Facts
The French Golf Federation (Fédération Française de Golf, FFGOLF) charges respondent M19 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on September 4, 2005, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of methylenedioxyamphetamine and methylenedioxymethamphetamine which are prohibited substances according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent had used ecstasy the night before the competition started, despite his lack of sleep and his nervousness at the material time, the person concerned has admitted to playing well and got a very good result in this competition, finishing in the fifth place

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one year for which 6 months conditionally, respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the disciplinary committee of the FFGOLF.
2. The sanction imposed by this decision for his remaining term of four months, shall take effect from 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 M10 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on July 23, 2005, respondent provided a sample for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of budesonide, Budesonide is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent, by a decision on October 6, 2005, had received a
sanction of 18 months period of ineligibility, six months conditionally, by the disciplinary committee of the FCC. Respondent appealed against this decision. Respondent claims not to have used any substance to enhance his sport performance, he had used products in a pharmacy against fatigue, these products where mentioned on the doping control form, they don't explain the presence of heptaminol in his sample.

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

Thevis M, Kamber M, Schänzer W. Screening for metabolically stable aryl-propionamide-derived selective androgen receptor modulators for doping control purposes. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2006;20(5):870-6.

In April 2006 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Diana Mihaela Tudorache after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methandienone.
Therefore on 14 March 2006 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 11 February 2006.

TAS 2005/A/965 UCI c/ AMA & Franck Bouyer

CAS 2005/A/965 UCI vs WADA & Franck Bouyer

Related case:

CAS 2004_A_769 Franck Bouyer vs WADA & UCI
March 18, 2005

The French cyclist Franck Bouyer was diagnosed with Narcolepsy and therefore the medication Modafinil was prescribed as treatment. Because Modafinil is a prohibited substance he needed a valid TUE.

In 2004 the UCI and WADA denied the Athlete's TUE applications for the use of Modafinil which was confirmed by CAS in March 2005. Thereupon in June 2005 again the UCI TUE Committee denied the Athlete's second TUE application.

The Athlete appealed with WADA and on 19 August 2005 the WADA TUE Committee approved the Athlete's TUE application. Hereafter the UCI Appealed the WADA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Following assessment of the case the Panel deems that not has been demonstrated that the use of the prescribed Modafinil would not improve the Athlete's sport performance. The Panel concludes that the WADA TUE Committee erroneously applied the criteria to grant the TUE application.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decisides on 13 March 2006:

1.) The decision is of the WADA TUE Committee is annuled.

2.) The WADA has to pay a fine of CHF 1000,-. to the UCI.

Psychiatric and hostility factors related to use of anabolic steroids in monozygotic twins / Thomas A. Pagonis, Nikiforos V. Angelopoulos, George N. Koukoulis, Christos S. Hadjichristodoulou, Paraskevi N. Toli

• European Psychiatry 21 (2006) 8 (December); p. 563-569
• PMID: 16529916
• DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2005.11.002

Abstract

Introduction: Anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) are derived by chemical manipulation of the testosterone molecule. The specified category of drugs produces anabolic, androgenic and psycho-active effects including elevated aggressive, hostile, violent and anti social behavior.

Objective: The objective of this case report observational study was to evaluate the possible psychological consequences of AS use in the twin user of each pair, compared with the non-user twin.

Methodology: We studied two pairs of male monozygotic twins: one pair 24 years old and the other 31 years old, with absolute genome and phenotype similarity. One of the twins of each pair used AAS while the other did not. Both pairs lived in Hellenic provincial towns and followed a common training and nutrition regime. The psychometric instruments used were the Symptoms Check List-90 (SCL-90) and the Hostility and Direction of Hostility Questionnaire (HDHQ). The psychometric evaluations took place within a time interval of 6 months.

Results: The study found high levels of aggressiveness, hostility, anxiety and paranoid ideation in the twins who used AS. The non-user twins showed no deviation from their initial status.

Conclusion: The use of AAS induced several important psychiatric changes in monozygotic twins which were not present in the twin who did not use AAS.

Jay R. Hoffman and Nicholas A. Ratamess
The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ, USA
Received: 10 February 2006 / Accepted: 09 March 2006 / Published (online): 01 June 2006

For the past 50 years anabolic steroids have been at the forefront of the controversy surrounding performance enhancing drugs. For almost half of this time no attempt was made by sports governing
bodies to control its use, and only recently have all of the major sports governing bodies in North America agreed to ban from competition and punish athletes who test positive for anabolic steroids. These punitive measures were developed with the primary concern for promotion of fair play and eliminating potential
health risks associated with androgenic-anabolic steroids. Yet, controversy exists whether these testing programs deter anabolic steroid use. Although the scope of this paper does not focus on the effectiveness of testing, or the issue of fair play, it is of interest to understand why many athletes underestimate the health
risks associated from these drugs. What creates further curiosity is the seemingly well-publicized health hazards that the medical community has depicted concerning anabolic steroid abuse. Is there something that the athletes know, or are they simply naïve regarding the dangers? The focus of this review is to
provide a brief history of anabolic steroid use in North America, the prevalence of its use in both athletic and recreational populations and its efficacy. Primary discussion will focus on health issues associated with anabolic steroid use with an examination of the contrasting views held between the medical community and the athletes that are using these ergogenic drugs. Existing data suggest that in certain circumstances the medical risk associated with anabolic steroid use may have been somewhat exaggerated,
possibly to dissuade use in athletes.

http://www.jssm.org

by Soek, Jan Willem
Doctoral Thesis
Erasmus University Rotterdam: Erasmus School of Law (ESL)

Athletes who achieve extraordinary feats on the pitch stir up the imagination and enjoy a unique position within society. However, laurels received one day, may be just as quickly snatched back the next if it becomes known that the athlete achieved his or her exceptional performance with the aid of doping. Manipulating the body by the use of substances and methods that unnaturally enhance athletic performance is considered a violation of several fundamental principles related to sport. The arguments by which sports organisations have sought to justify their fight against doping have been discussed in Chapter 1. Doping is considered a health risk, but also a threat to both athlete’s integrity and that of sport as a whole, and consequently, given the position in society occupied by sport, of that of society itself. None of these arguments, however, is entirely convincing. Perhaps this is why many sports organisations have declined to state reasons for their anti-doping policies in their anti-doping regulations. The fight against doping in sport is considered self-evident and the arguments which are advanced in its favour merely serve to illustrate this fact. It was only a relatively short time ago that the systematic fight against doping in sport through legal rules began. As a separate body of disciplinary law besides their regular disciplinary rules the sports organisations established special anti-doping regulations for the prosecution and punishment of doping offences. As opposed to under general disciplinary law where unwritten minimum standards usually apply, the disciplinary law of doping uses detailed material rules which define the act of doping and the way in which it is to be punished. As such, the disciplinary law concerning doping resembles the statutory disciplinary rules that exist for certain professions, but is also comparable to public punitive law. What sets disciplinary doping law apart however is that the material rules do not aim to regulate the actual exercise of a profession, but are based on the ideological aspects which prevail in the environment where an athlete's activities take place. In disciplinary doping law, for example, there are hardly any examples of professional error, but rather of acts which undermine the image and ethics of the sport. This is an aspect which it has in common with criminal law. Disciplinary doping law which mainly aims to regulate the relevant offences and their prosecution and punishment should therefore be organised along the same lines as criminal law and entitle athletes to certain rights to counter the demands of the collective. This is necessary, as in sport the interests of the collective are often valued above those of the individual.

Importance of hemoglobin concentration to exercise : acute manipulations / José A.L. Calbet, Carsten Lundby, Maria Koskolou, Robert Boushel. - (Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology 151 (2006) 2-3 (28 April); p. 132-140)

• PMID: 16516566
• DOI: 10.1016/j.resp.2006.01.014

Abstract

An acute reduction of blood hemoglobin concentration ([Hb]), even when the circulating blood volume is maintained, results in lower (.)V(O(2)(max) and endurance performance, due to the reduction of the oxygen carrying capacity of blood. Conversely, an increase of [Hb] is associated with enhanced (.)V(O(2)(max) and endurance capacity, that is also proportional to the increase in the oxygen carrying capacity of blood. The effects on endurance capacity appear more pronounced and prolonged than on (.)V(O(2)(max). During submaximal exercise, there is a tight coupling between O(2) demand and O(2) delivery, such that if [Hb] is acutely decreased muscle blood flow is increased proportionally and vice versa. During maximal exercise with either a small or a large muscle mass, neither peak cardiac output nor peak leg blood flow are affected by reduced [Hb]. An acute increase of [Hb] has no effect on maximal exercise capacity or (.)V(O(2)(max) during exercise in acute hypoxia. Likewise, reducing [Hb] in altitude-acclimatized humans to pre-acclimatization values has no effect on (.)V(O(2)(max) during exercise in hypoxia.

After a positive test for Cannabis in August 2005 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decided to impose a warning and a reprimand on the Australian boxer Anthony Little without a period of ineligibility.

In first instance the Sole Arbitrator determined that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete had demonstrated that the Cannabis was passively inhaled by him in August 2005 prior to the doping test and that he did not actively ingest Cannabis.

Although the Athlete won gold at the Commonwealth Games selection trials in 2005, and he was cleared by the CAS Tribunal, Boxing Australia Inc. decided in February 2006 to exclude the Athlete for the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed with the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division the decision of the BAI Appeal Panel of 21 February 2006, regarding his non-selection for the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

The Athlete asserted that BAI failed to give careful consideration to its undoubted power to amend the Criteria in question and to properly follow and/or implement the Nomination Criteria.

Following assessment of the case the Sole Arbitrator determines that BAI gave consideration to the matters raised by the Athlete and it exercised its discretion not to amend the Criteria in question. Also there is no evidence that BAI acted in an appropriate manner or acted inconsistently with its contractual obligations.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 March 2006:

1.) The Appeal by Anthony Little against the failure of the Respondent to nominate him to the Australian Commonwealth Games Association for selection in the Australian Team to compete in the 2006 Commonwealth Games, is dismissed.

(…).