Aaron L. Baggish, Rory B. Weiner, Gen Kanayama, James I. Hudson, Michael H. Picard, Adolph M. Hutter, Jr., and Harrison G. Pope, Jr.
Circ Heart Fail. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 January 1.
Published in final edited form as:
Circ Heart Fail. 2010 July 1; 3(4): 472–476.
Published online 2010 April 27. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.109.931063

Background
Although illicit anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) use is widespread, the cardiac effects of long-term AAS use remain inadequately characterized. We compared cardiac parameters in weightlifters reporting long-term AAS use to those in otherwise similar weightlifters without prior AAS exposure.

Methods & Results
We performed 2-dimensional, tissue-Doppler, and speckle-tracking echocardiography to assess left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, LV systolic strain, and conventional indices of diastolic function in long-term AAS users (n=12) and otherwise similar AAS non-users (n=7). AAS users (median [Q1,Q3] cumulative lifetime AAS exposure 468 [169–520] weeks) closely resembled non-users in age, prior duration of weightlifting, and current intensity of weight training. LV structural parameters were similar between the two groups. However, AAS users had significantly lower LV ejection fraction (50.6% [48.4, 53.6] versus 59.1% [58.0, 61.7]; p = 0.003 by Wilcoxon rank sum test, two-tailed); longitudinal strain (16.9% [14.0, 19.0] versus 21.0% [20.2, 22.9]; p = 0.004), and radial strain (38.3 [28.5, 43.7] versus 50.1 [44.3, 61.8]; p = 0.02). Ten of the 12 AAS users showed LV ejection fractions below the accepted limit of normal (≥55%). AAS users also demonstrated decreased diastolic function compared to non-users, as evidenced by a markedly lower E′ velocity (7.4 [6.8, 7.9] versus 9.9 [8.3, 10.5]; p = 0.005) and E/A ratio (0.93 [0.88, 1.39] versus 1.80 [1.48, 2.00]; p = 0.003).

Conclusions
Cardiac dysfunction in long-term AAS users appears more severe than previously reported, and may be sufficient to increase the risk of heart failure.

Related cases:
- ISR 2010 NRB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee
2010076 TU
April, 15, 2010
- ISR 2011 NRB Decision Revision Committee 2010076 H
January 27, 2012

In March 2010 the Dutch Rugby Union (Nederlandse Rugby Bond, NRB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Person filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the NRB Disciplinary Committee.

The Person stated that he trained at a professional fitness center and there he purchased the supplement NO Explode. He assumed that this supplement was contaminated with the prohibited substance in spite of his expectation that he had purchased clean supplements. He argued that without intention to enhance his performance he researched the ingredients of the supplement before using and that the prohibited substance wasn’t mentioned on the label.

The Person received the opportunity from the NRB Disciplinary Committee on 15 April 2010 to produce evidence of this contamination. Hereafter in June 2010 the Person and the Committee received the supplement analysis results from the accredited laboratory. The laboratory reported that the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine wasn’t found in the Person’s supplement. The Person assumed that other supplements he had used from his brother might have been contaminated as possible explanation.

Without proof how the prohibited substance entered his body the NRB Disciplinary Committee decides on 30 June 2010 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 March 2010.

ANADO Legal Note 14
How to Improve the Impact of WADA Independent Observer Teams
The WADA Independent Observer (IO) program has been one of WADA’s most useful and successful. Born from the need to provide independent oversight and confirmation of the integrity and effectiveness of anti-doping at the Olympic Games, the program has evolved to provide “audit-style” missions which give on-the-spot feedback and recommendations. The IO program will continue to have important political significance within sport to enhance the profile of clean sport and to reassure participants, spectators and the media. IO teams will continue to be sent to certain major games even if not technically required (because of the competency of the organizing committee and the experience of its anti-doping personnel, for example). But to me, the potential for lasting operational improvement to the efficacy and efficiency of games-time anti-doping programs is the real promise of the program.

Biosimilar epoetins and other "follow-on" biologics : update on the European experiences / Wolfgang Jelkmann

• Hermatology 85 (2010) 10 (October), p. 771-780
• PMID: 20706990
• DOI: 10.1002/ajh.21805

Abstract

After the patents of biopharmaceuticals have expired, based on specific regulatory approval pathways copied products ("biosimilars" or "follow-on biologics") have been launched in the EU. This article summarizes experiences with hematopoietic medicines, namely the epoetins (two biosimilars traded under five different brand names) and the filgrastims (two biosimilars, six brand names). Physicians and pharmacists should be familiar with the legal and pharmacological specialities of biosimilars: The production process can differ from that of the original, clinical indications can be extrapolated, glycoproteins contain varying isoforms, the formulation may differ from the original, and biopharmaceuticals are potentially immunogenic. Only on proof of quality, efficacy and safety, biosimilars are a viable option because of their lower costs.

Facts
The French Rugby Federation (Fédération Française de Rugby, FFR) charges respondent M41 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Respondent didn't comply for a doping control.

History
The disciplinary committee of the FFR had decided on February 18, 2010, that the respondent was acquitted. The sampler collector hadn't used all his available means to perform the doping control.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision, dated February 18, 2010, of the disciplinary committee of the FFR is upheld.
3. The decision will start on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts and History
United Kingdom Anti-Doping Limited charged Kieren Kelly (player) with a violation of Rule 32.2(c) of the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules, as incorporated Into the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules. The player refused to undergo an out-of-competition doping test on January 9, 2010. The player admitted this charge and acceded to the consequences specified for such violation in the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules incorporated in the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules.

Decision:
1. The player is found to have committed a violation of rule 32.2(c) of the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules, as incorporated into the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules, in that on January 9, 2012, refused without compelling justification to provide a sample for drug testing in accordance with the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules.
2. The player is subject to a period of ineligibility from the sport of two (2) years, commencing as of 8 February 2010 and ending at midnight on February 7, 2012.
3. During the above period of Ineligibility, In accordance with Rule 40.11 of the IAAF Doping Rules, as incorporated into the UK Anti-Doping Rules, The player may not participate In any capacity in any event or series of events or activity (other then authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized or organized by the IAAF or any area association or member of the IAAF or signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code (or signatory's member club or a club or other member organization or a signatory's member) or competition authorized or organized by any professional league or any International or national level organization.
4. In accordance with Rule 40.8 of the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules, as incorporated into the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules, all competitive results achieved by the player in events since January 9, 2010 are disqualified, together with forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money obtained in such events. Thls includes (without limitation) the results achieved by Mr Kelly at the Woodies DIY Indoor Championships of Ireland, which took place on February 7, 2010.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.

Facts and history
The UK Anti-Doping Organization charges Jamie Stevenson(player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The player refused to undertake an out-of-competition test at Loughborough University on 9 January 2010. Refusing to commit to sample collection once notified that you are required to do so is prohibited under the World Anti-Doping Code. The player admitted the charge and accepted the consequences.

Decision
1. Jamie Stevenson is found to have committed a violation of Rule 32.2(c) of the Anti-Doping Rules, as incorporated into the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules on January 9, 2010 he did refuse without compelling justification to provide a sample for drug testing in accordance with the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules.
2. Jamie Stevenson is subject to a period of ineligibility from the sport of two (2) years, commencing as of February 8, 2010 and ending at midnight on February 7, 2012.
3. During the above period of ineligibility, in accordance with Rule 40.11 of the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules, as incorporated into the UK Anti-Doping Rules, Mr Stevenson may not participate in any capacity in any event or series of events or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized or organized by the IAAF or any area association or member of the IAAF or signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code (or signatory's member club or a club or other member organization of a signatory's member) or competition authorized or organized by any professional league or any international or national level organization.
4. In accordance with Rule 40.8 of the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules, as incorporated Into the UK Athletics Anti-Doping Rules, all competitive results achieved by Mr Stevenson in events since 9 January 2010 are disqualified, together with forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money obtained In such events. This includes (without limitation) the results achieved by Mr Stevenson at the Loughborough University Open, which took place on January 30, 2010.

Respondent is a coach of track and field athletes responsible for training, coaching and guiding athletes in preparation for elite competition. Stewart claims he quit coaching all athletes but his wife in 2004. His training includes strength training, weight management, body stability, rehabilitation and nutrition training.

Respondent met Angel Memo Heredia, hereinafter identified as Memo, in 1997. Respondent was training himself and Beverly McDonald at that time while living in Dallas, Texas. The Heredia family owns and operates the Chopo laboratory in Mexico City, Mexico. Stewart maintained a relationship with Memo from 1997 to 2006. Memo is an admitted drug dealer. He has co-operated with the United States government in the criminal prosecution of Coach Trevor Graham.
Specifically Stewart is charged with violations of WADA Sections 2.7.: identifies a doping violation for trafficking in any prohibited substance or prohibited method and 2.8.: identifies a doping violation of administration or attempted administration of a prohibited substance or prohibited method to any athlete or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation or attempted violation. USADA seeks to prove that Respondent engaged in an ongoing practice of procuring performance enhanced drugs (PED’s) and using those drugs in a training program designed to enhance the performance of athletes under his guidance and supervision, including encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity in an anti-doping rule violation or attempted anti-doping rule violation. In the event of prevailing on the charges, USADA seeks the imposition of a lifetime period of ineligibility.

The recommendation of USADA that the arbitrator impose a lifetime period of ineligibility from coaching on Raymond Stewart is accepted and adopted.

ASADA believes in pure performance in sport. The 'Pure Performance in Sport' video has been produced to highlight to athletes, coaches, the families of athletes and everyone involved in sport what you can and can't do, how drug testing works and a lot more.

The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) is a government statutory authority that is Australia's driving force for pure performance in sport. It is the organisation with prime responsibility for implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code (the Code) in Australia.

ASADA believes in pure performance in sport. The 'Pure Performance in Sport' video has been produced to highlight to athletes, coaches, the families of athletes and everyone involved in sport what you can and can't do, how drug testing works and a lot more.

The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) is a government statutory authority that is Australia's driving force for pure performance in sport. It is the organisation with prime responsibility for implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code (the Code) in Australia.