The Turkish Basketball Federation (TBF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance finasteride.
The International Basketball Federation (FIBA) notified the Player and ordered a provisional suspension. The Player stated that he suffered from hair loss and therefore used medication on a regular basis, prescribed to him by his doctor.
On 5 December 2005 the FIBA Commission concluded the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation.
Due to no significant fault of negligence the FIBA Commission decided to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility, of which 6 months are suspended, starting immediately and end on 21 September 2006.

Hereafter the Athlete and WADA appealed the FIBA Commission Decision of 5 December 2006 with the FIBA Appeals Commission.
The Athlete did not dispute the positive test or the anti-doping rule violation. The Athlete invoked the principle of proportionality due to the imposed sanction is too severe.
WADA requested the Appeal Commission to set aside the FIBA Commission Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete due to the Athlete failed to research the ingredients of the medication before using.

The Sole Arbitrator of the FIBA Appeals Commission in this case concludes that the FIBA Decision of 5 December 2005 is lawful and decides to dismiss the appeals of the Athlete and WADA.

Related case:
CAS 2006_A_1183 Karol Beck vs ITF
March 8, 2007

facts
Karol Beck (player) was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping rules. During the semi-final of the Davis Cup at Bratislava on September 24, 2005, an urine sample was taken for a doping test.

history
The player's explanation was that his drink has been spiked at a club in Bratislava on September 15, 2005, or mistakenly took one of his mother's Clenbuterol tablets believing it was his prescribed drug intended to cure his headache. The player argues that there is no significant fault or negligence.

Decision
The tribunal decides unanimously:
1. A doping offence has been established;
2. The player is automatically disqualified in respect of the Davis Cup semi-final held at Bratislava, and forfeits any medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money (without deduction for tax) obtained in that competition;
3. The player will be disqualified form any events subsequent to September 24, 2005, including forfeiture of any medals , titles, computer ranking points and prize money (without deduction for tax);
4. The period of ineligibility to be imposed is 2 years;
5. The period of ineligibility shall commence on November 1, 2005.

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Turin) 06/004 Deutscher Skiverband & Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle v. International Ski Federation (FIS)

Related cases:

• IBU 2014 IBU vs Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle
  July 14, 2014
• IOC 2014 IOC vs Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle
  February 21, 2014
• CAS 2014_A_3685 Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle vs IBU
  November 14, 2014
  
  

• Cross-country skiing
• Haemoglobin (Hb) value exceeding the threshold under the FIS Rules
• Alleged naturally high elevated level of Hb
• Application for a dispensation from the FIS Hb Rule

Since 2003 requests have been made each year to issue a dispensation for a naturally elevated high level of Haemoglobin (Hb) for this Athlete. All requests have been unsuccessful in persuading the FIS that this Athlete has a naturally high elevated level of Hb. FIS does agree that this Athlete does have a modestly elevated level of Hb but it is not sufficient to justify issuing a dispensation pursuant to Rule FIS B.4.8. Far be it for the CAS Panel to substitute its views to those of the experts who have declined to grant the dispensation to this Athlete for a naturally high elevated level of Hb over the past 3 years. The Panel is being asked to make a medical expert’s judgement through the guise of cancelling a Notification of Start Prohibition. It is not for the Panel to perform an evaluation similar to that contemplated by the FIS B.4.8, which would apply for the duration of theOlympic Games.

Ms Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle is a German Athlete selected to compete in the Women's Cross Country Skiing Events at the Turin 2006 Olympic Winter Games.

Following a blood screening/testing on 9 February 2006 that showed a level of haemoglobin above the maximum tolerated values, Ms Sachenbacher-Stehle was obliged by the FIS not to start any competitions for five consecutive days. As a result, the athlete would be forced to miss her first Olympic Games event on 12 February 2006.

Hereafter the German Ski Federation and the German cross-country skier Ms Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle filed an application in order to cancel the “Notification of Start Prohibition” issued by the International Ski Federation (FIS).

The athlete further asked the Panel to declare that the levels of haemoglobin were naturally elevated and had no connection with any haematological disease. The Panel refused to make a medical expert’s judgment and dismissed the application; moreover, it was convinced that the athlete did not have a naturally high level of haemoglobin.

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

1.) The application filed by Ms Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle and Deutscher Skiverband against the International Ski Federation is denied.

2.) (…).

CAS OG 06/001 World Anti-Doping agency (WADA) vs United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) & United States Bobsled & Skeleton Federation (USBSF) & Zachery Lund

• Skeleton
• Doping (Finasteride)
• No Significant Fault or Negligence
• Period of ineligibility resulting in the exclusion from the Olympic Games

1. The use of Finasteride which has been included on the WADA Prohibited list since 1 January 2005 as a masking agent constitutes a doping violation in breach of the USADA Protocol and of the FIBT Doping Control Regulations.

2. Under the FIBT Doping Control Regulations, in order to establish “No Fault or Negligence” an athlete has to show that he did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution, that he had used the Prohibited Substance. It cannot seriously be argued that an athlete who realized (and has been told by his national federation) that he had to check the Prohibited List each year and who failed to look at the list at all for over a year had exercised the utmost caution. It is a failure not to continue to monitor the Prohibited List, in accordance with his duty as an athlete.

3. In order to establish “No Significant Fault or Negligence”, an athlete has to show that his fault or negligence, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances and taking into account the criteria for “No Fault or Negligence” was not significant in relation to the anti-doping rule violation. Once the test has been satisfied, the period of ineligibility can be reduced. An athlete has satisfied the test where he has shown to be an honest athlete, open and frank with his failure, who for a number of years regularly checked the Prohibited List but failed to do so one year continuing however to include on the Doping Control Form the information that he was taking medication. The fact that the information was not picked up by any anti-doping organisation until the positive test is relevant.

In January 2006 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Zach Lund after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Finasteride.

Consequently on 22 January 2006 the Athlete admitted the violation and accepted the sanction of a warning and disqualification of his competition results.

Hereafter in February 2006 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the USADA Decision with the CAS ad hoc Division. WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

USADA contended that the Athlete was not a cheat and that the Athlete was mislead by the contents of the FIBT website regarding the substance Finasteride. Further it asserted that the Athlete's doping test record and medical history demonstrated that the Athlete used the product for medical purposed.

By contrast the Panel established the athlete who realized (and has been told by his national federation) that he had to check the Prohibited List each year and who failed to look at the list at all for over a year had exercised the utmost caution, albeit that for several years previously he had scrutinised the list with care. It is his failure to continue to monitor the Prohibited List, in accordance with his duty as an athlete, that has placed the Athlete in his present predicament.

In these circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Athlete, on his own admission, an admission which was contained on the Doping Control Form, committed an anti-doping violation and cannot escape a period of ineligibility.

Therefore the ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport renders the following decision:

1.) The Appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 2 February 2006 is allowed in part.

2.) The USADA Decision made on 22 January 2006 is overruled.

3.) Mr Lund’s period of ineligibility is for one year commencing on 10 November 2005 and concluding on 9 November 2006.

4.) WADA’s request for the disqualification of Mr Lund’s results after 10 November 2005 is rejected.

CAS 2005/A/884 Tyler Hamilton v. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) & Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI)

Related cases:

• AAA No. 30 190 00130 05 USADA vs Tyler Hamilton - Awards & Dissenting Opinion
  April 18, 2005
• Affidavit Tyler Hamilton [USADA vs Lance Armstrong October 10, 2012]
  September 22, 2011
• CAS 2004_A_748 ROC & Viatcheslav Ekimov vs IOC, USOC & Tyler Hamilton
  June 27, 2006
• IOC 2012 IOC vs Tyler Hamilton
  August 10, 2012

• Cycling
• Doping (homologous blood transfusion, HBT)
• Proof by “any reliable means”
• Shifting of the burden of proof when a laboratory is not accredited for a particular test
• Reliability of the HBT test
• Starting date of the sanction

1. The proof of an anti-doping violation “by any reliable means” gives great leeway to anti-doping agencies to prove violations, so long as they can comfortably satisfy a tribunal that the means of proof is reliable. As a result, it is not even necessary that a violation be proven by a scientific test itself. Instead, a violation may be proved through admissions, testimony of witnesses, or other documentation evidencing a violation. As a consequence, WADA need not designate a specific test to prove that a doping violation has occurred. Rather, WADA and its accredited laboratories are free to develop tests based on appropriate scientific principles to demonstrate the existence of a prohibited substance or the use of a prohibited method. This flexibility necessarily provides WADA and other anti-doping organizations with the means to combat new forms of doping.

2. Anti-doping organisations are generally aided by the presumption that WADA-accredited laboratories are presumed to conduct sample analysis in accordance with international laboratory standards. However, when WADA has not specifically accredited the laboratory for a particular test, the burden shifts to the anti-doping organisation to prove that the test has been conducted in accordance with the scientific community’s practice and procedures and that the laboratory satisfied itself as the validity of the method before using it. If the particular test is valid, then the presumption returns and the athlete must then prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the testing was not conducted in accordance with international standards.

3. As the HBT test has been used for many years for important medical purposes and has been scientifically reliable, the methodology to be applied for testing of athletes has been published in peer reviewed articles which were deemed to provide “proof of principle”, and the test methodology has been validated and considered as fit for purpose according to ISO 17025 and WADA ISL, the HBT test must be considered as a valid and reliable test for determining the usage of the prohibited method of blood doping through homologous blood transfusion.

4. Delays in the completion of the proceeding constitute a reason of fairness to start the period of ineligibility at an earlier date than the date of the hearing decision, for example at the date of the voluntary acceptance by the athlete of his suspension from his team.

On 18 April 2005 the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the cyclist Tyler Hamilton for the presence of transfused blood in his A and B blood samples which he provided in September 2004 in the Vuelta de España.

Hereafter in May 2005 the Athlete appealed the AAA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete asserted that regarding the used test the validation studies of this brand new test were limited, incomplete and unsatisfactory. He also contested the reliability of the alleged positive findings in connection with the Vuelta sample.

The Panel considered the evidence and arguments in this case and finds:

• that the HBT test as applied to the Athlete’s Vuelta sample was reliable;
• that on 11 September 2004, his blood did contain two different red blood cell populations; and
• that such presence was caused by blood doping by homologous blood transfusion, a Prohibited Method under the UCI Rules.

In these circumstances the Panel finds that it is not necessary to consider USADA’s and UCI’s alternative submission based on the results of the other testing of the Athlete which was said to corroborate the accuracy of the Vuelta analysis.

The Panel also has given serious consideration to the history of the requests and production of documents both before the current appeal Panel and before the original AAA hearing and whilst there may be some concerns about the way in which documents have been produced the Panel finds that there was no concealment such as would cast doubt on the validity of the test.

the Panel concludes that the presence of a mixed blood population in the Athlete’s Vuelta sample as detected by the HBT test proves that the Athlete was engaged in blood doping, a Prohibited Method, that violated the UCI Anti-Doping Rules; Chapter II, article 15.2 and Chapter III, article 21.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 10 February 2006:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Tyler Hamilton against the award dated 18 April 2005 rendered by the AAA Panel is dismissed.
2.) Mr Tyler Hamilton is ineligible to compete in cycling races for two years from 23 September 2004 until 22 September 2006.
3.) All questions of costs are reserved for consideration and will be the subject of a separate award.

Facts
Roy Mariano Hood (player) was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the French Open Championship at Roland Garros on May 31, 2005, he provided an urine sample for a doping test. His sample was tested positive for the prohibited substance finasteride. The player challenged the jurisdiction of the tribunal, that challenge was withdrawn shortly before the hearing and it was accepted that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine the offence and the appropriate sanction.

History
The player used the prohibited substance in medication for the treatment of hair loss. He argued to bear no fault or negligence or no significant fault of negligence within the meaning of special circumstances.

Decision
The tribunal make the following decision:
1. A doping offence has been established;
2. The player is automatically disqualified in respect of the French Open Championship 2005, and forfeits any medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money (without deduction for tax) obtained in that competition;
3. The period of ineligibility imposed is 1 year.
4. The period of ineligibility shall commence on October 10, 2005.
5. The player shall not be disqualified from any events subsequent to the French Open Championship 2005.

CAS 200S/A/834 Dubin, Österreichischer Behindertensportverband & Austrian Paralympic Committee v/ IPC

In October 2004 the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Austrian Parathlete Wolfgang Dubin after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Propylhexedrine.

The Athlete explained that he used for many years prescribed medication for his epilepsy while he was unaware that it contained a prohibited substance. The IPC concluded that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that he had failed to apply for a TUE.

On 8 November 2004 the IPC decided on 8 November 2004 to impose a warning and a reprimand on the Athlete including disqualification of his results. Following the Athlete's appeal the IPC decided on 2 February 2005 to uphold its previous decision.

Hereafter in February 2005 the Athlete, the Austrian Paralympic Committe and the Austrian Anti-Doping Committee appealed the IPC Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that:

• The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly he committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• The Athlete did not use the substance intentionally, but only as treatment to control his epilepsy.
• The IPC acted not in accordance with the WADA Code during the analysis of the Athlete's B sample while the IPC already rendered its decision and a press release.
• The substance Propylhexedrine was listed on the 2003 IOC Prohibited List, but was then removed in 2004 without any explanation by WADA.
• The Athlete nor his doctor were fully aware of the situation, due to the ambiguous listing / de-listing of substances on the 2003 and 2004 Prohibited Lists.
• The Athlete acted with No Fault or Negligence.
• No period of ineligibility has been imposed on the Athlete and the warning and reprimand are cancelled.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 8 February 2006:

1.) The Appeal filed on 21 February 2005 by Mr Dubin, the Austrian Paralympic Committee and the Austrian Anti-Doping Committee against the decision issued on 2 February 2005 by
which the appeal against the Decision of 8 November 2004 was dismissed is partially admitted.

2.) The Decision of the IPC Management Committee of 2 February 2005 is corrected in the sense that the waming and the reprimand imposed on the appellant Wolfgang Dubin are fully cancelled.

3.) The present arbitration procedure is rendered without costs, except for the CAS Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) already paid by the Appellants which is retained by the CAS.

4.) The Respondent shall refund the CAS Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) to the Appellants.

5.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

Efficacy of needle-free administration of recombinant human growth hormone in adults with growth hormone deficiency  / Alberto M. Pereira, Agatha A. van der Klaauw, Hans P.F. Koppeschaar, Jan W.A. Smit, Sjoerd W. van Thiel, Jaap van Doorn, Nienke R. Biermasz, Ferdinand Roelfsema, Johannes A. Romijn. - (British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 61 (2006) 4 (April); p. 451-455)

• PMID: 16542206
• PMCID: PMC1885043
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02585.x

Abstract

Aim: Needle-free administration of recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) is effective in the treatment of growth hormone deficiency (GHD) in children, but has not been studied in adult patients. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy of needle-free administration of rhGH in adults with GHD.

Methods: Insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) concentrations were compared in newly diagnosed patients with GHD (n = 21) and in patients previously treated by subcutaneous injection of rhGH (switchers, n = 34), at baseline, 12 months and 24 months.

Results: In the new patients, IGF-I standard deviation scores (SDS) increased from - 1.82 +/- 0.46 to + 0.75 +/- 0.33 at 12 months and to + 0.65 +/- 0.41 at 24 months (P < or = 0.001 vs. baseline). In switchers, IGF-I SDS remained unchanged with values of + 0.98 +/- 0.32 at baseline, + 0.87 +/- 0.23 at 12 months and + 0.73 +/- 0.29 at 24 months (P = 0.696 vs. baseline). In new patients, the rhGH dose was 0.46 +/- 0.03 mg day(-1) at 12 months and 0.47 +/- 0.03 mg day(-1) at 24 months. In switchers, the rhGH dose was 0.53 +/- 0.04 mg day(-1) at baseline (s.c. injection), 0.52 +/- 0.03 mg day(-1) at 12 months and 0.48 +/- 0.03 mg day(-1) at 24 months (NS between the different time points). There was no difference in the dose of rhGH at 12 and 24 months between the two groups. Side-effects were generally minor and consisted of local tissue reactions.

Conclusion: Administration of rhGH by needle-free, transdermal injection is effective in maintaining IGF-I concentrations in the normal range for age in adults with GHD, and is as effective as traditional subcutaneous injection of rhGH.

Facts
The French Motor Sports Federation (Fédération Française du Sport Automobile, FFSA) charges respondent M11 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a rally on May 8, 2006, a sample was taken for a doping test. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of budesonide which is a prohibited substance according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent hadn't mentioned the use of medication containing budesonide on the doping control form. However she has her medical record which shows she is using this medication since childhood for a medical condition she suffers from, this justifies the use of the medication.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision will start on the date of notification.
5. 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 August 9, 2005, respondent provided a sample for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of stanozolol which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent didn't deny the allegation, he also didn't send in written submissions and didn't attend the hearing.

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