non-participation of the respondent should not put into question the validity of the proceedings in respect of procedural fairness.

4. The International Standards for Laboratories (ISL) do not prescribe a more specific period of time from the samples collection to their delivery to the laboratory but only stipulate that this should be done “as soon as practicably possible”. The phrase undoubtedly implies that transportation should be made at the first reasonable opportunity. A delay of ten days from the date of collection to the date of delivery should be justifiable only in exceptional circumstances, whereas an excuse in relation to other professional commitments is untenable. When a person accepts to assume the responsibility of a doping control officer, he must dedicate himself to comply and fulfil all the required duties expected of him and constantly be aware of the seriousness of his mission as well as the severe consequences that his actions may have upon the career of an athlete. Once a sample is collected, the requirement of “as soon as practicably possible” receives priority over other work commitments. Therefore, a ten-day delay is totally unacceptable and constitutes a departure from the ISL.

5. A delay in the transportation of the samples to the laboratory and/or their storage conditions cannot reasonably cause the materialization of an exogenous steroid where it was not otherwise present.

In June 2009 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Colombian Athlete Johana Triviño-Urrutia after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.

On 20 August 2009 the Disciplinary Commission of the Colombian Athletics Federation (FECODATLE) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Athlete appealed the decision and the General Disciplinary Commission (GDC) of the Colombian Olympic Committee decided on 12 February 2010 to set aside the test results and the sanction imposed on the Athlete due to several departures had occurred from the WADA ISL standard.

Hereafter in April 2010 the IAAF appealed the GDC decision of 12 February 2010 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The IAAF requested the Panel to set aside the GDC decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligiblilty on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation.

The IAAF contended that the Chain of Custody was well documented and the samples were intact and in a suitable condition delivered in spite of a delay of 10 days between the sample collection and the delivery to the Laboratory in Bogota.

The Panel holds as unacceptable the fact that 10 days have elapsed between the date of the samples collection and the date of their delivery to the Laboratory in Bogota. This delay is totally unacceptable and constitutes a departure from the International Standards for Laboratories.

However, considering the evidence the Panel is convinced that a breach in the chain of custody did not occur and that a departure from the International Standards for Laboratories caused due to the delay in the delivery of the samples, did not cause the adverse analytical finding.
In addition, the Respondents failed to produce any evidence whatsoever that would indicate manipulation of the sample by an ill-disposed person.

On these findings of the evidence, it has been proven by the IAAF as well as by the circumstances that the Athlete committed a doping offence prohibited by the applicable Anti-Doping Regulations.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 31 January 2011 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the International Association of Athletics Federations against the decision issued by the General Disciplinary Commission of the Colombian Athletics Federation on 12 February 2010 is upheld.

2.) The decision issued by the General Disciplinary Commission on 12 February 2010 is set aside.

3.) Ms Johanna Trivino-Urrutia is guilty of an Anti-Doping Rule violation committed during the 54th Colombian Senior Championship which took place in Bogota, Colombia between 23 and 24 May 2009.

4.) Ms Johanna Trivino-Urrutia shall be declared ineligible for two years. The period of ineligibility to be imposed upon her shall commence on the date of the notification of this award to Ms Trivino-Unuita. The periods of Provisional Suspension shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility be served.

5.) Ms Johanna Trivino-Urrutia's results, her eventual medals, points and prizes obtained during the 54th Colombian Senior Championship, since 23 May 2009 and/or during the above-mentioned period of ineligibility, are forfeited.

6.) This award is pronounced without cost, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) already paid and to be retained by the CAS.

7.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

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