Facts
The French Baseball and Softball Federation (Fédération Française de Baseball et Softball, FFBS) charges respondent M60 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on May 11, 2008, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisone and prednisolone which are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list, they are regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent explains that he had used medication to prevent an allergic reaction or asthma attack. He has medical documentation to prove his allergy for cat and dog hair.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision (one month period of ineligibility) of August 9, 2008, by the disciplinary committee of the FFBS should be modified.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

CAS 2007/A/1405 & 1418 Nat Cooper & Karl Grant v. British Weightlifting Association (BWLA)

• Weightlifting
• Doping (testosterone; human chorionic gonadotropin)
• Contamination of the sample through using of the doping control room as a changing room
• Chain of custody
• Sample degradation through high temperature

1. Even if there is something in the air arising from the use of the doping control room as a changing room, and even if this finds its way into the athlete’s sample, it is highly unlikely to have any effect whatsoever on the measure of HCG. Further, had some degradation occurred, this would be likely to reduce the level of HCG and not to augment it.

2. It is axiomatic that the links in the chain of custody must be robust; there must be no chance that the samples which arrive at the doping control centre were not those taken at the doping control room or that they can have been tampered with en route. So long as the bottles containing the A and B samples arrive at the Doping Control Center with seals unbroken and there are no signs of tampering, and so long as the appealing parties produce no evidence to suggest that it could have – or indeed did – take place en route (any more than before the journey), the links in such chain of custody are considered as robust.

3. In general, it is admitted that temperature of the storage and transport environments have no impact on the stability of the sample.

In August 2005 the British Weight Lifting Association (BWLA) reported anti-doping rule violations against two Athletes after their A and B samples tested positive for prohibited substances:

• the weightlifter Nat Cooper for testing positive for the substance Testosterone;
• the weightlifter Karl Grant for testing positive for the substance Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG).

Consequently the British Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athletes.

Hereafter in January 2008 Mr Nat Cooper and in May 2008 Mr Karl Grant appealed the BWLA decisions with the Court of Arbitraton for Sport (CAS). In their defence the Athletes indicated that they wished to reinstate various matters which they had elected not to pursue before the Disciplinary Committee in first instance and also to raise new allegations.

The Athletes asserted that there had been departures of the WADA ISL and IST based on the following contentions:

• (A) The sample taking was imperfect so that it is uncertain that the sample tested was that of the athlete charged or that if it was, it was uncontaminated.
• (B) The links in the chain of custody were unsound with the same consequence.
• (C) The samples were not properly preserved until testing so that they degraded.
• (D) The testing was imperfect so that the results, even of the athlete’s uncontaminated sample, were unreliable.

Considering the allegations and evidence the Sole Arbitrator Panel is entirely confident that the samples provided by the Athletes were properly taken and duly bottled. The Panel establishes that the Athlete' samples arrived at the London Lab with the seals unbroken and without signs of tampering.

The Athletes showed no evidence to suggest that it could have - or indeed did - take place en route. Neither was there evidence that demonstrates that there was any break in the chain of custody or any indication of any impact upon the integrity of the Athletes’ samples.

The Panel further determines that there was no break in the chain of custody recorded by the London Lab as alleged by the Athletes. The Panel does not accept the allegation that the samples were exposed to excessive temperatures leading to degradation while this has no impact on the stability of the samples.

The Panel deems that the Athletes have not succeeded in sustaining any of the allegations in relation to the London Lab’s procedure for analysis. In any event the Athletes produced no evidence whatsoever that even if any of their alleagations had any foundation, the relevant error caused the positive test results.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 October 2008:

1.) The appeals of Nat Cooper and Karl Grant are dismissed.
(…).

The Ethics of Human Enhancement in Sport / Andy Miah. - (Handbook of Research on Technoethics. - 2009, Volume 1, Chapter 5, p. 69-84)

• ISBN13: 9781605660226|
• ISBN10: 1605660221|
• EISBN13: 9781605660233
• DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-022-6.ch005

Abstract

This chapter outlines a technoethics for sport by addressing the relationship between sport ethics and bioethics. The purpose of this chapter is to establish the conditions in which a technoethics of sport should be approached, taking into account the varieties and forms of technology in sport. It also provides an historical overview to ethics and policy making on sport technologies and contextualises the development of this work within the broader medical ethical sphere. It undertakes a conceptualisation of sport technology by drawing from the World Anti-Doping Code, which specifies three conditions that determine whether any given technology is considered to be a form of doping. In so doing, it scrutinizes the ‘spirit of sport’, the central mechanism within sport policy that articulates a technoethics of sport. The chapter discusses a range of sport technology examples, focusing on recent cases of hypoxic training and gene doping.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) charges Rabah Slimani for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 10 June 2008 he was selected for an in-competition doping test after his match. His sample tested positive on the prohibited substance tuaminoheptane. Tuaminoheptane is a specified substance on the prohibited list of the Word Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

History
The day before the Match, the Player’s nose clogged up. He went to see one of the team doctors, Dr. Julia, who gave him some paracetamol, which the Player took. The next day the Player’s cold was worse. His nose was running. He again consulted Dr. Julia. Dr. Julia decided to treat the Player with a nasal decongestant called Rhinofluimucil. The Player took two successive inhalations of this medication through each nostril. That was his only use of Rhinofluimucil. The prohibited substance was found in this medication (nasal spray) for treating colds.

Decision
The Player is reprimanded and warned that any further anti-doping rule violation in the future will likely result in serious consequences for him. The provisional suspension imposed on the Player is lifted with immediate effect.

Costs
Submission should be provided on time.

facts
M. Charles Irie (player) was reported for a violation the Anti-Doping Rules. During the David cup in Plovdiv, Bulgaria, on April 11, 2008, he provided an urine sample for a drug test. His sample tested positive for the prohibited substance nikethamide. The player didn't know how he ingested the substance. He did not deliberately consume the substance or used it to enhance his sport performance. The case is handled on the basis of written submissions.

Decision
The Tribunal’s Ruling:
(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 9 July 2008: namely that a prohibited substance, nikethamide and metabolite thereof, has been found to be present in the urine specimen that the player provided on 11 April 2008 at the Davis Cup tie in Plovdiv, Bulgaria;
(2) orders that the player’s results in respect of the Davis Cup must be disqualified; and that the player’s individual results in competitions subsequent to the Davis Cup shall be disqualified;
(3) finds that the player has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that his consumption of a substance or substances leading to the positive test result was not intended to enhance sport performance; and
(4) declares the player ineligible for a period of two years, running from 16 July 2008 until midnight London time on 15 July 2010, from
participating in any capacity in any event or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) 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.

Effects of DHEA replacement on bone mineral density and body composition in elderly women and men / Dennis T. Villareal, John O. Holloszy, Wendy M. Kohrt. - (Clinical Endocrnology 53 (2000) 5 (November); p. 561-568)

• PMID: 11106916
• DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2265.2000.01131.x

Abstract

Objective: Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) is a precursor for both oestrogens and androgens. Its marked decline with ageing may influence age-related changes in tissues influenced by sex hormones. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of DHEA replacement on bone mineral density (BMD) and body composition in elderly women and men with low serum DHEA sulphate (DHEAS) levels.

Design: Prospective 6 month trial of oral DHEA replacement, 50 mg/day.

Patients: Experimental subjects were 10 women and eight men, aged 73 +/- 1 years. Control subjects were 10 women and eight men, aged 74 +/- 1 years.

Measurements: BMD, body composition, serum markers of bone turnover, serum lipids and lipoproteins, oral glucose tolerance, serum IGF-I, total serum oestrogens and testosterone.

Results: BMD of the total body and lumbar spine increased (mean +/- SEM; 1.6 +/- 0.6% and 2.5 +/- 0.8%, respectively; both P < or = 0.05), fat mass decreased (- 1.3 +/- 0.4 kg; P < 0.01) and fat-free mass increased (0.9 +/- 0.4 kg; P < or = 0. 05) in response to DHEA replacement. DHEA replacement also resulted in increases in serum IGF-I (from 108 +/- 8 to 143 +/- 7 microg/l; P < 0.01) and total serum testosterone concentrations (from 10.7 +/- 1.2 to 15.6 +/- 1.8 nmol/l in the men and from 2.1 +/- 0.2 to 4.5 +/- 0.4 nmol/l in the women; both P < or = 0.05).

Conclusions: The results provide preliminary evidence that DHEA replacement in those elderly women and men who have very low serum DHEAS levels can partially reverse age-related changes in fat mass, fat-free mass, and BMD, and raise the possibility that increases in IGF-I and/or testosterone play a role in mediating these effects of DHEA.

Report of the Indepedent Observers XXIX Olympic Games, Beijing 2008 / Sarah Lewis. - Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2008

A CRITICAL TASK FOR NADOS:
PREPARING ATHLETES AND TEAMS FOR A MAJOR GAMES
National Anti-Doping Organizations are making increasing efforts to prepare their international-level athletes (and athlete support personnel) for major games such as the Olympics, Paralympics, World Championships, Commonwealth Games, Pan-American Games, and Jeux de la Francophonie. Pre-games education and testing is becoming more comprehensive and sophisticated. This is a good thing. There is nothing like an impending major competition to focus attention and drive home the importance of clean sport.

In June 2008 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Simona Vintila after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance sibutramine.

The Athlete stated she used the natural product for her health and without intention to enhance improve sport performance. In support her medical doctor provided a statement.

The Committee considers exceptional circumstances in this case and the Athlete’s lack of significant fault or negligence. Therefore on 3 October 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a reprimand on the Athlete.

CAS 2008/A/1515 WADA v/Swiss Olympic Association & Simon Daubney

In July 2007 the sailer Simon Daubney tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. Consequently on 29 September 2007 the Amerca's Cup Jury concluded that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation and the case was referred to Swiss Olympic. 

However on 24 January 2008 the Swiss Olympic Disciplinary Committee concluded that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation and it decided not to impose any sanction upon him.

Hereafter in March 2008 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the decision of Swiss Olympic with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

WADA deems that the Athlete failed to provide a valid explanation for the positive test, nor that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. It contended that the found concentration of Cocaine in the Athlete sample was not consistent with his allegation that his drink was spiked with Cocaine by a person at the material time before the sample collection.

The Athlete testified that before the sample collection procedure, he visited public establishments, where he accepted drinks from strangers, who must have put cocaine into one of his drinks. In order to corroborate his allegations, he produced a number of statements and documents establishing his good character as well as the very strong hostility of the fans of Team New Zealand.

In view of the circumstances, the Athlete asserted that the possibility of an intentionally organised contamination with the intent to harm him and Team Alinghi is credible. Further he argued that the scope of review of the CAS Panel is limited as it should confirm the decision of the Swiss Olympic Disciplinary Committee.

Preliminary the Panel resolved several procedural issues raised by the Athlete and determines that it has the full power to review the facts and the law of the case.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Even though the Panel is willing to accept that the Athlete did not know or suspect that the drinks at the bar in question had been spiked with a prohibited substance, the Panel cannot accept that the Athlete could not reasonably have known or suspected such occurrence, given the dangerous situation in which he put himself.

As a result, the Panel cannot accept the submission that those circumstances are exceptional and excuse the Athlete from his significant fault or negligence.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 October 2008:

1.) The Appeal of the WADA against the decision rendered on 24 January 2008 by the Swiss Olympic Disciplinary Committee is admissible.

2.) The decision rendered on 24 January 2008 by the Swiss Olympic Disciplinary Committee is set aside.

3). Mr Simon Daubney is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation and is declared inehgible for a period of two years running from 14 July 2007 until 13 Juiy 2009.

4.) 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.

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

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