The development of multiple drug use among anabolic-androgenic steroid users : six subjective case reports / Kurt Skårberg, Fred Nyberg, Ingemar Engström. - (Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 3 (2008) 24 (28 November); p. 1-10).

• PMID: 19040748.
• PMCID: PMC2612649.
• DOI: 10.1186/1747-597X-3-24

 
Abstract

Background: The inappropriate use of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) was originally a problem among athletes but AAS are now often used in nonsport situations and by patients attending regular addiction clinics. The aim of this study was to improve understanding of the development of multiple drug use in patients seeking treatment at an addiction clinic for AAS-related problems.

Methods: We interviewed six patients (four men and two women) with experience of AAS use who were attending an addiction clinic for what they believed were AAS-related problems. The patients were interviewed in-depth about their life stories, with special emphasis on social background, substance use, the development of total drug use and subjective experienced psychological and physical side effects.

Results: There was significant variation in the development of drug use in relation to social background, onset of drug use, relationship to AAS use and experience of AAS effects. All patients had initially experienced positive effects from AAS but, over time, the negative experiences had outweighed the positive effects. All patients were dedicated to excess training and took AAS in combination with gym training, indicating that the use of these drugs is closely related to this form of training. Use of multiple drugs was common either in parallel with AAS use or serially.

Conclusion: The study shows the importance of understanding how AAS use can develop either with or without the concomitant use of other drugs of abuse. The use of AAS can, however, progress to the use of other drugs. The study also indicates the importance of obtaining accurate, comprehensive information about the development of AAS use in designing treatment programmes and prevention strategies in this area.

Selective androgen receptor modulators in preclinical and clinical development / Ramesh Narayanan, Michael L. Mohler, Casey E. Bohl, Duane D. Miller, James T. Dalton. - (Nuclear Receptor Signaling (2008) 26 November; p. 1-26)

• PMID: 19079612
• PMCID: PMC2602589
• DOI: 10.1621/nrs.06010

Abstract

Androgen receptor (AR) plays a critical role in the function of several organs including primary and accessory sexual organs, skeletal muscle, and bone, making it a desirable therapeutic target. Selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) bind to the AR and demonstrate osteo- and myo-anabolic activity; however, unlike testosterone and other anabolic steroids, these nonsteroidal agents produce less of a growth effect on prostate and other secondary sexual organs. SARMs provide therapeutic opportunities in a variety of diseases, including muscle wasting associated with burns, cancer, or end-stage renal disease, osteoporosis, frailty, and hypogonadism. This review summarizes the current standing of research and development of SARMs, crystallography of AR with SARMs, plausible mechanisms for their action and the potential therapeutic indications for this emerging class of drugs.

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.
Respondent admitted the violation and stated he used cannabis while drinking with friends. The Tribunal accepted that Respondent did not use cannabis with the intention of enhancing his sports performance.
The Tribunal considered aggravating factors were that he used cannabis two days before the match while aware that it was a banned substance and that he had previously signed a participation agreement acknowledging he was aware of the banned substances policy of New Zealand Rugby League.
Mitigating factors included his young age (18) and that he missed out on being considered for selection for under18 teams as a result of the positive test.
The Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 4 week period of ineligibility on the Respondent, starting on 1 March 2008 until 28 March 2008.

CAS 2007/A/1434 IOC v/ FIS & Jürgen Pinter

CAS 2007/A/1435 WADA v/ FIS & Jürgen Pinter

The circumstances stated below are a summary of the main relevant facts regarding the Austrian cross-country skiing team and the Athlete Jürgen Pinter:

1.) the so-called “blood bag affair” in Salt Lake City. On 26 February 2002, shortly after the end of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games held in Salt Lake City, USA, a cleaning team discovered several bags containing blood transfusion equipment in the chalet that had been rented out to the Austrian cross-country skiing team and accompanying staff. It was later established that in-between 30 January and 25 February 2002, Mr Walter Mayer, the Austrian cross-country ski head coach, performed medical acts for which he had no medical training, certification and authorisation, He notably extracted blood from two athletes, irradiated it with ultraviolet light and re-injected it into the athletes body.

2.) The Italian police raid during the Torino Olympic Games, On the night of 18 February 2006, the Italian police acting on a search warrant raided the Austrian team's housing at the Torino Olympic Games.

3.) The “Meliou report”: On 19 February and 7 March 2006, the Torino Prosecutor's Office appointed a team of experts to evaluate the nature of the material seized by the Italian police during its raid of 18 February 2006.

4.) The decision of the IOC executive board.

5.) The report of the Australian Ski Federation disciplinary board.

6.) The decision rendered bij de FIS doping panel. Based upon articles 7.2 and 8.1.2 of the FIS Anti-Doping Rules 2005/2006, Messrs Eder, Tauber, Diethart and Pinter's case had to be brought before the FIS Doping Panel, which had to adjudicate whether a violation of the applicable FIS ADR occurred.

In this case the parties concentrated their submissions on two main issues namely:

1.) whether there had been constructive possession of a Prohibited Method by Mr Jürgen Pinter (article 2.6 FIS ADR); and

2.) whether he had assisted, encouraged or had engaged in
another form of complicity in an Anti-Doping Rule violation by another athlete or other athletes (Article 2.8 FIS ADR).

Following assessment of the filed evidence the Panel finds that constructive possession of a Prohibited Method has been established to the required Standard of proof.

As a result the Panel concludes that Mr. Pinter was in possession of a Prohibited Method. The Panel further establises that there had been sufficient collaboration to constitute complicity by Mr. Pinter.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 November 2018:

1.) The appeals of the IOC and of the WADA against the decision rendered on 22 November 2007 by the FIS Doping Panel are upheld.

2.) The decision rendered on 22 November 2007 by the FIS Doping Panel is set aside.

3. Mr Jürgen Pinter is found guilty of anti-doping rule violations (article 2.6 and article 2.8 FIS ADR) and is declared ineligible for a period of four years running from 1 March 2006.

4.) Mr Jürgen Pinter's results obtained during the above-mentioned period of ineligibility, his eventual medals, his points and prizes are forfeited.

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

6.) Each party shall bear its own legal and other costs.

7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Related case:
ANAD Comisia de Apel 2009_01 Christina Andrei
January 19, 2009

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.

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 Emile Marius Giurgiu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.

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.

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 Marius Mitrache after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.

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.

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 Lucian Doru Pantea after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.

Therefore on 11 November 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of decision.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) charges Taligatuli Moala (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Following the final match played on 23rd May 2008 between Upolu Samoa and Tautai Tonga in the IRB Pacific Rugby Cup Tournament 2008 Taligatuli Moala (the player) during in-competition testing, provided a urine sample which subsequently tested positive for the substance Salbutamol. Salbutamol is classified under S.3 of the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) 2008 List of Prohibited Substances.

History
Due to an injury the player asked his physiotherapist and team manager for pain relief. Instead of Voltaren tablets he took the tablets wih salbutamol. His representations claims no significant fault or negligence.

Decision
The sanction imposed for this anti-doping rule violation is a period of ineligibility of two years commencing from 7th July 2008 (the date upon which the player's provisional suspension commenced) and concluding (but not inclusive of) 7th July 2010.

Related cases:
- KNVB 2007 KNVB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2007082 T
August 15, 2007
- Dutch District Court 2008 Athlete 2007082 vs KNVB
June 18, 2008

On 15 August 2007 KNVB Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Belgian Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance amphetamine.

In the previous disciplinary proceedings the Athlete denied the use of doping and he produced the results of a hair test as evidence that he didn’t use doping. In addition he reffered to jurisprudence about a KNVB case which resulted in the acquittal of the Athlete after sloppy disciplinary proceedings.

The KNVB Disciplinary Committee concluded that the Athlete’s hairtest wasn't performed in an accredited laboratorium and under the WADA Rules such a test is not allowed as evidence. Therefore the statements of expert witnesses about the hair test were not relevant to consider in this case. The filed jurisprudence about another KNVB case was not similar with the circumstances in this case.

In review of the case the KNVB Appeal Committee decides on 14 November to uphold the decision of 15 August 2007 of the KNVB Disciplinary Committee and to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal.