CAS 2006/A/1133 WADA v/Michel Stauber & Swiss Olympic

In April 2006 Swiss Olympic reported an anti-doping rule violation against the amateur handball player after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide.

Following the positive test the Athlete was granted a TUE for the prescribed use of the medication Co-Diovan© for the treatment of his High Blood Pressure. Furthermore in July 2006 the Athlete retired from handball.

On 6 July 2006, the Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic decided to impose only a warning and a reprimand considering the prescribed medication Co-Diovan© was used for a Legitimate Medical Treatment.

Hereafter the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the Swiss Olympic decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Panel rendered a decision based on the written submissions on the Parties.

WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a minimum 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and asserted that he was unaware the prescribed medication Co-Diovan© contained a prohibited substance.

The Athlete's team doctor, a specialist in sport medicine, testified and confirmed his failure to check this medication. As a result he made no application for a TUE nor informed the Athlete about this medication containing a prohibited substance.

In view of the evidence the Panel accepts that the Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence in view of the prescribed medication he used for his high blood pressure as Legitimate Medical Treatment. Under the Rules the Panel deems there are grounds for a reduced sanction, starting on the date of the Athlete's retirement.

Therefore on 18 December 2012 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

1.) The appeal filed by WADA is admissible;

2.) The decision rendered on 6 July 2006 by the Disciplinary Chamber for doping cases of Swiss Olympic is set aside;

3.) Mr Stauber is suspended for a period of one year, i.e. the minimum period of ineligibility provided for by the Statute. The period of ineligibility shall start retroactively from May 31, 2006;

4.) Each party shall bear all of its own legal and other costs incurred in connection with this arbitration.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) charges Steve Molnar (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). An earlier violation happen in August 1988, for the presence of stanozolol in his sample he had received a period of ineligibility of four years. The second violation occurred during an in-competition doping control conducted at the 2005 Canadian National Championships in Calgary, Alberta on October 21, 2005. His urine sample returned an adverse analytical finding for cannabis, methandienone and oxymetholone, all prohibited substances on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List.

Decision
Pursuant to Rules 7.20 and 7.9, Steve Molnar's penalty is lifetime
ineligibility, effective immediately.

Related case:
CAS 2006/A/1190 WADA vs Pakistan Cricket Board & Shoaib Akhtar & Muhammed Asif
June 28, 2006

In October 2006 the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cricket players Shoaib Akhtar and Muhammed Asif after their samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosteron (Nandrolone).
On 1 November 2006 the PCB Anti-Doping Commission decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Akhtar and a 1 year period on the Athlete Asif.

Hereafter in November 2006 both Athlete’s appealed the PCB decision with the PCB Anti-Doping Appeals Committee.

Akhtar’s arguments in his defence was as follows:
(i) that his high protein intake and rigorous workout schedule over the years had caused endogenous production of 19-Norandrosterone in his system well over the prescribed limit of 2 ng/ml;
(ii) that the nutritional supplements taken by him - including Blaze Xtreme, Nitron 5, Size On, T-Bomb II, Promax 50 and Viper - were not banned items;
(iii) that contamination in the aforesaid supplements taken by him could have been the reason for the elevated level of 19-Norandrosterone; and
(iv) that he was never warned by the PCB about the PCB Regulations.

Asif’s defence to the charge of doping was more circumscribed. He pleaded:
(i) that he had not knowingly taken any medicine or substance which could explain the test result;
(ii) that he had started using supplements, including Promax, when he was in the U.K. three years ago;
(iii) that he honestly did not know the effects of the supplements he was taking; and
(iv) that when recently the team physiotherapist Mr. Darryn Lipson advised him to discontinue the use of supplements, he immediately stopped ingesting them.

The Appeals Committee accepts the Athlete's arguments and rules that the Athletes had “successfully established that they held an honest and reasonable belief that the supplement ingested by them did not contain any prohibited substances”, and the Athletes had therefore “met the test of ‘exceptional circumstances’ as laid down under clause 4.5 of the PCB Anti Doping Regulations.”

Therefore the PCB Anti-Doping Appeals Committee decides on 5 december 2006 to set aside the decision of 1 November 2006 and to annul the imposed sanction.

Hereafter in December 2006 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appeals the decision of the PCB Appeals Committee with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). However the CAS rules on 28 June 2007 that the WADA appeal is inadmissible due to CAS has no jurisdiction to rule under the PCB and ICC Rules.

TAS 2006/A/1038 Joseph N’Sima / FIBA & AMA

CAS 2006/A/1038 Joseph N'Sima vs FIBA & WADA

Related case:

FIBA 2006 Joseph N’Sima & WADA vs FIBA – Appeal
January 16, 2006

In October 2004 Antidoping Norge (Anti-Doping Norway) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Joseph N’Sima after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Ephedrine.

The Athlete had already left Norway and joined a basketball club in France. Therefore in January the case was transferred from Antidoping Norge to the International Basketball Federation (FIBA).

After notification by FIBA the Athlete was heard for the FIBA Commission. The FIBA Commission concluded that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation due to he acted negligently using supplements, which contained the prohibited substance.

Without intention to enhance sport performance and due to the substantial delays in this case, the FIBA Commission decided on 13 October 2005 to impose a 12 week period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision until 31 December 2005.

Hereafter the Athlete and WADA appealed the FIBA Commission Decision of 13 October 2005 with the FIBA Appeals Commission.

The Athlete argued that there were irregularities in the sample collection. However the Athlete has no conclusive explanation for the positive doping test, due to the various medication and supplements he used.
WADA requested to set aside the FIBA Commission Decision of 13 October 2005 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. WADA argued that the Athlete has not established that the use of the substance was not intentional.

The Sole Arbitrator considered in this case:

• the circumstances of the offence;
• the degree of guilt; the Athlete’s financial and personal circumstances;
• the long period between the sample collection and the punishment for the anti-doping rule violation;
• the first violation by the Athlete; and
• his cooperation during the proceedings.

Therefore the Sole Arbitrator of the FIBA Appeals Commission decides:

1.) The appeal by the Athlete is dismissed.

2.) The WADA appeal is upheld and the FIBA Commission Decision of 13 October 2005 is set aside.

3.) A 2 year period of ineligibility is imposed on the Athlete, starting on 13th October 2005.

4.) In application of Art. 6.8.3.1 of the Internal Regulations the FIBA Appeals Commission Panel orders that the execution of the sanction in excess of one year be suspended.

5.) The FIBA and the Athlete shall bear the costs of the proceedings.

In Februay 2006 the Athlete appealed the decision of the 16 January 2006 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete argued that there had been irregularities with the doping control procedure and that he acted without fault or negligence.

The CAS Panel finds that the Athlete failed to demonstrat that there were irregularities with the doping control procedure. He also failed to establish how the prohibited substance had entered his system.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides on 4 December 2006 to uphold the decision of the FIBA Appeals Commission of 16 January 2006 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete with 1 year suspenended.

Decision of the Royal Dutch Soccer Association (KNVB). Due to a violation of the Anti-Doping Code the period of ineligibility will be from December 1, 2006, till March 1, 2007.
An appeal can be made within 14 days.

Facteurs bio-psycho-sociaux du dopage: etude a partir d'applants d'ecoute dopage  / Jean Bilard, J. Birouste, B. Goddard, D. Martinez, Gregory Ninot

Malgré une surexposition médiatique, le dopage est un phénomène social paradoxalement peu étudié et qui s’avère très hermétique aux chercheurs. Si tous les auteurs s’accordent à dire qu’il s’agit d’un véritable fléau à la fois sanitaire et social touchant les sportifs de tous niveaux, les résultats des travaux sur l’usage des produits dopants, aussi bien épidémiologiques que psychologiques, sont peu consensuels.

Cette faiblesse émerge probablement des règles et valeurs contradictoires du monde sportif (Mignon, 2002) qui promulgue à la fois la maxime « l’important c’est de participer » et la devise des jeux olympiques « citius, altius, fortius » qui pousse au dépassement des limites humaines et sociales et à l’utilisation de tous les moyens pour y parvenir.

Jusqu’aux années 1960, l’utilisation de substances permettant d’obtenir de meilleurs résultats ne faisait guère débat dans les rangs de la communauté sportive internationale. Les représentants des pouvoirs publics et institutions sportives ont alors tenté de réguler et limiter l’usage de produits visant à augmenter artificiellement les performances et considérés comme néfastes pour la santé par un cadre juridique. Les premiers contrôles antidopages ont vu le jour en application de la Loi n°65-472 du premier juin 1965 en France. Ainsi, du point de vue de la loi, est considérée comme « dopée » toute personne utilisant des procédés ou produits interdits qui figurent sur une liste déterminée par les pouvoirs publics, les institutions sportives, les institutions et ou organisations internationales. Néanmoins, n’est déclaré « dopé » que tout sportif ayant été contrôlé positif. La situation est donc très complexe puisqu’un athlète peut avoir une « conduite dopante » et ne pas être considéré juridiquement comme « dopé » dans la mesure où (1) il n’est pas « contrôlé positif » (« pas vu, pas pris »), (2) il est contrôlé hors du territoire (règles fédérales au pays), ou (3) il pratique une discipline sportive non réglementée.

Ainsi, la connaissance des facteurs précipitant la prise de produits ou procédés interdits n’apparaît possible qu’à partir d’athlètes détectés ou repentis, ce qui limite la compréhension d’un phénomène affectant un très large public de tout niveau de pratique.

Dans le cadre d’un contrat de recherche avec l’Agence Mondiale Anti-Dopage (AMA-WADA), l’objectif de l’étude est de montrer en quoi des sportifs « dopés » s’exprimant anonymement par la médiation du téléphone apportent une voie inédite etprobante pour la connaissance des facteurs précipitant la consommation de produits ou procédés interdits. Pour le Master 2 Recherche SMH, nous nous focaliserons sur trois disciplines majeures en terme de nombre de pratiquants et de consommateurs et en terme d’efficacité avérée des produits, la musculation, le cyclisme et le football.

La partie introduction présente, tout d’abord une revue de la littérature sur les vulnérabilités multifactorielles conduisant au dopage dans les trois sports étudiés, figure également les limites méthodologiques et théoriques des modèles explicatifs, et enfin la présentation d’un dispositif d’écoute dopage. Dans la seconde partie, nous aborderons la problématique et l’hypothèse de l’étude, suivra la méthodologie mise en place pour mettre à l’épreuve cette hypothèse. La présentation des résultats et la discussion qui en découle seront présentées dans les dernières parties du mémoire et nous verrons si nous pouvons valider ou non notre hypothèse de départ.

Haff, G. Gregory
Strength & Conditioning Journal 28(6):42-55, December 2006

summary: With the discovery of tetrahydrogestrinone and desoxymethyltestosterone, a widespread conspiracy to supply athletes with anabolic agents, which were not currently on doping control lists, was uncovered. This realization, plus the Congressional Hearings on Steroid Use in Sport, has brought discussions about anabolic-androgenic steroids to the forefront of popular culture. Within this movement, a plethora of nonscientifically sound data has been presented in the popular media. The present roundtable is the first part of a 2-part series designed to present current information on the topic.

(C) 2006 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Related cases:
SDT 2004_14 New Zealand Rugby League vs Vince Whare
February 17, 2005
ST 2010 DFSNZ vs Vince Whare
March 1, 2010

The New Zealand Rugby League (NZRL) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis. This was Respondent’s second anti-doping violation. On the first occasion, on 17 March 2005, he was reprimanded, fined and ordered to pay costs.
NZRL notified the Respondent and ordered a provisional suspension. The Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal. Respondent testified he had used Cannabis for relief during a time of difficult personal circumstances and not to enhance his sport performance.
The Tribunal concludes this was Respondent’s second violation and he did not use Cannabis for performance-enhancing purposes.
The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of his provisional suspension.

Facts
The French National Police Sport Federation (Fédération Sportive de la Police Nationale, FSPN) charges respondent M76 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event, on October 22, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample tested positive on a prednisolone and prednisone which are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent admitted the use of the prohibited substances because of self-medication to heal.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one year from with six months conditionally in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized or authorized by the FSPN and other French sport federations.
2. The sanction imposed by the present decision shall take effect from the date of notification. It will apply until the end of the execution of the penalty inflicted on September 18, 2006, by the Disciplinary Committee, given the temporary suspension of the sanction since October 26, 2006, the date of referral of the Agency.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Development and validation of a multi-residue method for the detection of a wide range of hormonal anabolic compounds in hair using gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry / Lauriane Rambaud, Fabrice Monteau, Yoann Deceuninck, Emmanuelle Bichon, François André, Bruno Le Bizec

• Analytica Chimica Acta 586 (2007) 1-2 (14 March), 93-104
• PMID: 17386700
• DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2006.11.048

Abstract

The monitoring of anabolic steroid residues in hair is undoubtedly one of the most efficient strategies to demonstrate the long-term administration of these molecules in meat production animals. A multi-residue sample preparation procedure was developed and validated for 28 steroids. A 100 mg hair sample was grinded into powder and extracted at 50 degrees C with methanol. After acidic hydrolysis and extraction with ethyl acetate, phenolsteroids, such as estrogens, resorcyclic acid lactones and stilbens in one hand, are separated from androgens and progestagens in the other hand. Solid phase extractions were performed before applying a specific derivatisation for each compound sub-group. Detection and identification were achieved using gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry with acquisition in the selected reaction monitoring mode after electron ionisation. The method was validated according to the 2002/657/EC guideline. Decision limits (CCalpha) for main steroids were in the 0.1-10 microg kg(-1) range.