Related cases:
IOC 2008 IOC vs Antonio Pettigrew
August 2, 2008
IOC 2012 IOC vs US Relay Team
July 21, 2012

Mr. Antonio Pettigrew signed an Acceptance of Sanction on 3 June 2008, in which he admitted having violated the applicable anti-doping rules of the IOC. Mr. Pettigrew also accepted disqualification of all his competitive results obtained on or subsequent to 1 January 1997.

Therefore the IOC Executive Board decides, as recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission:
1.) The US relay team is disqualified from the following event in which it competed at the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games in the sport of athletics: 4 x 400 meters relay–men – US relay team, where the team placed first
2.) The USOC is ordered to return to the IOC all medals and diplomas awarded to all members of the USOC relay team in the above noted event, it being acknowledged that USOC has already returned to the IOC the medals won by Mr Antonio Pettigrew and Mr Michael Johnson in such event.
3.) The International Association of Athletics Federations (“IAAF”) is requested to take the appropriate steps so that the relevant results reflect the above.
4.) The USOC shall be notified that the IOC reserves its rights to consider possible further sanctions against the relevant athletes, in particular permanent ineligibility for all future Olympic Games, in any capacity, pending the outcome of the Balco investigation.
5.) The issue of reallocating medals and diplomas as a consequence of this decision shall be addressed by the IOC Executive Board in due course.
6.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

On 2 August 2008 the Executive Board (EB) of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reached a decision in the case of Mr. Antonio Pettigrew, a member of the US team who placed first in the Men’s 4x400 relay at the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games.
Mr Pettigrew has since admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs (erythropoetin and human growth hormone) while competing in Sydney and subsequently returned his medal.

The IOC Executive Board, as recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, decides:
1.) The athlete Mr Pettigrew is disqualified from the following events in which he competed at the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games in the sport of athletics:
- 4 x 400m relay, where the team he was on placed 1st;
- 400m, where he placed 7th.
2.) The United States Olympic Committee (“USOC”) is requested to return to the IOC the diplomas awarded to Mr Pettigrew in the above-noted events (it being acknowledged that the USOC has already returned to the IOC the medal won by Mr Pettigrew in the 4 x 400 meter relay).
3.) The International Association of Athletics Federations (“IAAF”) is requested to take the appropriate steps so that the relevant results reflect the above.
4.) Mr Pettigrew is ineligible for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games in any capacity.
5.) Mr Pettigrew shall be notified that the IOC reserves its rights to consider possible further sanctions against him, in particular permanent ineligibility for all future Olympic Games, in any capacity, pending the outcome of the Balco investigation.
6.) The issue of reallocating the diplomas of the athletes that finished behind Mr Pettigrew in the individual event referred to above shall be addressed by the IOC Executive Board in due course.
7.) This Decision shall enter into force immediately.

• CAS OG 08/01 The Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee (ANOC) & The Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF) &
• Hidayatova Nazira,
• Aliyeva Mi Kyong,
• Alizada Bo Jyong,
• Makayeva Feruza,
• Chegurko Lyudmila,
• Kheyirova Seda,
• Zeynalova Zarifahon,
• Mammadova Myungsoon,
• Suleymanova Zhang,
• Mirzaliyeva Dilfuza,
• Jafarova Inoyathan,
• Muzaffaova Emine,
• Nuriyeva Liana,
• Rustamova Seon Young,
• Aliyeva Marina,
• Shahbazova Viktorya (the Players)

vs The Federation Internationale de Hockey (FIH) & Real Federación Española de Hockey (RFEH)

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Beijing) 08/001 Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee (ANOC), Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF), Hidayatova Nazira and others (the Players) v. Fédération Internationale de Hockey (FIH)

Related cases:

• CAS OG_2008_04 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF vs FIH
  August  5, 2008
• CAS OG_2008_05 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF & the Players vs FIH
  August 8, 2008
  
  

• Field Hockey
• Olympic Games 2008
• Eligibility
• Standing to challenge a decision

In light of the FIH Anti-Doping Policy, the Applicants have no rights of appeal against the decision taken by the FIH Disciplinary Commission. Therefore, they have no standing to request a relief challenging such decision in relation to an alleged doping case committed by players of an opponent team during a qualifying tournament held for the OG.

The ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 August 2008:

The application filed by the Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee, the Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation and the Players on 31 July 2008 is hereby dismissed.

Doping- och antidopingforskning : En inventering av samhälls- och beteendevetenskaplig forskning och publikationer 2004-2007 / David Hoff
Riksidrottsförbundets : Stockholm

This is a survey of the social and behavioral research on doping in 2004-2007. The purpose of the study is to systematize and thematic research in doping and the anti-doping field to analyze the state of research on the basis of social science perspectives. The report intends to try to give the full picture of the state of knowledge on doping area. The development of doping research 2004-2007 studied also in comparison with the research 1994-2004.
The research included in the survey are primarily international publications in research journals ("peer-review journals"), but also Scandinavian items. The inventory was made via conventional information retrieval tools, provided by the library at the University of Kalmar. The most important databases has been the "Social Science Citation Index" and "ELIN Kalmar".
The survey is limited to articles in English (or articles with English abstracts), or articles published in any of the Scandinavian languages.
The report goes first through the main directions of research from 1994-2004 to compare these with the current research trends (2004-2007). Then the recognized the social and behavioral research from 2004-2007 in themes whose aim is to include the most important and influential research results: doping at gyms, doping among young people, doping, sport and doping and supplements. The final chapter discusses the research findings in a broader sociological context.

Medicine and science in the fight against doping in sport / D.H. Catlin, K.D. Fitch, A. Ljungqvist. – (Journal of Internal Medicine (2008) 264 (Aug) : p. 99-114)

• DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2008.01993.x.

Content:

- Introduction

• The IOC medical commission era
• The WADA era

- Detection of doping substances and methods

• Stimulants detection by gas chromatography Anabolic steroid detection by ummunoassay
• Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry
• Detection of testosterone and other endogenous steroids
• Isotope-ratio mass spectrometry
• Erythropoietins
• Flow cytometry to detect blood doping
• Human growth hormone
• Profiling of blood or urine: longitudinal testing, passports and volunteer programs
• Dietary supplements
• Designer anabolic androgenic steroids
• Rapidly deployed proactive methods

- Doping controls at Olympic games
- Therapeutic use of prohibited substances
- Conclusions

The fight against doping in sports commenced as a result of the death of a Danish cyclist during the Rome Olympic Games in 1960. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) established a Medical Commission (IOC-MC) which had the task of designing a strategy to combat the misuse of drugs in Olympic Sport. Some International Sport Federations (IF) and National Sports Federations followed suit, but progress was modest until the world's best male sprinter was found doped with anabolic steroids at the Olympic Games in Seoul in 1988. Further progress was made following the cessation of the cold war in 1989 and in 1999 public authorities around the world joined the Olympic Movement in a unique partnership by creating WADA, the 'World Anti-Doping Agency'. The troubled history of the anti-doping fight from the 1960s until today is reviewed. In particular, the development of detection methods for an ever increasing number of drugs that can be used to dope is described, as are the measures that have been taken to protect the health of the athletes, including those who may need banned substances for medical reasons.

Related cases:
AAA No. 77 190 00288 08 USADA vs Jessica Hardy
May 30, 2009
CAS 2009_A_1870 WADA vs Jessica Hardy & USADA
May 21, 2010
CAS 2011_O_2422 USOC vs IOC
October 4, 2011

In the matter of the Arbitration between claimant USADA and respondent Jessica Hardy, agree that testing of the supplements used by Respondent JESSICA HARDY in July 2008, has not yet been completed; and agree that the completion of the supplement testing is potentially relevant to issues in this case; limited evidence on the issue of whether respondent Jessica Hardy has violated La Fédération Internationale de Natation ("FINA") Doping Control Rules DC 2.1 and 2.2. for the presence of the substance clenbuterol in her sample.
The hearing has been bifurcated into two phases.The first phase of the arbitration hearing (hereinafter referred to as “PHASE ONE”) was limited to the issue of whether Respondent Jessica Hardy has violated FINA DC 2.1 and 2.2 for the presence of the substance clenbuterol in sample and the imposition of any presumptive period of ineligibility. The second phase of the arbitrational hearing (referred to as "PHASE TWO") will be limited to the issue of wether exceptional circumstances exist pursuant to FINA DC 10.5 that might reduce or eliminate the presumptive periode of ineligibility.

Klanttevredenheidsonderzoek Doping Infolijn : een enquête onder bellers en e-mailers plus trends van 2000-2007 / A. Palsma. - Capelle aan den IJssel : Dopingautoriteit, 2008

In 2000, a telephone information line for questions concerning doping was started: the Doping Informatielijn, abbreviated as DIL. In the first place this telephone service was intended for athletes in gyms, but in the course of the time other target groups within the sport were more and more reached. Since 2006 also the question and answers and context data of e-mailers have been registered. Because the DIL is ISO certified substantive appointments have been fixed about the quality of the settlement of guarantees for the information requests, the recording of the context data of the users of the telephone information line and mailers and intervision of question and answers by the DIL-operators. One of the quality requirements is that the information seekers appreciate the DIL with a report figure of at least seven (on a scale of ten). Until now it had never been examined if this quality requirement was obtained. Therefore a customer satisfaction investigation has been conducted in the period of 1 August 2007 up to and including 1 February 2008 under all information seekers (by phone and e-mail) who have approached the DIL during this period. The recent developments over the period of 2000 up to and including 2007 were also examined. It was also investigated if and which data are available of other doping information lines. The DIL is telephonically contactable on working days from 13.00 till 16.00 by phone 0900-200 1000 or by mail: dopingvragen@dopingautoriteit.nl.

For the customer satisfaction research under users of the telephone line and e-mailers, questionnaires have been placed on internet which could be filled in online. 222 of the 305 users of the telephone line were asked to participate and 65 have eventually filled in the questionnaire. Also 222 of 278 e-mailers have been asked to participate in the study and 68 persons have filled in the questionnaire. The recent developments have been examined using the statistic data of the previous years which have been stored in the access files of the automated recording system. Comparison of data of the participants to the customer satisfaction research with those of mailers and users of the telephone line over the year 2007 learns that the customer satisfactory research is representative for the information seekers which used the e-mail and the telephone service of the DIL.

The users of the telephone line are very satisfied and give an average report figure of 8.1 (spacing 6 - 10). However, 22% of the users of the telephone line noticed that extension of the visiting hours is needed. The users of the telephone line noticed that the mail service must be mentioned more prominent at the websites. The mailers are also very satisfied concerning the DIL and give to an average mark of 8.2 (spacing 7.5 - 10). However, 9% of them find the answer unclear.

From the recent developments it becomes clear that the number of female information seekers increases. The most questions are asked by people in the age categories of 21 up to 25 years, followed by 16 up to 20 years, 26 up to 30 years and 31 to 35 years. Parents do ask more often questions at the DIL, what can explain the increase of the number of information seekers in the age category of 41 up to 50 years. At other information lines it is also noticed that the number of mailers seems to increase.

The age of the users of the Anti-Doping Hotline in Sweden is lower than that of the information seekers of the DIL. As well as in the Netherlands the use of anabolic steroids here too is the most important conversation topic.

Information seekers of the DIL can also contact employees direct outside the opening hours of the DIL telephone and by mail. These question and answers generally are not registered. As a result of this research it is inventoried or and how the quality assurance of the questions which are settled outside the DIL can be realised. Extending opening hours of the DIL runs up against practical objections. For this reason the e-mail service is promoted more, so that information seekers know more about this possibility to get their question answered rapidly. Answering the e-mails will be improved by establishing a guide for this. Current quality is further maintained.

Narkar VA, Downes M, Yu RT, Embler E, Wang YX, Banayo E, Mihaylova MM, Nelson MC, Zou Y, Juguilon H, Kang H, Shaw RJ, Evans RM. AMPK and PPARdelta agonists are exercise mimetics. Cell. 2008 Aug 8;134(3):405-15. Epub 2008 Jul 31.

CAS 2008/A/1473 Joe Warren v. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)

Related case:

AAA 2007 No. 30 190 00782 07 USADA vs Joe Warren
January 14, 2007

• Wrestling
• Doping (marijuana)
  Presence of a specified substance
• Condition of reduction of the ineligibility period based on exceptional circumstances
• Condition of reduction of the ineligibility period based on the principles of proportionality
• Determination of the applicable sanction for a second violation for the use of a specified substance

1. An anti-doping rule violation has been committed when the presence of a “specified substance” at a concentration greater than what is authorised in an athlete’s bodily specimen has been demonstrated.

2. To benefit from a reduced sanction, an athlete can establish the existence of exceptional circumstances. A pre-condition to obtaining a reduced period of ineligibility based on exceptional circumstances is that the appellant must establish how the prohibited substance entered his system. Under the circumstances of a particular case, it is not necessary to require the athlete to establish with precision when the prohibited substance use giving rise to the positive test occurred in order for him to meet his burden of establishing how the substance entered his system. Doubts about when and/or how often the athlete used the substance could, however, have a bearing on the athlete’s credibility generally. In any event, where the medical evidence demonstrates that the athlete was able to differentiate between right and wrong it cannot be accepted that his actions and decisions can be relegated to the category of “no significant fault or negligence” especially when the use of the prohibited substance was neither prescribed nor medically necessary. In this regard, the acute stress the athlete was under can be at best understandable, but not excusable.

3. To benefit from a reduced sanction, an athlete can also persuade the panel that the proportionality principle can and should be applied to reduce the otherwise applicable sanction. However, it is not appropriate to invoke principles of proportionality to vary a sanction which, even though it seems severe in all of the circumstances, is nevertheless in accordance with the rules in force at the time of the infraction, at the time of the hearing before the first instance authority and at the time of the hearing before the CAS panel.

4. If a doping violation involving a specified substance occurs for the second time for the same athlete and if the athlete concerned has not established that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, no reduced sanction based on exceptional circumstances can be granted. Moreover where there is no basis for departing from the sanctions provided for by the regulations based on the proper application to the principles of proportionality, the minimum penalty is a two year period of ineligibility.

On 14 January 2008 the American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel (AAA) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the wrestler Joe Warren for his second anti-doping rule violation after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.

Hereafter in February 2008 the Athlete appealed the AAA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete admitted that he had committing an anti-doping violation for which the minimum penalty is a two year period of ineligibility. He asserted that in first instance the Panel misapprehended the evidence and erred in failing to reduce the sanction based on exceptional circumstances and/or application of the principles of proportionality.

Following assessment of the evidence and the Athlete's conduct in this case the Panel determines:

• a.) The Athlee has committed an anti-doping rule violation, namely, the presence in his Bodily Specimen of Carboxy-THC at a concentration greater than 15 ng/mL;
• b.) Carboxy-THC is a cannabinoid and, as such, a “specified substance” for the purposes of Article 10.3 of the Regulations;
• c.) This violation is the Athlete’s second anti-doping rule violation, the first such violation having involved the same Prohibited Substance and having occurred in April 2006;
• d.) The violation arises from the Athlete’s use of marijuana prior to the test which gave rise to the positive finding noted above;
• e.) The Athlete has not established that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence for this anti-doping rule violation and, as such, the Tribunal declines on that basis to set a reduced sanction based on exceptional circumstances under Article 10.5.2 of the Regulations;
• f.) There is no basis for departing from the sanctions provided for by the Regulations based on the proper application to the principles of proportionality;
• g.) The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 July 2008:

1.) The appeal filed at the Court of Arbitration for Sport by Mr Joe Warren on 2 February 2008, against the United States Anti-Doping Agency, is dismissed.

2.) The period of ineligibility of 2 years from 23 July 2007, imposed by the Doping Tribunal on Mr Warren, is confirmed.

(…)

5.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

Facts
French Mountaineering and Climbing Federation (Fédération Française de la Montagne et de l'Escalade, FFME) charges M52 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an event on January 19, 2008, the respondent provided a sample for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of prednisolone and prednisone which are prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. They are regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent thinks that the positive test derived from a pharmaceutical product he had used. He didn't mention the use on the doping control form.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent can't take part in competition and manifestations organized or authorized by the FFME.
2. The first decision (four months period of ineligibility and two months conditional) dated April 3, 2008, by the disciplinary committee of the FFME should be modified.
3. The period of ineligibility should be reduced with one month which as the time already served by the decision of April 3, 2008.
4. The decision will start on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.