In May 2009 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Sorin Dumitru Olari after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.

After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and did not request the B sample analysis.

The ANAD Hearing Commission decides on 14 July 2009 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

In January 2009 the Turkish Basketball Federation (TBF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance metenolone. In April 2009 TBF Disciplinary Board decided a 8 month period of ineligibility.

In July 2009 the Player exercised his right to be heard for the FIBA Disciplinary Panel.
The Player stated he had purchased “over the counter” medication; was not aware that the medication may contain prohibited substances; argued that he suffers from a chronic medical condition in his knees; and that he had received treatment at a medical clinic.
The Panel has serious doubts about Player’s statement and he failed to provide any scientific evidence in support of his argument.
The Panel finds the Player acted negligently without ensuring that the medication does not contain a prohibited substance. The Panel is unable to find a connection between the Player’s knee injury and the anti-doping rule violation.
Therefore the FIBA Disciplinary Panel decides a 2 year period of ineligibility.

Facts
The Fédération International de Gymnastique ("FIG") charged Chiu Shih-Hui (the "player"). On November 3, 2008, the player underwent an anti-doping test. His sample showed a positive result to hydrochlorothiazide which is a diuretic included in the list of prohibited substances.

History
The athlete used a medicine against a cold and also medication to cure an injured foot. Due to language problems the athlete reacted late in the communication process.

Decision
1. To suspend the player for a 24 month period starting from the date of the doping test, i.e. November 3, 2008 to November 2, 2010;
2. To disqualify the player and to cancel any and all results he might have achieved since November 3, 2008 with all the resulting consequences including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes;

Costs
The Presidential Commission hereby decides that the costs of proceedings shall be borne by the Chinese Taipei Gymnastic Association (TPE-NF). Each Party shall bear its own fees and expenses.

Appeal
If the player wants to appeal he has to pay CHF 5.000.- in advance to the FIG. The appeal has to be made within 21 days.

CAS 2009/A/1759 FINA v. Max Jaben & ISA

CAS 2009/A/1778 WADA v. Max Jaben & ISA

CAS 2009/A/1759 FINA vs Max Jaben & Israel Swimming Association

CAS 2009/A/1778 WADA vs Max Jaben & Israel Swimming Association

CAS 2009/A/1759 & 1778 Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) & World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Max Jaben & Israel Swimming Association (ISA)

---

• Aquatics (swimming)
• Doping (boldenone and boldenone metabolites)
• Imperative character of the rules establishing deadlines to file an appeal
• Notification of disciplinary decisions to WADA and WADA’s right to appeal
• Presence of a prohibited substance in both samples
• Chain of custody and adverse analytical finding
• Beginning of the suspension period

---

1.) It would violate fundamental principles of fairness if procedural deadlines such as the filing deadline in the anti-doping rules of an international federation were to stand at the free disposition of the prosecuting parties especially if the accused athlete remained uninformed of such communications which ultimately affect his procedural rights. Possible erroneous assumptions on jurisdiction cannot be placed at the burden of the athlete and thus an appeal filed beyond the 21-days limit has to be declared inadmissible.

2.) WADA is not obliged to actively and unilaterally enquire about a decision to be issued by a federation in order to preserve its own right to appeal, since this would place an undue burden upon the WADA and possibly hinder the fight against doping. It would require that WADA actively monitor each and every of the hundreds of 1st instance disciplinary decisions on the national level.

3.) So long as a prohibited substance was found to be present in both the A and B sample analyses and was also found to be of exogenous origin, the fact that a second prohibited substance was not present in the B sample does not invalidate the finding of an anti-doping violation on the grounds of the rule “If the sample “B” proves negative, the entire test shall be considered negative and the Competitor, his Member Federation, and FINA shall be so informed”.

4.) Claims of departures from the International Standard for Laboratories and the International Standard for Testing, such as breach of the “chain of custody” in the handling of the samples, remain unsubstantiated if it cannot be established that these alleged violations of the International Standards have caused the adverse analytical finding.

5.) The sanctioned athlete has a right to an expeditious hearing and timely completion of the adjudicative process. So long as the sanctioned athlete has no control over procedural delays and bears no responsibility for them, it is fair and appropriate to deduce the period of delay from the overall period of his provisional suspension.

---

In June 2008 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Israeli swimmer Max Jaben after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Boldenone.

On 19 November 2008 the Israel Swimming Association (ISA) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. This decision was appealed with the ISA High Court of Arbitration. However the High Court dismissed this appeal on 15 December 2008 due to lack of jurisdiction because it involved an international-level athlete.

Hereafter in January 2009 both FINA and WADA appealed both Israeli decisions of 19 November 2008 and 15 December 2008 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Israeli decisions and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. FINA's appeal was rejected because it was not filed within the set time limit of 21 days. 

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that the test results of the Athens and Cologne Laboratories were contradictory. He asserted that he should be acquitted because of errors and delays in the laboratory procedures, the unsafe chain of custody and the discrepancies in the laboratory findings.

WADA contended that the Athlete had failed to demonstrate how the prohibited substance had entered his system. Also his allegations about the many inconsistencies are without merit.

WADA holds that both the Athens and Cologne Laboratories were WADA-accredited; the Athlete failed to establish any departure from the International Standard for Testing; and his allegations regarding the validity of the IRMS analyses were erroneous.

The Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established by the Athens and Cologne Laboratories on the basis of their respective analyses whereas the task of the IRMS analysis was to prove the exogenous origin of the Boldenone metabolite. In the view of the Panel, the Cologne Laboratory confirmed such exogenous origin.

The Panel holds that, apart from the delayed processing of the samples by the Athens and the Cologne Laboratories, the Athlete’s claims of other departures from the International Standard for Laboratories and the International Standard for Testing remain unsubstantiated.

This is particularly the case with regard to his accusation that the chain of custody in the handling of the samples has been breached. The Athlete does not claim that these alleged violations of the International Standards have caused the adverse analytical finding.

As a result the Panel determines that the presence of Boldenone metabolite in both specimens, which was proved in IRMS testing to be of exogenous origin, is sufficient to support the doping violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 July 2009:

1.) The appeal of the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decisions of the Disciplinary Committee of the Israel Swimming Association dated 19 November 2008 and of the High Court of the Israel Swimming Association dated 15 December 2008 is declared admissible and is partially upheld.

2.) The appeal of the Federation Internationale de Natation against the decisions of the Disciplinary Committee of the Israel Swimming Association dated 19 November 2008 and of the High Court of the Israel Swimming Association dated 15 December 2008 is declared inadmissible.

3.) The decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Israel Swimming Association dated 19 November 2008 is modified; Mr Jaben is declared ineligible for a period of two (2) years, commencing as of 30 April 2008 without any interruption.

4.) All competitive results achieved by Mr Jaben from 30 April 2008 through 5 June 2008, the date of his provisional suspension, and between the date he resumed competition pursuant to the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Israel Swimming Association dated 19 November 2008 until the date of this award shall be invalidated with the consequence that all medals, points and prizes shall be forfeited.

5.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the non-reimbursable Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swis Francs) already paid by each of the Appellants and to be retained by the CAS.

6.) Mr Jaben is ordered to pay to the World Anti-Doping Agency an amount of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution towards the latter’s legal and other costs incurred in connection with the present arbitration.

7.) The Israel Swimming Association is ordered to pay to the World Anti-Doping Agency an amount of CHF 2,000 (two thousand Swiss Francs) all a contribution towatds the latter's legal and other costs incurred in connection with the present arbitration.

8.) Mr Jaben, the Israel Swimming Association and the Federation Internationale de Natation shall bear their own legal and other costs.

9.) All other motions or petitions for relief are dismissed.

Related case:
CAS 2008/A/1565 WADA vs Frederico Turrini & CISM
August 4, 2008

The Athlete Federico Turrini participated in the 2007 Military World Games held in Hyderabad, India, which took place between 14 and 21 October 2007.
The Athlete was subject to an in-competition test on 19 October 2007 after his victory in the swimming race of 400 meter individual medley. He tested positive to 19-norandrosterone at a concentration higher than the threshold limit of 2 ng/ml and he did not request the analysis of the B-sample.
In a decision dated 15 January 2008, CISM Discipline Commission refrained to pronounce any sanction against the Athlete except for the cancellation of the results he obtained in the 2007 Military World Games.

Hereafter the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the CISM decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). On 4 August 2008 CAS ruled that the WADA appeal was upheld and decided to impose a 2 year ban, starting on the date of the notification, i.e. on 3 December 2007.

The Athlete appealed the CAS decision with the Swiss Federal Court, but this Court decides on 8 July 2009 to dismiss his appeal.

In June 2009 the International Triathlon Union (ITU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jiao Caiping after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance prednisone.
After notification the Athlete waived her right to be heard for the ITU Anti-Doping Hearing Panel and filed a statement and medical documentation in her defence.

The Athlete submitted that she suffered from a heel injury in January 2009 and was treated in a hospital in China. Following rehabilitation and physiotherapy, a prednisone injection was administered in March 2009. The Athlete stated that she consulted with her team doctor about the use of prednisone out-of-competition and was told that she did not need to apply for a TUE for local treatment like the administered prednisone injection. She further asserted that she did not declare the use of the substance on her doping control form because the form indicated that the medical declaration was for substances used 7 days prior to doping control. Since her injection was on 19 March, she did not declare the Prednisone injection on her form and had no intention to enhance her sport performance.

Considering the evidence and statements, the Panel concludes that the Athlete had a valid injury and a valid medical treatment without intention to enhance her sport performance.
Therefore the ITU Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 3 July 2009 to impose a warning on the Athlete.

Synthesis and anabolic/androgenic evaluation of novel 9α-fluorosteroids / M. Reyes-Moreno, J.A. Ruiz-García, Y. Ibarra-Reyes, A. Fuente-Hernández, H. Vélez-Castro, I. Hernández-Balmaseda, I. Martínez-Hormaza, I. Rodeiro-Guerra, J. Sandoval Ramírez, S. Meza Reyes, S. Montiel-Smith. - (European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 44 (2009) 11 (November); p. 4567-4571)

• PMID: 19615789
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2009.06.025

---

Abstract

3Beta,11beta-dihydroxy-9alpha-fluor-5alpha-androstane-17-one (2), 3beta-acetoxy-9alpha-fluor-11beta-hydroxy-5alpha-androstane-17-one (3), 3beta-acetoxy-9alpha-fluor-11beta,17beta-dihydroxy-5alpha-androstane (4), 3beta,17beta-diacetoxy-9alpha-fluor-11beta-hydroxy-5alpha-androstane (5), 3beta-acetoxy-9alpha-fluor-11beta-hydroxy-5alpha-androstane 17beta-propionate (6), 3beta-acetoxy-9alpha-fluor-11beta-hydroxy-5alpha-androstane 17beta-enanthate (7), 3beta-acetoxy-9alpha-fluor-11beta-hydroxy-5alpha-androstane 17beta-isobutyrate (8) were synthesized in the present study. Compounds 2 and 8 exhibited higher anabolic activity than the rest of the synthesized compounds. The structure of all these newly synthesized compounds was confirmed by analytic spectral data (mass, (1)H NMR and (13)C NMR).

In March 2009 the International Skating Union (ISU) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the German Athlete Claudia Pechstein after her blood samples - provided at the 2009 ISU World Allround Speed Skating Championships in Hamar - showed abnormal reticulocytes values.

After notification in March 2009 the Athlete filed statements with evidence in her defence and was heard for the ISU Disciplinary Commission. The Athlete disputed the test result of the blood samples on several grounds.

The ISU Disciplinary Commission assessed the Athlete’s complaints and concludes that there had been no deviations from the ISU Procedures for Blood Testing. Neither does the Panel see any other circumstances which would give rise to any reasonable suspicion that the blood tests of the Athlete produced incorrect results.

Further the Athlete argued that her abnormal high blood profile was caused by a congenital blood disease, which she has to prove by undergoing medical examination. However the Athlete failed to undergo this medical examination to establish whether she has a blood disease. In addition she declined the opportunity, offered by the Panel, to produce this evidence within a reasonable time.

On basis of all evidence presented in this case the Panel is convinced of a prepondering probability that the Athlete has applied the prohibited method of blood doping.

Therefore the ISU Disciplinary Commission decides on 1 July 2009:

1.) Claudia Pechstein is declared responsible for an Anti-Doping violation under Article 2.2 of the ISU ADR by using the prohibited method of blood doping.

2.) The results obtained by Claudia Pechstein in the 500 m and 3'000 m races at the World Allround Speed Skating Championships on 7 February 2009, are disqualified and her points, prices and medals forfeited.

3.) A 2 year period of ineligibility, beginning on 9 February 2009, is imposed on Claudia Pechstein.

4.) The Deutsche Eisschnelllauf-Gemeinschaft e.V. shall pay to the ISU the costs to be determined.

5.) Each Party bears its own costs of proceedings an expenses.

The analytical chemistry of drug monitoring in athletes / L.D. Bowers. – (Annual Review of Analytical Chemistry (2009) 2 (July) : p. 485-507)

• doi: 10.1146/annurev-anchem-060908-15515

---

Content:

1.) Introduction
2.) The World Anti-Doping Agency
2.1.) The Prohibited List: International Standaard
2.2.) The International Standard for Laboratories
3.) Analytical challenges and advances
3.1.) Anabolic Agents
3.1.1.) Exogenous anabolic agents
3.1.2.) Endogenous anabolic steroids
3.2.) Proteins and Peptides
3.2.1.) Human chorionic gonadotropin
3.2.2.) Insulin
3.2.3.) Recombinant human growth hormone
3.2.4.) Recombinant erythropoieting and mimetics
3.3.) Enhancement of Oxygen Transport : Allogenic (Homologous) Blood Transfusion

The detection and deterrence of the abuse of performance-enhancing drugs in sport are important to maintaining a level playing field among athletes and to decreasing the risk to athletes’ health. The World Anti-Doping Program consists of six documents, three of which play a role in analytical development: The World Anti-Doping Code, The List of Prohibited Substances and Methods, and The International Standard for Laboratories. Among the classes of prohibited substances, three have given rise to the most recent analytical developments in the field: anabolic agents; peptide and protein hormones; and methods to increase oxygen delivery to the tissues, including recombinant erythropoietin. Methods for anabolic agents, including designer steroids, have been enhanced through the use of liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry and gas chromatography/combustion/isotope-ratio mass spectrometry. Protein and peptide identification and quantification have benefited from advances in liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Incorporation of techniques such as flow cytometry and isoelectric focusing have supported the detection of blood doping.

Determinants of Doping Intentions in Sports (Project DIDIS) / Haralambos Tsorbatzoudis

---

1.1. Background
Project DIDIS was funded in January 2008 by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) under the programme ‘social science research grant’. This project was completed by the Sports and Physical Education Department of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, in association with the South-East European Research Centre (SEERC) and the Greek National Council to Combat Doping (NCCD). The duration of the project was 18 months (January 2008 – June 2009).

1.2. Project aims
Project DIDIS aimed to:
• Identify the sportspersonship and motivational profiles of athletes using or intending to use prohibited substances
• Examine the effect of psychosocial variables on athletes’ intention to engage in doping, in order to inform subsequent prevention interventions aimed at athletes with risk for doping
• Provide a parsimonious, theory-driven, and integrated model of the psychosocial determinants of prohibited substance use in sports

1.3. Methodology
The methods involved the cross-sectional administration of a battery of psychological measures in a representative sample (N = 1040) of elite athletes in Greece (M age = 22.9 years, 37.4% females). The measures included:
o Demographic characteristics (age, gender)
o Achievement goal orientations
o Motivational regulations
o Sportspersonship orientations
o Beliefs about the causes of success in sports
o Attitudes, social norms, and behavioral control beliefs
o Social desirability

1.4. Results
• The results of the cluster analysis revealed three achievement goal groups (mastery and approach oriented and high achievers), three self-determination groups (high and low motivated and amotivated) and two sportspersonship groups (high and low sportspersonship). Mastery oriented and high motivated athletes showed the less intention to engage in doping practices compared to high achievers and amotivated athletes. No significant differences were revealed between the sportspersonship groups.
• Regarding the effect of psychosocial variables on athletes’ intention to engage in doping, the regression analyses indicated that introjection and mastery approach goals were negative predictors of intentions, whereas amotivation and performance avoidance goals were positive predictors. In terms of sportpersonship, only social conventions predicted negatively intentions to engage in doping. The TPB variables were found to be significant predictors of intentions.
• The investigation of the integrated model indicated that the effect of distal variables (i.e., achievement goals and motivational regulations) was mediated by the effect of more proximal ones, mainly that of the TPB variables and situational temptation.

1.5. Discussion
The findings of the present study support previous research evidence and theoretical underpinnings on the effect of achievement goals and motivational regulations on planning and executing an unhealthy behavior, such as doping. Furthermore they highlight the important role the TPB variables and situational temptation can play in understanding the mechanisms through which intentions to engage in doping are formulated. Surprisingly, doping was not considered as an unethical behavior and sportspersonship dimensions did not have the expected effect. The findings of the project are discussed in light of current theoretical approaches and on the basis of constructing effective interventions and campaigns to combat doping.