Facts
The Dutch Taekwondo Union (Taekwondo Bond Nederland, TBN) reports a violation of the Anti-Doping code(ADC). An out of competition doping test revealed the prohibited substance carboxy-finasteride.

History
The athlete was a member of the TBN and took part of the registered testing pool. After several efforts the defendant was found to administer a doping test in his residence. The test was done without the presence of an attendant and the defendant signed the doping consent form without mentioning any medication. No request for examining the B-sample has been made. No request for dispensation has been filed. In a written statement the defendant claims the use, on prescription, of the medicine propecia for baldness. Probably this medicine contains the prohibited substance. Defendant wasn't aware that his prescription contained the prohibited substance, for this he claims no fault or negligence. Every athlete is responsible for his body for not taking any prohibited substances.

Submissions
Defendant appeals for a reduction of the sentence.
Before the doping test he used medicine against baldness, for this he has a medical statement from his physician. His physician was aware he was an elite athlete but didn't warn him about prohibited substances.
The instruction leaflet of the medicine doesn't mention the prohibited substance.
However the prohibited substance doesn't enhance sport performance but belongs to the category masking agents. Also the defendant has a clean history regarding dope use, which indicates he doesn't want to enhance his sport performance.
The disciplinary committee findings are that the published doping list on the website of the TBN didn't correspond with the WADA doping list, the prohibited substance was not mentioned by the TBN website. This implicates a reduction of the sanction because of no significant fault or negligence.
The reduction of the sanction can not be lesser then half of the period of ineligibility for a first offense which means only one year. Although one year is still a severe punishment it lies within the rules.

Decision
The decision is a one year period of ineligibility commencing on the day of the verdict, reduced with the period of voluntary suspension.
An appeal can be made within 14 days.

FIFA's approach to doping in football / J. Dvorak, T. Graf-Baumann, M. D'Hooghe, D. Kirkendall, H. Taennler, M. Saugy. - (British Journal of Sports Medicine 40 (2006) Suppl 1; p. i3-i12)

• PMID: 16799099
• PMCID: PMC2657497
• DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.2006.027383

Abstract

Background and objectives: FIFA's anti-doping strategy relies on education and prevention. A worldwide network of physicians guarantees doping control procedures that are straightforward and leave no place for cheating. FIFA actively acknowledges its responsibility to protect players from harm and ensure equal chances for all competitors by stringent doping control regulations, data collection of positive samples, support of research, and collaboration with other organisations. This article aims to outline FIFA's approach to doping in football.

Method: Description of FIFA's doping control regulations and procedures, statistical analysis of FIFA database on doping control, and comparison with data obtained by WADA accredited laboratories as for 2004.

Results: Data on positive doping samples per substance and confederation/nation documented at the FIFA medical office from 1994 to 2005 are provided. According to the FIFA database, the incidence of positive cases over the past 11 years was 0.12%, with about 0.42% in 2004 (based on the assumption of 20,750 samples per year) and 0.37% in 2005. Especially important in this regard is the extremely low incidence of the true performance enhancing drugs such as anabolic steroids and stimulants. However, there is a need for more consistent data collection and cross checks among international anti-doping agencies as well as for further studies on specific substances, methods, and procedures. With regard to general health impairments in players, FIFA suggests that principles of occupational medicine should be considered and treatment with banned substances for purely medical reasons should be permitted to enable players to carry out their profession. At the same time, a firm stand has to be taken against suppression of symptoms by medication with the aim of meeting the ever increasing demands on football players.

Conclusion: Incidence of doping in football seems to be low, but much closer collaboration and further investigation is needed with regard to banned substances, detection methods, and data collection worldwide.

Medicolegal aspects of doping in football / T. Graf-Baumann. - (British Journal of Sports Medicine 40 (2006) Supplement 1 (July); p. i55-i57)

• PMID: 16799105
• PMCID: PMC2657503
• DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.2006.027979

Abstract

This article describes the historical background of the medicolegal aspects of doping in sports and especially in football. The definitions of legal terms are explained and the procedure of individual case management as part of FIFA's approach to doping is presented. Finally, three medicolegal problems awaiting urgent solution are outlined: firstly, the difficulties in decision making arising from the decrease of the T/E ratio from 6 to 4; secondly, the therapeutic application of alpha-reductase inhibitors for male pattern baldness in the face of the classification of finasteride as a forbidden masking agent; and lastly, the increasing use of recreational drugs and its social and legal implications in positive cases.

Facts
The French Free Flight Federation (Fédération Française de Vol Libre, FFVL) charges respondent M73 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During competition on May 27, 2006, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. 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. It is regarded as a specified substance.

History
Respondent didn't provide any information about how the prohibited substance had entered the body.

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

Facts
The French Free Flight Federation (Fédération Française de Vol Libre, FFVL) charges respondent M73 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During competition on May 27, 2006, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. 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. It is regarded as a specified substance.

History
Respondent didn't provide any information about how the prohibited substance had entered the body.

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

The Royal Dutch Billiards Association (KNBB) has reported a violation of the Doping rules of the ISR during a League match Snooker in The Netherlands. In the A-part of the urine sample of the person concerned the banned substance methylphenidate was found. Person concerned had submitted a statement of opposition. The matter is treated orally.

Person concerned, by means of a statement of opposition, informed that he/she had taken the medication Ritalin (that the banned substance contains methylphenidate) on prescription from his doctor to function in daily life normally while being diagnosed for ADD. During the doping control he/she has indicated to use medication and he also has a copy of the medical certificate from his treating psychiatrist show. In the past, being tested abroad, this was sufficient. He was not aware that it was required to have an official dispensation (TUE). A formal request for a TUE was submitted after the disclosure of the positive result of his doping control. Person concerned declares to have never had the intention to use doping to perform better. The use of the medicine is exclusively therapeutic. The now obtained TUE confirms this.

The Disciplinary Commission considers the presence of methylphenidate in the urine sample proven and thereby a violation of the anti doping rules. By obtaining a TUE the disciplinary Commission decides that the person concerned is not punishable.

Testosterone and doping control / C. Saudan, N. Baume, N. Robinson, L. Avois, P. Mangin, M. Saugy. - (British Journal of Sports Medicine 40 (2006) Suppl. 1; p. i21-i24)

• PMID: 16799097
• PMCID: PMC2657495
• DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.2006.027482

Abstract

Background and objectives: Anabolic steroids are synthetic derivatives of testosterone, modified to enhance its anabolic actions (promotion of protein synthesis and muscle growth). They have numerous side effects, and are on the International Olympic Committee's list of banned substances. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry allows identification and characterisation of steroids and their metabolites in the urine but may not distinguish between pharmaceutical and natural testosterone. Indirect methods to detect doping include determination of the testosterone/epitestosterone glucuronide ratio with suitable cut-off values. Direct evidence may be obtained with a method based on the determination of the carbon isotope ratio of the urinary steroids. This paper aims to give an overview of the use of anabolic-androgenic steroids in sport and methods used in anti-doping laboratories for their detection in urine, with special emphasis on doping with testosterone.

Methods: Review of the recent literature of anabolic steroid testing, athletic use, and adverse effects of anabolic-androgenic steroids.

Results: Procedures used for detection of doping with endogenous steroids are outlined. The World Anti-Doping Agency provided a guide in August 2004 to ensure that laboratories can report, in a uniform way, the presence of abnormal profiles of urinary steroids resulting from the administration of testosterone or its precursors, androstenediol, androstenedione, dehydroepiandrosterone or a testosterone metabolite, dihydrotestosterone, or a masking agent, epitestosterone.

Conclusions: Technology developed for detection of testosterone in urine samples appears suitable when the substance has been administered intramuscularly. Oral administration leads to rapid pharmacokinetics, so urine samples need to be collected in the initial hours after intake. Thus there is a need to find specific biomarkers in urine or plasma to enable detection of long term oral administration of testosterone.

George Hartman (“The Respondent”) is a member of the United States Judo Association (“USA Judo”). In 2005, Respondent was ranked number two in the United States under the 100kg weight category. Respondent has been in the USADA’s Out-of-Competition testing pool since November of 2004.

Respondent tested positive for testosterone in a March 2,2005 Out-of-Competition drug test. He admits being administered testosterone, but argues that his testosterone treatment was medically necessary as a result of his disability. Respondent requested that his two-year period of ineligibility be reduced under the Exceptional Circumstances provision of the World Anti Doping Code ("Code") Article 10.5. In addition, Respondent requested protection under the Americans with Disability Act ("ADA").
The Panel finds that Respondent failed to sustain his burden of proof that he suffers from a disability. As a consequence, the Panel imposes a two-year period of ineligibility, along with other sanctions as required by the Code.

Facts
The French Rugby Federation (Fédération Française de Rugby, FFR) charges respondent M43 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on May 28, 2005, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample tested positive on a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent denies the use of cannabis and claims the positive test derives from passive smoking. He has testimonies as proof for this fact.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months, for which two months conditionally, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFR.
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 Taekwondo Federation (Fédération Française de Taekwondo, FFT) charges respondent M42 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on January 8, 2006, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of salbutamol which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent had used medication to treat exercise induced asthma, however the high concentration measured is not in accordance with the medical use prescribed.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFT.
2. The earlier decision (6 months period of ineligibility) of the disciplinary committee, dated August 3, 2005, of the FFT, is cancelled.
3. The decision will start on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.