Analysis of conjugated steroid androgens : deconjugation, derivatisation and associated issues / Rachel L. Gomes, Will Meredith, Colin E. Snape, Mark A. Sephton. - (Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 49 (2009) 5 (12 July); p. 1133-1140)

• PMID: 19304432
• PMCID: PMC2684592
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2009.01.027

Abstract

Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) is the preferred technique for the detection of urinary steroid androgens for drug testing in athletics. Excreted in either the glucuronide or sulfated conjugated form, steroids must first undergo deconjugation followed by derivatisation to render them suitable for GC analysis. Discussed herein are the deconjugation and the derivatisation preparative options. The analytical challenges surrounding these preparatory approaches, in particular the inability to cleave the sulfate moiety have led to a focus on testing protocols that reply on glucuronide conjugates. Other approaches which alleviate the need for deconjugation and derivatisation are also highlighted.

In July 2009 the International Federation of Rowing Associations (FISA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Goran Nedeljkovic after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance amphetamine.
After notification by the Servian National Rowing Federation ordered a provisional suspension and the Athlete was heard for the FISA Doping Hearing Panel.

The Athlete stated that the night prior to the competition he attended a party. There he had a non-alcoholic drink at the party. The Athlete claimed that this drink must have contained a prohibited substance. He argued that this was the only way the substance could have entered.

The Panel finds that the Athlete did not present evidence that he had attended a party or statement from people who may have attended the party. He also did not present any other evidence to support his explanation.
Therefore the FISA Doping Hearing Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting at the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 November 2008.

The Polish Basketball Federation has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.
The Disciplinary Commission of the Polish Basketball Federation decided to impose a 2 years suspension on the Player starting from 25 October 2008.

The Player appealed the sanction to the FIBA. He filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Panel.
The Player stated he had gained significant weight after a physical injury, therefore used ‘over the counter water weight pills’ in order to lose weight. He was unaware of the fact that these pills contained prohibited substances and had no intention to enhance his performance.
The panel accepts Player’s statement and concludes the Player acted negligently.
Considering furosemide became a specified substance in the new 2009 WADA prohibited list, the FIBA Disciplinary Panel decides les mitior to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility starting from the day of the doping test.

Claimant USAD vs respondent Emily Brunemann, this case involves Respondent's first anti-doping violation, which she admits. Respondent tested positive for a diuretic that is now designated as a Specified Substance under the 2009 Fédération Internationale de Natation ("FINA") rules. She tested positive during the period when the 2003 version of the WADA Code was in effect.The UCLA Laboratory determined the finding of the substance hydrochlorothiazide and triamterene.
This Panel must resolve several issues before an appropriate sanction can be imposed. Because respondent tested positive for a banned substance in August 2008 (when the 2003 WADA Code was in effect) and this hearing was held on January 9, 2009 (after the 2009 WADA Code became effective, the parties agree the doctrine of lex mitior is applicable to this case. What is in dispute is how lex mitior should be applied.

CAS 2008/A/1513 Emil Hoch v. Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS) & International Olympic Committee (IOC)

• Cross-country skiing
• Doping (assistance to an anti-doping rule violation)
• CAS power of review and breach of procedural fundamental principles
• Serious antidoping offence
• Calculation of the ineligibility period in case of multiple anti-doping rules violation

1. The CAS has full power to review the facts and the law of an appeal, and therefore hears the case de novo, without being limited by the submissions and evidence that was available to the initial procedure. Furthermore, the procedural principles of the arbitration tribunal’s independence and impartiality and of “fair proceedings” are guaranteed to a similar extent as before the state courts. Therefore, the breach of procedural fundamental principles in the initial proceedings can no longer be alleged in the appeal arbitration proceedings before CAS because the de novo hearing has cured any lack of due process in the decision appealed against.

2. Is considered to be a serious anti-doping offence an anti-doping offence that consists in providing substantial help for multiple third-party anti-doping rule violations; this is also the case for persons involved in a larger doping conspiracy and thus demonstrating a high degree of criminal energy, and where the doping practices are particularly dangerous for the athletes concerned.

3. A lifetime ban is only justified where the seriousness of the offence is most extraordinary, for instance, where an intentional assistance to anti-doping rules violation is committed on a minor or for the leader of a doping conspiracy. However, a lifetime ban is not proportionate so long as one cannot exclude that other people, including higher-ranking officials, pulled the strings in the doping conspiracy, even if the person accused had a decisive responsibility in the doping scandal, but not the sole or supreme leadership responsibility.

Emil Hoch was the trainer (coach) of the Austrian crosscountry ski team at the Winter Olympic Games in Turin, Italy, in 2006 (the Torino Winter Games 2006. During the Torino 2006 Olympic Games (February 2006) the Appellant shared a room with Mr Markus Gandler, the Austrian team director, in a private house on Via Banchetta in Pragelato.

The house was located a short distance from the chalet in which the athletes of the Austrian cross-country ski team were housed (Martin Tauber, Roland Diethart, Jürgen Pinter, Johannes Eder). These athletes were under the care of and trained by the Appellant.

On the night of 18 February 2006 the Italian police executed a search warrant in the accommodation of the Austrian cross-country ski team and support staffin Pragelato. In the course of the search the police seized various items, both in the chalet, in which the athletes were housed, and in the building in which, among others, also the Appellant lived during the Torino 2006 Olympic Games.

The Italian police documented the search in a written record. In addition, according to the record, the Italian police seized the following further items from a dustbin at the entrance to the apartment, which was adjacent to the bedroom occupied by the Appellant and Mr Markus Gandler. The Appellant admits having collected the medical items found in his bag from the athletes at their home in order to dispose of them. Immediately after the police had conducted the search the Appellant left Turin before daybreak to drive home to Austria.

As a result of the above-mentioned events various proceedings were initiated - amongst others - by the IOC instituted proceedings against the athletes of the Austrian cross-country ski team (Tauber, Diethart, Pinter, Eder). All of them were declared by the IOC to be permanently ineligible for all future Olympic Games.

The athletes filed an appeal against this disciplinary sanction with the CAS. By decision dated 4 January 2008 the CAS dismissed the appeals by Eder, Tauber and Pinter (CAS 2007/A/1286, 1288, 1289).

By decision of 4 January 2008 the CAS partially upheld the appeal filed by Mr Diethart and reduced the period of this ineligibility (CAS 2007/A/1290).

FIS also instituted doping proceedings against the above-mentioned four athletes.

• Regarding the violation of Article 2.6.2 the Respondent, Emil Hoch is declared ineligible from participating directly or indirectly in any capacity in any FIS sanctioned events for a period of two years;
• Regarding the violation of Art. of 2.8 the Respondent, Emil Hoch is declared ineligible from participating directly or indirectly in any capacity in any FIS sanctioned event for life;

Hereafter the Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the decision issued on 28 February 2008 by the FDP. After granting the Parties the right to be heard on the lOC's intervention the Panel issued a decision dated 27 June 2008 by which the IOC was allowed to participate as Co-Respondent (i.e. Second Respondent), together with the FIS in the arbitration procedure CAS 2008/A/1513 initiated by the Appellant.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 26 January 2009:

1.) The Appeal filed by Mr. Emil Hoch against the decision rendered on 28 February 2008 by the FIS Doping Panel is partially upheld;

2.) The decision rendered on 28 February 2008 by the FIS Doping Panel is set aside as far as the period of ineligibility is concerned;

3.) Mr. Emil Hoch shall be ineligible to participate directly or indirectly in any capacity in any FIS sanctioned events up to 18 September 2022;

4.) This award is rendered without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500.00 (five hundred Swiss Francs) paid by the Appellant, which is retained by the CAS;

5.) Each Party shall bear its own costs;

6.) All other claims are dismissed.

High-sensitivity chemiluminescence immunoassays for detection of growth hormone doping in sports / Martin Bidlingmaier, Jennifer Suhr, Andrea Ernst, Zida Wu, Alexandra Keller, Christian J. Strasburger, Andreas Bergmann. - (Clinical Chemistry 55 (2009) 3 (March); p. 445-453)

• PMID: 19168559.
• DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2008.112458

Abstract

Background:
Recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) is abused in sports, but adequate routine doping tests are lacking. Analysis of serum hGH isoform composition has been shown to be effective in detecting rhGH doping. We developed and validated selective immunoassays for isoform analysis with potential utility for screening and confirmation in doping tests.

Methods:
Monoclonal antibodies with preference for pituitary hGH (phGH) or rhGH were used to establish 2 pairs of sandwich-type chemiluminescence assays with differential recognition of rhGH (recA and recB) and phGH (pitA and pitB). We analyzed specimens from volunteers before and after administration of rhGH and calculated ratios between the respective rec- and pit-assay results.

Results:
Functional sensitivities were <0.05 microg/L, with intra- and interassay imprecision < or =8.4% and < or =13.7%, respectively. In 2 independent cohorts of healthy subjects, rec/pit ratios (median range) were 0.84 (0.09-1.32)/0.81 (0.27-1.21) (recA/pitA) and 0.68 (0.08-1.20)/0.80 (0.25-1.36) (recB/pitB), with no sex difference. In 20 recreational athletes, ratios (median SD) increased after a single injection of rhGH, reaching 350% (73%) (recA/pitA) and 400% (93%) (recB/pitB) of baseline ratios. At a moderate dose (0.033 mg/kg), mean recA/pitA and recB/pitB ratios remained significantly increased for 18 h (men) and 26 h (women). After high-dose rhGH (0.083 mg/kg), mean rec/pit ratios remained increased for 32 h (recA/pitA) and 34 h (recB/pitB) in men and were still increased after 36 h in women.

Conclusions:
Using sensitive chemiluminescence assays with preferential recognition of phGH or rhGH, detection of a single injection of rhGH was possible for up to 36 h.

Related cases:
CAS OG_08_01 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF & the Players vs FIH
August 2, 2008
CAS OG_08_04 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF & the Players vs FIH
August 5, 2008
CAS OG_08_05 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF & the Players vs FIH
August 8, 2008

From 12 to 20 April 2008, one of the three Women's World Hockey Qualifier competitions was held in Baku, Azerbaijan. The winner of the Event would qualify for the Olympic Games. The final of the Event was a match on Sunday, 20 April 2008, between the team representing the Real Federación Española de Hockey (RFEH) and the team representing the Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF). The Spanish team won the final 3-2.

On 21 May 2008, the FIH communicated that the A and B samples of two players, who competed for the Spanish team, taken during anti-doping tests carried out at the Event showed adverse analytical findings (AAF). In the same communication, the FIH stated that the players concerned had requested a hearing by the FIH Judicial Commission.
The hearing impacted not only the players but could also have affected the entire Spanish team by virtue of article 11.1 of the FIH Anti-Doping Policy, which reads: “if more than one team member in a Team Sport is found to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule violation during the Event, the team may be subject to Disqualification or other disciplinary action."
The FIH requested that the Judicial Commission find that the two players had committed an anti-doping rule violation and as a result disqualify the Spanish team from the Event.
The Judicial Commission found that one of the players committed an anti-doping rule violation. However, there was no fault or negligence on her part so no sanction was imposed; the second player was not found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation.

On 31 July 2008, AFHF, together with the players of the Azerbaijan Women's Field Hockey team and the ANOC, filed an application with the ad hoc Division of the CAS.
By decision of 2 August 2008, the ad hoc Division of the CAS dismissed the application filed by the ANOC, the AFHF and the Players on 31 July 2008 (the "First Award"). In this First Award, the CAS Panel found that ANOC, AFHF and the Players did not have standing to bring an appeal of the Decision.
Faced with the absence of standing, on 5 August 2008, the Applicants brought a further application before the CAS ad hoc Division seeking an order that FIH itself bring an appeal to CAS against the Decision.
By decision of 5 August 2008, the CAS ad hoc Division dismissed the application filed on 5 August 2008, including the requests for preliminary relief (the “Second Award”).

This amounts to a third appeal to the CAS ad hoc Division by the Applicants seeking substantially the same final relief as sought in the application which led to the First Award.
According to the Applicants’ submissions, this application arises by reason of their consideration, for the first time, of a copy of the Decision which was made available to them as a result of a direction given by the CAS Panel which delivered the First Award.
The Applicants submit that the Decision “shows the Applicants were openly blamed for committing sabotage of the Spanish team” and that in the Decision, “the Judicial Commission endorsed the allegations put forward by the Respondents.” The Applicants contend that the alleged findings of the Judicial Commission against them were made in circumstances where they had a right to be heard and were not heard. They submit that, in accordance with article 22.1 of the FIH Statutes and Byelaws, article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and general principles, since they have been denied procedural fairness by the Judicial Commission, the Decision should be annulled.

The CAS Panel finds that the Applicants seem to be seeking to appeal against the dismissed First Award. The First Award was erroneous. Indeed, with great respect, the Panel considered that it was clearly correct. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that the Applicants have no standing to bring this application. In addition it is not necessary to consider the merits of the application or whether the Decision was, in fact, a correct one.

On the basis of the foregoing facts and legal aspects, the ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport renders on 8 August 2008 the following decision:
The application filed by the Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation and the Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee on 7 August 2008 is hereby dismissed.

Hereafter the AFHF appealed the CAS decision with the Swiss Federal Court. The AFHF requested to set aside the CAS decision due to it has no jurisdiction and lack of locus standi.
The Swiss Federal Court rejected the complaints and arguments of the Athletes and decides on 22 January 2009 to dismiss the appeal.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M03 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on July 3 and July 15, 2008, blood samples and on July 8, 2008, an urine sample were taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the blood samples showed the presence of erythropoietin. Erythropoietin is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

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

Decision
1. The sanction is period of ineligibility of two years in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFC.
2. All his results on the Tour de France 2008 are cancelled. Medals, points and prizes are withdrawn.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

TAS 2008/A/1612 M, Rasmussen c/ FMC

CAS 2008/A/1612 Michael Rasmussen c/ FMC

Related cases:

• Dutch District Court 2008 Michael Rasmussen vs RABO Wielerploegen
  July 2, 2008
• Dutch Court of Appeal 2012 Michael Rasmussen vs RABO Wielerploegen
  June 19, 2012
• Dutch Court of Appeal 2013 Michael Rasmussen vs RABO Wielerploegen
  June 25, 2013

On 30 June 2008 the Fédération Monégasque de Cyclisme (FMC) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the cyclist Michael Rasmussen for multiple anti-doping rule violations he committed:

• 3 warnings for his whereabouts filing failures within a period of 18 months between May 2007 and July 2008;
• 1 warning for filing false whereabouts for the period April-June 2007.

Hereafter in July 2008 the Athlete appealed the FMC Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to annul the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

In the matter of his 1st and 3rd warning the Athlete disputed the competence of Anti-Doping Denmark (ADD) to conduct out-of-competition testing in April and in June 2007. Regarding the second warning the Athlete argued that he timely had submitted valid whereabouts information to the UCI.

Further the Athlete disputed the validity of the 4th warning because this was issued by the UCI only following his admission in November 2007, during an anti-doping investigation, that he had provided falsified whereabouts information.

The Panel established that the Athlete was included in the ADD testing pool and accordingly that the ADD had authority to submit the Athlete to sample collection. The Panel determines that the 2nd warning was valid due to the Athlete had anyhow not submitted timely his whereabouts to the UCI.

The Panel deems that UCI's 4th warning was also valid because the Athlete knowingly had provided false whereabouts information. As a result the Athlete had tampered with any part of the doping control.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 January 2009 to uphold the Appealed Decision of 30 June 2008 and rules that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Facts
The International Chess Federation (FIDE) charged Vassily Ivanchuk, the player for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match the Dresden Olympiad 2008 he didn't attend a doping control.

History
After losing a crucial game for his country, the player was distraught. The arbiter attempted to inform the player in English that he should accompany him for a doping test, the player apparently failed to understand the instructions, especially since English is not his first language. If there had been a Doping Control Officer present, he would have immediately gone to the player's board and there would have been communication between him and the player. In that case the outcome might have been different. Because there was no notification by the Doping Control officer, there was no refusal in the sense of the regulations.

Decision
The player is acquitted.