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 / 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.

Doping As a Crime? : The Policy Issue Concering the Choice of Method to Deal with Doping / Julia Völlmecke. – (International Sports Law Journal (2008) 1-2 : p. 49-56)

Content:
- Introduction
- The situation in Germany
- The Debate
- The pro arguments
- The contra arguments
• Consitutional difficulties
• Procedural difficulties
- The new Anti-Doping Law
- Results
- Criminal Provisions
- The Criminal Code
- Crimes against life and bodily integrity
- Fraud
- Crimes against competition
- Other provisions
- Results
- Conclusions

The new Anti-Doping Law in Germany may be seen as an innovative step towards the fight against doping. Certainly, its aims and intentions recognise the immense dimension doping has reached within the sports world. Provisions which entrust police work with more power on a national and international basis and those that intend to combat against criminally organised networks seem to be helpful in the fight against doping. Apart from that, the new legislation resembles no more than a failed attempt to get governmentally involved in doping affairs.

Analyzing the New World Anti-Doping Code : A Different Perspective / Steven Teitler, Herman Ram. – (International Sports Law Journal (2008) 1-2 : 42-49)

Content:
1.) Introduction
2.) Who are cheats?
3.) Recreational use
4.) By-catch of morally innocent cheats?
5.) Additional flexibility
6.) Breach of a sanction
7.) No more gaps
8.) Privacy
9.) Open List
10.) New rights of appeal

Observations regarding the World Anti-Doping Code can often be
divided in two distinct categories. One the one hand, there are those that defend the doping regulations, stressing the necessity of the described elements of the anti-doping programs and policies. On the other hand are those observations that detail the unfairness of these programs and policies, or the Code’s disregard for the privacy and other interests of (professional) athletes.
Marshall and Hale have written a more neutral analysis of the provisions in the new, 2009 Code, pointing out the major changes and offering a critical view to various aspects of the 2009 Code. The authors' contribution will take the analysis and views of Marshall and Hale as a starting point, offering additional insights and opinions concerning the 2009 Code and the way this set of rules will work out in practice.

Will the New WADA Code Plug All The Gabs? Will There Be By-Catch? / John Marshall, Amy Catherine Hale. – (International Sports Law Journal (2008) 1-2 : 37-44)

Content:
A.) Introduction
B.) WADA and the Code
B.1.) Background
B.2.) Impact
C.) The Changes
D.) Harmonisation with Flexibility
E.) Whereabouts Requirements
F.) Privacy?
G.) Atypical Findings
H.) Provisional Suspension after A Sample
I.) Breach of Sanction
J.) Sanctions on Teams
K.) New Rights of Appeal
L.) ‘Party’, ‘Recreational’ of ‘Illicit’ Drugs
M.) Conclusion

The World Anti-Doping Agency, WADA adopted substantial
amendments to the WADA Code (“the Code”) at its conference in
Spain in mid November 2007. This paper looks at the new amendments which will be operational by 1 January 2009.

Dopingautoriteit jaarverslag 2007 / Dopingautoriteit. - Capelle aan den IJssel, 2008

This is the second Annual Report from the Anti-Doping
Authority of the Netherlands. The organisation was
established on 23 June 2006 with the merger of the
Netherlands Centre for Doping Affairs and Doping
Control Netherlands.
The merger has become more than just the sum of
the parts: the activities of both merger partners will be
recognisable in this report, but the new structure has
changed the way those activities are positioned in the
organisation and had an impact on their implementation.
In addition to the two operational departments dealing
with Prevention and Control, the Doping Authority has a
staff which serves both departments and the management.
This grouping of knowledge and expertise is one
of the added values generated by the merger.
We hope that this annual report will provide you with a
clear picture of the work our organisation has done in
the first complete reporting year of our existence.
The board of management

CAS 2007/A/1395 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. National Shooting Association of Malaysia (NSAM) & Joseline Cheah Lee Yean & Bibiana Ng Pei Chin & Siti Nur Masitah Binti Mohd Badrin

• Shooting
• Doping (propanolol)
• Tacit arbitration agreement between the parties
• Presumption of ingestion of the prohibited substance to enhance the performance
• Reduction of the period of Ineligibility not justified

1. An agreement to arbitrate may be concluded explicitly or tacitly and may result from the content of the pleadings submitted by the parties. The submission by a party of numerous pieces of correspondence to the CAS which never raises or suggests any objection to the prospective jurisdiction of the CAS and contain arguments concerning the rights of the parties in a dispute may constitute responsive pleadings that do not object to the CAS’s jurisdiction and therefore constitute an agreement to arbitrate before the CAS.

2. In case of a specified substance, the applicable two year period of ineligibility may be replaced by a lower period in the event the athletes can establish that the use of such a specified substance was not intended to enhance sport performance. The performance enhancing effects of propranolol which is a beta blocker in shooting cannot be ignored. Therefore, the burden is upon the athletes to show how this specified substance entered in their systems, and to demonstrate that this manner of ingestion was not intended to enhance their performance. Evidence that in the given circumstances an unintentional violation of the anti-doping rules by the shooters was more likely than the intentional misuse of the substance is required particularly in view of the sport enhancing effects of the substance.

3. Athletes have a duty to exercise “the greatest vigilance” or “utmost caution” with regard what they ingest. It is constant in CAS jurisprudence that athletes are responsible for making enquiries about food and medications they are given, regardless of the source. The athlete’s willingness to ingest unwrapped chocolates without further enquiry is at least significantly negligent. The reduction or elimination of the period of ineligibility does not apply where the athletes do not rebut the presumption that they have ingested the prohibited substance to enhance their performance.

In April 2007 the National Shooting Association of Malaysia (NSAM) reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athletes Joseline Cheah Lee Yean, Bibiana Ng Pei Chin and Siti Nur Masitah Binti Mohd Badrin after their A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Propranolol.

Following the provisional suspension of the Athletes in April 2007 there were deliberations between the NSAM, the International Shooting Sport Federation (ISSF) and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) about the imposition of the appropriate sanctions.

Prior in September 2007 the NSAM had imposed a sanction of 6 months on the Athletes. However in October 2007 the NSAM revised their decision and imposed a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athletes. Hereafter in October 2007 WADA appealed the NSAM decisions of 21 September 2007 and 6 October 2007 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decisions and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athletes. WADA contended that the NSAM did not bring sufficient evidence to establish that the Athletes did not ingest Propranolol for performance enhancing purposes.

Following assessment of the evidence in this case the Panel determines that:

• The Athlete's have committed a a violation of the ISSF Anti-Doping rules.
• The performance enhancing effects of Propranolol in shooting cannot be ignored.
• The burden is upon the Athletes to show how this specified substance entered in their systems, and to demonstrate that this manner of ingestion was not intended to enhance their performance.
• The Athletes and the NSAM did not discharge their burden of proof that the anti-doping rule violation was committed by the Athletes without intention to enhance their performance.
• The Athletes did not establish any exceptional circumstances whereby the suspension period may have been reduced or eliminated.

Theefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 31 March 2008:

1.) The Appeals filed by WADA on 5 October 2007 and 11 October 2007 are upheld insofar as they are directed against the NSAM. In relation to Ms Josline Cheah Lee Yean, Ms Bibiana Ng Pei Chin and Ms Siti Nur Masitah Binti Mohd Badrin the appeal by WADA is dismissed.

2.) The decision issued on 21 September 2007 by the National Shooting Association of Malaysia is set aside.

3.) The decision issued on 6 October 2007 by the National Shooting Association of Malaysia is amended as follows:

The Shooters Joseline Cheah Lee Yean, Bibiana Ng Pei Chin and Siti Nur Masitah Binti Mohd Badrin are sanctioned with a two-year suspension. The period of ineligibility shall be calculated from 18 April 2007. Any results in a competition obtained by the Shooters from 8 March 2007 until 18 April 2007 are disqualified.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

6.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

Growth hormone, IGF-I and insulin and their abuse in sport / R.I.G. Holt, P.H. Sönksen. - (British Journal of Pharmacology 154 (2008) 3 (June); p. 542-556)

• PMID: 18376417
• PMCID: PMC2439509
• DOI: 10.1038/bjp.2008.99

Abstract

There is widespread anecdotal evidence that growth hormone (GH) is used by athletes for its anabolic and lipolytic properties. Although there is little evidence that GH improves performance in young healthy adults, randomized controlled studies carried out so far are inadequately designed to demonstrate this, not least because GH is often abused in combination with anabolic steroids and insulin. Some of the anabolic actions of GH are mediated through the generation of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), and it is believed that this is also being abused. Athletes are exposing themselves to potential harm by self-administering large doses of GH, IGF-I and insulin. The effects of excess GH are exemplified by acromegaly. IGF-I may mediate and cause some of these changes, but in addition, IGF-I may lead to profound hypoglycaemia, as indeed can insulin. Although GH is on the World Anti-doping Agency list of banned substances, the detection of abuse with GH is challenging. Two approaches have been developed to detect GH abuse. The first is based on an assessment of the effect of exogenous recombinant human GH on pituitary GH isoforms and the second is based on the measurement of markers of GH action. As a result, GH abuse can be detected with reasonable sensitivity and specificity. Testing for IGF-I and insulin is in its infancy, but the measurement of markers of GH action may also detect IGF-I usage, while urine mass spectroscopy has begun to identify the use of insulin analogues.

In May 2007 the Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC), the Italian Football Federation, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Fabio Lupacchio after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard by the Ufficio di Procura Antidoping (UPA), the CONI Anti-Doping Prosecution Office. The Athlete admitted he had had used cocaine on two occasions prior to the doping test.
Considering mitigating circumstances the FICG National Disciplinary Commission decided on 6 July 2007 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

WADA appealed the decision of the FICG National Disciplinary Commission with the FICG Federal Court of Justice, which dismissed the appeal on 30 July 2007.
Hereafter WADA appealed the FICG Federal Court of Justice Decision of 30 July 2007 with the CONI Anti-Doping Supreme Court. WADA requested to set aside the decision of the FIGC Federal Court of Justice and argued there were no grounds to impose a less severe sanction on the Athlete.

The Court rules that the presence of the prohibited substance in the Athlete’s sample is an anti-doping rule violation and concludes that the Athlete acted negligently when he used cocaine twice prior to the doping test. Therefore the CONI Anti-Doping Supreme Court decides to set aside the FICG Federal Court of Justice Decision of 30 July 2007 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

TAS 2007/A/1368 Union Cycliste International c. Michele Scarponi & Federazione Cyclistica Italiana

CAS 2007/A/1368 UCI vs Michele Scarponi & Federazione Ciclistica Italiana

• Cyclisme
• Dopage
• Justification de la réduction d’une suspension du fait d’une aide substantielle en matière de lutte contre le dopage fournie par le licencié
• Point de départ de la durée de la suspension
• Tentative d'usage d'une substance ou d’une méthode interdite considérée comme une infraction en soi

1. L’objectif fondamental de l’article 266 RAD étant l’incitation des athlètes et de leur entourage à collaborer activement à la lutte antidopage, il permet la réduction de la période de suspension en cas d’aide substantielle fournie par le licencié à partir des paramètres suivants: l’objectif d’un moyen de lutte contre le dopage; l’utilisation rigoureuse de ce moyen de lutte contre le dopage; la nécessité de disposer d’une aide substantielle; le principe d’un pouvoir discrétionnaire. La réduction elle-même est non seulement facultative, mais sa durée dépend également de la libre appréciation du TAS au vu des circonstances du cas d’espèce.

2. La période d’inactivité du coureur consécutive à une interdiction de participer à des compétitions et à une auto-suspension est prise en compte pour le calcul de la suspension.

3. Les art. 2.2 CMA et 15.2 RAD règlent le cas de la tentative d'usage d'une substance ou méthode interdite et le qualifie comme une infraction en soi. La sanction pour la tentative et l'acte consommé est ainsi la même. Les deux dispositions précisent en outre que le succès ou l'échec de l'action n'est pas déterminant. L’absence d’amélioration des performances sportives n'est donc pas déterminante.

In 2004 the Spanish Guardia Civil and the Investigating magistrate no. 31 of Madrid opened an investigation that has come to be known as "Operation Puerto".

Pursuant to this investigation, on 23 May 2006 searches were carried out of two Madrid apartments belonging to Spanish physician Dr. Eufeniiano Fuentes. Documents and other materials were seized from the apartments, including evidence of possible doping offences by athletes.

Following investigations conducted by the Guardia Civil the UCI was unsuccesful in opening disciplinary proceedings in Spain against the Athlete. However the International Cycling Union (UCI) and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) were succesful in having access to the entire criminal investigation file.

In April 2007 the Ufficio di Procura Antidoping (UPA), the CONI Anti-Doping Prosecution Office received from the Guardia Civil the investigation files. Thereupon it opened disciplinary proceedings against Italian riders involved in Operation Puerto.

Ultimately the Italian Cycling Federation (FCI) decided on 13 July to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete for the use of prohibited substances and methods. Hereafter in August 2007 the UCI appealed the FCI Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

In this appeal the Panel assessed and addressed the following issues:

• is the reduced sanction impose on the Athlete justified because of the substantial assistance he had provided?
• on which date is the commencement of the sanction calculated?
• can the Athlete receive a more reduced sanction for his cessation of his doping attempt?

Considering the circumstances the Panel finds that the reduced sanction was sufficient and adequate. A sanction of 21 months must be imposed on the Athlete from 13 July 2007 and he shall be credited for the 254 days of suspension he already had served. Further the Panel deems that there are no grounds to grant the Athlete a further 6 month reduction of the sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decides on 25 March 2008 to impose a 21 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 13 July 2007.