ABSTRACT
Introduction: Athletes from the Balkan have lost on the last two Olympic Games 5 medals and 5 athletes have been doping positive on out of competition testing, which represents 36% doping positive of all athletes in Sidney 2000 and 24% in Athens 2004.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to examine attitudes and experience of medical doctors from Balkan Countries in doping in sport.

Materials and methods: A total of 219 medical doctors from Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Serbia and Turkey fulfilled the questionnaire related to doping control procedure, athletes’ rights and responsibilities, their training in doping prevention and willingness to have more education.

Results: During the period of 12 months, 80% doctors have been asked for information about doping agents, 25% of them have been contacted by athletes for the prescription of doping agents, 14% of doctors think that they should assist athletes who want to use doping so that athletes can use doping safely and in 27% of the doctors have treated athletes who are using doping due to medical problems. They believe that education is the most effective method to fight against doping and they believe that the least effective method is two years ban. They indicated adolescents and children as a first group which needs to be targeted in a doping prevention, professional athletes as a second and amateur athletes as a third one.

Conclusion: Hypothesis that athletes are not informed about doping agents because of poor knowledge of medical doctors about this issue is confirmed. This study suggests that medical doctors from Balkan region recognize doping as a real public health problem, and the need for its prevention. Our study stresses the need for prompt education and adequate training of medical doctors in this domain.

Aim
The broad aim of this project was to explore the use of over-the-counter (OTC) medication, amongst athletes, from four nations and across 10 sports, with specific reference to stimulants on the Monitoring Program and Prohibited List.

Methodology
1. A review of the scientific literature was undertaken to establish current evidence with regards to the physiological and performance enhancing properties of OTC medication and their desirability as drugs of abuse.
2. A questionnaire was developed to assess respondents:
i. demographics;
ii. use of OTC drugs;
iii. knowledge and understanding of OTC medication in reference to anti-doping measures; and
iv. views and opinions regarding changes to the Prohibited List.
It was administered to elite athletes from Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA representing 10 Olympic sports, including: track and field athletics, canoeing, cycling, gymnastics, hockey, rowing, swimming, triathlon, volleyball and weightlifting.
3. Data from WADA-accredited laboratories was obtained to assess current proportions of urine samples testing positive for stimulants on the Monitoring Program and Specified Substance List.

Key findings
The current research has generated several key findings with regards to the use of OTC drugs amongst elite athletes across four major sporting nations:
i. Athletes who had used OTC products containing substances present on the Monitoring Program over the preceding 12 months accounted for 38 percent of all respondents.
ii. A small proportion of athletes used OTC products for their reputed ergogenic properties.
iii. Athletes demonstrated limited knowledge relating to the penalty incurred following a doping violation involving a banned OTC stimulant; the terms Monitoring Program and Specified Substance List; and the status of substances in relation to the Prohibited List.
iv. If unsure of the prohibitive nature (or otherwise) of an OTC product almost all athletes would consult someone for advice.
v. Both WADA and individual NADOs were the choice by many athletes in terms of whom they would consult for advice. A significant proportion of younger athletes stated that they would consult an individual such as their coach, training partner or team doctor.
vi. Athletes representing cycling and triathlon were most likely to be dissatisfied with anti-doping education within their sport.
vii. The development of a list according to ailment, highlighting OTC products that do [not] contain prohibited substances was deemed an appropriate measure to improve the information available to athletes.
viii. Data from the Monitoring Program supports that of the questionnaire with regards to pseudoephedrine use, however data that pertains to phenylephrine is difficult to interpret.
ix. As a whole, athletes were of the opinion that: OTC stimulants were not performance enhancing; they posed a risk to health; their use was against the spirit of sport; and yet should remain off the Prohibited List.

Conclusions
Whilst the balance of scientific evidence would promote the use of caffeine as an ergogenic aid, the evidence for the use of other stimulants found in OTC medication for the treatment of the symptoms associated with upper respiratory tract infection is less convincing.
The use of OTC products amongst elite athletes is significant, however the evidence suggests that use of such preparations is primarily for therapeutic purposes.
An overall limited knowledge and awareness of OTC medication in reference to anti-doping was evident amongst elite athletes, suggesting that ignorance remains an important factor in the use of drugs by athletes. This is only tempered by their willingness to seek advice from reliable sources.
The inability of the Monitoring Program to provide valid evidence to support the misuse of substances contained in OTC medications highlights the need to expand the current programme to all WADA-accredited laboratories and to include continual qualitative assessment of the situation.

Attitudes, Behaviours, Knowledge and Education – Drugs in Sport: Past, Present and Future / Susan Backhouse, Jim McKenna, Simon Robinson, Andrew Atkin

Based upon the need identified by WADA, the review provides an extensive annotated bibliography of peer reviewed publications in the social sciences regarding (a) predictors and precipitating factors in doping; (b) attitudes and behaviours towards doping and (c) anti-doping education or prevention programs. The database created during this review should be maintained so that future research in this area can be centrally documented and recorded.

The Findings
One hundred and three articles met the inclusion criteria and were considered in this review. Of these, 69 articles considered the attitudes of various target groups, 18 studies sought to examine the precipitating factors and correlates of performance enhancing drug use and 16 articles presented the findings of education intervention studies or model development in relation to doping in sport.

Conclusion
The evidence presented in this review leads to a simple conclusion: the weak evidence base undermines strategic planning and limits the capacity to target appropriate and efficacious education programmes to abate doping in sport.

Recommendations
This review has highlighted a number of key priorities in the social science research field. For example, adopting a Behavioural Epidemiological Framework would direct research efforts. Employing a variety of research designs from the upper echelons of the evidence hierarchy would facilitate the examination of causality and developing psychometrically sound measurement tools would enhance the validity and reliability of findings. Finally, the collaborative networks between practitioner and researcher need to be established so that evidence based findings inform the strategic planning of interventions and enable effective monitoring and evaluation.

The Muscular Ideal - psychological, social, and medical perspectives / J. Kevin Thompson, Guy Cafri. - American Psychological Association, 2007

• ISBN: 9781591477921

The musculair ideal is increasingly becoming the preferred body type for men, adolescent boys, and even some women. Why is this body type the new ideal, and how did it develop? Why are some people driven to achieve heightened muscularity, and how do they do it? What risks to physical and mental health are involved when extreme behaviors are undertaken in the pursuit of the muscular ideal?

This edited book draws on new research to provide an overview of the muscular ideal, including historical and present-day sociological trends, assesment and measurement, and clinical presentation of disorders such as muscle dysmorphia. Chapters also cover related issues as steroid use, repeated cosmetic surgery, and prevention.

The target audience includes sport and health psychologists; and graduate students in psychology, sociology, gender roles, and health and sport science courses.

CAS 2006/A/1168 Baggaley v/International Canoe Federation

Related case:

CAS 2007_A_1201 Nathan Baggaley vs Australian Canoe, ICF & Surf Life Saving Australia - Partial Award
January 20, 2007

• Canoeing
• Doping
• Inherent powers of CAS
• Interpretation of the CAS Rules
• Interpretation of “Appeal” in the CAS Rules
• Time limit to lodge a Statement of Appeal
• Beginning of the time limit to appeal

1. The CAS is an arbitral body not a court of law. It does not possess any inherent powers nor any discretion, afforded by Rules of Court, to control its own processes or to unilaterally vary, adjust or waive the requirements of the contract by which the parties and the CAS have agreed to be bound and which relevantly finds expression in the Code of Sports-related Arbitration.

2. All of the CAS Rules, and each individual Rule must be construed in their context and, in particular, in the context of the Rules as a whole. Furthermore, the CAS Rules must be construed in a practical, sensible and reasonable fashion to give practical effect to them and no provision should be regarded as otiose, redundant or superfluous unless such a conclusion is rendered necessary by a consideration of the Rules as a whole.

3. The expressions “Appeal” and “Statement of Appeal” in art. R47 to R49 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration are intended to be read as synonyms and as interchangeable expressions. To construe the Rules otherwise would be to make a nonsense of the exception set out in art. R32 or at least render it otiose or superfluous.

4. In the absence of a time limit set in the statutes or regulations of the federation, association or sports-related body concerned, or of a previous agreement, a Statement of Appeal shall be lodged by an appellant within 21 days of the receipt of the decision appealed against.

5. In order for a Tribunal to be able to determine whether or not the previous instance decision is reasoned, written or timely, the appeal itself must be timely. If the CAS were to hold that time only starts to run when a decision is timely, written and reasoned, such criteria would make it impossible for a potential Appellant to objectively determine when time starts to run.

By an Application Form dated 11 October 2006 the Appellant, Mr Nathan Baggaley lodged an appeal against a decision of the International Canoeing Federation (ICF), handed down on or shortly before 15 March 2006 whereby the ICF decided to suspend the Appellant for a 2-year period from all International Competitions in the sport of canoeing, commencing on 13 September 2005. The ICF is the peak world body controlling or administering the sport of canoeing.

The Panel concludes that this Appeal was filed out of time and must be deemed inadmissible by reason of R48 and R49 of the CAS Rules. It gives the Panel no pleasure in deciding this matter on such a technical basis. As we have said, we do not think it appropriate to express any concluded view at all on the merits of the substantive decisions but it would have been far preferable that this Appeal had been determined on such merits.

In reaching the decision which it has, the Panel does not wish in any way to suggest that it is in any way giving its seal of approval to the ICF’s decision of March 2006 or the circumstances in which it is made. Neither the ICF nor any similar organisation should regard this Award as supporting the notion that it can make decisions such as the one made here in March 2006 without giving the relevant Athlete a fair hearing and without providing a timely and reasoned decision.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 December 2006 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Nathan Baggaley on 11 October 2006 against a decision of the International Canoe Federation is inadmissible.

2.) The question of costs is reserved.

Facts
The French Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M75 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on March 11, 2006, a sample was taken for doping tests 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 admits by e-mail the use of cannabis but 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 FFBB.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

The New Zealand Federation of Bodybuilders (NZFBB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after her sample tested positive for the substance Cannabis.
After notification the Respondent was heard for the Tribunal. Respondent admitted she had smoked Cannabis while celebrating a cousin’s birthday a fortnight before competition.

The Tribunal accepts that Respondent had no intention to sport performance and the use was unrelated to the sport.
Therefore the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a warning and a reprimand on the Respondent. The Tribunal also decides to disqualify Respondent from the 2006 Senior 72 kg Female national event and that she forfeits all results, titles, medals and prizes won at the event.

facts
Meliha Karic (player) was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a doping test an urine sample was taken at the British Open wheelchair event, in Nottingham on July 25,2006. Her sample tested positive for the adrafinil or modafinil metabolite. The player admits the doping offence.

history
The player suffered tragic injuries in Sarajevo from a bom during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, she is confide to a wheelchair and is paraplegic. Her medication contained prohibited substances but it was only recently the Anti-Doping rules where applicable in wheelchair Tennis. She did file the medication she uses on the filing form during the doping test.

Decision
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 September 26, 2006, namely that a prohibited substance, adrafinil or modanfinil metabolite, has been found to be present in the urine sample that the player provided at the British Open wheelchair event held at Nottingham, England;
(2) orders that the player’s results in the British Open be disqualified, and in consequence rules that any prize money and ranking points obtained by the player through her participation in events in that competition must be forfeited;
(3) declares that the player shall be ineligible for a period of two years commencing on July 25, 2006 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.

TAS 2006/A/1120 UCI c/ Aitor Gonzalez Jiménez & RFEC

CAS 2006/A/1120 UCI vs Aitor Gonzalez Jiménez & RFEC

In September 2005 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported 2 anti-doping rule violations against the Spanish cyclist Aitor Gonzalez Jiménez after his A and B samples - provided in August and in September 2005 - tested positive for the prohibited substances 17α-methyl-5β-androstane-3α,17β-diol, Methandriol and Methyltestosterone.

On 12 May 2006 El Comite Nacional de Competicion y Disciplina Deportive (CNCDD) on behalf of the Royal Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) decided on the basis of the assumption of innocence to acquit the Athlete.

The CNCDD imposed only a fine on him for his failure to mention his supplement on the Doping Control Form. It accepted that the positive test results were caused following his use of the supplement Animal Pak.

Hereafter in June 2006 the UCI appealed the Spanish decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The UCI requested the Panel to set aside the CNCDD decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Panel considered the Athlete’s conduct and his degree of fault in this case and finds that the Athlete established how the prohibited substance entered his system. He also failed in his duty to check the products before using. Further the Panel deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence in this case.

The Panel accepts that the two reported anti-doping rule violations are to be considered as one single first anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 December 2006:

1.) CAS is competent to hear the appeal filed by the UCI.

2.) The decision of the Royal Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) is reformed.

3.) To impose on Mr Aitor Gonzalez Jiménez is a 2 year period of ineligibility starting on 28 September 2005.

4.) (…)

TAS 2006/A/1119 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) c. L. & Real Federación Española de Ciclismo (RFEC)

CAS 2006/A/1119 UCI vs Iñigo Landaluce Intxaurraga & RFEC

In July 2005 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Spanish cyclist Iñigo Landaluce Intxaurraga after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.

However on 5 May 2006 El Comite Nacional de Competicion y Disciplina Deportive (CNCDD) on behalf of the Royal Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) ruled that during the analysis of the samples there was the existence of an incomplete process which wasn’t in accordance with all requirements under the Rules and thus can not fully guarantee the test results.

The CNCDD concluded that "the legal maxim" in dubio pro reo was fully applicable to this case. The case against the Athlete was closed and he was acquitted.

Hereafter in July 20016 the UCI appealed the CNCDD decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The UCI requested the Panel to set aside the CNCDD decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Athlete, supported by an expert witness, argued that several departures occurred of the ISL leading to invalid test results.

Considering the evidence in this case the Panel concludes that the Athlete established that indeed a departure occurred of the ISL during the anlysis procedures of his samples. The UCI failed to demonstrat that this departure of the ISL didn’t cause the test result.

The Panel holds that the Athlete is put in the right as a result of the information provided by the laboratory and that this Award does not constitute a decalaration of the Athlete’s innocence under the Rules.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 19 December 2006 :

1.) CAS is competent to hear the appeal filed by the UCI.

2.) The appeal filed by the UCI on 26 June 2006 against the CNCDD decision of 5 May 2006 is rejected.

3.) (…)

4.) (…)