Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Jarret Lukin (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On November 3, 2006, the Athlete competed in a hockey game in Calgary, Alberta, between the U of C and the University of Regina and was randomly selected for no advance notice in-competition doping control. He attended a doping control and provided an urine sample for testing as required. His sample showed the presence of a cocaine metabolite. Cocaine is a prohibited substance according to the 2006 WADA Prohibited List.

History
The Athlete provided a written confirmation of his use of cocaine. He also wrote that he had not used the prohibited substance to enhance his performance in sport. His use of the prohibited substance was in a social setting.

Decision
The period of ineligibility is two years commencing November 28,2006. The Athlete is permanently ineligible to receive any direct financial support provided by the Government of Canada.

Costs
Neither party made any submission regarding costs. Accordingly, each party shall bear its own costs of the hearing.

After two editions of the Tour de France cycling race in 1998 and 1999, the leftover samples from those tested as part of the anti-doping controls were preserved, with the agreement of the athletes, for scientific research purposes.
The French LNDD laboratory performed two studies for research purposes on these samples to improve the precision and reliability of the test results, particularly as regards the detection of EPO. The results of the first study (on the samples from 1998) were published in 2000 in the scientific journal Nature, without producing any reaction from the media or the athletes.
The results of the second study (on the samples from 1999) were made public, not by a scientific publication, but by a press article published in the French sports daily L’Equipe on 23 August 2005, under the title “le mensonge d’Armstrong” (“Armstrong’s lie”), revealing that traces of EPO had been found six times in the urine of American cyclist Lance Armstrong, winner of the Tour in 1999.

In the months which followed, the UCI tasked a Dutch lawyer, the former Director of the Dutch Anti-Doping Agency, with conducting an investigation. The report from this investigation did not succeed in proving how the journalist had been able to obtain the different information, even though it did wonder for what reason the additional information identifying the samples used had been included with the scientific report. As a result, the report recommended that the UCI take no disciplinary measures against the cyclists, and Mr Armstrong in particular, on the basis of the LNDD study results.

From all the press articles published after this affair, it appears that IOC-member Mr Richard Pound made statements to the media which were likely to enable journalists to draw negative conclusions concerning the integrity of Mr Armstrong.

On 3 July 2006, the IOC Ethics Commission received a complaint from Mr Lance Armstrong jointly against Mr Richard Pound, IOC member and Chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), and against WADA itself. Attached to this complaint was a copy of the report on the “independent investigation – analysis samples from the 1999 Tour de France” by Mr Emile Vrijman, a lawyer in The Hague (NL), and the appeal submitted by Mr Levinstein before the IOC Executive Board on 20 June 2006, based on the conclusions of this investigation.

Mr Armstrong’s complaint is founded essentially on the report of the “independent investigation – analysis samples from the 1999 Tour de France”. From reading the conclusions of this report, it is clear that there is no personal reproach against IOC-member Mr Richard Pound for his activity.
From the press cuttings attached to the complaint, it appears that Mr Richard Pound made personal statements which could have been regarded as likely to impugn the probity of an athlete, given the high profile of the sports personalities in question.

The IOC Ethics Commission recommends that the IOC Executive Board remind IOC-member Mr Richard Pound of the obligation to exercise greater prudence consistent with the Olympic spirit when making public pronouncements that may affect the reputation of others.

After deliberating in accordance with its Statutes, the IOC Ethics Commission decides:
1.) to declare itself to have no jurisdiction regarding the complaint made against the World Anti-Doping Agency;
2.) to recommend that the IOC Executive Board remind Mr Richard Pound, IOC member, of the obligation to exercise greater prudence consistent with the Olympic spirit when making public pronouncements that may affect the reputation of others.

Abuse of anabolic-androgenic steroids and bodybuilding acne : an underestimated health problem / Bodo Melnik, Thomas Jansen, Stephan Grabbe. - (Journal of the German Society of Dermatology 5 (2007) 2 (February); p. 110-117).
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1610-0387.2007.06176.x

abstract:

Abuse of anabolic‐androgenic steroids (AAS) by members of fitness centers and others in Germany has reached alarming dimensions. The health care system provides the illegal AAS to 48.1 % of abusers. Physicians are involved in illegal prescription of AAS and monitoring of 32.1 % of AAS abusers. Besides health‐threatening cardiovascular, hepatotoxic and psychiatric long‐term side effects of AAS, acne occurs in about 50 % of AAS abusers and is an important clinical indicator of AAS abuse, especially in young men 18‐26 years of age. Both acne conglobata and acne fulminans can be induced by AAS abuse. The dermatologist should recognize bodybuilding acne, address the AAS abuse, and warn the patient about other potential hazards.

15th Asian Games, Doha, Qatar 1-15 December 2006 : Report of the World Anti-Doping Agency Independent Observer Team / Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2007

This study examined intermediate and high school students’ attitudes toward and behavior regarding steroids and sports supplements use with a sample of junior high school and high school students from Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island, New York. Behavior was measured by questions about respondents’ future steroid use, and current sports supplements use. Attitudes were measured through respondents’ reactions to whether it was appropriate for their peers and themselves to use steroids and sports supplements in a variety of corporeal situations, and the degree to which use of these substances impacted fairness and health issues. Respondents’ also decided whether the use of steroids and sports supplements was legitimate in three specific scenarios involving fictitious male and female high school students, and gave reasons for their decisions. The respondents’ answers and choices were described and assessed for the effect of gender and level of school (junior high school and senior high school). The effect of their clique identity on steroids and sports supplements attitudes and behavior was also assessed. The potential relationship between sports supplements and steroid use was described, and finally a profile presented of the respondents who predicted that they would be very likely to use steroids in the future.

The most consistent finding in the descriptive phase of the results was the negative reaction to steroid use by the great majority of respondents. Steroid use was perceived as inappropriate across all the descriptive measures, for respondents’ own behavior, the behavior of their peers, for specific fairness and health issues, and in the fictitious athletic and fitness scenarios. This rejection of steroid use was made independent of gender and level of school, although a small but statistically significant age effect was found. While some statistically significant male and female differences were found, these were differences of degree not differences in direction. Specifically, male and female participants never differed in their endorsement of steroid use (i.e., one group in favor and the other group against), only in the degree to which they felt that steroid use was wrong. Differences of degree also characterized the few differences between junior high school and high school participants. The negative attitudes about steroid use were also reflected in the clique analysis. This analysis showed some clique effects but no differences in direction. Members of the “jock” and “regular’ cliques expressed the most negative views about steroid use, while members of the “troublemakers” group expressed the least negative views.

Related cases:
FISA 2008 FISA vs Russian Rowing Federation (1)
January 27, 2008
FISA 2008 FISA vs Russian Rowing Federation (2)
April 4, 2008

In September 2007 the International Federation of Rowing Associations (FISA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Olga Samulenkova after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.
FISA notified the Athlete and ordered a provisional suspension. The Athlete did not appear for the FISA Doping Hearing Panel but filed a statement in her defence.

The Athlete submitted a few general claims that the testing procedure might have been incorrectly conducted but did not mention this on the doping control form. The Panel concludes that there is no challenge to the test result and the Athlete failed to explain the finding of the presence of the prohibited substance in her body.
Therefore the FISA Doping Hearing Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 23 July 2006.

Facts
The French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M13 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on May 20, 2006, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of a metabolite of nandrolone and a metabolite of Stanozolol. Nandrolone and stanozolol are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent didn't provide any information about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

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 sport federations.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M12 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on May 13, 2006, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The samples showed the presence of althiazide, canrenone, bumetanide, clenbuterol and a metabolite of mesterolone. These substances are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent had mentioned the use of two pharmaceurtical products, one of these products contained a stimulant which was not detected during the doping control. He used it because of problems with his veins, for which he has medical certificates. However only the use of althiazide is consistent for a therapeutic justification.

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 sport federations.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Federation of Workers and Amateurs in sports (Fédération Sportive et Gymnique du Travail (FSGT) charges respondent M11 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling contest on July 12, 2006, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis showed the presence of a metabolite of budesonide. Budesonide is prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent used medication for problems with breathing, this medication contained the prohibited substance. He has transmitted the results of tests realized by a pulmonologist. However he had failed to mention the used product on the doping control form.

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 sport federations.
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 of Undersea Studies and Sports (Fédération Française d'Etudes et de Sports Sous Marins, FFESSM) charges respondent M10 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an event on March 11, 2006, respondent didn't attend the doping control.

History
Respondent was summoned to attend the doping control but he
made an agreement not to attend the control. He had just beaten a record. He didn't provide any explanation for not attending the doping control.

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