Facts
The French Triathlon Federation (Fédération Française de Triathlon, FFTri) charges respondent M02 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on May 14, 2006, a sample was collected for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of budesonide. Budesonide is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent had mentioned on the doping control form a drug
containing the substance found in his urine. Also he has sent the results of several medical tests which indicated asthma and various allergies were diagnosed on him. It appears from the examination of these parts that the treatment with glucocorticosteroids was necessary.

Decision
1. The sanction (acquittal) dated July 26, 2006, by the disciplinary committee of the FFTri doesn't need to be modified.
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 Tamborello (Fédération Française de Jeu de Balle au Tambourin, FFJBT) charges respondent M01 for a violation of the Anti-Doping rules. During a match on January 29, 2006, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of norfenfluramine a metabolite of benfluorex, amiloride and hydrochlorotiazide which are prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The positive test was caused by a treatment by her physician, she hadn't informed him that she was at top level competition. She didn't provide any justification for using the medications with prohibited substances although she claims that the use wasn't for enhancing sport performance.

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

Swiss Federal Court 4P.148_2006 Danilo Hondo vs WADA, UCI, Swiss Cycling & Swiss Olympic
January 10, 2007

Related cases:
CAS 2005/A/922 Danilo Hondo vs Swiss Cycling & Swiss Olympics
CAS 2005/A/923 WADA vs Danilo Hondo & Swiss Olympics
CAS 2005/A/926 UCI vs Danilo Hondo & Swiss Olympics
January 10, 2006

In March 2005 the International Cycling Federation (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Danilo Hondo after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance carphedon. After notification by Swiss Cycling the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Chamber for Dopingcases of Swiss Olympic. On 2 June 2005 the Disciplinary Chamber decided to impose 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, with 1 year suspended for a 5 year period. Also the Disciplinary Chamber sanctioned the Athlete with a CHF 50,000 fine and ordered to pay CHF 5,000 for the procedural costs.

Hereafter in July 2005 the Athlete, UCI and WADA appealed the Swiss Olympic Decision of 2 June 2005 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Considering the Athlete’s arguments the CAS finds that no departure from the ISL occurred in this case; the Athlete failed to establish how the substance entered his system and without grounds for reduction of the sanction.
Considering the arguments of UCI and WADA, the CAS Panel concludes that the UCI Anti-Doping Rules doesn’t allow the imposition by Swiss Olympics of a suspended period of ineligibility, nor the possibility to fine an Athlete guilty of an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides:
1.) to allow the WADA appeal;
2.) to allow the UCI appeal;
3.) to dismiss the appeal of the Athlete Danilo Hondo;
4.) to set aside the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber for Dopingcase of Swiss Olympic of 2 June 2005;
5.) to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 1 April 2005 until 31 March 2007.

In July 2006 the Athlete appealed the CAS Decision of 10 January 2006 with the Swiss Federal Court after his previous appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal Cantonal de Vaud on 16 May 2006.
The Swiss Federal Court considers the Athlete’s arguments and decides on 10 January 2007 to dismiss his appeal.

Metabolism of 4-hydroxyandrostenedione and 4-hydroxytestosterone : Mass spectrometric identification of urinary metabolites / Maxie Kohler, Maria K. Parr, Georg Opfermann, Mario Thevis, Nils Schlörer, Franz-Josef Marner, Wilhelm Schänze. - (Steroids 72 (2007) 3 (March); p. 278-286)

• PMID: 17207827
• DOI: 10.1016/j.steroids.2006.11.018

Abstract

4-Hydroxyandrost-4-ene-3,17-dione is a second generation, irreversible aromatase inhibitor and commonly used as anti breast cancer medication for postmenopausal women. 4-Hydroxytestosterone is advertised as anabolic steroid and does not have any therapeutic indication. Both substances are prohibited in sports by the World Anti-Doping Agency, and, due to a considerable increase of structurally related steroids with anabolic effects offered via the internet, the metabolism of two representative candidates was investigated. Excretion studies were conducted with oral applications of 100mg of 4-hydroxyandrostenedione or 200mg of 4-hydroxytestosterone to healthy male volunteers. Urine samples were analyzed for metabolic products using conventional gas chromatography-mass spectrometry approaches, and the identification of urinary metabolites was based on reference substances, which were synthesized and structurally characterized by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and high resolution/high accuracy mass spectrometry. Identified phase-I as well as phase-II metabolites were identical for both substances. Regarding phase-I metabolism 4-hydroxyandrostenedione (1) and its reduction products 3beta-hydroxy-5alpha-androstane-4,17-dione (2) and 3alpha-hydroxy-5beta-androstane-4,17-dione (3) were detected. Further reductive conversion led to all possible isomers of 3xi,4xi-dihydroxy-5xi-androstan-17-one (4, 6-11) except 3alpha,4alpha-dihydroxy-5beta-androstan-17-one (5). Out of the 17beta-hydroxylated analogs 4-hydroxytestosterone (18), 3beta,17beta-dihydroxy-5alpha-androstan-4-one (19), 3alpha,17beta-dihydroxy-5beta-androstan-4-one (20), 5alpha-androstane-3beta,4beta,17beta-triol (21), 5alpha-androstane-3alpha,4beta,17beta-triol (26) and 5alpha-androstane-3alpha,4alpha,17beta-triol (28) were identified in the post administration urine specimens. Furthermore 4-hydroxyandrosta-4,6-diene-3,17-dione (29) and 4-hydroxyandrosta-1,4-diene-3,17-dione (30) were determined as oxidation products. Conjugation was diverse and included glucuronidation and sulfatation.

CAS 2006/A/1130 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Darko Stanic & Swiss Olympic

• Handball
• Doping (benzoylecgonine; methylecgonine)
• Athlete’s burden of establishing how the prohibited substance entered her/his body
• Applicable standard of proof

1. In attempting to establish “no fault or negligence” or “no significant fault or negligence”, an athlete must in all events meet the precondition of establishing how the prohibited substance entered her/his system. This precondition is important and necessary; otherwise an athlete’s degree of diligence or absence of fault would be examined in relation to circumstances that are speculative and that could be partly or entirely made up. To allow any such speculation as to the circumstances in which an athlete ingested a prohibited substance would undermine the strict liability principle.

2. The balance of probabilities is the most adequate standard of proof to apply where an athlete is seeking to establish how a substance entered her/his system because the principle of strict liability under which a positive test creates a presumption of fault is already demanding on athletes.

On 6 July 2006 the disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic decided to impose a reduced 6 month period of ineligibility on the handball player Darko Stanic after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. The disciplinary Chamber accepted that the Athlete out-of-competition had smoked a cigarette while he was unaware the it contained Cocaine.

Hereafter in July 2006 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the Swiss Olympic decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Since the existence of a doping offence as defined by Swiss Olympic’s doping Statute is not contested, the only question to examine is whether the Athlete was correctly sanctioned for such offence by the disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic, under the applicable rules.

The Panel considers that on the balance of probabilities the Athlete has clearly not provided evidence making it more probable than not that Cocaine or crack entered his system as a result of him smoking a cigarette that he asked a stranger for in a discotheque.

As a result the Panel finds that the Athlete has not met the conditions required to prove lack of fault or no significant negligence. Consequently the Panel deems that the Athlete must be suspended for a period of two years.

The Panel would like to stress that this finding does not imply or mean that the Athlete has been untruthful or that he intentionally doped himself. It simply means that he did not meet the burden of proving how the Cocaine entered his system, as required by the applicable rules based on the principle of strict liability.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 January 2007 that:

1.) The decision of the Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic dated 6 July 2006 is set aside.

2.) Darko Stanic shall be declared ineligible for competition for two years commencing on 22 May 2006.

(…).

THE 2007 MONITORING PROGRAM*

The following substances are placed on the 2007 Monitoring Program:

1. Stimulants:

In-Competition Only: Bupropion, caffeine, phenylephrine,
phenylpropanolamine, pipradrol, pseudoephedrine,
synephrine.

2. Narcotics: In-Competition Only: morphine/codeine ratio

* The WADA Code (4.5) states: “WADA, in consultation with other Signatories and governments, shall establish a monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport.”

WADA - Play True Magazine
2007, issue 1
Beyond the athlete - The fight against doping arms itself against large-scale doping schemes and trafficking with new strategies
and partnerships.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content

Editorials
01 R.W. Pound: Beyond the Athlete
02 Interpol: Committed to the Fight

Cover story
03 The Way Forward
09 Highlights from a Study on Trafficking
10 The Australian Model
12 Trafficking: What the Code and Convention Say
12 UNESCO Conference Update
13 A Parent's Perspective

Code Review & Consultation
15 Consultation Update
15 IAAF Conference
16 WADA Athlete Committee Input

Features
17 Open Letter to Those Who Promote Medical Supervision of Doping
18 WADA President in Beijing
19 Athlete Profile: Rosa Mota
21 Partner Profile: FIBA
23 WADA Outreach
23 WADA’s “Level the Playing Field” DVD
24 WADA Coach’s Tool Kit

WADA Updates & Calendar
25 RADOs
25 ADAMS
25 Staff Announcements
25 2007 Prohibited List
26 New Lab Accreditation
26 Athlete’s Passport
27 WADA Event Calendar

WADA - Play True Magazine
2007, issue 2
Science: Honing in on Doping - WADA’s research budgets have created a stable and significantly increased source of funding for anti-doping scientists, accelerating the development of new detection approaches and putting dopers squarely in their sights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content

Editorials
01 R.W. Pound: The Time Is Now
02 David Howman: Progress Based on Research

Cover story
03 Championing the Science
05 Essential Partnerships
09 The WADA Program in Depth
12 Gene Doping
15 The Researcher's Perspective
15 About hGH Detection
19 The Athlete's Passport

Features
21 Your Duty and Responsibility to Oppose Doping
22 Olympic Museum Anti-Doping Exhibit
23 UK Sport Embraces ADAMS
25 Partner Profile: ITF
27 Athlete Profile: Tanja Kari
29 WADA Update: Athlete Committee
30 WADA Update: Social Science Research
31 WADA Update: Education Seminars

WADA Updates & Calendar
33 Third World Conference
on Doping in Sport
33 New RADOs Established
34 Investigations Symposium
34 Doping Quiz Link Program
34 Fourth IF Symposium
35 WADA Event Calendar

WADA - Play True Magazine
2007, issue 3
Record Pace - Still early out of the blocks, the global anti-doping movement has fostered a new imperative of sportsmanship and fair play that now extends to every level of athletic competition. Play True examines this revolution in sport and discusses anti-doping’s likely evolution on the occasion of the Third World Conference on Doping in Sport.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content

Editorials
R.W. Pound :Parting Thoughts
David Howman: A Tribute to Richard Pound

Cover Story
03 Anti-Doping: From Revolution to Evolution
05 Marking Major Milestones
09 Making and Evolution of the Code
13 Essential Role of Governments
14 Strategic Activities: Outcomes and Advances

Features
17 Global Expansion
20 China Update
21 Information and Education in India
22 Code Compliance Update
24 Ethics, Enhancement and Sport
27 Athlete Outreach
31 Partner Profile: IBU
33 Athlete Profile: Marcus Vinícius Freire

WADA Updates & Calendar
30 Streamlining Web-based Spanish-Language Content
30 2008 Prohibited List
30 New WADA Education Director
35 WADA Event Calendar

Social Psychology within the anti-doping area Baseline statistics and profiles of athletes’ attitude and knowledge An empirical presentation / Göran Svedsäter, Ingemar Wedman

An important objective of the project was to recognize if there are any special attitudes and knowledge profiles between the target groups.

Even though the selection and thereby the database became somewhat smaller than planned, the analyses reveal some interesting tendencies and finds.

The questionnaire confirms that significant differences exist in relation to the age groups junior and senior. This concerns all areas such as attitudes, subjectively experienced knowledge and what is regarded as important in relation to the fight against doping in sport.

In addition, it will be seen that ”region“ is significantly different in relation to most of the areas in the questionnaire. The clearest is the difference within ”personal knowledge” , in particular that Asia/Australia/New Zealand consistently score higher than the other regions.

It also appears from the questionnaire that ”gender” has no significance for how the respondents experience the various statements. This applies to all areas. The majority expresses a clear standpoint/attitude against use of doping in sport. In addition, there is distancing from the use of doping for shorter periods, even if the medical side effects are small. The respondents also express that even though the risk of being discovered is small, they would not use prohibited substances. In addition, the majority of athletes were not willing to use prohibited substances to become a well-known top athlete. In this context it is interesting that the group junior has a less clear anti –doping attitude than the senior group. It also appears that the group juniors has a less restrictive attitude to using doping as a one-off, and as a quick way to becoming well-known top athletes.

Even though the results indicate that the athletes have a clear attitude against doping it is both a concern and a challenge that there is still 10 – 15 % of the respondents who are of another opinion.

One of two athletes experience that the incidence of doping in sport is an increasing problem and that drug abuse in society has an impact on doping in sport. At the same time, approximately half express that attitudes in relation to doping can be influenced. This emphasises the necessity that the phenomenon doping should be both analysed and understood in relation to a sociological and social context.

Within ”personal knowledge” the results show that the group junior is experienced as having less knowledge in relation to all areas than the group senior. Concerning knowledge about doping controls and regulations, this can probably be explained by the fact that seniors have more experience as athletes.

In relation to knowledge about substances, negative effects, nutrition/supplements and not least ethics and fair play, it is disquieting that juniors experience having less knowledge in relation to these areas than seniors. This is a challenge since it is anticipated that knowledge about these areas can have a preventive effect on attitudes and any use of prohibited substances.

Within the area ”Fight against doping in sport” the respondents have given almost identical answers to the questions, and not assigned priorities to the various measures, as was the intention. Probably the respondents answered "how important it (generally) is to do something", and not how or which measures should be emphasised. This part therefore functions less adequately than desired, and has limited the possibility of analyses.

In spite of this, it appears from the material that many (70%) of the respondents express that doping controls both in competition and out of competition are very important for the future fight against doping in sport. The senior group states ”out of competition controls” as the most important measure.

The conclusion is that there exist differences between the age groups in many of the areas which are included in the questionnaire. Efforts should therefore be concentrated on increasing course / education offers for athletes, particularly in relation to the group juniors.