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 Florin Alexandru Stan after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances cannabis and metandienone.
Therefore on 10 September 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of decision.
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 Silviu Budileanu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.
Therefore on 10 September 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of decision.
The Netherlands Basketball Federation (Nederlandse Basketball Bond, NBB) reported a violation of the Anti-Doping Code. The defendant was tested positive for the prohibited substance Carboxy-THC which is a metabolite for tetrahydrocannabinol.
At the oral hearing defendant explains he had been eating so called space cake at a party, he didn't report this before or during the doping test.
The decision is a period of ineligibility, shortened with his period of voluntary suspension, from September 10, 2008 till November 1, 2008.
An appeal can be made within 7 days.
Biochemical assessment of erythropoietin products from Asia versus US Epoetin alfa manufactured by Amgen / Sungae S. Park, Jihea Park, Jason Ko, Louise Chen, David Meriage, Jill Crouse-Zeineddini, Wendy Wong, Bruce A. Kerwin. - (Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 98 (2009) 5 (1 May); p. 1688-1699)
Abstract
We compared the physical and chemical properties of purported copies of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) purchased from Korea, China, and India with the innovator product, Epoetin alfa, manufactured by Amgen Inc. The products were characterized for similarity in the types of glycoforms present, the relative degree of unfolding, in vitro potency, presence of covalent aggregates, and presence of cleavage products using established analytical methods. All products were different from Epoetin alfa (Epogen). The purported copies of rHuEPO from Korea, India, and China contained more glycoforms and other impurities. The in vitro relative potency varied for each product when based on the labeled concentration, while the concentration based on ELISA analysis brought the relative potency, for most products closer to 100%. These data emphasize potential biochemical discrepancies resulting from different cell lines and manufacturing processes. Concentrations varied within products and did not always match the information provided on the product label. As it is not possible to reliably correlate such biochemical discrepancies to clinical consequences, or the lack thereof, these data support the need for extensive preclinical testing and clinical testing of all investigational products as not all safety and efficacy aspects can be assessed during preclinical evaluation.
Background: The 'False Consensus Effect' (FCE), by which people perceive their own actions as relatively common behaviour, might be exploited to gauge whether a person engages in controversial behaviour, such as performance enhancing drug (PED) use.
Hypothesis: It is assumed that people's own behaviour, owing to the FCE, affects their estimation of the prevalence of that behaviour. It is further hypothesised that a person's estimate of PED population use is a reliable indicator of the doping behaviour of that person, in lieu of self-reports.
Testing the hypothesis: Over- or underestimation is calculated from investigating known groups (i.e. users vs. non-users), using a short questionnaire, and a known prevalence rate from official reports or
sample evidence. It is proposed that sample evidence from self-reported behaviour should be verified using objective biochemical analyses.
In order to find proofs of concept for the existence of false consensus, a pilot study was conducted. Data were collected among competitive UK student-athletes (n = 124) using a web-based anonymous questionnaire. User (n = 9) vs. non-user (n = 76) groups were established using self-reported information on doping use and intention to use PEDs in hypothetical situations. Observed differences in the mean estimation of doping made by the user group exceeded the estimation made by the non-user group (35.11% vs. 15.34% for general doping and 34.25% vs. 26.30% in hypothetical situations, respectively), thus providing preliminary evidence in support of the FCE concept in relation to doping.
Implications of the hypothesis: The presence of the FCE in estimating doping prevalence or behaviour in others suggests that the FCE based approach may be an avenue for developing an indirect self-report mechanism for PED use behaviour. The method may be successfully adapted to the estimation of prevalence of behaviours where direct self-reports are assumed to be distorted by socially desirable responding. Thus this method can enhance available information on socially undesirable, health compromising behaviour (i.e. PED use) for policy makers and healthcare professionals. The importance of the method lies in its usefulness in epidemiological studies, not in individual assessments.
Facts
The French University Sport Federation (Fédération Française du Sport Universitaire, FFSU) charges respondent M56 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a boxing event on March 22, 2008, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.
History
The respondent had used cannabis in the weeks before the match. He had used it to clear his head and continue his studies without thinking of his family problems. There was no intention to enhance his sport performance.
Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFSU or the French Boxing Federation (FFBoxe).
2. The decision (one year period of ineligibility) dated July 3, 2008, by the disciplinary committee of the FFSU should be modified.
3. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served due to the decision of July 3, 2008.
4. The decision will start on the date of the notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.
Facts
The French Federation of Muaythai and Associated Disciplines (Fédération Française de Maythaï et Disciplines Associées, FFMDA) charges respondent M55 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on December 9, 2007, the respondent didn't attend the doping control.
History
The respondent claims not to have been informed about the doping control. About his signature under "Notification of control and acknowledgment of receipt" of the doping control form he claims that it is an imitation but later he admitted to have met the sampler.
Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years in which participant can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFMDA.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.
Facts
The French Football Federation (Fédération Française de Football, FFF) charges respondent M54 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on February 15, 2008, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list, it is regarded as a specified substance.
History
The respondent had used cannabis in a social setting in the week of the match. There was no intention to enhance his sport performance.
Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized by the FFF.
2. The decision (a warning) of May 16, 2008, by the disciplinary committee of the FFF should be modified.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.
Facts
The French Federation for Public Physical Education (Union Française des Oeuvres Laïques d'Éducation Physique, UFOLEP) charges respondent M53 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on September 8, 2007, respondent didn't attend the doping control.
History
Respondent refused at first because it was close after the finish. His behavior towards the sampler was aggressive. Eventually he delivered his sample without supervision of the sampler, which is against the regulations.
Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized or authorized by UFOLEP.
2. The decision start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.
Related case:
CAS 2008_A_1572 Rebeca Braga Gusmao vs FINA
November 13, 2009
The Féderation Internationale de Natation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation in May 2008 against the Swimmer for tampering, or attempting to tamper, with any part of Doping Control. The Swimmer filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the FINA Doping Panel in July 2008.
The FINA Doping Panel had already issued two judgements related to the Swimmer. In each of the judgements is stated that the Swimmer committed an anti-doping rule violation. The FINA Doping Panel concludes that the Swimmer committed an anti-doping rule violation.
Therefore, as a second anti-doping rule violation, the FINA Doping Panel decides to impose a lifetime ineligiblility on the Swimmer. All results achieved by the Swimmer since 18 July 2007 shall be annulled together with the consequence thereof.
Hereafter the Swimmer appealed with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) . The Athlete filed three appeals against de FINA decisions dated 12 May 2008, 17 July 2008, and 3 September 2008 respectively, which stated various anti-doping rule violations allegedly committed by her and the Athlete was declared ineligible to compete for life.
Ultimately the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 November 2009 that:
1.) The appeals filed by the Swimmer on 12 May 2008, 17 July 2008 and 3 September 2008 are dismissed.
2.) The decisions adopted by the Doping Panel of FINA dated 12 May 2008, 17 July 2003, and 3 September 2008 are upheld as far as they do not contradict this Award.
3.) The Swimmer is declared ineligible to compete for life as from 13 November 2009.
4.) All results obtained by the Swimmer during the Brazilian Swimming Championship in May 2006 and all results obtained as from 12 July 2007 are disqualified. She is ordered to return all medals, diploma, rewards and prize money, accordingly.
5.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500, which is retained by the CAS. Each party will bear its own legal costs and other expenses, except for a contribution of CHF 3000 to the legal costs of the Respondent which Appellant shall pay.
6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
