False-positive detection of rhEpo remains a real concern

1 Sep 2006

False-positive detection of rhEPO remains a real concern / Beullens M, Delanghe JR, Bollen M.. - (Blood 108 (2006) 5 (1 September); p. 1779-1780)

No doubt about the validity of the urine test for detection of recombinant human erythropoietin.

1 Sep 2006

Lasne F. No doubt about the validity of the urine test for detection of recombinant human erythropoietin. Blood. 2006 Sep 1;108(5):1778-9; author reply 1779-80.

False-positive Epo test concerns unfounded

1 Sep 2006

False-positive Epo test concerns unfounded / Don Catlin, Gary Green, Michael Sekera, Paul Scott, Borislav Starcevic. - (Blood 108 (2006) 5 (1 September); p. 1778)

  • PMID: 16926300
  • DOI: 10.1182/blood-2006-03-006890
  • Comment on:

False-positive detection of recombinant human erythropoietin in urine following strenuous physical exercise / Monique Beullens, Joris R. Delanghe, Mathieu Bollen. - (Blood 107 (2006) 12 (15 June); p. 4711-4713)

    • PMID: 16493001
    • DOI: 10.1182/blood-2006-01-0028


Abstract for: False-positive detection of recombinant human erythropoietin in urine following strenuous physical exercise

Erythropoietin (Epo) is a glycoprotein hormone that promotes the production of red blood cells. Recombinant human Epo (rhEpo) is illicitly used to improve performance in endurance sports. Doping in sports is discouraged by the screening of athletes for rhEPO in urine. The adopted test is based on a combination of isoelectric focusing and double immunoblotting, and distinguishes between endogenous and recombinant human Epo. We show here that this widely used test can occasionally lead to the false-positive detection of rhEpo (epoetin-beta) in postexercise, protein-rich urine, probably because the adopted monoclonal anti-Epo antibodies are not monospecific.

CAS 2006_A_1035 Abel Xavier vs UEFA

31 Aug 2006

TAS 2006/A/1035 Abel Xavier c/ UEFA

CAS 2006/A/1035 Abel Xavier vs UEFA

In October 2005 the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Abel Xavier after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone.

Consequently the UEFA Disciplinary Authority decided on 25 November 2005 to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete which thereupon was upheld by the UEFA Appeal Commission on 21 December 2005.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the UEFA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and for a reduced sanction.

Based on the UEFA rules the CAS Panel finds that a 12 month period of ineligibility appropriate for a first anti-doping rule violation. The older age of the Athlete can’t be considered an aggravating circumstance to impose a longer period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides on 31 August 2006 to partially reform the UEFA decision of 21 December 2005 and to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 14 October 2005.

CAS 2005_A_990 Oleksandr Pobyedonstev vs IIHF

24 Aug 2006

CAS 2005/A/990 Pobyedonostsev v/IIHF

CAS 2005/A/990 P. v. IIHF

  • Ice Hockey
  • Doping (nandrolone)
  • Strict liability
  • No fault or negligence
  • Liability for failing to disclose a medical treatment and to apply for a (retroactive) TUE

1. It is generally accepted and has been recognised by the CAS in numerous awards that the so-called strict liability principle is not objectionable under Swiss law as long as the athlete has a right to adduce counter evidence as to his/her fault or negligence in connection with his/her doping violation.

2. Art. 10.5 WADC burdens the athlete with proving the absence of (significant) fault or negligence on his/her part thus shifting the burden of proof to the athlete. This principle has been recognised by CAS as not being in violation of Swiss law. The standard of proof is a balance of probability (Art. 3.1 WADC).

3. The clear evidence that a prohibited substance was administered by the treating doctor in an emergency situation and that the athlete had no means of preventing its administration because of his/her very bad physical and psychological condition is a sufficient reason to discharge the athlete’s burden of proof of no fault or negligence in the circumstances of the case.

4. The WADC is not entirely clear as to whether the athlete has to prove that he/she is without fault or negligence not only in connection with the entering of the substance into his/her body but also in respect of that substance staying there. In other words, the question is whether an athlete is still liable for an anti-doping violation if he/she negligently fails to disclose his/her medical treatment and to apply for a (retroactive) TUE. This question can remain unanswered in the present case due to its unique circumstances.


On 14 November 2005 the International Ice Hockey Federation Disciplinary Committee (IIHFDC) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Ukranian ice hockey player Oleksandr Pobyedonstev after he tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the IIHFDC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

On the basis of the evidence the Panel finds that sufficient evidence has been provided by the Athlete that under the unique circumstances of this case he was unable to influence or control the medical treatment applied to him in an emergency situation. In these circumstances he was unable to prevent the treating doctor from administering a prohibited substance.

The Panel is thus of the opinion that the Athlete demonstrated that he was without fault or negligence for the anti-doping rule violation and that the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility must be eliminated.

The Panel holds that the Athlete would in fact have been obligated to apply for a retroactive TUE and that his failure to do so makes him liable for sanctions under the Code unless he establishes that he bears no fault or negligence in connection with this failure.

The Panel does not have to decide whether this is the proper construction of the Code because in the unique circumstances of this case the Athlete bears no fault or negligence for his failure to disclose his treatment and to apply for a (retroactive) TUE. The evidence has shown that the Athlete found out long after his positive test that he had been treated for a heart condition.

From the Athlete’s perspective, he was taken to the hospital after he was body checked and had hit the boards very hard. He left the hospital less than 24 hours after the incident and was able to resume training soon thereafter.

Under these circumstances, the Panel considers that the Athlete had no reason to suspect that he was treated with a substance which – contrary to practice in Western Europe – was being applied for a heart condition. Therefore, the Athlete was without fault or negligence in connection with his failure to disclose his treatment and to apply for a (retroactive) TUE.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 August 2006 that:

1.) The Appeal filed by Oleksandr Pobyedonstev on 1 December 2005 is upheld.

2.) The decision and the suspension imposed on P. by the Disciplinary Committee of the International Ice Hockey Federation on 14 November 2005 are annulled.

(...)

ISR 2006 KNBB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2006016 T

23 Aug 2006

The Royal Dutch Billiards Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Biljart Bond, KNBB) has reported a violation of the Anti-Doping Code (ADC). On March 12, 2006, defendant was submitted to a doping test, the A-sample was positive for the substance propranolol.
The defendant replied with a written defence and attended the oral hearing on August 23, 2006.
The use of propranolol is a violation of the ADC section 3, sanction is mentioned in section 7.
The disciplinary committee is qualified to handle this case.
Due to a filing failure the prohibitted substance was called cocaine, this was corrected. A dispensation form was sent before the case started, but this form was declined. The defendant has proof he suffers from a heartcondition and the propranolol is in his medicine. Before the Section 3, paragraph 2 of the ADC mentions that the defendant is responsible for not taking prohibited substances. However his federation didn't inform him about this.
The award is a warning and a reprimand.
Within 14 days an appeal can be made.

ISR 2006 KNBB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2006015 T

23 Aug 2006

Facts
The Royal Dutch Billiards Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Biljart Bond, KNBB) reported a violation of the Anti-Doping Code (ADC). Defendant was submitted to a doping test, the A-sample was positive for the substance cocaine. The defendant didn't reply with a written defence and didn't attend the oral hearing on August 23, 2006.

Decision
The use of cocaine is a violation of the ADC section 3.
The disciplinary committee is qualified to handle this case. The award is an ineligibility for the period of 2 years commencing on the date of the oral hearing, a fee is settled.

ISR 2005 KNBB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2005118 T

23 Aug 2006

The Royal Dutch Billiards Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Biljart Bond, KNBB) has reported a violation of the Doping rules of the ISR. The results of a doping test concluded the prohibited substances methylecgonine, benzoylecgonine (metabolite of cocaine) and carboxy THC (metabolite of tetrahydrocannabinol) which are prohibited substances on the Anti-Doping Code (ADC) of the ISR, a violation of section 3.
The report filed on June 15, 2006, at the disciplinary committee, the analysis of the sample is dated June 2, 2006.
The award will be a period of ineligibility of 2 years commencing on the day of the verdict. A fee is settled.

Considerations:
The defendant is subjected to the independent ruling of the ISR.
The report of the violation is valid.
Letters send to the defendant are considered to be received, although the confirmation wasn't received due to the English maildelivery system.
Regarding the violation:
- defendant is a member of the KNBB
- the doping test took place
- the doping test was in accordance with the regulations
- the defendant agreed with the procedure
- the samples were handled correctly
- the found substances are prohibited by the ADC of the KNBB
- the defendant didn't ask for a test of the B-sample, by this the resulst of the A-sample were positive and declared legally
- there is no dispensation for the found forbidden substances
- a violation of the Anti-Doping Code section 3, paragraph 1 is proven
- Towards the substance metabolite of tetrahydrocarbinol a lower penalty is possible according section 37 of the ADC but Section 4, paragraph 2 of the ADC (if the penalty is according to the substance mentioned in section 38 of the ADC) allows the maximum of the sanction.
- a appeal can be made within 14 days after receiving this award

SDT 2006_18 Basketball New Zealand vs Mark Dickel

14 Aug 2006

Basketball New Zealand (BBNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.
After notification by BBNZ the Respondent was provisional suspended and heard for the Tribunal.
Respondent admitted the recreational use of Cannabis at a party 5 weeks before the positive doping test. Respondent was not under contract to any basketball organisation at the time of the Cannabis use.

The Tribunal notes that Respondent had already been suspended for matches and also suffered financial penalty as a result of his suspension. Therefore the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a warning and a reprimand on the Respondent.

Biochemistry, physiology, and complications of blood doping: facts and speculation.

1 Aug 2006

Biochemistry, physiology, and complications of blood doping: facts and speculation / Giuseppe Lippi, Massimo Franchini, Gian Luca Salvagno, Gian Cesare Guidi. - (Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences 43 (2006) 4; p. 349-391)

  • PMID: 16769597
  • DOI: 10.1080/10408360600755313


Abstract

Competition is a natural part of human nature. Techniques and substances employed to enhance athletic performance and to achieve unfair success in sport have a long history, and there has been little knowledge or acceptance of potential harmful effects. Among doping practices, blood doping has become an integral part of endurance sport disciplines over the past decade. The definition of blood doping includes methods or substances administered for non-medical reasons to healthy athletes for improving aerobic performance. It includes all means aimed at producing an increased or more efficient mechanism of oxygen transport and delivery to peripheral tissues and muscles. The aim of this review is to discuss the biochemistry, physiology, and complications of blood doping and to provide an update on current antidoping policies.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin