In July 2006 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Floyd Landis after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold and he was fired from the Phonak team on 5 August 2006.

As a result on 20 September 2007 the American Arbitrators Association Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. This sanction was uphold by the Court of Arbitration for Sport on 30 June 2008 when appealed by the Athlete in October 2007.

Previously Mr Richard Pound, IOC member and Chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) made comments in 4 press articles about Floyd Landis at the time that he was accused of an anti-doping rule violation.

In May 2007 the Athlete file a complaint against Mr. Richard Pound and against WADA with the Ethics Commission of the International Olympic Committee.

The Athlete accused Mr Richard Pound of being in breach of the fundamental principles of the Olympic Charter, the World Anti-Doping Code and the IOC Code of Ethics, and in particular of having failed to:
- respect the rights of athletes;
- safeguard the dignity of individuals involved in the Olympic Movement;
- abide by his duty not to engage in actions causing mental injury to the participants;
- scrupulously respect the provisions of the World Anti-Doping Code and the related rules and regulations, and their obligations not to harass the participants.

The Ethics Commission holds that only one article quoting Mr. Richard Pound needs to be taken into consideration. Here the Ethics Commission observes that, at the time that Mr Richard Pound made his comment to the journalist from Bicycling magazine, the anti-doping rule violation by Mr Floyd Landis had not been established, as the case was still pending; he was merely accused of an anti-doping rule violation. The Ethics Commission thus notes that, in June 2007, Mr Floyd Landis still benefited from the fundamental principle of being “presumed innocent”.

The Ethics Commission notes that it lacks jurisdiction with regard to the part of the complaint against WADA, pursuant to the World Anti-Doping Code.

Therefore the IOC Ethics Commission decides on 21 January 2008:

1.) to declare that it has no jurisdiction with regard to the complaint against the World Anti-Doping Agency, pursuant to the World Anti-Doping Code;
2.) to recommend that the IOC Executive Board remind Mr Richard Pound, IOC member, of the need to comply with the duty of reserve indispensable to respecting Olympism when making public statements which could affect the reputation of others, in particular when an anti-doping rules violation by an athlete has not yet been established.

Related case:
FISA 2008 FISA vs Anastasia Fatina & Anastasia Karabelshchikova
February 5, 2008
FISA 2008 FISA vs Russian Rowing Federation (1)
January 27, 2008
FISA 2008 FISA vs Russian Rowing Federation (2)
April 4, 2008

The International Federation of Rowing Associations (FISA) was informed that medical materials were found in a rubbish bin near the hotel used by the Russian team in Lucerne during the World Cup Regatta from 13-15 July 2007.
This comprised intravenous infusion equipment, along with legal substances such as creatine and fructose.
The materials were taken to the Anti-Doping Laboratory in Lausanne and analysed. Hereafter the DNA of three of the blood samples, provided by the Russian Athlete’s, matched with the DNA samples from the blood found on the needles.

In September 2007 the International Federation of Rowing Associations (FISA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athletes Alexander Litvintchev, Evgeny Luzyanin and Ivan Podshivalov for intravenous infusion with no legitimate medical treatment. FISA notified the Athletes and a provisional suspension was ordered.
The president of the Russian Rowing Federation filed statements in their defence and appeared for the FISA Doping Hearing Panel on behalf of the Athletes.

FISA had received a document from the Russian Rowing Federation which stated that the team doctor did not use intravenous injections to introduce substances to the Athletes. However in a second document the former team doctor admitted his involvement with intravenous infusions and he did administer intravenous infusions to these three Athletes as prescribed medical treatment for dehydration and convulsions. In a third document the president of the Russian Rowing Federation stated, in contradiction with the first document, that intravenous infusions took place as legitimate medical treatment administered by the team doctor.

On the basis of the medical reports provided by the Russian Federation and the advice of the medical experts, the Panel concludes that the Athletes used a prohibited method, intravenous infusion, for sports recovery purposes, rather than medical treatment. The intravenous infusion of a fructose substance is not a remedy for the illness diagnosed and therefore not a legitimate medical treatment. The Panel notes that the contradiction in the Russian statements does raise questions as to the reliability of the submitted evidence.
The FISA Doping Hearing Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete’s, starting on 27 August 2007.

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'Athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M03 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on October 25 en 26, 2009, respondent was summoned for doping test purposes. However the respondent refused to attend.

History
The respondent didn't attend the doping control and was difficult to get in touch with. Also his explanations were doubtful and his actions are seen as a deliberate evasion of the doping control. On April 12, 2007, he had received a sanction by the disciplinary committee of the FFA: a period of ineligibility of six months, with three months reprieve.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the French sport federations.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served by the decision of the appeal committee of May 4, 2007.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Football Federation (Fédération Française de Football Américain, FFFA) charges respondent M02 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on February 24, 2007, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis 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 no intention to enhance sport performance.

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

Facts
The French Baseball and Softball Federation (Fédération Française de Baseball et Softball, FFBS) charges respondent M01 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on May 20, 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 explains that he uses cannabis five or six times a day, he uses it in a recreational setting and only out of the sports season.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of nine months, as pronounced in the decision dated September 29, 2007, by the disciplinary committee of the FFBS but extended to all relevant French sport organizations.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the time already served by the voluntary suspension and the decision of September 29, 2007.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Related cases:
CAS 2007/A/1376 & 1370 FIFA & WADA vs Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebo (STJD) & Confederacao Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) & Ricardo Lucas Dodô
September 11, 2008

In June 2007 the Confederaçãoo Brasileira de Futebol (CBF), the Brazilian Football Confederation, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ricardo Lucas Dodô after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance fenproporex.
On 24 July 2007 the CBF Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a 120 day period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Athlete appealed against this decision with the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD), the Brazilian High Sports Court of Football, which dismissed the CBF decision on 2 August 2007 due to the Athlete was victim of a contamination without acting negligent.

In September 2007 both FIFA and WADA appealed the STJD decision of 2 August 2007 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). FIFA and WADA requested the CAS Panel to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. On 11 September 2008 the CAS Panel decided to dismiss the STJD decision of 2 August 2007 and to impose a 23 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete (CAS 2007/A/1370 & 1376).

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS Decision of 11 September 2008 with the Swiss Federal Court. The Athlete requested the Court to dismiss the CAS Decision and argued that CAS has no jurisdiction due to STJD decisions are undisputable for FIFA affiliated bodies.
However 9 January 2009 the Swiss Federal Court rules that CAS has jurisdiction and therefore dismissed the Athlete’s Appeal.

Anabolic–androgenic steroid dependence? : Insights from animals and humans / Ruth I. Wood. – (Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 29 (2008) 29 (October); p. 490-506)

• doi: 10.1016/j.yfrne.2007.12.002

Content:
1.) Breakfast of champions: recent history and prevalence of AAS use
2.) What me worry? Risks and side effects of steroid use
3.) Just say no: AAS reinforcement and dependence in humans
4.) Betcha can’t take just one: stacks and supplements
5.) Gym rats: AAS reinforcement and dependence in animals
5.1.) A few provisos, a couple of quid pro quos
5.2.) Not your father’s drugs: sex differences and effects of circulating androgens
6.) Can’t beat the real thing: reinforcing effects of AAS vs testosterone and its metabolites
7.) This is your brain on steroids: central targets of AAS action
7.1.) Dopamine
7.2.) GABA
7.3.) Serotonin
7.4.) Opioids
8.) The bottom line: what have we learned?

Anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) are drugs of abuse. They are taken in large quantities by athletes and others to increase performance, with negative health consequences. As a result, in 1991 testosterone and related AAS were declared controlled substances. However, the relative abuse and dependence liability of AAS have not been fully characterized. In humans, it is difficult to separate the direct psychoactive effects of AAS from reinforcement due to their systemic anabolic effects. However, using conditioned place preference and self-administration, studies in animals have demonstrated that AAS are reinforcing in a context where athletic performance is irrelevant. Furthermore, AAS share brain sites of action and neurotransmitter systems in common with other drugs of abuse. In particular, recent evidence links AAS with opioids. In humans, AAS abuse is associated with prescription opioid use. In animals, AAS overdose produces symptoms resembling opioid overdose, and AAS modify the activity of the endogenous opioid system.

• CAS 2007/A/1286 Johannes Eder vs International Olympic Committee
• CAS 2007/A/1288 Martin Tauber vs International Olympic Committee
• CAS 2007/A/1289 Jürgen Pinter vs International Olympic Committee
  
  CAS 2007/A/1286 Johannes Eder v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) & CAS 2007/A/1288 Martin Tauber v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) & CAS 2007/A/1289 Jürgen Pinter v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)
  
  

• Cross-country skiing
• Doping (intravenous infusion)
• Use and possession of a Prohibited Method
• Due process
• Prohibition of a second trial
• Standard of proof
• Legitimate acute medical treatment
• Concept of “possession”
• Concept of “acceptable justification”
• Complicity

1. Article R57 of the CAS Code gives a Panel full power to review the facts and the law of the case. As a result, the Panel hears the case de novo, without being limited by the submissions and evidence that was available to the previous instance. Accordingly, even if there had been a lack of due process in the proceedings before the previous instance, any such deficiencies are cured by the CAS in its hearing of the full appeal.

2. Article 4 of Protocol 7 of the ECHR is restricted in its application to criminal proceedings brought by the same State. Accordingly, it is inapplicable to arbitration proceedings.

3. There is very little practical difference between the “balance of probability” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” standards of proof, particularly when read with the phrase “bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made”. Pursuant to this interpretation and the preceding CAS jurisprudence, the Respondent is required to prove its allegations with evidence that is sufficient to comfortably satisfy the Panel in light of the seriousness and consequences of the allegations made against the Appellant.

4. The administration of saline infusions in order to ensure that haemoglobin levels are within the range provided by the applicable regulations is not “legitimate acute medical treatment”.

5. The concept of “possession” within the meaning of Article 2.6.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Regulations must be considered in light of surrounding circumstances. Possession of a Prohibited Method is proved where it can be shown to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that, in all the circumstances, an athlete was in possession, either physical or constructive, of items which would enable that athlete to engage in a Prohibited Method. It is not necessary to establish the intent to use the Prohibited Method in addition to establishing actual or constructive possession.

6. “Other acceptable justification” is intended to cover situations in which emergency medical treatment is required, so that there is no opportunity to apply for a TUE. In the absence of a physical examination by a medical practitioner, the self-treatment of diarrhoea is not an “acceptable justification”. Likewise, in the absence of a FIS dispensation and if no protective ban has previously been issued, naturally high haemoglobin levels do not constitute an “acceptable justification”.

7. According to Swiss law, there are two types of conduct that may amount to “joint causation” or being an “accessory” to a tortious act: (1) active, physical assistance, or (2) psychological assistance. Such conduct is the first element of joint causation of damage. The second element under the Swiss Code requires that the assistance rendered by the accessory contributes to the damage caused.

8. In light of the plain language of the second part of Article 2.8 of the IOC Anti-Doping Regulations, an athlete will not only violate Article 2.8 if he or she is found to have assisted, encouraged, aided, abetted, covered up or engaged in “any other type of complicity” specifically in relation to the ADR violation(s) of another athlete (“horizontal complicity”); he or she will also violate Article 2.8 through “vertical complicity”, by which an athlete engages in an ADR violation that is facilitated by a coach or support staff, in circumstances where that coach or support staff also similarly facilitated the ADR violations of other athletes.

On 26 February 2002, shortly after the Salt Lake 2002 Olympic Winter Games, various items were found by a cleaner in a chalet in Midway, Utah, which was occupied by the Austrian cross-country and biathlon coach Walter Mayer along with his wife. It was subsequently determined that the chalet had been frequently visited by members of the Austrian cross-country and biathlon teams.

In light of the discovery of various items of equipment in Mayer’s chalet in Salt Lake City following the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games the IOC Board sanctioned on 26 May 2002 the Austrian team coach, the team chiropractor, and two Austrian athletes.

4 years later during the Torino 2006 Olympic Winter Games, the Italian police discovered numerous materials in the accommodation of several Austrian athletes and support staff which evidenced the possession of prohibited methods and substances.

Pursuant to the recommendations made by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, the IOC Executive Board on 25 April 2007 disqualified and declared ineligible for all future Olympic Games the following athletes:

• Roland Diethart (cross-country);
• Johannes Eder (cross-country);
• Jürgen Pinter (cross-country);
• Martin Tauber (cross-country);
• Wolfgang Perner (biathlon); and
• Wolfgang Rottmann (biathlon).

Hereafter the Austrian athletes Eder, Tauber and Pinter appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). They requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed IOC Decision.

The athletes each challenged the respective decision of the IOC Board on the basis that there was a lack of due process:

• the Board failed to give grounds for its decision;
• it did not provide the athletes with a right of audience;
• it delegated its hearing function to the IOC Disciplinary Commission (in violation of the ECHR); and
• its decision was based on insufficient evidence.

The Panel considers whether or not each of the athletes assisted, encouraged, aided, abetted or covered up the possession violations of his fellow Appellants in such a way as to contribute to causing his fellow athletes’ possession violations.

The IOC has proven to the Panel’s comfortable satisfaction that each athletes met these standards. The evidence demonstrate a broad pattern of cooperation and common activity, with the other athletes and with the coaches, in the possession of the Prohibited Method of blood doping.

The Panel holds that the anti-doping rule violations committed by the athletes in this case are extremely serious. The fact that the athletes engaged in these offences after the Salt Lake City affair exacerbates the seriousness of their anti-doping rule violations and illustrates that the athletes have failed to learn from the mistakes of members of the former Austrian cross-country ski team.

The Panel deems that in these circumstances, the athletes have shown a complete disregard for the principles of the Olympic Games and for the IOC ADR that protects the interests of all athletes at the Olympic Games.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 January 2008 that:

1.) The appeals filed by Johannes Eder, Martin Tauber and Jürgen Pinter against the decisions rendered on 25 April 2007 by the IOC Executive Board are dismissed.

2.) The decisions of the IOC Executive Board of 25 April 2007 declaring each of the Appellants to be ineligible permanently for all future Olympic Games in any capacity are affirmed.

3.) The counterclaim filed by Jürgen Pinter is denied.

(…)

Facts
Martina Hinges (player) was reported for an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV). An urine sample taken during the Wimbledon Championship 2007 tested positive for the metabolite of cocaine (benzoylecgonine). Cocaine is a prohibited substance in competition. An oral hearing in respect of the charge took place in London on December 11 and 12, 2007.

History
The player was never been reported for a doping offence. She has no idea how the substance entered her body, also the measured substance was very low. She challenged the procedure of sample taking. She did not admit that the sample tested was provided by her, nor that the laboratory results were reliable. She also contended that if the ITF could prove that she had committed a doping offence, she bore “no fault or negligence” or “no significant fault or negligence” for the offence.

The Tribunal’s Ruling:
1. confirms the commission of the doping offence specified in the notice of charge set out in the ITF’s letter to the player dated October 1, 2007, namely that a prohibited substance, benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine, has been found to be present in the urine sample that the player provided at the Wimbledon Championships on 29 June 2007;
2. orders that the player’s individual results in the ladies’ singles competition must be disqualified in respect of the 2007 Wimbledon
Championships, and in consequence rules that the prize money and ranking points obtained by the player through her participation in that
competition must be forfeited;
3. orders, further, that the player’s individual results in all singles and doubles competitions subsequent to the 2007 Wimbledon Championships shall be disqualified and all prize money (half the prize money awarded to the pair in the case of doubles competitions) and ranking points in respect of those competitions forfeited;
4. declares that the player shall be ineligible for a period of two years commencing on 1 October 2007 from participating in any capacity in any event or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation program) authorized by the ITF or any national or regional entity which is a member of or is recognized by the ITF as the entity governing the sport of tennis in that nation or region.

World Anti-Doping Code International Standard for Laboratories / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2008. - (International Standard for Laboratories (ISL), version 5.0, in force 1 January 2008)