CAS 2008/A/1488 Laura Pous v/ International Tennis Federatioo (ITF)

CAS 2008/A/1488 P. v. International Tennis Federation (ITF)

• Tennis
• Doping (hydrocholorthiazide; amiloride)
• Duty of care of the athlete
• Significant fault or negligence
• Application of the transitional provisions of the 2009 WADA Code

1. In consideration of the fact that athletes are under a constant duty to personally manage and make certain that any medication being administered is permitted under the anti-doping rules, the prescription of a particular medicinal product by the athlete’s doctor does not excuse the athlete from investigating to their fullest extent that the medication does not contain prohibited substances. If the doctor is not a specialist in sports medicine and not aware of anti-doping regulations, it is of even greater importance that the athlete be significantly more diligent in his/her efforts to ensure that the medication being administered does not conflict with the Code.

2. While it is understandable for an athlete to trust his/her medical professional, reliance on others and on one’s own ignorance as to the nature of the medication being prescribed does not satisfy the duty of care as set out in the definitions that must be exhibited to benefit from finding No Significant Fault or Negligence. It is of little relevance to the determination of fault that the product was prescribed with “professional diligence” and “with a clear therapeutic intention”. To allow athletes to shirk their responsibilities under the anti-doping rules by not questioning or investigating substances entering their body would result in the erosion of the established strict regulatory standard and increased circumvention of anti-doping rules.

3. A player’s ignorance or naivety cannot be the basis upon which he or she is allowed to circumvent the very stringent and onerous doping provisions. There must be some clear and definitive standard of compliance to which all athletes are held accountable.

4. In cases where a final decision finding an anti-doping violation has been rendered prior to 1st January 2009, but the athlete is still serving his/her period of ineligibility, the athlete may apply to the relevant body for reconsideration of the sanction in light of the 2009 WADA Code.

In September 2007 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Spanish tennis player Laura Pous after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Amiloride and Hydrochlorothiazide. The Athlete explained that the source of the positive test was a prescribed medication she had used as treatment for her condition.

Consequently the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decided on 25 January 2008 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Hereafter the Athlete appealed the ITF Deciscion with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The ITF acknowledged that the Athlete had demonstrated the source of the prohibited substances, yet it contended that she had acted with significant fault or negligence.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substances. She requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

In view of the evidence the Panel establishes that the Athlete's doctor was not a specialist in sports medicine and had no anti-doping knowledge. In this situation the Athlete had not duly informed him that she was an athlete subject to doping control, nor provided to him the List of Prohibited Substances.

Further the Panel determines that the Athlete failed to check her medication, nor mentioned this on the Doping Control Form. The Panel concludes that she truly acted ignorant of all the readily available resources at her disposal.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 August 2008:

1.) The appeal filed on 20 July 2008 by P. against the decision issued on 25 January 2008 by the ITF’s Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal is denied.

2.) The decision issued on 25 January 2008 by the ITF’s Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal is upheld.

(...)

CAS 2007/A/1446 WABA v/ Qatar Football Association & Hamad Rakea Humood Alanezi

In June 2007 the Qatar Football Association (QFA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Bahrain football player Hamad Rakea Humood Alanezi after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

However on 7 June 2007 the QFA Disciplinary Committee decided not impose a sanction on the Athlete because he had used a medication, prescribed by his urologist, as treatment for his prostatitis.

Hereafter in December 2007 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the QFA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 2 years on the Athlete.

WADA finds that under WADC, FIFA and QFA Rules the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation whereas it is entitled to appeal the QFA decision in December 2007 within the set deadline of 21 days.

WADA contended that the Athlete had not made an application for a TUE; nor checked his medication; nor mentioned to his urologist that he was a professional football player; nor mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form.

Further WADA asserted that some of the prescribed medication as treatment for the Athlete's prostatitis were legitmate and they can not explain the presence of 19-norandrosterone in his sample. Besides WADA considers that the prescribed medication Proviron is not recommended by good medical pratice to treat the Athlete's condition.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He asserted that the prescribed medication Proveron was the source of the positive test and that the treatment was justified for his condition.

Further the Athlete disputed the direct applicability of the WADC and WADA's right to appeal. Since the Doping Control Form only requested medication used the last 72 hours he did not mention Proveron because he has already suspended it for 1 month.

Following assessment of the evidence and the Parties submissions the Panel concludes:

• WADA was entitled to appeal the QFA Decision.
• WADA was notified of the QFA Decision on 2 December 2007 and it thereupon filed an appeal within the set timeline of 21 days.
• Under the FIFA Rules the Athlete was playing as a professional in Qatar and was subject to the FIFA Rules.
• The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordinghly he committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• There are no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.
• The use of the medication Proviron (containing Mesterolone) can not explain the presence of the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone in the Athlete's sample.
• The Athlete failed to make an application for a TUE with FIFA.
• The Athlete failed to demonstrate that there was no reasonable and indicated therapeutic alternative available
• He failed to verify whether his urologist had anti-doping knowledge in this matter.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 Augustust 2008:

1.) The World Anti-Doping Agency's appeal against the decision dated 7 June 2007 of the QFA Disciplinary Committee is upheld.

2.) The decision issued by the Qatar Football Association Disciplinary Committee is set aside.

3.) The Player, Mr. Hamad Rakea Alanezi, is declared ineligible for a period of two years starting from 28 May 2008.

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

5.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the court office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss francs) paid by WADA, which is retained by CAS.

6.) The QFA is ordered to pay the amount of CHF 5,000 (five thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution towards the expenses incunred by WADA in connection with this arbitration proceeding.

CAS 2007/A/1445 WADA v/ Qatar Football Association & Ali Jumah A.A. Al-Mohadanni


In June 2007 the Qatar Football Association (QFA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Ali Jumah A.A. Al-Mohadanni after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Thereupon the QFA Disciplinary Committee accepted the Athlete's explanation that a supplement was the source and on 7 June 2007 it decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in December 2007 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the QFA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to sanction the Athlete for 2 years.

WADA contended that the presence of 19-norandrosterone has been established in the Athlete's sample. Also the concentration in his sample was too high to be the result of endogenous production, rather the result of exogenous use of this substance.

Further WADA contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the substance had entered his system and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

The Panel finds that the presence of 19-norandrosterone had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Following assessment of the evidence in this case the Panel concludes that the Athlete acted with Significant Fault or Negligence. The Panel considers that there was no evidence that the Athlete took any particular precautions when purchasing and ingesting the nutritional supplement in question.

Therefore on 21 August 2008 The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

1.) The World Anti-Doping Agency's appeal against the decision dated 7 June 2007 of the QFA Disciplinary Committee is upheld.

2.) The decision issued by the Qatar Football Association Disciplinary Committee is set aside.

3.) The Player, Mr. Ali Jumah A.A. Al-Mohadainni, is declared ineligible for a period of 21 months starting from the 27 May 2008.

4.) All ether motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

5.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the court office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss francs) paid by WADA, which is retained by CAS.

6.) The QFA is ordered to pay the amount of CHF 5,000 (five thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution towards the expenses incurred by WADA with this arbitration proceeding,

CAS A4/2007 ASADA v/ Andrew Wyper

In November 2005 the Athlete Andrew Wyper was charged with the criminal offence of importing prohibited products following quantities of human growth hormone and (hGH) and Erythropoietin (EPO) were seized in Sydney by the Department of Customs on their arrival into Australia. In November 2006 the Athlete entered a plea of guilty and was fined $2,000.

Thereupon the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for constructive possession of a prohibited substances, and attempted use of a prohibited substances.

Whilst The Athlete had admitted to the facts which are necessary to support the ingredients of the criminal offence of importing prohibited imports, he disputed that the admitted matters established the two violations alleged by ASADA.

In essence the Athlete asserted that the elements in the criminal offence of importing EPO and hGH differed from the elements of the two violations of the terms of the Anti-Doping Policy which were alleged by ASADA.

In view of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator determines that the allegation of possession of prohibited substances does not stand because the prohibited substances were intercepted by the Australian Department of Customs.

The Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation for use of the prohibited substances. The Arbitrator finds that there was sufficient evidence that the Athlete had investigated the use of prohibited substances and had ordered specific quantities of both hGH and EPO.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport rules on 21 August 2008:

1.) On or about 18 October 2005 Mr Wyper committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation of attempting to use hGH and EPO which were prohibited substances under the Cycling Australia Anti-Doping Policy.

2.) Mr Wyper is ineligible to compete in cycling races for a period of two years starting from 7 February 2008.

3.) All competitive results obtained by Mr Wyper from 18 October 2005 shall be invalidated with all resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

4.) Cycling Australia shall bear the costs of the Court of Arbitration for Sport in these proceedings.

5.) This Award be made public.

The ergogenic effect of recombinant human erythropoietin on VO2max depends on the severity of arterial hypoxemia / Paul Robach, Jose A.L. Calbet, Jonas J. Thomsen, Robert Boushel, Pascal Mollard, Peter Rasmussen, Carsten Lundby. - (PLoS One 3 (2008) 8 (20 August); e2996)

• PMID: 18714372
• PMCID: PMC2500186
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002996

Abstract

Treatment with recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEpo) induces a rise in blood oxygen-carrying capacity (CaO(2)) that unequivocally enhances maximal oxygen uptake (VO(2)max) during exercise in normoxia, but not when exercise is carried out in severe acute hypoxia. This implies that there should be a threshold altitude at which VO(2)max is less dependent on CaO(2). To ascertain which are the mechanisms explaining the interactions between hypoxia, CaO(2) and VO(2)max we measured systemic and leg O(2) transport and utilization during incremental exercise to exhaustion in normoxia and with different degrees of acute hypoxia in eight rhEpo-treated subjects. Following prolonged rhEpo treatment, the gain in systemic VO(2)max observed in normoxia (6-7%) persisted during mild hypoxia (8% at inspired O(2) fraction (F(I)O(2)) of 0.173) and was even larger during moderate hypoxia (14-17% at F(I)O(2) = 0.153-0.134). When hypoxia was further augmented to F(I)O(2) = 0.115, there was no rhEpo-induced enhancement of systemic VO(2)max or peak leg VO(2). The mechanism highlighted by our data is that besides its strong influence on CaO(2), rhEpo was found to enhance leg VO(2)max in normoxia through a preferential redistribution of cardiac output toward the exercising legs, whereas this advantageous effect disappeared during severe hypoxia, leaving augmented CaO(2) alone insufficient for improving peak leg O(2) delivery and VO(2). Finally, that VO(2)max was largely dependent on CaO(2) during moderate hypoxia but became abruptly CaO(2)-independent by slightly increasing the severity of hypoxia could be an indirect evidence of the appearance of central fatigue.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her pre-competition A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methyltrienolone.

After notification by the IOC in August 2008 the Athlete was suspended by the Greece NOC and asked to leave the Olympic Village in Beijing. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission. The Athlete stated she never used Methyltrienolone or any other prohibited substance and she suspected acts of tampering by third parties.

The Committee notes that Methyltrienolone has been found in the tests relating to 12 other Greek athletes. Also the Athlete’s personal coach was recently tested positive to the same substance Mythyltrienolone.

Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides that the Athlete:

1.) is excluded from the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games;
2.) shall have her Olympic identity and accreditation card immediately cancelled.
3.) The Athlete’s file shall be transmitted to the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), which is requested to consider any further action within its own competence.
4.) The NOC of Greece and BOCOG shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
5.) The IOC Disciplinary Commission will report the matter to the competent Greek authorities, with a request to investigate possible violations of Greek law, in particular by the Athlete’s coach.
6.) The IOC reserves its right to take sanctions or measures in relation to the Athlete’s.
7.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

The Athlete competed in the Women All-Around qualification for Artistic Gymnastics at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.
The IOC notified the Athlete and she was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.
The Athlete stated she had used pills to lose weight to look slim and lean. not to enhance her performance. She did not consult a doctor prior purchasing the pills.

The Committee concludes that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and there was the presence of the prohibited substance Furosemide in her body.
Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides that the athlete Thi Ngan Thuong Do, Vietnam, Artistic Gymnastics:
1.) is disqualified from the Women All-Around qualification for Artistic Gymnastics, where she had placed 59th;
2.) is excluded from the Games of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games;
3.) shall have her Olympic identity and accreditation card immediately cancelled and withdrawn.
4.) The International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) is requested to modify the results of the abovementioned event accordingly. The Athlete’s file shall be transmitted to such International Federation, which is requested to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The NOC of Vietnam and BOCOG shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
6.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

The Athlete competed in the Men’s 10m Air Pistol Final during the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.
The IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Propranolol.
After notification by the IOC the NOC of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea filed a statement in the Athlete’s defence and he was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.
The Athlete stated he suffered cardiac pain and had used prescribed medication and a Korean medicine. The medication was used to diminish his chest pain and not to enhance performance. None of the medication mentioned by the Athlete could have caused the presence of Propranolol in the Athlete’s body.

The IOC Disciplinary Commission concluded that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and that the Athlete should lose the benefit of the ranking he obtained in the 50m Pistol Final on 12 August 2008 due to the anti-doping rule violation he committed on 9 August 2008.

On 15 August 2008 the IOC Executive Board, as recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, decides that the athlete Jong Su Kim, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, shooting:
1.) is disqualified from the Men’s 10m Air Pistol, where he had placed third;
2.) is disqualified from the Men’s 50m Air Pistol, where he placed second;
3.) is excluded from the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games;
4.) shall have his medals and diplomas in the above-noted events withdrawn;
5.) shall have his Olympic identity and accreditation card immediately withdrawn and cancelled.
6.) The International Shooting Sport Federation is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
7.) The NOC of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is ordered to return to the IOC, as soon as possible, the medals and diplomas awarded to the Athlete in relation to the above-noted events.
8.) The NOC of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and BOCOG shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
9.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

Secretagogues govern GH secretory-burst waveform and mass in healthy eugonadal and short-term hypogonadal men / Johannes D. Veldhuis, Daniel M. Keenan

• European Journal of Endocrinology 159 (2008) 5 (November), p. 547-554
• PMID: 18703567
• PMCID: PMC2680123
• DOI: 10.1530/EJE-08-0414
• Erratum in:
  • European Journal of Endocrinology 159 (2008) 6 (December) p. 841
  • DOI: 10.1530/EJE-08-0414e

Abstract

Background: GH pulses are putatively initiated by hypothalamic GH-releasing hormone (GHRH), amplified by GH-releasing peptide (GHRP), and inhibited by somatostatin (SS).

Objective: To ascertain how secretagogues control the waveform (time evolution of release rates) as well as the mass of secretory bursts.

Design: We quantified the shape of GH secretory bursts evoked by continuous combined i.v. infusion of maximally effective doses of GHRH and GHRP-2, and by bolus injection of each peptide after delivering L-arginine to restrain hypothalamic SS release in 12 healthy young men.

Methods: A mathematically verified and experimentally validated variable-waveform deconvolution model was applied to intensively sampled GH time series.

Results: The secretory-burst mode (time from burst onset to maximal secretion) was 19+/-0.69 min during saline infusion, and fell to a) 10.4+/-3.0 min during constant dual stimulation with GHRH/GHRP-2 (P<0.01), b) 14.6+/-1.8 min after l-arginine/GHRH (P<0.025), and c) 15.0+/-1.0 min after l-arginine/GHRH (P<0.01). Secretagogues augmented the mass of GH secreted in pulses by 44-, 42-, and 16-fold respectively, over saline (2.2+/-0.81 microg/l per h; P<0.001 for each). Pulse number and variability were unaffected. Applying the same methodology to ten other young men with acute leuprolide-induced hypogonadism yielded comparable waveform and mass estimates.

Conclusion: The present analyses in men demonstrate that peptidyl secretagogues modulate not only the magnitude but also the time course of the GH-release process in vivo independently of the short-term sex-steroid milieu.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) charges Russell Ward (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. He was selected for an in competition doping test on 17 May 2008 following the match between Canada East and Canada West at the IRB North American 4 Tournament held in Markham, Ontario, Canada. His sample contained the prohibited substance 11-nor-delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carbosylic acid (a metabolite of cannabis) at a concentration level of 41ng/ml, which is a higher level than that prescribed by WADA (15ng/ml).

History
The player had previously smoked cannabis at high school.
On 20 April 2008 following his university exams, during the evening whilst socializing with his student friends at a private party he smoked cannabis not to enhance his playing performance on the rugby field, but for enjoyment.

Decision
The board considers that an appropriate starting point is a period of suspension of four months reduced to three months on account of the player's early acknowledgement of guilt, his expressed regret and remorse that his conduct had the potential to tarnish the image of rugby particularly in relation to the recently introduced North American IRB tournament.
Accordingly the period of suspension should commence from 30 May 2008 (being the date of the provisional suspension) until 30 September 2008 (both dates inclusive).