Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) charges Alireza Iraj for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Following the Iran vs Pakistan rugby match the Asian Rugby Championships 2007 during in-competition testing, the player provided an urine sample. The sample tested positive on 19-norandrosterone with a concentration greater than the threshold level of 2ng/ml.

History
The player stated that quite by accident the 19-norandrosterone was given to him by the doctor.

Decision
The sanction imposed for this antidoping rule violation is a period of ineligibility of two years commencing from the 12th December 2007 (the date upon which the player's provisional suspension commenced) and concluding (but Inclusive of) the 12th December 2009.

CAS 2007/A/1356 Tomaž Nose v/ Slovenian Cycling Federation (Kolesarska Zveza Slovenije)

In October 2006 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Slovenian cyclist Tomaž Nose after his sample tested positive for his elevated T/E ratio (testosterone / epitestosterone) above the WADA threshold. The Athlete did not test positive for Testosterone while he used prescribed Testosterone therapy due to his diagnosed low hormone levels.

In this matter the Athlete had a valid TUE issued by the Slovenian Olympic Committee for the use of the prescribed Testoviron. However the Athlete was unaware that he should have obtained a TUE from the UCI for international cycling events. 

Consequently on 10 August 2007 the Anti-Doping Commission (ADC) of the Slovenian Cycling Federation (KZS) decided to impose a 20 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting back dated on 6 November 2006. 

Hereafter in August 2007 the Athlete appealed the KZS decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). 

The Athlete admitted the use of Testosterone therapy and denied that the violation was intentional since he had a valid TUE and there was not positive test. He argued that he was unaware that his TUE was not valid for international races.

He had relied on experts to obtain a valid TUE and all assurances had been given by those experts as to the validity of the TUE. Also the response of WADA gave him sufficient reasons to believe that his current TUE was valid for international competitions. 

Furthermore the Athlete asserted that the ADC Decision of 10 August 2007 was based on erroneous and incomplete determination of the circumstances, erroneous application of material law and material breaches of procedure that impacted on the correctness and legality of the Decision. 

The Panel agrees that in First Instance certain material breaches of procedure occurred which impacted on the correctness an quality of the ruling. For that reason the Panel decided to deal with the merits of the case to decide de novo. It therefore does not have to deal with the procedural irregularities which occurred according to the Athlete. 

The Panel holds that the TUE issued by the Slovenian Olympic Committee was not valid for international events. As a result the Panel finds that under the UCI Rules the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation by using a Prohibited Substance with a valid TUE.

However the Panel finds that the circumstances in this case have been very exceptional and must be seen as a chain of unfortunate circumstances which may not easily be found in another case.

The Panel established that the Athlete was aware of his duty to obtain a TUE for the use of his medication, he consulted the best qualified expert on anti-doping matters in Slovenia and fully relied on his advice. Unfortunately the Slovenian expert was unfamiliar with the international TUE-procedure and the contacted WADA expert did not notify the Slovenian expert about his erroneous TUE application but rather provided confusing information. 

On that account the Panel deems that the Athlete cannot be blamed for relying on the offical’s advice regarding his TUE application. It concludes that the Athlete’s violaton was not intentional and that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 11 March 2008: 

1. The Appeal filed by Tomaž Nose is partially admitted.
2. The decision issued by the Anti-doping Commission of the Slovenian Cycling Federation is amended as follows: The period of Ineligibility is set to 12 months and the commencement date of the period of Ineligibility is fixed on 11 September 2006 instead of 6 November 2006. The period of ineligibility thus ended on 10 September 2007.
3. Tomaž Nose is disqualified from the Tour of Slovenia race, which took place between 8 and11 June 2006, and his results obtained at this Tour are annulled.
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 Tomaž Nose, which is retained by CAS.
6. Slovenian Cycling Federation shall pay to Tomaž Nose the amount of CBF 5,000 (five thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution towards the expenses incurred by Tomaž Nose inconnection with these arbitration proceedings.

Psychological drivers in doping: the life-cycle model of performance enhancement / Andrea Petróczi, Eugene Aidman. - (Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 3 (2008); 7)

• PMID: 18331645
• PMCID: PMC2315642
• DOI: 10.1186/1747-597X-3-7

Abstract

Background: Performance enhancement (PE) is a natural and essential ingredient of competitive sport. Except for nutritional supplement contamination, accidental use of doping is highly unlikely. It requires deliberation, planning and commitment; and is influenced by a host of protective and risk factors.

Hypothesis: In the course of their career, athletes constantly set goals and make choices regarding the way these goals can be achieved. The cycle of choice - goal commitment - execution - feedback on goal attainment - goal evaluation/adjustment has numerous exit points, each providing an opportunity for behaviour change, which may or may not be related to the use of prohibited methods. The interplay between facilitating and inhibiting systemic and personality factors, constantly influenced by situational factors could result in an outcome vector of 'doping attitudes', which combines with subjective norms to influence intentions to choose prohibited PE methods. These influences also vary from one stage of athlete development to the next, making some athletes more vulnerable to engaging in doping practices than others, and more vulnerable at certain time periods - and not others.

Testing the hypothesis: Model-testing requires a series of carefully planned and coordinated studies. Correlational studies can establish relationships where the directionality is not-known or not important. Experimental studies with the manipulation of doping expectancies and risk factors can be used to demonstrate causality and evaluate potential intervention strategies. The final model can be tested via a behavioural simulation, with outcomes compared to those expected from literature precedence or used as a simulated computer game for empirical data collection.

Implications: A hypothesized life-cycle model of PE identifies vulnerability factors across the stages of athlete development with the view of informing the design of anti-doping assessment and intervention. The model suggests that, instead of focusing on the actual engagement in prohibited PE practices, deterrence strategies are likely to be more effective if they target the influencing factors at the appropriate stage and identify groups of athletes and their respective career stages, which pose particular risks of engagement in doping practices. This enables a more effective intervention approach by targeting specific risk factors and expectancies.

In February 2008 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Paul Turcitu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.

Therefore on 5 March 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

Ischemic Stroke Related to Anabolic Abuse / Rodrigo Daniel Santamarina, Ana Gabriela Besocke, Lucas Martin Romano, Pablo Leonardo Ioli, Sergio Eduardo Gonorazky. - (Clinical Neuropharmacology 31 (2008) 2 (March-April); p. 80- 85).

• PMID: 18382179.
• DOI: 10.1097/WNF.0b013e3180ed4485

Abstract

Anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) abuse increased in recent years, and it is associated with numerous adverse effects. Few reports on ischemic stroke related to anabolic steroid abuse have been published. We report a case of a 26-year-old male amateur athlete who suffered a posterior territory ischemic stroke. No abnormalities were found in angiography and echocardiography studies, neither in hemostatic profile. His only significant risk factor was nonmedical use of stanozolol, an anabolic steroid. Anabolic steroids are capable of increasing vascular tone, arterial tension, and platelet aggregation; therefore, they are prone to produce atherothrombotic phenomena. Because of young people's widespread use of anabolic steroids, physicians should be aware of this kind of complication.

The effect of ephedra and caffeine on maximal strength and power in resistance-trained athletes / Andrew D. Williams, Paul J. Cribb, Matthew B. Cooke, Alan Hayes. - (Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 22 (2008) 2 (March); p. 464-470)

• PMID: 18550961
• DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181660320

Abstract

Caffeine and ephedrine-related alkaloids recently have been removed from International Olympic Committee banned substances lists, whereas ephedrine itself is now permissible at urinary concentrations less than 10 mug.mL. The changes to the list may contribute to an increased use of caffeine and ephedra as ergogenic aids by athletes. Consequently, we sought to investigate the effects of ingesting caffeine (C) or a combination of ephedra and caffeine (C + E) on muscular strength and anaerobic power using a double-blind, crossover design. Forty-five minutes after ingesting a glucose placebo (P: 300 mg), C (300 mg) or C + E (300 mg + 60 mg), 9 resistance-trained male participants were tested for maximal strength by bench press [BP; 1 repetition maximum (1RM)] and latissimus dorsi pull down (LP; 1RM). Subjects also performed repeated repetitions at 80% of 1RM on both BP and LP until exhaustion. After this test, subjects underwent a 30-second Wingate test to determine peak anaerobic cycling power, mean power, and fatigue index. Although subjects reported increased alertness and enhanced mood after supplementation with caffeine and ephedra, there were no significant differences between any of the treatments in muscle strength, muscle endurance, or peak anaerobic power. Our results do not support the contention that supplementation with ephedra or caffeine will enhance either muscle strength or anaerobic exercise performance.

The Federazione Italiana Tennis (FIT), the Italian Tennis Federation, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Nicola Gambi after his samples, provided on 22 July and 22 August 2007, tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine.

After notification the Athlete was provisional suspended and heard by the Ufficio di Procura Antidoping (UPA), the CONI Anti-Doping Prosecution Office. The Athlete admitted that he used cocaine 5 days before the doping tests and without intention to enhance sport performance.
The FIT Federal Appeal Court accepted the Athlete's statement and decided on 25 January 2008 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

Hereafter the CONI Anti-Doping Prosecution Office (UPA) and WADA appealed the decision of the FIT Federal Appeal Court with the CONI Anti-Doping Supreme Court. UPA and WADA requested to set aside the decision of the FIT Federal Appeal Court 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 Athletes sample is an anti-doping rule violation. The Court concludes that the Athlete acted negligently and rejects the Athlete’s statement that he had no intention to enhance his sport performance.
Therefore the CONI Anti-Doping Supreme Court decides to set aside the FIT Federal Appeal Court Decision of 25 January 2007 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 14 September 2007.

Softball New Zealand has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance morphine.

Respondent stated she had suffered severe toothache before and during a tournament in China. The Tribunal accepted evidence that Respondent’s room-mate at the tournament had supplied her with two Nurofen Plus tablets to help her alleviate her toothache. The Tribunal heard and accepted expert scientific evidence that codeine (an active ingredient in these tablets) metabolises into morphine in a person’s system (at different rates and levels depending on the individual). Respondent’s drug test result returned readings for both codeine and morphine. The Tribunal accepted further expert scientific evidence that Respondent’s morphine reading in the drug test was consistent with her having taken the two codeine based tablets (based upon codeine/morphine ratios commonly accepted in the scientific literature). After hearing evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the tablets were the source of the morphine in Respondent’s test (as a result of the codeine metabolising into morphine in Respondent’s system).

The Sports Tribunal of New Zealand were satisfied that Respondent had established, on the balance of probabilities, that she was not at fault in taking the tablets. The Tribunal concludes that there was no fault or negligence on the part of Respondent, and therefore no penalty (such as suspension or ineligibility) was imposed.

In April 2007 the Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC), the Italian Football Federation, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Giuoco Galcio after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine.
After notification the Athlete was provisional suspended and heard by the CONI Anti-Doping Prosecution Office. The Athlete denied the use of cocaine and stated that the positive test was the result of a lidocaine crème used as a local anaesthetic in a tattoo shop. The Athlete argued that the substance lidocaine does not enhance sport performance.
On 6 July 2007 The FICG National Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Athlete appealed the decision with the FIGC Federal Court of Justice, which decided on 30 July 2007 to reduce the sanction to 1 year.

Hereafter WADA appealed the decision of the FIGC Federal Court of Justice 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 considered the Athlete’s incomplete statements and concludes that the Athlete failed to cooperate substantially in this case. Therefore the CONI Anti-Doping Supreme Court decides to set aside the FIGC Federal Court Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Facts
The Royal Dutch Billiards Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Biljartbond, KNBB) reported a violation of the Anti-Doping Code. During a competition match the defendant was tested, his A-sample was found positive for the prohibited substance metoprolol.
The oral hearing took place on February 25, 2008, the defendant was present, and he presented his medical record.

History
He did ask for dispensation due to his history of a heart disease, at first this form was sent to the wrong address but later he sent the form correctly.
The defendant did enter the names of the medicine on the form handed out during the doping test.
A small error was made in handling the paper work, the wrong laboratory was mentioned but this was corrected and regarded as insignificant.
The defendant wasn't aware that his medication could have a prohibited substance; the KNBB never provided sufficient information about this. The KNBB claims information is also available on their website.

In his considerations the disciplinary committee takes into account that the defendant did not arranged his dispensation for medical uses correctly, but his heart condition and medicine use are a fact.

Decision
The decision of the Disciplinary Committee, realizing it's a first offence, is a warning and reprimand, no period of ineligibility. Legal cost and fees only partly have to be borne by the defendant.