BHA 2002 BHA vs Francis Norton

11 Dec 2003

In September 2002 the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) reported that the Jockey Francis Norton had tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. Hereafter in December 2003 he was heard for the BHA Judicial Panel.

The Jockey explained that the positive test result was possibly caused by environmental contamination from bank notes; or the unknowingly consumption of Coca-Tea suplied to him by a friend.

The Panel finds that a prohibited substance has been established in the Jockey's sample and accordingly that he committed a violation of the Rules of Racing. The Panel rejected the Jockey's explanations and deemed that he had used drugs.

Therefore the BHA Judicial Panel decides on 11 December 2003 to withdraw the Jockey's licence from 19 December 2003 until 19 April 2004.

Sports drug testing - an analyst's perspective.

8 Dec 2003

Trout GJ, Kazlauskas R. Sports drug testing--an analyst's perspective. Chem Soc Rev. 2004 Jan 10;33(1):1-13. Epub 2003 Dec 8.

The actions and side effects of Anabolic Steroids in sport and social abuse

1 Dec 2003

The actions and side effects of Anabolic Steroids in sport and social abuse / Alan James George. - (Andrologie 13 (2003) 4 (December);p. 354-366)

  • DOI: 10.1007/BF03035203

Erratum published in: Andrologie 14 (2004) 1 (March); p. 1

  • DOI: 10.1007/BF03035476


Anabolic steroids (AS) derived from testosterone have both anabolic (muscle and strength enhancing) and androgenic (primary and secondary sexual) effects. Efforts to limit the androgenic while enhancing the anabolic effects have not been successful. Alterations to the structure of testosterone, so as to improve the pharmacokinetics of AS, have resulted in drugs, which are orally active, have a longer plasma half life and may be administered as depot injections. Therapeutic doses of AS produce statistically significant effects on strength and athletic performance in well-controlled scientific and clinical trials. At low, therapeutic doses, diet and an intensive training regime are equally important in producing a statistically significant increase in strength. Higher doses 6–7000mg per week are regularly administered in sport and produce the greatest increases in muscle strength erythropoiesis and lean body mass. Patterns of steroid abuse can be complex, reflecting a desire to minimise side effects, and avoid detection. AS side effects are of many types. AS increase salt and water retention leading to an expansion of the blood volume, but effects of steroids on blood pressure are equivocal and most cardiovascular side effects appear to be reversible.

Abuse of AS causes an increase in blood triglyceride and cholesterol levels and this is associated with a decline in High Density Lipoproteins (HDLs) and an increase in the Low Density (LDL) type. Though these effects are reversible they are associated with an increased risk of both acute and chronic cardiovascular pathology. The most serious irreversible anabolic steroid side effects are associated with carcinomas-mainly of the liver, prostate and kidney. Hepatic carcinomas are strongly associated with abuse of the orally active 17alpha methyl substituted steroids, which also produce a reversible jaundice. In males, anabolic steroid abuse causes suppression of LH and FSH release leading to inhibition of testosterone production often accompanied by testicular atrophy, and azoospermia. High, chronic doses of the drugs may also cause moderate to severe feminising effects in the form of gynaecomastia. Male secondary sexual characteristics are a side effect of AS abuse in women. Increased insulin resistance and elevated fasting blood glucose levels are the commonest non-gonadal endocrine side effects of AS.

AS abuse leads to contradictory, complex, behavioural, and psychiatric changes. Increased frequency of mental illness, in anabolic steroid abusers including paranoid schizophrenia, mania and depression has been reported. Physical and psychological dependency occur amongst some anabolic steroid abusers and severe psychiatric disorders can appear upon withdrawal, leading in a few cases to criminality and even suicide. We need more studies on the long-term effects of AS. The implications of the past 50 years of AS abuse will be discussed in the review.

AAA 2003 No. 30 190 00463 03 USADA vs Damu Cherry

20 Nov 2003

Damu Cherry, The Respondent, is an athlete in the sport of track and field (athletics. She has been in the USA Track and Field (USATF) out-of-competition (OOC) drug testing pool since the fourth quarter of 2001.

On February 18, 2003, as part of an out-of-competition drug test, Respondent provided a urine. The IOC accredited University of California at Los Angeles Olympic Analytical Laboratory (UCLA Lab) performed the testing on the A sample ant it revealed the presence of 19-norandrosterone. This finding was reported to USADA. The Respondent was notified of such findings and requested an analysis of the B sample. The USLA Lab tested the B sample and reported that Respondent’s urine sample was positive for 19-norandrosterone. Respondent declined to accept the two-year sanction recommended by USADA, but accepted a provisional suspension effective August 2, 2003. The evidentiary hearing took place on November 3, 4 and 5, 2003, in New York.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel is convince that Respondent’s positive test result was not due to endogenous production. Dr. Di Pasquale lacked the expertise and experience, in contrast to Drs. Catlin, Seifer, and Bulun, to support his endogenous production theory, which, in any event, was unsupported by credible, scientific evidence.
The Panel is convinced that the applicable threshold set by the IOC based on recommendation on the directors of the various IOC accredited labs is valid.
USADA produce evidence supported by able argumentation that Respondent had not met the burden of proving that a reduction in the suspension period is warranted.

The Panel decides as follows:
- A doping violation occurred on the part of Respondent
- The minimum suspension for a first offender of two (2) years to take place effective from November 24, 2003 is imposed on Respondent pursuant to IAAF Rule 60. The Respondent is credited with the time of her provisional suspension, effective August 2, 2003
- All competitive results which occurred on or after February 18, 2003, are cancelled.
- A two-year period of ineligibility beginning August 2, 2003, from access to the training facilities of the USOC Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC, including grants, awards, or employment, is imposed.

The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association and the compensation and expenses of the arbitrators shall by borne entirely by USADA.

CAS 2003_A_452 IAAF vs MAR & Brahim Boulami

19 Nov 2003

CAS 2003/A/452 IAAF v/MAR and Brahim Boulami

Arbitration CAS 2003/A/452 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v/ Fédération Royale Marocaine d’Athlétisme (MAR) and B.

Doping (r-EPO)
Reliability of the testing method
Accreditation of the testing laboratory

1. The direct urine test used by the laboratory is a valid and reliable test for the detection of r-EPO in urine (the respondents have failed to cast doubt on the evidence brought forth by the IAAF that 80% is a reasonable cut-off point that largely eliminates the risk of false positives in urinary r-EPO test); this direct urine test has sufficient international acceptance for the purpose of detecting r-EPO in the urine of athletes.

2. The laboratory’s lack of specific accreditation to conduct r-EPO testing is not fatal to the legal validity of its r-EPO tests. However, the lack of specific accreditation shifts the burden to the federation to show that the laboratory conducted its testing in accordance with the scientific community's practices and procedures, and that it satisfied itself as to the validity of the method before using it. Such a burden-shifting rule provides the necessary balance between the needs of IOC laboratories to implement new, reliable testing methods as quickly as possible, on the one hand, and the interests of athletes and the sporting community in ensuring trustworthy test results, on the other.

In August 2002 the Marrocco Athletics Federation (Fédération Royale Marocaine d’Athlétisme, MAR) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Brahim Boulami after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

On February 6, 2003, the MAR Disciplinary Commission found the Athlete not guilty of a Doping Offense. The MAR provided the following reasons for the decision to the IAAF in a fax dated February 11, 2003:

i.) The athlete was not notified of his right to be accompanied by a representative when he provided a urine and blood sample on 15 August 2002 in breach of paragraph 2.9 of the IAAF's Procedural Guidelines;
ii.) The "B" sample which was provided on 16 August 2002 was analyzed even though the "A" sample result had never been communicated to the athlete;
iii.) The MAR representative Professor Stambouli was denied the opportunity to attend the analysis of the 15 August "B" sample (numbered B071981 in breach of IAAF Procedural Guidelines;
iv.) No results had been provided concerning the athlete's blood sample;
v.) The r-EPO method of testing has not been recognized scientifically or validated by the international scientific community;
vi.) The Lausanne laboratory does not have specific ISO accreditation to conduct r-EPO testing; and
vii.) The athlete categorically denies administering r-EPO.

Hereafter in April 2003 the IAAF appealed the MAR decision of 6 February 2003 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel is of the opinion that
(i) on August 15, 2002, the prohibited substance r-EPO was present in the Athlete's urine,
(ii) the direct urine test used by LAD in this case, described both above and elsewhere, is a valid and reliable test for the detection of r-EPO in urine,
(iii) this direct urine test has sufficient international acceptance for the purpose of detecting r-EPO in the urine of athletes, and
(iv) LAD conducted its testing in accordance with the scientific community's practice and procedures for r-EPO testing, and adequately satisfied itself as to the test’s validity prior to use.

For all these reasons, the Panel finds the Athlete guilty of a Doping Offense under the IAAF Rules. Accordingly, the Panel finds that B. should be declared ineligible for two years, pursuant to IAAF Rule 60.2 (a)(i), with credit for suspension time already served from August 28, 2002, until the date of this Award. B. should therefore be eligible for competition on August 28, 2004.

Therefore 19 November 2003 the Court of Arbitration for Sport:
1.) Grants the appeal filed by the IAAF asking the Court to find B. guilty of a Doping Offense under IAAF Rules, and asking the Court to find that the Athlete should be declared ineligible for two years, less the period of suspension served by the athlete.
2.) Declares that the Athlete shall be declared ineligible for two years from August 28, 2002.
3.) (...).

Rapportage Audit Commissie Doping 7 (2003)

18 Nov 2003

Rapportage Audit Commissie Doping : periode: maart 2003 t/m augustus 2003 / C.A. Segaar, H.P.F. Koppeschaar, C. van Bentum. - Arnhem : Audit Commissie Doping, 2003.
- Rapportage ten behoeve van de Algemene Vergadering NOC*NSF 18 november 2003.
- Halfjaarlijkse rapportage aan de Algemene Vergadering van NOC*NSF, het bestuur NOC*NSF, de staatssecretaris van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport en het bestuur van het NeCeDo.


- Hfdst. 1 inleiding
- Hfdst. 2 aanbevelingen en samenvatting;
- Hfdst. 3 taakstelling Audit Commissie Doping;
- Hfdst. 4 rapportage;
- Hfdst. 5 gegevens verzameling;
- Hfdst. 6 beveiliging netwerk;
- Hfdst. 7 toelichting schema rapportage;
- Hfdst. 8 conclusies;
- Hfdst. 9 rapportageschema;
- Bijlage aantal controles per bond in 2003, toegewezen vanuit NOC*NSF.

CAS 2003_A_484 Kicker Vencill vs USADA - Interim award

18 Nov 2003

CAS 2003/A/484 Kicker Vencill vs USADA - Interim award

The Court of Arbitration Hereby rules:
1. The Jurisdiction oif CAS is affirmed;
2. Ibe appeal filed by mr. Vencill on 14 July 2003 is dismissed;

Swiss Federal Court 4P_149_2003 R vs UCI, FFC & CAS

31 Oct 2003

Related case:
CAS 2002/A/431 UCI vs R & FFC
May 23, 2003

In May 2002 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French Athlete R after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances methylamphetamine, parahydroxyamphetamine, d'amphetamine and betamethasone. The Athlete had a TUE for betamethasone.
The Fédération Française de Cyclisme (FFC), the French Cycling Federation decided on 8 October 2002 not to sanction the Athlete due the circumstances of the sample collection were an infringement of the French public order.

In November 2002 the UCI appealed the FFC decision of 8 October 2002 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS Panel rejected the Athlete’s argument that after signing the FFC sport licence he did not accept the CAS jurisdiction to appeal a case. The Panel also ruled that the circumstances related to the Athlete’s sample collection were not a breach of the French public order. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport sanctioned the Athlete on 23 May 2003, as second violation with a 4 year period of ineligibility and a fine of CHF 4000, -. (TAS / CAS 2002/A/431)

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS Decision of 23 May 2003 with the Swiss Federal Court.
The Athlete disputed the CAS’ jurisdiction and claimed that his right to be heard was violated.
The Swiss Federal court considers the Athlete’s arguments and decides on 31 October 2003 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal.

SDT 2003_01 New Zealand Powerlifting Federation vs Wayne Doyle

30 Oct 2003

The New Zealand Sports Drug Agency (NZSDA) and the New Zealand Powerlifting Federation (NZPF) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent for his refusal to provide a sample.

Hereafter the NZPF applied for the imposition of a sanction against the Respondent with the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand.
At the Pre-hearing Conference the president of the Tribunal raised the question whether the Tribunal was properly constituted to be the Tribunal appointed, pursuant to the NZPF Anti-Doping Code to determine the application.
The Tribunal rules that it is not properly constituted to deal with this matter as a Tribunal under the NZPF’s Anti-Doping Code. Accordingly, it declines to hear the application.

CAS 2003_A_459 Linda van Herk vs FINA

20 Oct 2003

CAS 2003/A/459 Van Herk v/FINA

On 9 September 2002 the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal Dutch Swimming Federation (KNZB) decided to impose a 4 year period perod of ineligibility on the minor Dutch swimmer (14) Linda van Herk for committing an anti-doping rule violation. 6 months of this sanction was unconditional and 42 months with a probation period of 2 years.

Here the Athlete failed to provide a sample despite several attempts. The Athlete's father requested to stop the sample collection due to business appointments and she left the Doping Control Station after she was warned about the consequences of her refusal.

In September 2002 the Appellant appealed the KNZB decision and on 26 October 2002 the KNZB Appeal Committee decided to annul the decision of the KNZB Disciplinary Committee, and acquit the Athlete. When referred to FINA the Disciplinary Committee decided on 11 April 2003 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for her refusal to provide a sample.

Hereafter in July 2003 the Athlete appealed the FINA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Panel considered the arguments filed by the Athlete and finds that it has jurisdiction in this case and that the admitted departure by the KNZB from the doping control procedures is certainly regrettble. However the Panel holds that the non-compliance by officials with the procedures does not justifies an acquittal of the Athlete.

Considering the circumstances the Panel concludes that the Athlete intentionally refused to submit to doping control by providing a sample and that there are grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 October 2003:

1.) The appeal filed by ihe Appellant on 8 July 2002 is upheld in part and the decision of the FINA Doping Panel varied in part.
2.) The Appellant's suspension is reduced to one-year period to expire on 25 October 2003. The FINA Doping Panel's decision otherwise stands.
3.) The award is pronounced without costs. except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500.-- (five hundred Swiss francs) aheady paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS.

  • 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