Gene doping : of mice and men / Hassan M.E. Azzazya, Mai M.H. Mansoura, Robert H. Christenson. - (Clinical Biochemistry 42 (2009) 6 (April) ; p. 435-441)

• PMID: 19272337.
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2009.01.001

Abstract

Gene doping is the newest threat to the spirit of fair play in sports. Its concept stemmed out from legitimate gene therapy trials, but anti-doping authorities fear that they now may be facing a form of doping that is virtually undetectable and extremely appealing to athletes. This paper presents studies that generated mouse models with outstanding physical performance, by manipulating genes such as insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) or phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase (PEPCK), which are likely to be targeted for gene doping. The potential transition from super mice to super athletes will also be discussed, in addition to possible strategies for detection of gene doping.

CAS 2008/A/1500 Denis Roberts v. Fédération Internationale des Luttes Associés (FILA)

• Wrestling
• Doping (amphetamine)
• Validity of a TUE delivered by a national federation
• CAS power of review
• Publication of a provisional suspension
• Apology as a remedy for damages

1. According to the applicable regulation of FILA, an athlete who is not registered on the International Federation’s Registered Testing Pool (RTP) and who is not competing at an international event is not required to possess a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) approved by the International Federation (IF). A TUE granted by the national federation is valid as long as a national event is concerned.

2. Claims for consequential remedies are not in principle excluded in the framework of appeals proceedings. To the extent an appellant challenges a decision rendered by a sports-related body, no limits are per se imposed by the CAS Code to the relief that can be requested by the appellant (see Article R48 of the Code) and granted by the panel. Article R57 of the Code, in fact, meaningfully allows the panel to decide the dispute de novo, directly considering the facts and the law, and does not reduce its powers to the mere setting aside of the challenged decision.

3. Disclosing on its website the provisional suspension of an athlete prior to the determination in a hearing that an antidoping rule violation has occurred, constitutes a breach by the IF of the its antidoping rules and an illegal publication.

4. Under Swiss law, the conditions for the issuance on an IF’s website of an apology as a remedy for damages caused to one’s personality is only allowed for grave and lasting infringements.

Mr. Denis Roberts is an Australian Athlete competing in the 2007 Wrestling Qualification Tournament in Canberra, Australia, in December 2007 where he provided a sample for drug testing.

The Athlete suffered from Attention Deficit Disorder and had a national TUE since April 2007 for the use of dexamphetamine as treatment for his disorder. A TUE application with FILA was denied in April 2007.

Thereupon in January 2008 FILA reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance amphetamine. After notification FILA ordered a provisional suspension without a hearing and published the details on the FILA website.

ASADA disputed the FILA action and contended to FILA and WADA that the Athlete had a valid national TUE. Further it contended that the Tournament in Canberra was a national level competition and not a competition under FILA Rules.

ASADA argued that imposing a provisional suspension on the Athlete without a hearing was a violation of the Athlete’s rights and a breach of the FILA Rules.

Hereafter in February 2008 the Athlete filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Panel deems that the publication of the Athlete’s provisional suspension on the FILA website was a breach of the FILA Rules and it rejects the Athlete’s request that FILA be ordered to publish an apology.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 19 January 2009:

1.) The requests for relief sought by Mr Denis Roberts are partially granted.

2.) The Panel declares that the publication by the Fédération Internationale des Luttes Associés in its website of Mr Roberts’ provisional suspension breached Article 14.4 of the FILA Anti-Doping Rules.

3.) (…).

4.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

Related case:
ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2008_28 ANAD vs Cristina Andrei
November 17, 2008

In September 2008 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Cristina Andrei after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (nandrolone).

Therefore on 17 November 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of decision.

Hereafter in December 2008 the Athlete appealed the decision of the ANAD Sanction Committee of 17 November 2008 with the ANAD Appeal Commission.

The Appeal Commission concludes that the Athlete failed to mention on the Doping Control Form that she used Deca-Durabolin as medical treatment and she didn’t mention the use of contraceptive pills. Also the Athlete failed to prove her claim that she suffered from a series of ligaments disorders.
Therefore on 19 Janury 2009 the ANAD Appeal Commission decides to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal and to uphold the ANAD Sanction Committee Decision of 17 November 2008.

Facts
Filippo Volandri was reported for a Ani-Doping Rules Violation (ADRV). His urine sample, taken on March 13, 2008, at the Indian Wells tournament in California, United States, tested positive on the prohibited substance salbutamol. The player doesn't dispute this fact. An oral hearing was held on 15-01-2009.

History
The player had a therapeutic use exemption (“TUE”) in respect of salbutamol when he gave his sample. The abnormal result was the consequence of the therapeutic use of inhaled salbutamol for his asthma.

Considerations tribunal
Salbutamol was not a specified substance under the 2008 Program, but is under the 2009 Program. The parties agree that Salbutamol in this case will be regarded as a specified substance. An application therefore will be regarded as a lex mitior by the Anti-Doping Tribunal hearing the case. Several times a TUE was granted. Unfortunately applying lately the player forgot to mention the explanation that the treatment was ongoing. On 27 December 2004 the player, applied for an Abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemption (“ATUE”) in respect of use of salbutamol. However, the player’s use of salbutamol on March 12-13, 2008, can't properly be characterised as therapeutic.

decision
The Tribunal:
1. confirms the commission of the doping offence specified in the notice of charge set out in the ITF’s letter to the player dated 13 November 2008; namely that a prohibited substance, salbutamol, has been found to be present in the urine sample that the player provided at Indian Wells on 13 March 2008;
2. finds that the player has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the abnormal test result was the consequence of the player’s therapeutic use of inhaled salbutamol;
3. orders that the player’s individual result must be disqualified in respect of the Indian Wells tournament, and in consequence rules that the prize money and ranking points obtained by the player through his participation in that event must be forfeited;
4. orders, further, that the player’s individual results (including ranking points and prize money) in competitions including and subsequent to the Manerbio competition on 18 August 2008 shall be disqualified and all prize money and ranking points in respect of those competitions shall be forfeited;
5. orders, however, that the player’s results (including ranking points and prize money) in all competitions subsequent to the Indian Wells tournament up to and including the Cordenons competition on July 28, 2008 shall remain undisturbed;
6. finds that the player has succeeded in establishing to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal that his use of the prohibited substance leading to the positive test result in respect of the sample taken on March 13, 2008, was not intended to enhance his sport performance;
7. declares that the player shall be ineligible for a period of three months (i.e. calendar months) starting on January 15, 2009 and expiring at midnight London time on April 14, 2009 from participating in any capacity in any event or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation program) authorized by the ITF or any national or regional entity which is a member of or is recognized by the ITF as the entity governing the sport of tennis in that nation or region.

Screening for the calstabin-ryanodine receptor complex stabilizers JTV-519 and S-107 in doping control analysis / Mario Thevis, Simon Beuck, Andreas Thomas, Maxie Kohler, Nils Schlörer, Ileana Vajiala, Wilhelm Schänzer. - (Drug Testing and Analysis 1 (2009) 1 (January); p. 32-42)

• PMID: 20355157
• DOI: 10.1002/dta.13

Abstract

Recent studies outlined the influence of exercise on the stability of the skeletal muscle calstabin1-ryanodine receptor1-complex, which represents a major Ca(2+) release channel. The progressive modification of the type-1 skeletal muscle ryanodine receptor (RyR1) combined with reduced levels of calstabin1 and phosphodiesterase PDE4D3 resulted in a Ca(2+) leak that has been a suggested cause of muscle damage and impaired exercise capacity. The use of 1,4-benzothiazepine derivatives such as the drug candidates JTV-519 and S-107 enhanced rebinding of calstabin1 to RyR1 and resulted in significantly improved skeletal muscle function and exercise performance in rodents. Due to the fact that the mechanism of RyR1 remodelling under exercise conditions were proven to be similar in mice and humans, a comparable effect of JTV-519 and S-107 on trained athletes is expected, making the compounds relevant for doping controls. After synthesis of JTV-519, S-107, and a putative desmethylated metabolite of S-107, target compounds were characterized using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and electrospray ionization (ESI)-high-resolution/high-accuracy Orbitrap mass spectrometry. Collision-induced dissociation pathways were suggested based on the determination of elemental compositions of product ions and H/D-exchange experiments. The most diagnostic product ion of JTV-519 was found at m/z 188 (representing the 4-benzyl-1-methyl piperidine residue), and S-107 as well as its desmethylated analog yielded characteristic fragments at m/z 153 and 138 (accounting for 1-methoxy-4-methylsulfanyl-benzene and 4-methoxy-benzenethiol residues, respectively). The analytes were implemented in existing doping control screening procedures based on liquid chromatography, multiple reaction monitoring and simultaneous precursor ion scanning modes using a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer. Validation items such as specificity, recovery (68-92%), lower limit of detection (0.1-0.2 ng/mL), intraday (5.2-18.5%) and interday (8.7-18.8%) precision as well as ion suppression/enhancement effects were determined.

Annual banned-substance review: the Prohibited List 2008 : analytical approaches in human sports drug testing / Mario Thevis, Tiia Kuuranne, Hans Geyer, Wilhelm Schänzer. - (Drug Testing and Analysis 1 (2009) 1 (January); p. 4-13)

• PMID: 20355153
• DOI: 10.1002/dta.9

Abstract

The list of prohibited substances and methods of doping issued by the World Anti-Doping Agency is updated and modified annually based on most recent developments and scientific data. Compounds and methods are maintained, added, or removed from the list, or they are placed in so-called monitoring programmes that have been established to obtain reliable data on the prevalence of particular substances and methods in- and/or out-of-competition. Consequently, doping control laboratories continuously update, modify and optimize existing screening and confirmation assays to ensure utmost comprehensiveness in detecting the prohibited and monitored substances as well as chemically and pharmacologically related analogs. The annual banned-substance review for human sports drug testing critically summarizes recent innovations in analytical approaches supporting the detection of established and newly outlawed substances and methods of doping. Literature from January 2007 through September 2008 as indexed in Medline and Web of Science was screened and articles on detection methods for substances and methods of doping in humans were compiled according to the 2008 Prohibited List of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Few new approaches were presented for individual doping agents and the majority of reports demonstrated new options for increasing the comprehensiveness of existing doping control assays. In addition, new techniques in separation and/or ionization of analytes complementary to commonly used procedures were described, which, so far, did not meet all requirements of sports drug testing.

Facts
The French Tennis Federation (Fédération Française de Tennis, FFT) charges respondent M02 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on June 30, 2008, respondent was asked to attend the doping control, he was unable to produce a sample for more then two hours and left the doping control room.

History
Respondent was a minor and accompanied by his mother. The reason for the refusal was a psychological block due to his great modesty.
Respondent had received a sanction by the disciplinary committee of the FFT, on October 13, 2008, which was a period of ineligibility of three months in which he couldn't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFT.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision, dated October 13, 2008, of the disciplinary committee of the FFT should be modified.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M01 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on June 15, 2008, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of nandrolone, boldenone, a metabolite of boldenone and betamethasone. These substances are prohibited substances 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 four years in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFC, as pronounced by the disciplinary committee of the FFC, on September 17, 2008, and extended to all relevant French sport federations.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges that, on 19 June 2008, Andrey Sorokin (the “Player”) committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation by reason of an Adverse Analytical Finding for Indapamide, which is Prohibited Substance, classed under S5 Diuretics and Other Masking Agents. The Player does not dispute the finding.

History
The player asserts that the finding arose from his medically-prescribed use of a medicine called Noliprel to treat a serious cardiac condition. Noliprel contains indapamide.

Decision
On 19 June 2008, the Player committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation by reason of the presence of Indapamide in his bodily Sample. Indapamide is a Prohibited Substance under both Regulation 21 and the World Anti-Doping Code, classed under S5 Diuretics and Other Masking Agents. The sanction imposed for this Anti-Doping Rule Violation is a warning and a reprimand. The Player’s provisional suspension is lifted with immediate effect and he is, subject to compliance with all other applicable laws and regulations, eligible to participate in the Game.

Costs
Written submissions should be submitted on time

The Whereabouts Rule : Implications on Privacy and Data Protection Rights / Kelvin C. Omuojine. - 2009

Contents:

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 The Zeal To Win

1.2 The Integrity Of Sport

1.3 The Commercial Angle

1.4 Striking A Balance

Chapter 2 Doping In Sports And The Emergence Of The Whereabouts Rule

2.1 What Is Doping?

2.2 Brief History Of Doping

2.3 WADA: The Need For More Effective Anti-Doping Strategy

2.4 The WADA Code

2.5 The Whereabouts Rule

Chapter 3 Implication On Privacy Rights

3.1 Privacy Right For Athletes/Sportspersons

3.2 Possible Areas Of Conflict

3.3 The Belgian Challenge

Chapter 4 Implication On Data Protection Rights

4.1 Sport Globalisation And Data Protection Regimes

4.2 Article 29 Working Party Opinion And Related Issues

Chapter 5 Other Issues

5.1 The Principle Of Proportionality

5.2 Strict Liability

5.3 The Missed Tests Ban

Chapter 6 Recommendations And Conclusion

6.1 Recommendations

6.2 Conclusion

Bibliography