His Biceps Become Him: A Test of Objectification Theory’s Application to Drive for Muscularity and Propensity for Steroid Use in College Men / Mike C. Parent, Bonnie Moradi. - (Journal of Counseling Psychology 58 (2011) 2 (April); p. 246-256)

• PMID: 21142351
• DOI: 10.1037/a0021398

Abstract

Men's body image problems may manifest as an unhealthy drive for muscularity and propensity to use anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS). Aspects of objectification theory were integrated with literature on men's drive for muscularity and AAS use to identify correlates of these problems. The resultant model was tested with path analyses of data from 270 college men. First, consistent with prior research on objectification theory, results indicated that body surveillance partially mediated the link of internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness with body shame. Second, positive outcome expectation for AAS use partially mediated the link of drive for muscularity with intention to use AAS. Third, drive for muscularity partially mediated the links of internalization with outcome expectation for AAS use and intention to use AAS. Finally, outcome expectation for AAS use was an additional partial mediator of the link of internalization with intention to use AAS. Body surveillance and body shame did not have unique direct or mediated relations with drive for muscularity or AAS variables. These findings point to internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness as the nexus of overlap between the objectification theory variables and men's drive for muscularity and propensity to use AAS.

In November 2010 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete George Eugen Dinu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.
The Athlete admitted the use of cannabis and did not request for the B sample analysis.
The ANAD Hearing Commission decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

In October 2010 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Gabriel Manole Rӑzvan after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.
After notification a provisional suspenstion was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in is defence and he was heard for the ANAD Hearing Commission.
The Athlete stated that the day before and after the competition and dopingtest he was hospitalized because of hypertension which was treated with furosemide and prescribed by his doctors. Also the Athlete mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form. In support the Athlete produced medical documents and after further medical examination the Athlete was diagnosed with essential arterial hypertension stage 1. Therefore the Athlete applied with ANAD for a retroactive TUE for furosemide and indapamide.

The ANAD TUE Commission reviewed the athlete’s request and decided that the emergency use of furosemide was correct, but the follow-up treatment with furosemide or tertensif was rejected
because there was another therapeutic alternative, recommending him the substances from the class IECA-ENALAPRIL or similar classes.

Considering the evidence and the circumstances the ANAD Hearing Commission decides to impose a 1 month period period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

Facts
The International Baseball Federation (IBAF) charges Roger
Luque (Player) for violation of the 2009 IBAF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). The Player was required to give an urine sample on 19 September 2009 as part of an in-competition test. His sample tested positive for Stanozolol and 4-OH-Stanozolol (a metabolite of Stanozolol).

History
Due to a car accident the player had treatment in a hospital. He claims the medication administered contained the prohibited substance medical purposes only and under the health personnel’s supervision. He didn't use the prohibited substance to improve athletic performance. In response to IBAF's request he delivers a more detailed medical record.

Considerations panel
The athlete stays responsible for substances in his body. However considering the urgency of his hospitalization a retrospective TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) could lift the standard period of ineligibility of 2 years.

Decision
The Tribunal rules as follows:
7.1.1 The Player has committed an anti-doping rule violation under IBAF ADR Article 2.1, in that a Prohibited Substance (Stanozolol) was found to be present in the urine sample collected from him on 19 September 2009.
7.1.2 As a consequence:
a. The individual results obtained by the Player in the 2009 BWC are disqualified in accordance with IBAF ADR Article 10.1, with any individual medals, points and prizes that he earned from his participation in those matches to be forfeited.
b. In accordance with IBAF ADR Articles 10.2 and 10.5.2, the Player is ruled Ineligible for a period of sixteen months. In accordance with IBAF ADR Article 10.9, the period of Ineligibility will be deemed to have commenced as of 19 September 2009 and therefore will end at midnight on 18 January 2011.
c. Further to IBAF ADR Article 10.10, during that period of Ineligibility the Player may not “participate in any capacity in any Event or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized or organized by IBAF or any National Federation or a club or other member organization of IBAF or any National Federation, or in Competitions authorized or organized by any professional IBAF v. Luque, IBAF Anti-Doping Tribunal, IBAF 10-001: Final Award, 13 December 2010 18 league or any international or national level Event
organization.”
7.3 In accordance with IBAF ADR Article 14.4, the IBAF is to report this decision publicly within 20 days of the date of this decision. To ensure that baseball players are properly informed about the nature and extent of their responsibilities under the IBAF ADR, the IBAF is directed to publish this decision in its entirety on the IBAF’s official website.

Appeal
In accordance with IBAF ADR Articles 8.2.8 and 13.2, each of the following persons may appeal against this Final Award to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland: the Player, the IBAF, WADA, and any other Anti-Doping Organization under whose rules a sanction could have been imposed. The IBAF is directed to disseminate a copy of this Final Award to
each such person without delay. IBAF ADR Article 13.6 provides that any such appeal must be filed with the CAS within 21 days from the date of receipt of the decision.

Related case:

ANAD Comisia de Audiere 2010_29 ANAD vs Miruna Elena Trifan & Xenofonte Bobob
August 12, 2010

In June 2009 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Athlete Miruna Elena Trifan after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance metandienone.

The Athlete stated she had used pills provided by her coach. The coach admitted he gave the Athlete Naposim (metandienone) without the medical staff’s notice and without knowledge of the Athlete or members of her family.

Due to the coach's guilt and the Athlete’s no fault, the Romanian Hearing Commission of Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel decided not to sanction the Athlete on 12 August 2010. The Athlete’s coach however was sanctioned with a lifetime period of ineligibility.

Hereafter in September 2010 WADA appealed the decision of the Hearing Commission with the Romanian Appeal Commission. WADA requested the Appeal Commission to set aside the decision of the Hearing Commission and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. WADA argued that the Athlete failed to exercise utmost caution in using the pills.
Considering the circumstances the Romanian Appeal Commission concludes that the Athlete did not show a significant fault or negligence regarding the way the prohibited substance got into her body.
However the Appeal Commission notes that it is not necessary to prove the intention or the Athlete’s fault to establish the anti-doping rule violation due to the strict responsibility principle of the Athlete for finding the prohibited substances in her body.

The Commission rules that the WADA appeal is allowed and to set aside the decision of the Romanian Hearing Commission of Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel.
Therefore Romanian Appeal Commission decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 8 July 2010.

Assessment of Immune Function After Short-Term Administration of Recombinant Human Growth Hormone in Healthy Young Males /
S.B. Ramos, E.W. Brenu, R. Christy, B. Gray, L. McNaughton, L. Tajouri, M. Van Driel, S.M. Marshall-Gradisnik. - (European Journal of Applied Physiology 111 (2011) 7 ; p. 1307–1312).
- PMID: 21140164.
- DOI: 10.1007/s00421-010-1756-4

Abstract

Growth hormone (GH) is a commonly used drug aimed at improving sport performance. The aim of this study is to evaluate the immunomodulatory effects of short-term administration of recombinant GH (rhGH) in healthy young males. NK cell number, activity and phenotype, T cell number, CD4+ (Th1/Th2) cytokine production of IL2, IL4, IL6, IL10, TNF-α and IFN-γ and CD4+/CD8+ ratio with particular attention to the possible correlation to IGF-I production were investigated. 30 males (27 ± 9 years) were randomly assigned to placebo (n = 15) or drug (rhGH) 1 mg/day groups (n = 15) with daily injection for 7 days. IGF-I plasma concentration and flow cytometry data were generated at baseline and days 8, 15, 22 and 29 post injection. Data analysis used General Linear Model with repeated measures, Bonferroni correction factor and significance at p ≤ 0.05. Serum IGF-I levels (ng/mL) increased significantly (p ≤ 0.01) on day 8 (0.48 ± 0.78) after injections compared to baseline (0.31 ± 0.07) and days 15 (0.33 ± 0.06), 22 (0.29 ± 0.05) and 29 (0.29 ± 0.06). A significant time effect was noted in IL10 secretion (pg/mL) from day 15 (P = 35.14 ± 19.93, rhGH = 26.63 ± 16.39) to days 22 (P = 61.32 ± 20.41, rhGH = 74.99 ± 46.91) and 29 (P = 101.98 ± 67.25, rhGH = 107.74; ± 122.58). There was no correlation between IGF-I and NK activity, phenotype or number along with T lymphocyte number, CD4+/CD8+ ratio or Th1 and Th2 cytokine production. In conclusion, cytokine secretion spectrum was not affected by short-term rhGH administration in young males.

In September 2010 the International Automobile Federation (FIA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Christos Niarchos after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Anti-Doping Committee – FIA Medical Commission (ACMC).

The ACMC concludes that an anti-doping rule violation was established and decides on 8 December 2010 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 September 2010.

Facts
The Irish Sports Council (ISC) has reported and Anti-Doping Rule Violation against the Athlete IS-1523 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances boldenone and androstatrienedione.

History
The athlete admitted the use of the two steroid substances for a period of 2/3 weeks approximately six months prior to the hearing. The products identified by the Athlete were “Sustanon” and “Deca”. He explained that he injected himself with those steroids which he had obtained from a person in his gym. He said that he used these without intention to enhance his sport performance but for his own personal weight training, strength training and general fitness. He stated that the drugs made him aggressive and therefore he stopped using them. When the panel offered a reduction for "substanctial assistence" the Athlete refused to tell from whom he purchased the prohibited substances and also he refused to mention the name of the gym where it was offered to him.

Decision
The Panel agrees that the period of ineligibility should commence on 2 September 2010 having regard to the provisions the Athlete will, therefore, be ineligible and barred for a period of 2 years from 2 September 2010 from participating in any competition or other activity or funding as provided under the Rules.

Related cases:
ST 2010_19 DFSNZ vs Adam Stewart
September 8, 2010
ST 2010_19 DFSNZ vs Adam Stewart – Decision on Application
February 16, 2011

On 8 September 2010 the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent for attempted use, and possession, of prohibited substances (EPO and hCG). That sanction was imposed under the provisions of rule 14.2 of the Sports Anti-Doping Rules (2010).

Bike New Zealand is bringing the matter whether Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider application to disqualify athlete’s competition results under rule 14.8 of Sports Anti-Doping Rules.
Bike NZ takes the position that it is not for this Tribunal to determine which of Respondent’s results are to be disqualified as that is a matter for Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) to determine. The issue therefore is whether this Tribunal or UCI should consider the application of rule 14.8.

After deliberations the Tribunal decides that it does have jurisdiction to consider the consequences under rule 14.8.
Therefore Respondent is given until 17 December 2010 to make written submissions on the application of rule 14.8 to Respondent’s results before the period of Ineligibility began.

CAS 2010/A/2107 Flavia Oliveira v. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)

Related case:

AAA 2009 No. 77 190 00429 09 USADA vs Flavia Oliveira
April 6, 2010

• Cycling
• Doping (oxilofrine)
• Specified substance
• CAS power of review
• Requirement to prove no intent to enhance sport performance
• Degree of fault of the athlete
• Duty of care of the athletes
• Proportionality of the sanction
• Requirements for obtaining a reduced period of ineligibility
• Relevant factors to be considered in reducing the period of ineligibility

1. Pursuant to Article R57 of the Code, which provides the panel with full power to review the facts and law and authorizes it to issue a new decision which replaces the decision challenged, a panel must make its independent determination of whether the appellant’s contentions are correct, not limit itself to assessing the correctness of the appealed decision or award.

2. Clause two of Article 10.4 of the WADA Code does not require the athlete to prove that he/she did not take a product (for example a nutritional supplement) with the intent to enhance sport performance. If such construction was adopted, an athlete’s usage of nutritional supplements, which are generally taken for performance-enhancing purposes, but which is not per se prohibited by the WADA Code, would render Article 10.4 inapplicable even if the particular supplement that is the source of a positive test result contained only a specified substance. Therefore Article 10.4 of the WADA Code requires the athlete only to prove his/her ingestion of the specified substance was not intended to enhance his/her sport performance. This construction of Article 10.4 harmonises the clear language in clause one with the differing and ambiguous language of clause two, and is consistent with its explanatory Comment.

3. The athlete’s “degree of fault” is only relevant in determining whether his/her period of ineligibility should be reduced. It is not to be considered in determining whether he/she can prove his/her lack of intent to enhance sport performance.

4. Because the risks of mislabelling and/or contamination now are generally known or at least foreseeable, all athletes must exercise reasonable care to ensure a nutrition supplement does not contain a banned substance whether the WADA Code classifies it as a prohibited or specified substance.

5. In determining the athlete’s period of ineligibility, the panel must impose an appropriate sanction that furthers the WADA Code’s objective of proportionate and consistent sanctions for doping offences based on an athlete’s level of fault under the totality of circumstances.

6. Unlike Article 10.5 of the WADA Code (and its implementation in the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations), Article 10.4 of the WADA Code (and its implementation in the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations) does not require the athlete to prove “no significant fault or negligence” to obtain a reduced period of ineligibility for testing positive for a specified substance. The appropriate inquiry is the athlete’s “degree of fault” under the circumstances. To resolve this issue, the panel must determine whether the nature and degree of his/her unreasonable conduct under the circumstances was so high that a two-year period of ineligibility is proportionate and consistent with other similar cases.

7. The fact that an athlete would lose the opportunity to earn large sums of money during a period of ineligibility or the fact that the athlete only has a short time left in his or her career or the timing of the sporting calendar are not relevant factors to be considered in reducing the period of ineligibility under Article 10.4 of the WADA Code.

In September 2009 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Flavia Oliveira after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxilofrine (Methylsynephrine).

Consequently the American Arbitration Association (AAA) decided on 6 April 2010 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in April 2010 the Athlete appealed the AAA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Panel was asked to determine the appropriate length of the Athlete’s period of ineligibility and the date on which the period of ineligibility should take effect.

The Athlete hoped to demonstrate to the Panel that her lack of intent to use a prohibited substance, her reasonable explanation as to how the prohibited substance entered her body, and her efforts to ensure that the Hyperdrive product that she ingested did not contain any prohibited substances, should support a reduction from the presumptive two-year period of ineligibility.

USADA contended that the Athlete should receive a 2 year period of ineligibility that should begin on the date that she accepted a provisional suspension.

The Panel finds that the Athlete has satisfied her burden of establishing that Oxilofrine entered her system as a result of her consumption of the supplement Hyperdrive 3.0+. Further the Panel concludes that the Athlete's testimony and other corroborating evidence establishes to its comfortable satisfaction that she did not intend to enhance her sport performance.

In view of the Athlete's conduct the Panel deems that she acted with a lowere degree of fault. Further the Panel considers that she gave a timely admission following the notification.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 December 2010:

1.) The appeal filed by Flavia Oliveira on April 27, 2010 against the decision of the American Arbitration Association dated April 6, 2010 is upheld.

2.) The decision of the American Arbitration Association dated April 6, 2010 imposing a period of ineligibility of two years is set aside and a period of ineligibility of eighteen (18) months commencing on August 30, 2009 is substituted therefor.

3.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 paid by Flavia Oliveira which shall be retained by the CAS.

(…)

5.) All other or further claims are dismissed.