In order to provide athletes with basic information about their rights and responsibilities in the doping control process, WADA, in partnership with the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (VANOC), has developed a doping control video.

This 5-minute video is intended to provide a general overview of the doping control process while raising awareness of the athlete’s rights and responsibilities. The video outlines each of the phases of the doping control process:

Athlete selection
Athlete notification
Sample collection
Laboratory analysis
Results management

The video, currently available in nine languages (Arabic, Croatian, English, French, German, Greek, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish), can be ordered by stakeholders at no cost for use as part of their information and education efforts. Those interested in producing a co-branded version of the video with their own logo or a version in their own language (voiceover or subtitles) can contact WADA at info@wada-ama.org.

The World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) mission is to lead a collaborative worldwide campaign for doping-free sport.

WADA was established in 1999 as an international independent agency composed and funded equally by the sport movement and governments of the world. Its key activities include scientific research, education, development of anti-doping capacities, and monitoring of the World Anti Doping Code (Code) – the document harmonizing anti-doping policies in all sports and all countries. WADA is a Swiss private law Foundation. Its seat is in Lausanne, Switzerland, and its headquarters are in Montreal, Canada.

WADA works towards a vision of a world where all athletes compete in a doping-free sporting environment.

In January 2009 The Association Wallonie Bruxelles de Basketball (AWBB), the Wallonia-Brussels Basketball Association, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance norandrosterone.
The AWBB notified the Player and ordered a provisional suspension.
In June 2009 the AWBB Disciplinary Committee decided a two year period of ineligibility.

In March 2010 the Player was heard for the FIBA Disciplinary Panel.
The Player stated he had used a nutritional supplement purchased on the internet. He did not know the name of this supplement and did not check its label.
The Panel has serious doubts about Player’s statement and finds the Player acted negligently in his responsibility that no prohibited substance enters his body. Therefore the FIBA Disciplinary Panel decides a 2 years period of ineligibility.

In January 2010 the Brazilian Cycling Confederation (CBC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Ricardo Andrey Queiroz Ortiz after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Recombinant Erythropoietin (rhEPO). After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and didn’t attend the hearing of the CBC Anti-Doping Commission (CAD-CBC).

In his submission the Athlete asserted that several irregularities occurred during the sample collection since the Doping Control Station was crowded with athletes and sample bottles could have been mixed.

The CBC Anti-Doping Commission (CAD-CBC) finds that 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. The Commission deems that the Athlete failed to produce evidence in support of his assertion and didn’t request the analysis of his B-sample.

Therefore the CAD-CBC decides on 3 March 2010 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 1 August 2009.

Val Barnwell is a 52-year old athlete with an accomplished career in track (and field) events. He has participated in multiple 100 m and 200 m events. At the 2008 World Masters Indoors Championship, het set the Men’s 50 world record in the 60m dash. He participated in the 2009 World Masters as a member of the USA team, in which he won gold medals in the M50 100 m, and 200 m.

The Respondent, gave a urine sample on August 3. 2009, as part of the USADA In-Competition testing program at the World Masters Athletics Championships in Lahti, Finland. The Respondent later won gold medals in the 4 x 100 relay and the 4 x 400 relay.
The Helsinki Laboratory determined through carbon isotope ration (CIR) analysis that the sample contained values consistent with the administration of a synthetic anabolic androgenic steroid (androstendione) in the A bottle.
The WADA-accredited Cologne Laboratory determined through CIR analysis that the sample contained values consistent with the administration of a synthetic anabolic androgenic steroid (androstendione) in both the A and B bottles.

After a hearing the Panel provisionally suspended the Respondent effective December 11, 2009. The period of ineligibility will be a maximum of two (2) years, unless aggravating circumstance are established, in which case the maximum period of ineligibility will be four (4) years.

The hearing was held on February 25, 2010.
the Respondent failed to establish any "exceptional circumstances" that would entitle him to a reduction in sanctions since he admitted that he did not check the ingredients on the supplements that he took. that he had not read the lAAF ADRs, and that he did not take responsibility for what went into his body, exclaiming that the
statement regarding responsibility for what goes in an athlete's body does not belong due to the type of meet he was participating in at the World Masters. Instead, he called that requirement an "insult" since athletes participate in the events "to have fun".
The Respondent did not meet his burden of proof. He failed to prove how the banned substance got into his system, a precondition to qualify for any reduction in sanctions.

USADA did not meet its burden of proving that there were "aggravating circumstances'' present under the evidence which would justify the imposition of a period of ineligibility greater than the Standard sanction. lAAF ADR 40.6. USADA was required to bear the burden of proof with legal sufficiency that the Respondent used or possessed multiple prohibited substances or used prohibited substances on multiple occasions or engaged in deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection or
adjudication of an anti-doping rule violation.

Award:
- The Respondent has committed a doping violation under the WADA Code, Article 10.2, by reason of the use of the testosterone prohormone (androstendione).
- Regardless of an athlete's age, all are entitled to compete on a level playing field at all events, including Masters level events. Cheating and doping have no place in sports.
- The two-year suspension, which began on December 11,2009, the effective date of the provisional suspension, is affirmed.
- The Respondent is held to forfeit his medals from the 2009 World Masters' Events, lAAF ADR 40.1.

CAS 2009/A/1898 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. International DanceSport Federation (IDSF) & Boris Maltsev & Zarina Shamsutdinova

• Dance sport
• Doping (refusal to submit to doping control)
• Applicability of the principle of equality of treatment between athletes
• Absence of justification for the refusal to submit to control
• Absence of mitigating factors for the otherwise applicable sanction

1. Neither the equality of treatment between elite athletes competing in different sports at a worldwide level, nor the rationale of anti-doping rules, allow to follow the reasoning according to which the level of awareness of competing athletes regarding applicable rules might be inferior in small federations with less means, which should lead to more indulgence when examining their required degree of diligence. Both the World Anti-Doping Programme and the rules of the federation make this clear and forbid doping. Indeed, the purpose of the World Anti-Doping Code is to protect the athletes’ fundamental right to participate in doping-free sport and thus promote health, fairness and equality for athletes worldwide and to ensure harmonized, coordinated and effective anti-doping programs at the international level with regard to detection, deterrence and prevention of doping.

2. According to the applicable rule, an athlete shall only be entitled to refuse to provide a blood or urine sample in circumstances where the “mandatory procedures and safeguards” set out in the regulations are not observed. The reference to mandatory procedures and safeguards must be understood as a reference to the rules and procedures that exist to enable doping controls to be organized in an efficient, orderly, safe and fair manner. In this respect, the absence of a representative of the national federation cannot be deemed a violation of a mandatory safeguard, as no rule exists that provides for such a presence. Likewise, the absence of a warning that doping control might occur cannot be considered a violation of any mandatory procedure or safeguard either. Finally, the federation’s rules neither have the purpose nor the effect of making the duty of submitting to a doping control subject to the signing of a consent form; the athletes acquire that duty by participating in the competition.

3. There is no necessary causal link between the actions of the various sport authorities which might not have properly implemented the anti-doping rules and the fault of the athletes which relieves the latter from their own responsibility. Presenting excuses after the facts cannot be considered as a mitigating factor of the violation consisting in the refusal to undergo the doping test. If no elements can be deemed mitigating factors, the athletes are deemed significantly negligent in refusing to undergo a test. As a result the sanction cannot be reduced and the ineligibility period to be applied is two years.

In December 2008 the Asian DanceSport Federation (ADSF) reported an anti-doping rule violation aginst the Kazakh dancers Boris Maltsev and Zarina Shamsutdinova for their refusal to submit to sample collection at the 2008 IDSF Asian Championships Latin on 7 December 2008. Consequently on 3 June 2009 the IDSF Disciplinary Council decided to sanction the Athletes for 1 year.

Hereafter in July 2009 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the IDSF Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 2 years on the Athletes.

Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that:

• The Athletes' refusal to submit to a doping control is undisputed.
• They refused the test, although they were warned twice about the gravity and the consequences of such refusal.
• No “mandatory procedures and safeguards” protecting athletes have been violated in this case.
• There exists no justification for the refusal to submit to the control, with the consequence that the Athletes must be deemed to have committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• There are no elements, which can be deemed mitigating factors.
• The Athletes were significantly negligent in refusing to undergo the test.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 3 March 2010:

1.) The appeal of WADA against the decision of the IDSF Disciplinary Council, dated 3 June 2009, is declared admissible and upheld.

2.) The decision of the IDSF Disciplinary Council, dated 3 June 2009, in the matter of Boris Maltsev and Zarina Shamsutdinova is set aside.

3.) Boris Maltsev and Zarina Shamsutdinova are sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility starting on 7 December 2009, with the period of one year of ineligibility already served by the Athletes being credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Boris Maltsev and Zarina Shamsutdinova from 7 December 2008 through the date of this award shall be disqualified with all of the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

(…)

7.) All other claims and prayers for relief are dismissed.

Contextual influences and athlete attitudes to drugs in sport / Aaron C.T. Smith, Bob Stewart, Sunny Oliver-Bennetts, Sharyn McDonald, Lynley Ingerson, Astair Anderson, Geoff Dickson, Paul Emery, Fiona Graetz. - (Sport Management Review 13 (2010) 3 (August); p. 181-197)

• DOI: 10.1016/j.smr.2010.01.008

Abstract

This article reports on 11 narrative-based case histories which sought to: (1) uncover the attitudes of players and athletes to drugs in sport, and (2) explore contextual factors influencing the formation of those attitudes as informed by social ecology theory. Overall, participants viewed the use of banned performance-enhancing substances as cheating, ‘hard’ non-performance-enhancing recreational or illicit substances as unwise, legal non-performance-enhancing substances as acceptable, and legal performance-enhancing substances as essential. In short, attitudes were sometimes quite libertarian, and contingent upon first, the legality of the substance, and second, its performance impact. Results also indicated that athletes’ attitudes about drugs were fundamentally shaped by sport's culture. Other significant factors included its commercial scale, closely identifiable others, early experiences and critical incidents of players and athletes, and their level of performance.

Reflections on the Vancouver 2010 Paralympic Winter Games (1)
How to Speed-up Doping Control
What are mankind’s oldest and most enduring mysteries? How was the universe created? What is the meaning of the monumental Nazca drawings on the plains of southern Peru? Did the Chinese reach the Americas before Columbus? Why does anyone eat vegemite? Who styles Nicki Vance’s hair? Where does David Howman find his outrageous suits?
What about: why does doping control still take so long?

Related cases:
SDT 2004_14 New Zealand Rugby League vs Vince Whare
February 17, 2005
SDT 2006_19 New Zealand Rugby League vs Vince Whare
November 28, 2006

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.

In 2005, Respondent was warned and fined by the Tribunal for testing positive to Cannabis after a match. In 2006, Respondent appeared before the Tribunal on a similar violation involving Cannabis and the Tribunal suspended him from sport for two years. That suspension ended in 2008. On each occasion, the Tribunal warned him of the likely penalty if he offended again.

Respondent admitted the third violation. He and a witness provided evidence which satisfied the Tribunal that he smoked Cannabis socially, and not with the intention of enhancing his sports performance.
The Tribunal assessed Respondent’s degree of fault. The breach was inexcusable but the Tribunal took into account all the circumstances of the case (including his deliberate breaching of the rules despite previous warnings, his personal circumstances including the effect of suspension, and the nature of Cannabis and its social use). The Tribunal rules that a penalty greater than the minimum of 8 years’ suspension but less than the maximum lifetime
ban met the intent of the Rules.

Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 10 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 October 2010.

CAS 2009/A/1948 Robert Berger v. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)

• Paralympics shooting
• Refusal to grant a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for Metoprolol
• CAS Jurisdiction
• CAS power of review regarding TUEs
• Burden of proof regarding the entitlement of a TUE
• Knowledge and information to be considered by the Committees considering TUE applications

1. According to the first sentence of Article 13.4 of the IPC Anti-Doping Code, decisions by WADA reversing the grant or denial of a TUE may be appealed to CAS but, on the other hand, because of the language of the second sentence, a decision of WADA confirming or “not reversing” the earlier decision relating to the grant or denial of a TUE could not be appealed to CAS. Pursuant to the general principle of contractual interpretation, where a tribunal concludes that there has been a clear mistake in the language used in the contract, it can correct that mistake by supplying, omitting or correcting words. However, the mere suspicion of a drafting error is not enough to accept the rewriting of an article. Furthermore, any possible alternative construction of the regulations involving a significant departure from the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used is not acceptable. In any event, CAS jurisdiction results from the express jurisdiction conferred by the parties in the order of procedure.

2. The extensive nature of the powers conferred on a CAS appeal panel has become well entrenched in CAS jurisprudence and there is nothing the CAS Code, the IPC Anti-Doping Code or the WADC which would restrict the express power of an appeal panel to review the facts and the law. This principle applies to the granting or denying of TUEs. The procedure before an appeal panel is a hearing de novo. Thus, a CAS appeal panel shall consider all oral, documentary and real evidence produced before it and any fresh evidence may be adduced as of right in a re-hearing whether or not that new evidence was available for use at first instance or discovered subsequently. In this respect, there is no reason to suppose that merely because the members of the CAS panel may not be physicians they are not competent to decide matters of a medical nature assisted by expert evidence. Therefore, all of the material which has been placed before the CAS panel, including the medical evidence and publications, even if some of that material was not before either the IPC TUEC or the WADA TUEC, shall be considered.

3. It is for an athlete to establish his or her entitlement to a TUE before each of the relevant TUE Committee’s. Since the hearing is de novo the athlete must also bear that onus of proof before the CAS. It follows that it is for the athlete to satisfy the CAS that each of the imperative and cumulative criteria in Article 4 of the International Standard for TUEs has been satisfied.

4. It is permissible for the Committees considering TUE applications, measured against the applicable published International Standards criteria, to refer generally to medical and scientific literature and studies which are publicly available and which one or other or both of those Committees may consider relevant and persuasive to a considered and reasoned point of view. The expert medical practitioners who undertake their responsibilities as TUE Committee members do not “leave their expert knowledge behind them at the door of the committee room” when undertaking their responsibilities. They are entitled to rely on their knowledge and the information which is available in the public domain as part of the process of considering an individual TUE. Of course, that knowledge and the information which is in the public domain, relevant to the issue before them, cannot substitute for consideration of the specific matters particular to the athlete, his or her medical condition, or the full breadth of circumstances upon which the athlete relies for the TUE application. All relevant information must be considered, be it of general application or specific to the athlete.

On 18 February 2009 the IPC TUEC rejected the Parathlete's application for the use of the prescribed medication Metoprolol. Thereupon the WADA TUEC decided 19 August 2009 to uphold the appealed IPC TUEC decision.

Hereafter the Parathlete appealed the WADA TUEC Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Panel assessed and addressed the issue of upon whom rests the burden of establishing entitlement to an exemption (and therefore upon whom rests the burden of this appeal). Then the Panel considered the filed evidence on behalf of both parties, the appellant Mr Berger and WADA as respondent.

In view of the medical evidence the Panel deems that the Parathlete has not demonstrated that the therapeutic use of the Prohibited Substance would produce no additional enhancement of performance other than that which might be anticipated by return to a state of normal health following the treatment of a legitimate medical condition.

The Panel concludes that the Parathlete in this case, at this time, on the basis of all the evidence before us, has not discharged the burden resting upon him to establish his entitlement to a TUE for the use of Metoprolol whilst participating in his chosen sport of shooting.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 March 2010:

1.) The Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction to hear this Appeal but only by reason of the express conferral of jurisdiction upon it by Order 2.1 of the Order of Procedure.

2.) The Appeal is dismissed.

3.) The decision of the IPC TUEC dated 18 February 2009 not to approve a TUE for the appellant and the decision of the WADA TUEC dated 19 August 2009 not reversing the decision of the IPC TUEC, remain in force.

4.) That this Award be made public.

5.) (…).

Effects of short-term dehydroepiandrosterone supplementation on body composition in young athletes / Sergej M. Ostojic, Julio Calleja, Morteza Jourkesh. - (Chinese Journal of Physiology 53 (2010) 1 (28 February); p. 19-25)

• PMID: 21789881
• DOI: 10.4077/cjp.2010.amh090

Abstract

Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) is often promoted as a slimming and weight/fat loss agent and ingestion of DHEA may have hypolipidemic and anti-obesity properties. The main aim of this study was to examine the effects of acute DHEA intake on body composition and serum steroid hormones in young athletes. Twenty young (19 to 22 years) male soccer players were allocated into two randomly assigned trials in double-blind design by ingesting 100-mg daily oral DHEA or as placebo (PLA) for 28 days. Body mass was not affected by 4 weeks of DHEA supplementation (P > 0.05). No significant changes in body mass index (BMI), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and body fat or total muscle mass for the two groups were detected at the end of the trial (P > 0.05). There was no within- or between-group difference in arm fat index (AFI) and corrected mid-upper-arm muscle area (cAMA) (P > 0.05). Treatment with DHEA resulted in a significant increase of total testosterone, estradiol and DHEA-S levels in treated subjects versus the placebo group (P < 0.05). Results of this study suggest that DHEA supplementation has no beneficial effects on body composition in young competitive athletes.