Related cases:
- ISR 2016 KNKF Decision Disciplinary Committee 2016010 T
November 10, 2016
- ISR 2016 KNKF Decision Appeal Committee 2016010 B
February 2, 2017
- CND 2019 Dopingautoriteit Decision Compliance Commission 2016010 N
July 8, 2019
- Dopingautoriteit 2019 Decision Complaint 2016010 AB
August 27, 2019
- CND 2019 Dopingautoriteit Decision Compliance Appeal Commission 2016010 NB
January 21, 2020

In September 2006 the Dutch Royal Strength Sport and Fitness Federation (KNKF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). After notification the Person was heard for the ISR-KNKF Disciplinary Committee.

The Person denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance and could not explain how it entered his system. He stated that he had used a number of supplements from his gym assuming that they were free of prohibited substances.

The Committee finds that the Person had acted negligently due to he had failed to check the ingredients of his supplements before using. Considering that a low concentration of the substance had been established in the Person's sample the Committee deems it possible that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the ISR-KNKF Disciplinary Committee decides on 2 November 2006 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on the date of the decision.

Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the KNKF.

DHEA enhances effects of weight training on muscle mass and strength in elderly women and men / Dennis T. Villareal, John O. Holloszy. - (American Journal of Physiology. Endocrinology and Metabolism 291 (2006) 5 (November); p. E1003-E1008)

• PMID: 16787962
• DOI: 10.1152/ajpendo.00100.2006

Abstract

The plasma levels of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and its sulfated form (DHEAS) decline approximately 80% between the ages of 25 and 75 yr. Muscle mass and strength also decrease with aging. Published data on the effects of DHEA replacement on muscle mass and strength are conflicting. The goals of this study were to determine whether DHEA replacement increases muscle mass and strength and/or enhances the effects of heavy resistance exercise in elderly women and men. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the effects of 10 mo of DHEA replacement therapy with the addition of weightlifting exercise training during the last 4 mo of the study (DHEA + exercise group, n = 29; placebo + exercise group, n = 27). DHEA alone for 6 mo did not significantly increase strength or thigh muscle volume. However, DHEA therapy potentiated the effect of 4 mo of weightlifting training on muscle strength, evaluated by means of one-repetition maximum measurement and Cybex dynamometry, and on thigh muscle volume, measured by magnetic resonance imaging. Serum insulin-like growth factor concentration increased in response to DHEA replacement. This study provides evidence that DHEA replacement has the beneficial effect of enhancing the increases in muscle mass and strength induced by heavy resistance exercise in elderly individuals.

International Literature Review: Attitudes, Behaviours, Knowledge and Education – Drugs in Sport: Past, Present and Future / Susan Backhouse, Jim McKenna, Simon Robinson, Andrew Atkin. – Carnegie Research Institute; Leeds Metropolitan University. – Leeds : Leeds Metropolitan University. – 2007. – Review prepared for the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)

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.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) charges Sebastián Berti (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 22 July 2006, the Player represented his country in a Rugby World Cup Qualifying match against Uruguay in Montevideo (the “Match”). He was selected for an in-competition doping control and provided a urine specimen to a doping control officer. On the Doping Control Form which he completed, the Player declared that he was using Guarana, Creatine and Protein. Analysis of the “A” sample indicated a positive test for the presence of ephedrine measured at 13 micrograms per millilitre in the Player’s urine sample.

History
In writing, he athlete said that since being notified of his positive test, he had discovered that a natural supplement, guarana, which he had used and declared at doping control, contained “Sida Cordifolia”, which, in turn, contained ephedrine.

Decision
A period of six weeks ineligibility, including the period of interim suspension.

Costs
Written submissions should be provided to the Judicial Committee and to the Player

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M70 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Respondent had been sentenced for the possessing of cocaine by the High Court of Castres.

History
The respondent had been the subject of a criminal prosecution for unauthorized acquisition and illicit use of narcotic drugs, cocaine. He was sentenced for these facts to four months imprisonment.

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

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M67 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on June 11, 2006, respondent provided a sample for doping control purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of betamethasone which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent had mentioned the use of an ointment to treat clavicle fraction. This ointment contained betamethasone and was the cause the positive test in combination with the bandages he used. The prescription of the physician confirms a treatment for three months. The panel has no scientific proof that the positive test results unmistakenly derive from a thick layer of ointment with betamethasone.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Rugby Federation (Fédération Française de Rugby, FFR) charges respondent M66 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on December 7, 2005, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample tested positive on stanozolol which is a prohibited substance according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The appeal committee of the FFR had sanctioned the respondent with a period of ineligibility of three years. Respondent appealed against this decision and the period on ineligibility was reduced to two years.
Respondent claims to have used foreign supplements which were contaminated with the prohibited substance, he also has contact with other rugby leagues.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFR or other French sport federation.
2. The decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M65 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on April 23, 2006, respondent didn't attend the doping control.

History
The respondent had technical problems and didn't cross the finish line, he didn't hear the announcements for the doping control nor he noticed the billboards to attend the doping control.
The disciplinary committee of the FFC had sanctioned the respondent with a period of ineligibility of three months.

Decision
1. The sanction doesn't need to be modified.
2. The decision will not be published.
3. The decision will be sent to the parties involved.

Award and Decision of the Arbitrators & Dissenting Opinion

Christopher L. Campbell, concurring in part and dissenting in part
October 16, 2003

The Respondent, Amber Neben, is a 28 old professional cyclist and a member of the T-Mobile Women’s Cycling Team, a trade team owned by USA Cycling and sanctioned by the international federation for the sport of cycling, Union Cycliste International (UCI).
The Respondent is subject to testing by USADA and UCI.
Respondent has been tested a number of times and all results have been negative. She tested negative in a test nine days before her positive test and had two negative tests three and four days after her positive test.

On May 31, 2003, during the Coupe du Monde Montreal, Respondent provided a urine sample at the request of UCI. On June 4, 2003, the laboratory screening test performed from the A sample indicated the presence of an anabolic steroid. The A confirmation test was performed on June 30, 2003, and it revealed the presence of 19-norandrosterone. On July 14, 2003, the laboratory tested the B sample positive for 19-norandrosterone.

Respondent accepted a provisional suspension commencing on July 13.2003. The evidentiary hearing took place on October 1 and 2, 2003, in Denver, Colorado. An expedited preliminary decision was requested. The Interim Award and Decision was issued October 6, 2003.

The Respondent presented a impressive list of witnesses. The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has an outstanding reputation in the cycling community and is respected by both team members and officials of USA Cycling.
The Panel is, however, disturbed by the testimony from the USA Cycling witnesses and officials. It is obvious that the organization has acted in complete disregard of its athletes, in particular, those below the elite level. There appears to be little to no attempt at communicating the dangers of contaminated supplements to the thousands of USA Cycling athletes. In fact, the testimony indicated that many officials believe that the use of supplements is “necessary” in order to succeed at the elite level. The fact that USA Cycling encouraged the use of supplements, including Hammer Nutrition products, underscored the tot disregard for the warnings USADA and IOC have issued for years. To the Panel, it is inconceivable that such a highly regarded organization could disregard its obligation to its athletes.
Regardless of the inaction or neglect of the cycling community, the athlete must make the final determination as to his/her intake. If these athletes read any of their USADA materials and Respondent apparently did not read it carefully, the message is quite clear that there are numerous risks associated with ingesting these supplements, including the extreme danger to the athlete’s health. While Respondent seemed to acknowledge these risks, her desire to compete apparently overroad those concerns.
The Panel also determines that UCI bears some responsibility in this case. Rather than undertake a thorough investigation of the issues involved in the case, UCI issued its opinions and recommendations. It appears that no effort was made to undertake an examination of USA Cycling’s role in this situation.

The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides as follows:
- A doping violation occurred on the part of Respondent. The Panel finds that this was not an intentional doping violation.
- The minimum suspension from all competition for a first offender of two (2) years to take place effective from July 13, 2003 is imposed on Respondent pursuant to UCI Regulations.
- Respondent is prohibited from participating in any capacity whatsoever in any events sponsored by UCI, USOC, or USA Cycling during the 6-mondth period of time from July 13, 2003.
- Prior to the end of the 6-month period, Respondent will meet with her fellow T-Mobile team members and the athletic staff of USA Cycling and discuss with them the USADA and IOC warning on the possible contamination of dietary supplements, including vitamins and minerals. In addition, Respondent will meet at least once with the other licensed elite cyclists of USA Cycling, along with the athletic staff of USA Cycling, to also discuss with them the above USADA and IOC information. She will confirm in writing to USADA that she has completed these conditions of her probation.
- During the term of her full probation, Respondent will submit to urine drug testing at her expense on a monthly basis by an IOC accredited laboratory. If Respondent tests positive during any of this time, her probation will be revoked, any and all competition results will be cancelled in compliance with UCI Regulations, and she will serve the remainder of the two-year suspension, commencing from the time of another positive test result.
- A fine of CFH 700 is assessed against Respondent.
- All competitive results which occurred on or after May 31, 2003, are cancelled.

Christipher L. Campbell, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

Research proved that 18% of vitamin supplements contain substances, not listed on their labels, which are prohibited by the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code.
This Panel is now being asked to severely penalize Ms. Neben, who is the likely victim of a contaminated supplement, under a theory of preserving a level playing field for athletes. As arbitrators, it is not our place to debate the rationality of such a rule. However, it is our duty to apply the law to the facts of Ms. Neben's case:
- Limits of the Strict Liability Rule
- Ms. Neben did not inted to place a prohibited substance in het body
- Strict Liability Rule does not apply to sanctions regarding future competitions
- Ms. Neben was not negligent in taking vitamin supplements for her sport of road racing
- Negligence test

CAS 2006/A/1067 International Rugby Board (IRB) v. Jason Keyter

• Rugby
• Doping (benzoylecgonine)
• Burden and standard of proof
• Duty to establish the route of ingestion
• Significant negligence

1. The burden of proof is initially on the party asserting that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. As to the standard of proof, the same party shall establish “to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body” that a violation has occurred. This standard of proof is greater than “a mere balance of probability” but less than “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. Once the Sport Federation has discharged the above burdens, the athlete accused of the anti-doping rule violation is subject to “strict liability”. This means that the presence in the athlete’s body or bodily specimen of a prohibited substance, regardless of the athlete’s intent, knowledge, fault or negligence, is sufficient to establish an anti-doping rule violation and thus the athlete’s presumptive guilt. The athlete may rebut the presumption of guilt by proving absence of fault or negligence or, alternatively, absence of significant fault or negligence. The athlete is required to establish that the fault or negligence was not significant on the “balance of probability”.

2. The failure to establish how the prohibited substance entered the athlete’s bodily specimen means that exceptional circumstances have not been established and there can be no reduction in the sanction from the otherwise established two year suspension. The mere allegation that the athlete has no idea how a forbidden substance entered into his body, and relies as a possible explanation on the ingestion of cocaine through a “spiked drink” that was offered him by strangers in a night club is not sufficient to establish the route of ingestion.

3. An athlete is significantly negligent when he/she failed to exercise any caution (let alone the utmost caution), thereby failing both the “No Fault or Negligence” test and the “No Significant Fault or Negligence” test. The submission that getting drunk, and possibly not realizing and/or remembering what was going on, cannot be considered as an exceptional circumstance excusing an athlete from his/her fault or negligence.

On 16 March 2006 the Review Panel of the Rugby Football Union (RFU) decided to uphold the sanction of 12 months imposed on the rugby player Jason Keyter after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. 

Hereafter in April 2006 the International Rugby Board (IRB) appealed the RFU Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). IRB requested the Panel to set aside the appealed decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that:

• The Athlete alleged to have committed a doping violation bears the burden of persuading the judging body that the occurrence of a specified circumstance is more probable than its non-occurrence.
• The Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation is proven to its comfortable satisfaction, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation.
• The Athlete's failure to establish how the prohibited substance had entered his bodily specimen means that exceptional circumstances have not been established and there can be no reduction in the sanction from the otherwise established two year suspension.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 October 2006:

1.) The appeal filed by the International Rugby Board on 7 April 2006 is upheld and the Decision issued by the Review Panel of the RFU on 16 March 2006 is varied to impose a two year sanction.

2.) Mr Jason Keyter is declared ineligible for a period of two years, from 15 November 2005 to 14 November 2007.

(…).