Facts
The French Federation of American Football (Fédération Française de Football Américain, FFFA) charges respondent M49 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on March 25, 2006, respondent didn't attend the doping control.

History
The respondent wanted to shower first before the doping control, there were showers at the doping control station. His request to use another facility was denied. Despite explaining the consequences the respondent left the scene. The sports director of the team had written a complaint about the late hour of the doping control.

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 French sport federations.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Rechtbank Zutphen
Sector Straf
Meervoudige kamer
September 5, 2006
06/580332-05

ECLI:NL:RBZUT:2006:AY7518

Facts
Suspect x is charged on three counts: blackmail, wholesale of anabolic steroids and wholesale of unregistered medicines.

History
Besides the blackmail and intimidation it was established that the accused, in the period from September 1, 2005 to November 13, 2005, in the municipality of Apeldoorn (the Netherlands), had prepared medicines and drugs (anabolic sterioids) for which he was not entitled. He also delivered unregistered pharmaceutical products (anti asthma products) without a licence.

Decision
Accused is sentenced to a term of 30 months imprisonment,
from which 10 months are conditionally.

Facts
The Royal Netherlands Power Sport and Fitness Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Krachtsport en Fitnessfederatie, KNKF) has reported a violation of the Anti-Doping Code (ADC). Defendant was submitted to a out of competition doping test, the A-sample was positive for the substance 6ß-OH-methandienone (a metabolite of metandienone). The defendant didn't reply with a written defence the case was handled in writing.

Decision
The use of metandienone is a violation of the ADC section 3.
The award is an ineligibility period of 2 years commencing on the day of the decision.

C19-steroids as androgen receptor modulators : design, discovery, and structure-activity relationship of new steroidal androgen receptor antagonists / Padma Marwah, Ashok Marwah, Henry A. Lardy, Hiroshi Miyamoto, Chawnshang Chang. - (Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry 14 (2006) 17 (1 September); p. 5933-5947)

• PMID: 16759873
• DOI: 10.1016/j.bmc.2006.05.022

Abstract

Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), the most abundant steroid in human circulating blood, is metabolized to sex hormones and other C19-steroids. Our previous collaborative study demonstrated that androst-5-ene-3beta,17beta-diol (Adiol) and androst-4-ene-3,17-dione (Adione), metabolites of DHEA, can activate androgen receptor (AR) target genes. Adiol is maintained at a high concentration in prostate cancer tissue; even after androgen deprivation therapy and its androgen activity is not inhibited by the antiandrogens currently used to treat prostate cancer patients. We have synthesized possible metabolites of DHEA and several synthetic analogues and evaluated their role in androgen receptor transactivation to identify AR modulators. Steroids with low androgenic potential in PC-3 cell lines were evaluated for anti-dihydrotestosterone (DHT) and anti-Adiol activity. We discovered three potent antiandrogens: 3beta-acetoxyandrosta-1,5-diene-17-one 17-ethylene ketal (ADEK), androsta-1,4-diene-3,17-dione 17-ethylene ketal (OAK), and 3beta-hydroxyandrosta-5,16-diene (HAD) that antagonized the effects of DHT as well as of Adiol on the growth of LNCaP cells and on the expression of prostate-specific antigen (PSA). In vivo tests of these compounds will reveal their potential as potent antiandrogens for the treatment of prostate cancer.

Predicting intentions for long-term anabolic-androgenic steroid use among men : a covariance structure model / Tom Hildebrandt, James Langenbucher, Sasha Carr, Pilar Sanjuan, Steff Park. - (Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 20 (2006) 3 (September); p. 234-240)

• PMID: 16938061
• DOI: 10.1037/0893-164X.20.3.234

Abstract

Long-term use of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AASs) is associated with both positive and negative effects. The authors examined possible mechanisms by which these effects contribute to AAS satisfaction and predict intentions for future AAS use. Five hundred male AAS users completed an interactive Web-based instrument assessing the psychological and physical effects of AAS use. Covariance structure modeling was used to evaluate both direct and indirect effects of AAS consequences on satisfaction with AASs and intentions for future AAS use. Results suggest that gain in muscle mass and psychological benefits from AAS use uniquely contributed to both AAS satisfaction and intentions for future use. Side effects from AAS use also uniquely contributed to AAS satisfaction, but ancillary drug use was found to partially mediate this relationship, suggesting that the satisfaction of experienced AAS users is enhanced by their mastery of side effects through the use of ancillary drugs. The final model explained 29% of the variance in intentions for future AAS use. Mechanisms for sustained AAS use and implications for intervention and prevention strategies are discussed.

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

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 / 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.

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 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.

(...)