Report to the commissioner of baseball of an independent investigation into the illegal use of steroids and other performance enhancing substances by players in major league baseball / George J. Mitchell. - Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, 2007

The Report, informally known as the "Mitchell Report," is the result of former Democratic United States Senator from Maine George J. Mitchell's 21-month investigation into the use of anabolic steroids and human growth hormone (HGH) in Major League Baseball (MLB). The 409-page report, released on December 13, 2007, covers the history of the use of illegal performance-enhancing substances by players and the effectiveness of the MLB Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program. The report also advances certain recommendations regarding the handling of past illegal drug use and future prevention practices. In addition, the report names 89 MLB players who are alleged to have used steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs.

The report describes motivations for its preparation, including health effects of steroids, legal issues, fair play, and reports that baseball players acted as role models for child athletes. For example, after news coverage in August 1998 that Mark McGwire had used the then-legal androstenedione, a steroid precursor, sales of the supplement increased over 1000%, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse reported that 8% of male high school senior athletes had used androstenedione in 2001.

Mitchell reported that during the random testing in 2003, 5 to 7 percent of players tested positive for steroid use. Players on the forty-man roster of major league teams were exempt from testing until 2004. One player is quoted: "Forty-man [roster] guys already have all of the [major league] club advantages, and then they could use steroids . . . it was not a level playing field."

According to the report, after mandatory random testing began in 2004, HGH became the substance of choice among players, as it was not then detectable in tests. Also, it was noted that at least one player from each of the thirty Major League Baseball teams was involved in the alleged violations

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M61 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on February 25, 2007, respondent provided a sample for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of betamethasone which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent had used a pharmaceutical product containing betamethasone. He had use the remnants of a product he had used years ago but was unable to contact the health specialist who had described it. The reason why he had used it was because of toothache. He has statements of his general practitioner and two statements by a dental surgeon.
The panel regards this as a case of self medication.

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 FFC.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served by the sanction from the disciplinary committee of the FFC, dated July 27, 2007, and the time served in voluntary suspension.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Triathlon Federation (Fédération Française de Triathlon, FFTri) charges respondent M59 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on May 19, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes.

History
The respondent had mentioned the use of a pharmaceutical product on the doping control form, she was using it for a therapeutic reason. There was no intention to enhance sport performance. A Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) was delivered by the AFLD on July 4, 2007, to use the product for therapeutic purposes. It mentioned the method of administration and the inhalation dosage: two puffs before exercise or when needed, which seems consistent, given the statements of the respondent and the salbutamol concentration detected in the urine.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision (warning) of the disciplinary committee dated September 4, 2007, is cancelled.
2. The present decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Federation for Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo and Associated Disciplines (Fédération Française de Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo et Disciplines Associées FFJDA) charges respondent M58 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a judo tournament on June 3, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of furosemide which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent had used a pharmaceutical product containing furosemide to treat a swollen ankle. He didn't mention the use of this product on the doping control form, although he as a prescription from a general practitioner. However the medical prescription (used for arterial hypertension and renal cedemes of cardiac or liver) doesn't match the treatment for a swollen ankle.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one year 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.
2. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Pétanque Federation (Fédération Française de pétanque et jeu provençal, FFPJP)) charges respondent M57 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on May 6, 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.

History
The respondent uses cannabis occasionally, he had used it in the weekend before the match in a social setting. There was no intention to enhance sport performance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFPJP.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served by the sanction of the decision dated September 28, 2007,
3. The decision will start on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération française d'athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M56 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletic event on May 17, 2009, respondent didn't attend the doping control after the match.

History
The respondent was taking flight at the sight of the sampler doctor after the finish who tried to perform the doping control. He claims to be running for recovery together with a friend, but his friend testified he was not running with him but going to change his outfit in his car, which means a contradiction.

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

The Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO) was an American company led by founder and owner Victor Conte. BALCO marketed tetrahydrogestrinone (THG, known als the "Clear"), a then-undetected, performance-enhancing steroid. BALCO had supplied a number of high-profile sports stars from the United States and Europe with the Clear and human growth hormone for several years.
Following allegations made by Victor Conte in relation to doping offences being committed, in particular in relation to the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the IOC established a Disciplinary Commission to investigate the consequences of such allegations and the activities of the BALCO Laboratory in relation to the Olympic Games.

The IOC received in October 2007, a document, entitled “Acceptance of Sanction”, which had been signed by Ms Jones on 8 October 2007. Pursuant to such document, Ms Jones, amongst other things:
1.) acknowledged that she “used the prohibited substance known as the “clear” prior to, during and after the 2000 Olympic Games…”;
2.) accepted a “two (2) year period of ineligibility […] beginning on [8 October 2007]”;
3.) accepted a “disqualification of all competitive results obtained on or subsequent to September 1, 2000, including forfeiture of all medals, results, points and prizes”; and
4.) accepted “a two (2) year period of ineligibility, beginning on [8 October 2007], from participating or coaching in U.S. Olympic […] Trials, being a member of any U.S. Olympic […] Team […]”.

Ms Jones, via the USOC, returned to the IOC the five medals that she won at the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games.
By letter dated 28 November 2007, the President of the IAAF informed the President of the IOC that the IAAF Council confirmed the following consequences (amongst others) in the case of Ms Jones:
“- A 2-year period of ineligibility beginning on the date of her acceptance of sanction
dated 8 October 2007, i.e. until 7 October 2009.
- Disqualification of Ms Jones from all competitions on or subsequent to 1 September 2000;
- Annulment of all her individual competitive results on or subsequent to 1 September 2000;
- Annulment of the results of all relay teams in which she competed in IAAF competitions on or subsequent to 1 September 2000; and
- Forfeiture and return of all awards and medals obtained in relation to the above competitions.”

The IOC Disciplinary Commission notes the fact that Ms Jones blatantly lied for a number of years concerning her taking prohibited substances. The Disciplinary Commission also notes that, after being under much pressure to do so, Ms Jones has recently admitted to having committed anti-doping rule violations.
The Disciplinary Commission considers that, in addition to the sanctions recommended in relation to the 2000 Sydney and 2004 Athens Olympic Games, sanctions should also be imposed against Ms Jones in relation to future Olympic Games. The Disciplinary Commission is of the view that Ms Jones should not be eligible for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games in any capacity – i.e. she should not receive accreditation as an athlete, coach, official, journalist or otherwise.

Therefore the IOC Executive Board, as recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, decides that:
1.) the Athlete Marion Jones be disqualified from the following events in which she competed at the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games in the sport of athletics:
- 100m, where she placed 1st;
- 200m, where she placed 1st;
- 4 x 400m relay, where the team she was on placed 1st;
- 4 x 100m relay, where the team she was on placed 3rd; and
- Long jump, where she placed 3rd.
2.) The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) be requested to return to the IOC the diplomas awarded to Ms Jones in the above-noted events (it being acknowledged that the USOC has already returned to the IOC the medals won by Ms Jones in such events).
3.) Ms Jones be disqualified from the following event in which she competed at the 2004 Athens Olympic Games in the sport of athletics:
- Long jump, where she placed 5th
4.) The USOC be requested to return to the IOC the diploma awarded to Ms Jones in the above-noted event.
5.) The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) be requested to take the appropriate steps so that its records reflect the above.
6.) Ms Jones be ineligible for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games in any capacity.
7.) Ms Jones be notified that the IOC reserves its rights to consider possible further sanctions against her, in particular permanent ineligibility for all future Olympic Games in any capacity, pending the outcome of the BALCO investigation.
8.) The issue of adjusting the rankings of the athletes that finished behind Ms Jones in the individual events referred to above be addressed by the IOC Executive Board in due course, pending the IOC receiving full access to the documentation concerning the BALCO case.

Members of the Panel have deliberated and, unanimously, reached the following conclusions:
1. The Gent and Cologne laboratories have violated ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2;
2. Claimant, USADA, has not demonstrated to the Panel's comfortable satisfaction that this violation did not cause Ms. Jenkins' adverse analytical finding;
3. The testing results of Respondent, LaTasha Jenkins, are set aside.

CAS 2007/A/1365 WADA v/FILA & Mohamed Ibrahim Abdelfattah

Related case:

CAS 2008_A_1470 WADA vs FILA & Mohamed Ibrahim Abdelfattah
September 3, 2008

In July 2007 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Egyptian wrestler Mohamed Ibrahim Abdelfattah after he refused to provide a sample to USADA agents acting as representative of WADA.

Consequently the International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles (FILA) decided on 31 July 2007 to impose only a warning on the Athlete for his refusal.

Hereafter in August 2007 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the decision of FILA with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the CAS Panel to set aside the FILA decision of 31 July 2007 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Also in this case a number of FILA disciplinary decisions were rendered between July 2007 and September 2007 regarding the Athlete’s provisional suspension and the imposition of a 6 months sanction.

The Panel establishes that the Appealed Decision was a ‘final’ decision and that the appeal filed by WADA was admissible. The Panel finds that the Appealed Decision was adopted by a FILA body - the Executive Committee - which clearly did not hold the power and competence to adopt such a disciplinary decision. Accordingly, the Panel deems the Appealed Decision to be null and void.

The Panel determines to refer the case back to FILA, so that the FILA Federal Appeal Commission may adopt a final disciplinary decision with regard to the Athlete's case. Thereafter, any dissatisfied party will still have the right to appeal before the CAS.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 11 December 2007 that:

1.) The Appeal of WADA against the FILA Executive Committee's decision of 31 July 2007 is admissible.

2.) The FILA Executive Committee's decision of 31 July 2007 is set aside.

3.) The case of Mr Mohammed Ibrahim Abdelfattah is referred back to FILA, so that the FILA Federal Appeal Commission may render its decision within the currently pending appellate procedure.

4.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) already paid by WADA and to be retained by the CAS.

5.) FILA shall pay an amount of CHF 1'500 (one thousand five hundred Swiss Francs) to WADA as a contribution towards its costs.

Pharmaceutical treatment of asthma symptoms in elite athletes - doping or therapy? / Vibeke Backer, T. Lund, L. Pedersen. - (Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 17 (2007) 6 (December) ; p. 615-622).

• PMID: 18093034.
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2007.00711.x

Abstract:

Asthma, exercise‐induced bronchoconstriction, and airway hyper‐responsiveness are often found in elite athletes, perhaps as a consequence of their sport or maybe because asthma is a common disorder in young adults. Inhaled β2‐agonists (IBA) are frequently used in elite athletes, but due to regulations introduced by the International Olympic Committee, the use of anti‐asthmatic therapy might change. Drugs that make ergogenic effect persist are prohibited in all athletes, whether or not they take part in competitions and systemic steroids and β2‐agonists are among such drugs. On the other hand, opinion is more divided about the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and IBA. In humans, no effect has been found on the oxygen uptake, performance or distance run with therapeutic doses of IBA, either in asthmatics or non‐asthmatics, whereas others report an ergogenic effect and better lung function of high doses of a β2‐agonist in non‐asthmatics. Anti‐asthmatic treatment is necessary for asthmatics, but should not be used by non‐asthmatic elite athletes due to both possible systemic effects and furthermore, side effects of both ICS and IBA.