AFLD 2008 FFBB vs Respondent M32

17 Apr 2008

Facts
The French Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M32 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on September 28, 2007, 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 the cannabis on the day of the match. He is a regular user and he describes it as enhancing his mood.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one year, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFBB.
2. The decision (one month period of ineligibility) January 11, 2007, of the disciplinary committee of the FFBB should be modified.
3. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period served by the decision of January 11, 2007.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2008 FFV vs Respondent M31

17 Apr 2008

Facts
The French Sailing Federation (Fédération Française de Voile, FFV) charges respondent M31 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a sailing event on September 4, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. 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 the cannabis in a recreational setting, he isn't a regular user. The reason for using it was to relax his family problems and bad results in sport. The panel takes into consideration that the measured concentration was very low, the absence of desire for using cannabis and it was his first offense.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized or authorized by the FFV.
2. The decision (six months period of ineligibility), dated November 21, 2007, of the disciplinary committee of the FFV should be modified.
3. The period of ineligibility should be reduced by the time already served by the decision of November 21, 2007.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2008 FFBB vs Respondent M30

17 Apr 2008

Facts
The French Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M30 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on October 27, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of heptaminol. Heptaminol is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substances.

History
The respondent uses medication to treat the risk of edema in her legs. This medication contains the prohibited substance. She has statements from his general practitioner to prove this condition. She hadn't checked the ingredients of the medication she had acquired by herself.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one month, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFBB.
2. The decision (acquittal) dated January 11, 2007, of the disciplinary committee of the FFBB should be modified.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2008 FFJDA vs Respondent M29

17 Apr 2008

Related case:
AFLD 2015 FFJDA vs Respondent M42
September 10, 2015

Facts
The French Federation for Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo and Associated Disciplines (Fédération Française de Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo et Disciplines Associées FFJDA) charges respondent M29 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a judo tournament on April 21, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisone and prednisolone which are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Prednisone and prednisolone are regarded as specified substance.

History
The respondent suffers from an anatomical abnormality. Five days before the doping control he took injections with the prohibited substances to treat back pain. He had mentioned the use of the pharmaceutical product on the doping control form. He had no intention to enhance his sport performance. He took a risk with the treatment to be sure to participate in the tournament.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one month in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFJDA.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

ISADDP 2008 IRFU Disciplinary Decision 20081519

17 Apr 2008

Facts
The Irish Sports Council (ISC) alleges the Athlete IS-1519 (the Athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The Athlete provided a sample of urine collected from an in-competition doping test in February 2008. His sample tested positive on terbutaline which is a "specified substance" on the World Anti-Doping Code, 2008 Prohibited List.

History
The violation was admitted on behalf of the Athlete. The prohibited substance entered his body in the form of a Bricanyl inhaler. The Athlete had the benefit of an Abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemption Form (ATUE) for the two year period from 2005, that shortly prior to the expiry of that period in 2007, a new ATUE form was applied by the Athlete and his doctor but, for whatever reason, the application for the ATUE did not reach the Irish Sports Council. The Panel was satisfied that this arose due to an administrative oversight and not used for enhancing his sport performance.

Decision
The Panel was satisfied that no period of ineligibility was appropriate having regard to the evidence. However, under Article 10.3 of the Rules, the Panel was obliged to issue and did issue a warning and reprimand to the player IS-1519.

Anti-Doping Norway Annual Report 2007

9 Apr 2008

Stiftelsen Antidoping Norge Årsrapport 2007 / Antidoping Norge (ADNO). - Oslo : ADNO, 2008

Innholdsfortegnelse


Årsberetning 2007 fra styret 3
Økonomisk beretning 4
Regnskap med revisjonsberetninger 6
Virksomhetsberetning for 2007 12
1.0 Stab 12
1.1 Personell stab 12
1.2 Kvalitetssystem og kvalitetsledelse 12
1.3 Utvikling 12
1.4 Informasjon til allmennheten 13
1.5 Utøverforum 14
1.6 Nettverk for antidopingarbeid 14
1.7 Vurdering 14
2.0 Administrasjon 16
2.1 Styret 16
2.2 Personell administrasjon 17
2.3 Administrativ drift 17
2.4 Regioner 17
2.5 Juridisk fagkomité 17
2.6 Medisinsk fagkomité 18
2.7 Seminar for engasjert personell 18
2.8 Vurdering 19
3.0 Påtalenemnd 19
3.1 Vurdering 21
4.0 Dopingkontroll innenfor organisert idrett 22
4.1 Personell dopingkontroll 22
4.2 Prøvetaking 22
4.3 Analyser 24
4.4 Kontrollutstyr 25
4.5 Fritak 25
4.6 Utøverinformasjon 26
4.7 Vurdering 27
5.0 Informasjon og forebygging 28
5.1 Personell informasjon og forebygging 28
5.2 Foredrag 28
5.3 Informasjon ved arrangementer 29
5.4 Nettside og ekstranett 30
5.5 Profilering 31
5.6 Materiell og artikler 32
5.7 Antidopingkampanje Rent idrettslag 33
5.8 Fagmøter, seminarer og sosiale tiltak 33
5.9 Vurdering 33
6.0 Internasjonalt arbeid 35
6.1 Internasjonale konvensjoner og avtaler 35
6.2 ANADO 36
6.3 Andre samarbeidsprosjekter 36
6.4 Internasjonale seminarer 37
6.5 Vurdering 37
7.0 Forskningsvirksomhet 38
7.1 Medisinske forskningsprosjekter 38
7.2 Samfunnsvitenskaplige og juridiske prosjekter 38
7.3 Utredninger 39
7.4 Vurdering 39
8.0 Oppdrag 40
8.1 Oppdrag for internasjonal organisert idrett 40
8.2 Treningssenterbransjen 41
8.3 Norske organisasjoner og institusjoner 41
8.4 Markedssamarbeid 42
8.5 Vurdering 42
9.0 Antidopingarbeid i lokalmiljøer 43
9.1 Vurdering 43

ISU 2008 ISU vs Yuri Larionov

6 Apr 2008

Related case:
ISU 2009 Yuri Larionov vs ISU – Revision
April 21, 2009

In February 2008 the International Skating Union (ISU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete Yuri Larionov after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and waived his right to be heard for the ISU Disciplinary Commission.

The Athlete stated that on the morning of the doping test he had a severe headache and therefore used a pill, provided by his father, and without intention to enhance his sport performance. The pill was Lasix (furosemide) prescribed to his father who suffered from headache caused by high blood pressure.
The Panel concludes that the Athlete acted significant negligent due to he used non-prescribed medication and without consulting the team doctor.
Therefore the ISU Disciplinary Commission decides on 6 December 2008 to impose 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 19 February 2008.

AFLD 2008 FFBB vs Respondent M27

3 Apr 2008

Facts
The French Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M27 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on October 27, 2007, 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 substances.

History
The respondent claims that the positive test was the result of passive smoking. The amount measured however was too high for being the result of passive smoking.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of four months, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFBB.
2. The decision (15 days period of ineligibility) dated January 11, 2008, of the disciplinary committee of the FFBB should be modified.
3. The period of ineligibility should be reduced by the period already served in voluntary suspension and the period served by the decision of the disciplinary committee.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

AFLD 2008 FFBB vs Respondent M26

3 Apr 2008

Facts
The French Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M26 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on September 28, 2007, 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 substances.

History
The respondent used the cannabis on the day of the match, to handle the pressure. There was no intention to enhance his sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one year, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFBB.
2. The decision (1 month period of ineligibility) dated January 11, 2008, of the disciplinary committee of the FFBB should be modified.
3. The period of ineligibility should be reduced by on month which is the period already served by the decision of January 11, 2008.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Growth hormone treatment in human ageing: benefits and risks

1 Apr 2008

Growth hormone treatment in human ageing : benefits and risks / Roberta Giordano, Lorenza Bonelli, Elisa Marinazzo, Ezio Ghigo, Emanuela Arvat

  • Hormones 7 (2008) 2 (April-June), p. 133-139
  • PMID: 18477550
  • DOI: 10.1007/BF03401504


Abstract

This paper will focus on the rationale of using Growth Hormone (GH) as an anti-ageing therapy in the healthy elderly with age-related decline in the activity of the GH/IGF-I axis, the so called "somatopause". Although the age-related decline in the activity of the GH/IGF-I axis is considered to contribute to age-related changes similar to those observed in Growth Hormone Deficient (GHD) adults, GH/IGF-I deficiency or resistance is also known to result in prolonged life expectancy, at least in animals. These data raise the question whether or not GH deficiency constitutes a beneficial adaptation to ageing and therefore requires no therapy. Moreover, although GH therapy has been shown to exert positive effects in GHD patients, its safety, efficacy and role in healthy elderly individuals is highly controversial. This review provides a comprehensive account of the implications of GH therapy in the ageing subject.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin