The Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) has reported and anti-doping rule violation against Bruno Corsani Bastini (the Driver) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance bisoprolol.
On 2 December 2010 the Anti-Doping Committee - FIA Medical Commission (ACMC) decides to impose the sanction of a reprimand on the Driver.
Subject-based steroid profiling and the determination of novel biomarkers for DHT and DHEA misuse in sports / Pieter Van Renterghem, Peter Van Eenoo, Pierre-Edouard Sottas, Martial Saugy, Frans Delbeke. - (Drug Testing and Analysis 2 (2010) 11-12 (November); p. 582-588)
Abstract
Doping with natural steroids can be detected by evaluating the urinary concentrations and ratios of several endogenous steroids. Since these biomarkers of steroid doping are known to present large inter-individual variations, monitoring of individual steroid profiles over time allows switching from population-based towards subject-based reference ranges for improved detection. In an Athlete Biological Passport (ABP), biomarkers data are collated throughout the athlete's sporting career and individual thresholds defined adaptively. For now, this approach has been validated on a limited number of markers of steroid doping, such as the testosterone (T) over epitestosterone (E) ratio to detect T misuse in athletes. Additional markers are required for other endogenous steroids like dihydrotestosterone (DHT) and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA). By combining comprehensive steroid profiles composed of 24 steroid concentrations with Bayesian inference techniques for longitudinal profiling, a selection was made for the detection of DHT and DHEA misuse. The biomarkers found were rated according to relative response, parameter stability, discriminative power, and maximal detection time. This analysis revealed DHT/E, DHT/5β-androstane-3α,17β-diol and 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol/5β-androstane-3α,17β-diol as best biomarkers for DHT administration and DHEA/E, 16α-hydroxydehydroepiandrosterone/E, 7β-hydroxydehydroepiandrosterone/E and 5β-androstane-3α,17β-diol/5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol for DHEA. The selected biomarkers were found suitable for individual referencing. A drastic overall increase in sensitivity was obtained. The use of multiple markers as formalized in an Athlete Steroidal Passport (ASP) can provide firm evidence of doping with endogenous steroids.
In October 2010 the Brazilian Cycling Confederation (CBC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist João Paulo de Oliveira Vidal Vieira after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Phentermine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete failed to respond to the CBC communications.
The CBC Anti-Doping Commission (CAD-CBC) finds the test result of the Athlete’s sample established the presence of a prohibited substance and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Futher the CAD-DBC observes that the Athlete had participated in a cycling competition while he was provionally suspended.
Without any response from the Athlete the CAD-DBC decides on 1 December 2010 to impose a two year period of ineligibility starting on the date of decision.
Facts
The World Anti-Doping Agency Appeals before the French Council of State against a decision (2009-16) of the Agence Française de Lutte Contre le Dopage (AFLD) dated June 25, 2009.
History
The Athlete was acquitted by the AFLD because in the testing report she was regarded as a male while she was a female.
Decision
1. The decision (2009-16) of the Agence Française de Lutte Contre le Dopage (AFLD) dated June 25, 2009, is cancelled.
2. The case against the athlete in question has to be renewed.
3. The AFLD has to pay 3.000 euro to the WADA for administrative legal costs.
4. The remainder of the claims of the application of the AFLD are rejected.
5. The findings of the AFLD are dismissed.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.
Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DNSNZ) has reporter an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after he refused or failed without compelling justification to provide a sample.
DNSNZ notified the Respondent and ordered a provisional suspension. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Panel.
Respondent stated he was not willing to wait anymore at the Doping Control Station and decided to walk away and not to complete the doping control. Previously he had used cannabis and thought he would be suspended only for three or six months.
The Tribunal deems that the fact that Respondent may have smoked Cannabis has no relevance to the sanction applied when Respondent refuses to complete a test.
Therefore the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 October 2010.
© SWEDISH NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH, ÖSTERSUND 2010
Forword
Just over 20 years ago, it became apparent that doping agents were also being used outside sports for reasons other than improving athletic performance. These problems ended up in the lime light, a law was passed to regulate use and authorities,
including the Swedish National Institute of Public Health (under a slightly different name at the time), devoted more focus to the issue for a few years. Activities conducted by society with regard to doping have since decreased. In order to take stock of the state of knowledge regarding the spread and consequences of doping as well as of what prevention efforts are being pursued, the
Swedish National Institute of Public Health conducted an inventory that resulted in the swedish version (R 2009:15) of the english translated review you have in hand. The topics covered include an overview of the medical, social medicine, sociological and legal aspects in the area.
The review begins by describing the law that regulates the handling of doping agents, as well as how users get hold of them. The discussion covers the current differences of opinion as to how widespread the use of doping agents is, and available data is presented for both the general population and individual groups. The underlying reasons for using doping agents are described, as well as the identified risk factors. In addition, available knowledge is presented with regard to patterns of use, including the mixed drug abuse that exists. The known physical, mental and social effects are presented, including the connection to aggressive behaviour and violence. The latter section of the report describes the prevention work under aimed at limiting use and concludes with a discussion of the treatment situation in Sweden.
Screening for benfluorex and its major urinary metabolites in routine doping controls / Mario Thevis, Gerd Sigmund, Vassilios Gougoulidis, Simon Beuck, Nils Schlörer, Andreas Thomas, Dorota Kwiatkowska, Andrzej Pokrywka, Wilhelm Schänzer. - (Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 401 (2011) 2 (August); p. 543–551)
Abstract
Benfluorex [1-(m-trifluoromethylphenyl)-2-(β-benzoyloxyethyl)aminopropane] has been widely used for the treatment of atherogenic metabolic disorders and impaired carbohydrate metabolism (particularly in obese type-II diabetic patients) as well as an anorectic drug. Due to its potentially performance-enhancing properties, benfluorex has been added to the list of prohibited compounds and methods of doping by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 2010, necessitating the implementation of the drug as well as its major metabolites into routine doping control procedures. In the present study, human urinary metabolites of benfluorex were characterized by gas chromatography-electron ionization-mass spectrometry (GC-EI-MS) as well as liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-high resolution/high accuracy tandem mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS/MS). Commonly employed sports drug testing approaches consisting of liquid-liquid extraction followed by GC-MS or urine dilution and immediate LC-MS/MS analysis were expanded and validated with regard to specificity, recovery (48-54%, GC-MS only), intra- and interday precision (<25%), limits of detection (5-8 ng/mL for LC-MS/MS and 80 ng/mL for GC-MS), and ion suppression (for LC-ESI-MS/MS only) to allow the detection of benfluorex metabolites 1-(m-trifluoromethylphenyl)-2-(2-hydroxyethyl)aminopropane (M1), 1-(m-trifluoromethylphenyl)-2-(2-carboxymethyl)aminopropane (M2), and 1-(m-trifluoromethylphenyl)-2-aminopropane (M3) as well as the glucuronic acid conjugate of M1.
2010 Commonwealth Games New Delhi, India 3-14 October 2010 : Report of the WADA Independent Observer Team / Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2010
Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and Respondent was heard for the Tribunal.
Respondent admitted the violation and gave evidence that the violation was accidental and due to her, on the morning of the competition, taking a capsule of a supplement called “Ripped Freak” which unknown to her contained dimethylpentylamine. The supplement’s package did not list dimethylpentylamine as an ingredient. It listed geranium seed extract as an ingredient but she did not know that dimethylpentylamine could be a product of geranium seed. She made inquiries to the distributor whether it contained any prohibited substances. The distributor told her that the manufacturer had advised that it did not contain prohibited substances.
The Tribunal accepted that Respondent did not know the supplement contained a prohibited substance and did not take it for performance enhancing reasons, but rather to “lift her mental state”, and noted she was the only competitor in her class.
After the Tribunal hearing, but before the Tribunal made its decision, the Tribunal was advised that the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) was reclassifying dimethylpentylamine as a “specified substance” in the 2011 Prohibited List.
The Tribunal considers comparable anti-doping decisions of its own and overseas bodies concerning athletes inadvertently taking prohibited specified substances (including cases where doctors had mistakenly prescribed athletes prohibited substances, which the present case was seen as more serious than).
Therefore he Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on Respondent, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 July 2010.
In Canada, the federal government established the Commission of Inquiry Into the Use of Drugs and Banned Practices Intended to Increase Athletic Performance, headed by Ontario Appeal Court Chief Justice Charles Dubin. The Dubin Inquiry (as it became known), which was televised live, heard hundreds of hours of testimony about the widespread use of performance-enhancing drugs among athletes.
The inquiry began in January 1989 and lasted 91 days, with 122 witnesses called, including athletes, coaches, sport administrators, IOC representatives, doctors and government officials.
The Dublin Inquiry recommended that the Athlete (the Applicant) Desai Williams and other named athletes be suspended for life from federal funding. However the Athlete was not suspended from competition as an athlete.
Hereafter the Athlete continued to compete up until 1992 without the assistance of federal funding. The negative public attention drawn to the actions of the Athlete had damaging effect on his personal repuration and dignity.
The Dubin Report also outlines enumerate factors (The Dubincriteria) to be weighed in determining whether the lifetime withdrawal of access to direct federal funding should be lifted.
Therefore the Athlete filed an application for reinstatement in October 2010 to Sport Canada and he was heard for the adjudicator.
After the statements made by the Applicant, sustained by witnesses, the adjudicator concludes that the Applicant (now 51 years old) has made significant contibutions to the sport of track and field for extended period of times as an athlete, a teammate, a role model, and a coach. It is clear from his testimony that he is remorseful and has endured significant economic and emotional hardship as a result of this experience.
The adjudicator notes that of deepest concern on this Application for Reinstatement is the ongoing unresolved controversy with respect to the extent of the Applicant’s drug use. Most of the criteria that weigh negatively in this Application are related to the fact that the Applicant has not reconciled this issue.
Considering all of the written and oral evidence the adjudicator is satisfied that the Applicant has met the Dubin criteria necessary for reinstatement to the program of federal funding. The Dubin criteria, weigh substantially in favour of reinstatement and it is in the public interest to grant the Application.
Therefore the adjudicator decides on 26 November 2010 to approve the Application and direct that the Applicant’s lifetime withdrawal of access to direct federal funding should be lifted forthwith.
