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 Laszlo Kovacz after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
The Athlete denied the use of prohibited substances, could not explain the positive test result and stated he only used the natural product Napraznic.
Laboratory analysis of this product and the Athlete’s samples provided after using this product did not test positive for the prohibited substance.
Therefore the ANAD Hearing Commission decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

On 12 October 2010 the FILA Sport Judge decided to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Serbian Athlete Kristijan Fris after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.

Hereafter WADA appealed the FILA Sport Judge decision of 12 October 2010 with the FILA Appeal Commission.

The Appeal Commission rejects the Athlete's statement and concludes that the he acted negligently without research of the ingredients before using the medication. In addition the Commission notes that there is evidence that the Athlete wanted to keep his weight and might have used the substance to mask the use of an anabolic agent.
Therefore the FILA Appeal Commission decides to set aside the FILA Sport Judge decision of 12 October 2010 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 29 May 2010.

CAS 2010/A/2062 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Real Federación Española de Fútbol (RFEF) & Gregorio Ciudad Real Linares

Football
Doping (benzoylecgonine)
Sanction

The Spanish Act 7/2006 distinguishes between “very serious” anti-doping violations (art. 14.1) due to the presence, use or consumption of prohibited substances or methods, leading to a sanction of ineligibility for a period of two to four years, and “serious” anti-doping violations (art. 14.2) related to substances or methods identified in the corresponding legal instrument as of less seriousness, leading to a sanction of ineligibility for a period of three months to two years. However, benzoylecgonine is a non-specified prohibited substance, in accordance with all the applicable regulations in the case at stake, and thus is far from being a substance of “less seriousness”. Elements such as relevant circumstances, no reiteration of the conduct or non-existence of previous records of the player related with anti-doping infringements, are totally irrelevant to the parameters envisaged in article 14.2 and therefore cannot constitute grounds to justify the reduction of the seriousness of the anti-doping violation.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 November 2010:

1.) That the appeal filed by WADA against the Decision rendered by the Competition Judge of the RFEF on 21st September 2009 with regard to the player Mr. Gregorio Ciudad Real Linares is admissible.
2.) The referred Decision of the Competition Judge of the RFEF dated 21st September 2009 is set aside.
3.) Mr. Gregorio Ciudad Real Linares is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility, starting on the date on which this award is communicated to the Player. Any period of suspension (whether imposed to or voluntarily accepted by the Player) shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility imposed.
(…)
6. Any other prayers for relief are rejected.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Mykola Demen (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. He was tested as part of the Rugby World Cup 2011 Qualifying Terms of Participation, Tournament Anti-Doping Program. The urine sample was taken from him on 22 May 2010. His provided sample tested positive for stanozolol.

History
the Player apparently stated: “I am Nicolaj Demen, I confirm that I received all documents and I was acquainted with all translated documents”.
Within the body of the same email is the following: “We accept the finding of the A sample and accept the prescribed sanctions.”
In his letter of 31 August 2010 the player stated: “I do not wish to make any submissions with respect to the sanction to be imposed on me.”

Decision
The sanction for the anti-doping rule violation committed by the Player on 22 May 2010 by reason of the presence in the Player’s sample of stanozolol is a period of ineligibility of two (2) years.

Costs
Written submissions should be submitted on time.

In September 2010 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his out-of-competition sample tested positive for the prohibited substance boldenone.
The Athlete already served a two year period of ineligibility since 12 July 2009 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
Due to this is the Athlete’s second violation the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 16 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date the current 2 year period of ineligibility is completed, i.e. on 12 July 2011.

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 metandienone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.
Hereafter the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 7 September 2010 until 7 September 2012.

The Organización Deportiva Centroamericana y del Caribe (ODECABE), Central American and Caribbean Sports Organization, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). The ODECABE notified the Player and ordered a provisional suspension.
On 24 September the Player was heard for the ODECABE Medical Commission. Hereafter the ODECABE transferred the case to the FIBA Disciplinary Panel without a disciplinary decision of recommendation.

The Player filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the FIBA Disciplinary Panel on 1 November 2010. The Player stated he had used a nutritional supplement Jack-3D just before the competition of 30 July 2010 and did not know the supplement contained a prohibited substance.
The Panel finds that the Player acted negligently in his responsibility that no prohibited substance enters his body. The Panel considers Player’s statement; the lack of continuous medical and dietary support for the players; and the inclusion of methylhexaneamine on the WADA 2010 Prohibited list. Therefore the FIBA Disciplinary Panel decides a 1 year period of ineligibility.

In June 2010 the Basketball Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (KSBIH) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 4-Methyl-2-heanamine (methylhexaneamine).
In August 2010 the KSBIH Disciplinary Commission decided a 8 month period of ineligibility, starting on 7 June 2010.

In October 2010 the Player appealed to the FIBA Disciplinary Panel. He filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Panel.

In his written statement and at the hearing the Player:
- did not contest the result of the test;
- stated that during the 2009/10 season his club faced serious financial difficulties and as a result stopped providing its players with supplements while the team doctors remained unpaid and did not attend the club’s activities frequently;
- submitted that in March 2010 he bought the same supplements provided by the club and from the same shop in Belgrade, namely “AMG sports”. The owner of the shop gave to the Player as a promotion a new liquid creatine product called “VPX”;
- submitted that he twice checked the components of VPX on the basis of the label and information sheet and compared them with the list of prohibited substances, so he was convinced that the declared components – which included Geranamine – were allowed in basketball; however, he did not immediately use VPX but just stored it in his refrigerator;
- stated that on 7 June 2010 and approx. 45 minutes before an important game towards the end of the season he decided to take VPX because he was feeling tired;
- informed the Panel that he was submitted to doping controls both on 7 and on 9 June 2010, of which only the former was positive;
- argued that he had learned only after the announcement of the results that the banned substance 4-Methyl-2-hexanamine was a result of intake of Geranamine;
- asserted that this was his first anti-doping rule violation.

The Panel finds the Player acted negligently in his responsibility that no prohibited substance enters his body. Considering Player’s statement and the particular circumstances the FIBA Disciplinary Panel decides a 1 year period of ineligibility starting on the Player’s last game, i.e. on 9 June 2010.

Promoting functional foods as acceptable alternatives to doping : potential for information-based social marketing approach / Ricky James, Declan P. Naughton, Andrea Petróczi. - (Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 7 (2010) 37 (10 November); p. 1-11)

• PMID: 21067611
• PMCID: PMC2994790
• DOI: 10.1186/1550-2783-7-37

Abstract

Background: Substances with performance enhancing properties appear on a continuum, ranging from prohibited performance enhancing drugs (PED) through dietary supplements to functional foods (FF). Anti-doping messages designed to dissuade athletes from using PEDs have been typically based on moralising sport competition and/or employing scare campaigns with focus on the negative consequences. Campaigns offering comparable and acceptable alternatives are nonexistent, nor are athletes helped in finding these for themselves. It is timely that social marketing strategies for anti-doping prevention and intervention incorporate media messages that complement the existing approaches by promoting comparable and acceptable alternatives to doping. To facilitate this process, the aim of this study was to ascertain whether a single exposure knowledge-based information intervention led to increased knowledge and subsequently result in changes in beliefs and automatic associations regarding performance enhancements.

Methods: In a repeated measure design, 115 male recreational gym users were recruited and provided with a brief information pamphlet on nitrite/nitrate and erythropoietin as a comparison. Measures of knowledge, beliefs and automatic associations were taken before and after the intervention with at least 24 hours between the two assessments. The psychological tests included explicit measures of beliefs and cognitive attitudes toward FF and PED using a self-reported questionnaire and computerised assessments of automatic associations using the modified and shortened version of the Implicit Association Test.

Results: The information based intervention significantly increased knowledge (p < 0.001), changed explicit beliefs in specific FF (p < 0.001) and shifted the automatic association of FF with health to performance (p < 0.001). Explicitly expressed beliefs and automatic associations appear to be independent.

Conclusion: Evidence was found that even a single exposure to a persuasive positive message can lead to belief change and can create new or alter existing associations - but only in the specific domain. Interventions to change outcome expectations in a positive way could be a rewarding avenue for anti-doping. Effective social marketing campaigns for drug free sport should follow appropriate market segmentation and use targeted messages via promoting the natural form as opposed to the purified form of the main active ingredient.

Affidavit Volodymyr Bileka [USADA vs Lance Armstrong October 10, 2012] November 10, 2010

Mr. Volodymyr Bileka is an Ukrainian professional cyclist since 2002 and rode in the professional teams of Landbouwkrediet-Colnago, Discovery Channel, Silence-Lotto, Amore & Vita-Conad and Konya Torku Şeker Spor. In 2008 a 2 year period of ineligibility was imposed on Mr. Bileka after he tested positive erythropoietin (EPO).
Hereafter Mr. Bileka admitted to the Italian judicial branch the use of erythropoietin (EPO). He testified about the involvement of Dr. Michele Ferrari in doping, including through advice regarding the use of EPO and blood doping, in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.