Schendt dopingbestrijding mensenrechten? / Gerke Berenschot. - Maastricht University, 2010 [master thesis]

One of the issues in this thesis is the question if Anti-Doping organisations should pay compensation to persons who were wrongfully accused for a doping violation. With a thorough equation of the legal issues and the applicability of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The author concludes that a well-balanced anti-doping ruling, which secures the rights of the athlete, can lead towards more comprehension of the anti-doping organisations and lesser distrust.

The Dutch Archery Association (Nederlandse Handboog Bond, NHB) has reported an anti doping rule violation against this person after he tested positive for the prohibited substance
11-nor-∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9carboxylic acid (a metabolite of cannabis).
NHB notified the person of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension. Person filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Committee. Person stated he had smoked a joint one week prior to the anti-doping test because of stress and had no intention to enhance his performance. His statement was supported by witnesses.
The committee accepts person’s statement and, with exceptional circumstances, decides to reprimand person with ineligibility for the provisional suspension.

The Dutch Roller Sports & Bandy Federation (NRBB) has reported against this person a violating the Anti-Doping Rules of the ISR during roller hockey seniors league in The Netherlands. In the A portion of the urine sample of the person concerned the prohibited substance carboxy-THC (metabolite of cannabis) was detected in a concentration (ca.76 ng / ml) above the threshold level of 15 ng / ml. Person has filed a defence and the case was treated orally.
Cannabis is a specified substance that is prohibited in-competition. If certain conditions are met, the penalty can be reduced. Person has stated during a hearing that in the weekend prior to the game he had smoked cannabis at a party. He did this for fun and not for a performance-enhancing effect. Person in question stated he never intended to have had the use of cannabis influence his sports performance. He was also not aware that cannabis is on the list of banned substance. He stated that he never was provided with any information on the subject. The mother of the person concerned confirms that her son has stopped using cannabis. The NRBB states that no active information about anti doping is distributed and confirms that cannabis in this sport has no effect on athletic performance.
The Disciplinary Commission sees no reason to doubt the statement of the NRBB and the person concerned. The Disciplinary Commission takes in to consideration the young age of the athlete and the fact that it is a first offense. This results in the following sanctions: a warning, accompanied by a reprimand. Also, a third of the costs of this case are at the expense of individual charged.

Eigen Kracht in het centrum (Dutch title).

This is the promotion video of the True Strength campaign of the Dopingautoriteit. It explains why it is important to do doping prevention in gyms. In the Netherlands more than 8% of the gym users use doping substances, mostly for cosmetic reasons. In the video 3 gym users and the gym owner explain why they choose for True Strength. Some of the materials of the campaign are also shown.

This video is part of the True Strength (Eigen Kracht) campaign of the Dopingautoriteit. A campaign that warns gym users and bodybuilders for the health risks of doping use and offers healthy and effective alternatives (training, recovery, nutrition, nutritional supplements, mental techniques).

Facts
The French Rugby Federation (Fédération Française de Rugby, FFR) charges respondent M66 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on March 6, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample tested positive on a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent didn't provide any information about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFR.
2. The period of ineligibility should be reduced by the period already served by the decision (three months period of ineligibility) of June 9, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFR.
3. The decision, dated June 9, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFR should be modified.
4. The decision will start on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Rugby Federation (Fédération Française de Rugby, FFR) charges respondent M65 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on January 31, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample tested positive on a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent didn't provide any information about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFR.
2. The period of ineligibility should be reduced by the period already served by the decision (three months period of ineligibility) of April 29, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFR.
3. The decision, dated April 29, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFR should be modified.
4. The decision will start on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M59 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on February 6, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent didn't provide any explanation about how the prohibited substances had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a six months period of ineligibility in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFHMFAC.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already server under the decision (3 months period of ineligibility), dated April 13, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFHMFAC.
3. The decision, dated April 13, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFHMFAC should be modified.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

CAS 2010/A/2072 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Federação Bahiana de Futebol (FBF) & Nivaldo Araújo Carneiro Filho

Football
Doping (nandrolone)
CAS Jurisdiction and national football cases related to doping
Applicable version of regulations for the procedural and substantial aspects of the case
Applicable sanction in a case where no defence has been filed by an athlete

1. A regional body that is an affiliate member of a national football federation, which in turn is a FIFA member is deemed to have submitted itself to the FIFA Regulations. Under the FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR), WADA has the right to appeal against any internally final and binding doping-related decision passed by FIFA, the Confederations, Members or leagues. WADA has the possibility to appeal against the national decision directly to the CAS and does not need to exhaust the internal remedies even if it does not have locus standi (“légitimation active”) to appeal the national decision to a higher judicial body at national level.

2. In a doping-related case, the procedural aspects facing the appeal are governed by the applicable regulations which were in force at the time the decision appealed against was notified to the parties, while the substantive aspects of the appeal are governed by the applicable regulations which were in force at the time the doping test was carried out on the athlete.

3. In a case where no defence has been filed by the athlete pleading a reduction of the minimum two year sanction imposed under Article 45 of the FIFA ADR, the CAS panel is not called upon to consider whether there are any mitigating circumstances or evidence which warrant a reduction of the minimum sanction on grounds of either “no fault or negligence” or “no significant fault or negligence”.

In light of the facts and evidence tabled and following the absence of any evidence from the Athlete rebutting the said facts and evidence, the CAS Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation contrary to art.5 of the FIFA ADR edition January 2009.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 October 2010:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision dated 13 July 2009 rendered by the 2nd Disciplinary Committee of the Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol da Bahia is upheld.
2.) The decision dated 13 July 2009 rendered by the 2nd Disciplinary Committee of the Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol da Bahia is set aside.
3.) Mr. Nivaldo Araújo Carneiro Filho is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation under article 5.1 of the FIFA Anti Doping Regulations edition 1 January 2009.
4.) Mr. Nivaldo Araújo Carneiro Filho is declared ineligible for a period of two (2) years with effect from the date of this award, deducting the period of one hundred and twenty (120) days already served.
5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by Mr. Nivaldo Araújo Carneiro Filho.
6.) All Parties shall bear their own legal costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this proceeding.

Analysis of exemestane and 17β-hydroxyexemestane in human urine by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry : development and validation of a method using MO-TMS derivatives / Gustavo de A. Cavalcanti, Bruno C. Garrido, Felipe D. Leal, Monica C. Padilha, Xavier de la Torre, Henrique M.G. Pereira, Francisco R. de Aquino Neto. - (Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 24 (2010) 22 (30 November); p. 3297-3302)

• PMID: 20973004
• DOI: 10.1002/rcm.4779

Abstract

Trimethylsilylation of anabolic agents and their metabolites is frequently achieved by using the derivatization mixture N-methyl-N-(trimethylsilyl)trifluoroacetamide (MSTFA)/NH(4)I/2-mercaptoethanol. Nevertheless, artifacts were formed when this mixture was employed in the monitoring of exemestane and its main metabolite 17β-hydroxyexemestane prior to GC-MS analysis. These artifacts were identified as the N-methyltrifluoroacetamide (MTFA) and trimethylsiloxyethylmercapto products of the respective trimethylsilyl (TMS) derivatives. Furthermore, artifact formation was evaluated taking the structure (1,4-diene-3-keto-6-exomethylene) of the compounds into account. Although these artifacts are relevant for investigations regarding the derivatization process and may be of interest in many fields, they are detrimental to cope with the requirements of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in terms of the limits of detection (LODs) required. To overcome this issue, a method using an alternative derivatization was proposed: formation of methyloxime-TMS derivatives through double derivatization using O-methylhydroxylamine/pyridine and MSTFA/TMS imidazole after enzymatic hydrolysis and liquid-liquid extraction. Samples from an excretion study after administration of exemestane to healthy volunteers were analyzed by the proposed method and detection of both exemestane and its main metabolite was possible. This method showed excellent results for both analytes meeting the LODs required for antiestrogenic agents (50 ng/mL) established by WADA. The method was validated for the main metabolite, it was robust and cost-effective for qualitative and quantitative purposes, with LOD and LOQ of 10 ng/mL and 25 ng/mL, respectively.

What is the “default” period of ineligibility for an anti-doping rule violation involving a specified substance?
This is a comment that only the lawyers will love. It springs from a conversation between lawyers. It involves lawyers deconstructing language written by lawyers and exposes ambiguity that only lawyers would enjoy arguing about. Ambiguity that will require lawyers to fix.