Criminality among individuals testing positive for the presence of anabolic androgenic steroids / Fia Klötz, Mats Garle, Fredrik Granath, Ingemar Thiblin

• Archives of general psychiatry 63 (2006) 11 (November); p. 1274-1279
• PMID: 17088508
• DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.63.11.1274

Abstract

Context: Observations suggest that the use of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) may trigger uncontrolled, violent rage. Other observations indicate that certain groups of criminals may use AAS with the intention of being capable of committing crime more efficiently.

Objective: To examine the proposed association between the use of AAS and criminality.

Design: A controlled retrospective cohort study of registered criminal activity among individuals tested for AAS use during the period of January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2001.

Setting: All individuals in Sweden who were tested for AAS use during this period. These individuals were referred for testing from both inpatient and outpatient clinics as well as from centers for treatment of substance abuse.

Participants: Individuals testing positive for AAS (n=241), with those testing negative for AAS during the same period (n=1199) serving as the control group.

Main outcome measures: The ratios (expressed as relative risk [RR]) of the incidences of several categories of crime in the 2 study groups.

Results: The risk of having been convicted for a weapons offense or fraud was higher among individuals testing positive for AAS than among those testing negative (RR, 2.090 and 1.511, respectively; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.589-2.749 and 1.208-1.891, respectively) whereas there were no significant differences with respect to violent crimes (RR, 1.116; 95% CI, 0.981-1.269) or crimes against property (RR, 0.942; 95% CI, 0.850-1.044). When patients referred from substance abuse centers were excluded, a lower risk for crimes against property was observed for the individuals who tested positive for AAS (RR, 0.761; 95% CI, 0.649-0.893) and the risk for fraud in the 2 groups was equalized (RR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.764-1.635). The increased risk for a weapons offense among the individuals testing positive for AAS remained virtually unchanged.

Conclusions: In addition to the impulsive violent behavior previously shown to be related to AAS use, such use might also be associated with an antisocial lifestyle involving various types of criminality. However, the existence and nature of this possible association remain unclear and call for further investigation.

Facts
David Buck (player) was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). During the US Open Wheelchair Tennis Championship, on October 6, 2005, he was selected for doping control. On the doping form he declared medication and "medical use of marijuana". He voluntarily abstained from competitive tennis from October 10, 2005, onwards awaiting a likely positive test result. His A sample tested positive on a metabolite of cannabis known as 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

History
The player is paraplegic following a complete spinal chord injury. In his state the use of cannabis is restricted but doctors are able to recommend its use. He uses it each day to threat post-traumatic arthritis, degenerative arthritis, muscle spasm, insomnia and nausea.
Cannabinoids are prohibited substances since January 1, 2004. The player however continued using cannabis and also didn't apply for a therapeutic use exemption ("TUE"). However he did sent in a TUE application signed by his doctor the day after his sample was reported with the prohibited substance.

Decision
Accordingly the Tribunal:
(1) confirms the commission of the doping offence specified in the notice of charge set out in the ITF’s letter to the player dated 31 January 2006: namely that a prohibited substance, 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, a cannabis metabolite, has been found to be present in the urine specimen that the player provided at San Diego on October 6, 2005;
(2) orders that the player’s individual result must be disqualified in respect of the singles and doubles events at the US Open Wheelchair Tennis Championships 2005, and in consequence rules that the two ranking points in respect of the singles event and the two ranking points in respect of the doubles event, and the prize money of US $105 in respect
of the singles event, and of US $26 in respect of the doubles event, obtained by the player through his participation in that competition, must be forfeited;
(3) finds that the player has succeeded in establishing on the balance of probabilities that his use of cannabis leading to the positive test result in was not intended to enhance sport performance;
(4) declares the player ineligible for a period of 3½ months running from October 10, 2005 to January 24, 2006 from participating in any capacity in any event or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized by the ITF or any national or regional entity which is a member of or is recognized by the ITF as the entity governing the sport of tennis in that nation or region.

TAS 2005/A/964 Agence mondiale antidopage c. Gabriel Sorin Pop

CAS 2005/A/964 WADA vs Gabriel Sorin Pop

In May 2005 the International Cycling Union (UCI) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Romanian cyclist Gabriel Sorin Pop for his failure to submit to sample collection following a competition in Greece in April 2005.

Thereupon on 13 July 2005 the Romanian Cycling and Triathlon Federation (FRCT) decided to impose a warning on the Athlete and to suspend for 1 year the head of the Romanian national cycling team.

Hereafter in September 2005 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the FRCT decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction in accordance with the applicable Rules.

The Athlete explained that his team captain and the rest of the team didn't understand the English language; they missed the announcement on the radio; and they didn't received a written notification. Also there was a problem because of a detour to the hotel and the location of the doping control station. Yet, one cyclist of the team was tested without issues.

The Panel assessed the circumstances on how the cyclist and his team failed to appear at the Doping Control Station in April 2005. In view of the Athlete's conduct the Panel deems that he could not demonstrate that he had a compelling justification for his failure to submit to sample collection.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 27 February 2006:

1.) The appeal filed by WADA is admissible.

2.) The decision of the FRCT is annuled.

3.) A 2 year period of ineligiblity is imposed on the Athlete starting on the date of the Decision.

4.) All the Athlete's results obtained since 22 April 2005 are disqualified.

5.) (...)

6.) (...)

CAS A2/2006 Australian Weightlifting Federation vs. Jenna Myers

In January 2006 the Australian Weightlifting Federation (AWF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Jenna Meyers after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Benzylpiperazine.

Following notification - without a provisional suspension - the case was referrred to the Oceania Registry Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. She argued that she was tested before without issues, she had mentioned the supplements she used on the Doping Control Form and she had properly checked the safety of the products before using.

The Athlete stated that she had used a Fortius Synephrine product in order to reduce her body weight. She was not aware that this product contained the prohibited substance due to Benzylpiperazine was not listed as an ingredient on the lable of the bottle.

This product was recommended by another weightlifter and considered safe to use. Yet, the Athlete was later advised that other weightlifters also had tested positive after using this product.

In January 2006 Fortius Products confirmed that the batch in question used by the athletes was contaminated with Benzylpiperazine. On being asked their manufacturer and supplier of this product failed to provide an explanation about this contamination.

The AWF contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that she acted with No (Significant) Fault or Negligence. She failed to read the read the warnings on the website of the Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA) nor had checked properly her supplements before using the products.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Undisputed is that the product Fortius Synephrine was the source of the prohibited substance and that the violation was not intentional. Considering the Athlete's conduct the Arbitrator finds that she acted with Significant Fault or Negligence regarding the products she had used.

Therefore The Court of Arbitration for Sport Rules that:

1.) Jenna Myers has breached Article 5.1 of the Anti-Doping Policy of the Australian Weightlifting Federation and has thereby committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation.

2.) Jenna Myers individual results obtained in the Australian Weightlifting Championships held in Brisbane, Queensland in October 2005 are disqualified; accordingly Jenna Myers forfeits her first placing achieved at that Championship including all medals, points, national records and prizes, pursuant to Article 13.1 of the Anti-Doping Policy of the Australian Weightlifting Federation.

3.) Jenna Myers is ineligible to compete during the period commencing on 3 February 2006 and expiring at midnight on 2 February 2008.

4.) Jenna Myers is required to pay the sum of $1000.00 in respect of costs to the Australian Weightlifting Federation.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Chris McKay (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. On September 28, 2005, the Athlete was a member of the Okanagan Suns Junior Football Team. He was randomly selected for out-of-competition doping control at a team practice in Kelowna, British Columbia. The Athlete refused or failed to provide a urine sample for testing.

History
The athlete refused to give an urine sample, returned the sample container and left. He didn't participated in the hearing process; contested the anti-doping rule violation asserted by the CCES or the evidence put forward by the CCES; or offered any explanation for his prima facie refusal to submit to Sample collection.

Decision
The CCES has met the burden of proof that the Athlete refused or failed without compelling justification to submit to Sample collection after authorized notification.
The Athlete's refusal constitutes an anti-doping rule violation as provided in Rule 7.24 of the CADP. This is a first violation.
The sanctions to be imposed on the Athlete are two years' ineligibility and permanent ineligibility for direct financial support from the Government of Canada.

CAS A4/2006 Australian Weightlifting Federation vs Camilla Fogagnolo

In January 2006 the Australian Weightlifting Federation (AWF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Camilla Fogagnolo after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Benzylpiperazine.

Following notification - without a provisional suspension - the case was referrred to the Oceania Registry Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. She argued that she was tested before without issues, she had mentioned the supplements she used on the Doping Control Form and she had properly checked the safety of the products before using.

The Athlete stated that she had used a Fortius Synephrine product in order to reduce her body weight. She was not aware that this product contained the prohibited substance due to Benzylpiperazine was not listed as an ingredient on the lable of the bottle.

This product was recommended by another weightlifter and considered safe to use. Yet, the Athlete was later advised that other weightlifters also had tested positive after using this product.

In January 2006 Fortius Products confirmed that the batch in question used by the athletes was contaminated with Benzylpiperazine. On being asked their manufacturer and supplier of this product failed to provide an explanation about this contamination.

The AWF contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that she acted with No (Significant) Fault or Negligence. She failed to read the read the warnings on the website of the Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA) nor had checked properly her supplements before using the products.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Undisputed is that the product Fortius Synephrine was the source of the prohibited substance and that the violation was not intentional. Considering the Athlete's conduct the Arbitrator finds that she acted with Significant Fault or Negligence regarding the products she had used.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 February 2006 that:

1.) Camilla Fogagnolo has breached Article 5.1 of the Anti-Doping Policy of the Australian Weightlifting Federation and has thereby committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation.

2.) Camilla Fogagnolo's individual results obtained in the Australian Weightlifting Championships held in Brisbane, Queensland in October 2005 are disqualified; accordingly Camilla Fogagnolo forfeits her second placing achieved at that Championship including all medals, points and prizes, pursuant to Article 13.1 of the Anti-Doping Policy of the Australian Weightlifting Federation.

3.) Camilla Fogagnolo is ineligible to compete during the period commencing on 3 February 2006 and expiring at midnight on 2 February 2008.

4.) Camilla Fogagnolo is required to pay the sum of $1000.00 in respect of costs to the Australian Weightlifting Federation.

Beullens M, Delanghe JR, Bollen M. False-positive detection of recombinant human erythropoietin in urine following strenuous physical exercise. Blood 2006 107: 4711-4713.

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Turin) 06/010 Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) v. Fédération Internationale de Bobsleigh et de Tobogganing (FIBT)

Bobsleigh
Eligibility of a bobsleigh team to participate in the Olympic Games
Distinction between an adverse analytical finding and an anti-doping rule violation

An adverse analytical finding is simply a report by the Anti-Doping laboratory that a sample is positive for a prohibited substance. Thereafter, the applicable Anti-Doping regulations (FIBT Regulations in this case) provide for an extensive process, including the athlete’s rights: to ask for a B sample test, be present at the testing of the B sample, and to have a hearing to contest the adverse analytical finding. Only after that process has been completed and the adverse analytical finding is confirmed is an anti-doping rule violation found. As a result, a sanction is imposed on the athlete in the form of Consequences as defined in the FIBT Regulations.

In February 2006 the Brazilian Olympic Committee (BOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian bobsledder Armando Dos Santos after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance nandrolone. As a consequence the BOC decided to exclude the Athlete to compete at the Turin 2006 Olympic Winter Games.

Hereafter the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) filed an application with the CAS Ad hoc Division at the Turin Olympic Games and requested the Panel for an order to declare the Brazilian 4-man bobsleight team ineligible to compete in the Olympic Winter Games and to declare instead the Australian 4-man bobsleigh team eligible to compete in the same Games.

In order for the AOC to succeed, the Panel must first find that in accordance with the FIBT Regulations, there has been a finding of an anti-doping rule violation by a member of the Brazilian 4-man Bob team. The team member, Dos Santos, has not as of this date been found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation. No decision that Dos Santos committed an anti-doping rule violation has been rendered by any authority. The adverse analytical finding announced by the BOC in apparent disregard for Rule 14.14 of the FIBT Regulations that prohibit such public disclosure is not a decision pursuant to Article 13 of the FIBT Regulations which may be appealed to CAS. The Panel finds that to date Dos Santos has not been found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation, nor has he been provisionally suspended. The BOC has chosen to remove Dos Santos from the Olympic team based on its internal policies.

Because there has been no anti-doping rule violation found, the remainder of the AOC’s submissions do not need to be addressed by the Panel. The Application fails at the outset and therefore there is no need to interpret the meaning of Article 11 of the FIBT Regulations with respect to the effect that his doping infraction would have had on the “team” of which Dos Santos was a part at the Challenge Cup.

On the basis of the foregoing facts and legal aspects, the ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport renders the following decision on 20 February 2006:

1.) The appeal filed by the Australian Olympic Committee against the Fédération Internationale de Bobsleigh et de Tobogganing is denied.
2.) (…).

Following analysis of the so-called "Vrijman report" submitted to the International Cycling Union (UCI) in relation to the August 2005 L’Équipe article that concluded Lance Armstrong had used EPO during the 1999 Tour de France, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) issues its official statement highlighting a number of the unprofessional, inaccurate, unfair and misleading elements of the report.

Content:

- Background
- Process
- Substance of report

Mrs. Olga Pyleva is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women’s 15 km Individual Biathlon at the Torino 2006 Winter Olympic Games.

On 15 February 2006 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance carphedon.
After notification the Athlete was provisional suspended and heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

The Athlete stated that she suffered from a foot injury one month earlier and therefore used the prescribed medication phenotropile.

The doctor of the Russian Olympic Committee, informed the Disciplinary Commission that the Russian Olympic Committee knew that the substance Carphedon was contained in the medicine phenotropile. The Russian Olympic Committee requested on several occasions the manufacturer to indicate the presence of Carphedon in the medicine, which was not done. In addition, the Russian Olympic Committee published several articles warning the athletes and other concerned persons of the presence of Carphedon in this medicine.

The Disciplinary Commission unanimously concluded that the Athlete had committed a doping offence pursuant to Article 2.1 of the Rules in that there was the presence of the prohibited substance Carphedon in her body.

Therefore on 16 February 2006 the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides that the athlete Mrs Olga Pyleva:
1.) is disqualified from the Biathlon, Women’s 15 km Individual, where she had placed second;
2.) is excluded from the XX Olympic Winter Games in Torino in 2006;
3.) shall have her Olympic identity and accreditation card be immediately withdrawn.
4.) The International Biathlon Union is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The Russian Olympic Committee is ordered to return to the IOC, as soon as possible, the Medal and the Diploma awarded to the Athlete in relation to the above-noted event.
6.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.