Rapportage Audit Commissie Doping : periode maart 2005 t/m augustus 2005 / C.A. Segaar, S.J.U. Veen-van der Wielen, C. van Bentum. - Arnhem : Audit Commissie Doping, 2005.
- Rapportage t.b.v. de Algemene vergadering NOC*NSF 15 november 2005
- Halfjaarlijkse rapportage aan de Algemene Vergadering van NOC*NSF, het bestuur NOC*NSF, de staatssecretaris van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport en het bestuur van het NeCeDo.

Inhoud:

- Hoofdstuk 1 Inleiding
- Hoofdstuk 2 Gegevens verzameling
- Hoofdstuk 3 Toelichting overzichten
- Hoofdstuk 4 Bevindingen
- Hoofdstuk 5 Conclusies en aanbevelingen
- Bijlagen Rapportage Audit Commissie Doping Olympische bonden
Rapportage Audit Commissie Doping Niet-Olympische bonden
Overzicht verdeling dopingcontroles 2005

The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XX Olympic Winter Games in Turin, 2006 / International Olympic Committee (IOC). - Lausanne : IOC, 2005

Contents:

Article 1 Definition Of Doping
Article 2 Anti-Doping Rule Violations
Article 3 Proof Of Doping
Article 4 The Prohibited List
Article 5 Doping Control
Article 6 Analysis Of Samples
Article 7 Disciplinary Procedure With Respect To Alleged Anti-doping Rule Violations Arising Upon The Occasion Of The Olympic Games
Article 8 Automatic Disqualification Of Individual Results, Ineligibility For Olympic Games
Article 9 Sanctions On Individuals
Article 10 Consequences To Teams
Article 11 Financial And Other Sanctions Assessed Against National Olympic Committees And International Federations
Article 12 Appeals
Article 13 Confidentiality And Reporting
Article 14: Mutual Recognition Of Decisions .
Article 15 Applicable Law, Amendment And Interpretation Of
Anti-Doping Rules
Article 16 Languages
Appendix 1 – Definitions (Referred To In The Preambles)
Appendix 2 – Criteria Relating To The International Standard For Testing (Referred To In Article 5.3)
Appendix 3 – Technical Procedures Relating To Doping Control (Referred To In Article 5.3)

Facts
The French Motor Sports Federation (Fédération Française du Sport Automobile, FFSA) charges respondent M47 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a rally on May 20, 2005, respondent provided a sample for doping control 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.

History
The respondent admits the use of cannabis but claims it was without the intention to enhance sport performance procedure.

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

Facts
The French Golf Federation (Fédération Française de Golf, FFGOLF) charges respondent M45 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on November 28, 2004, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cocaine. Cocaine is a prohibited substance according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent was sanctioned by the disciplinary committee with a period of ineligibility of 18 months, from which six months conditionally. Respondent had appealed against this decision and was acquitted.
He claimed to have used the stimulant against fatigue because his wife was delivering their first child. Respondent claims that the doping control form was not handed out at him for his signature. Also he objected against the doping control facility and he had refused the control analyses.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 18 months, 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 decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Federation for Savate, French Boxing and Associated Disciplines (Fédération Française de Savate Boxe Française et Disciplines Associées, FFSBFDA) charges respondent M44 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an event on March 13, 2005, respondent provided a sample for doping control. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis.

History
The respondent explained by letter that he had used cannabis only occasionally.

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

Facts
The French Pétanque Federation (Fédération Française de pétanque et jeu provençal, FFPJP) charges respondent M43 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on March 20, 2005, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of propranolol which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent had a prescription for the use of medication, he didn't knew that it contained a prohibited substance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 6 months, from which 3 months conditionally, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFPJP.
3. The sanction starts on the date of notifcation.
3. The decision will not be published.
4. The decision will be sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Ainsly Robinson (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On the weekend of May 14 and 15, 2005, Mr. Robinson competed at the National Senior Wrestling Championships, which took place in Renfrew, Ontario. On Sunday, May 15th, he was notified that he had been selected for doping control. His sample was positive for the presence of cocaine and metabolites. Cocaine is a prohibited substance on the 2005 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The athlete has a job as security. He confiscated a brown bag with a powdery substance and put it in the bag of his pants. Probably this bag contained cocaine and was absorbed by his skin. He was unaware that this substance could be absorbed by his skin.

Decision
In view of the presence of cocaine and metabolites in his sample, it was acknowledged that an anti-doping rule violation occurred.It cannot be concluded that there are exceptional circumstances which would justify the elimination or reduction of the penalty for such a violation. In accordance with the CADP, the penalty required to impose for a first anti-doping rule violation is a two year period of ineligibility from sport and permanent ineligibility for direct financial support from the Government of Canada. The period of ineligibility shall run from the date of the decision, provided that the period of provisional suspension shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility.

Doping in the recombinant era : strategies and counterstrategies / Hassan M.E. Azzazy, Mai M.H. Mansour, Robert H. Christenson

• Clinical Biochemistry 38 (2005) 11 (November); p. 959-965
• PMID: 16286094
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2005.09.007
• Comment in:
  • Doping in the recombinant era / Gary Green
  • PMID: 17200034
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2006.11.002

Abstract

Advances in recombinant DNA technology have created one of the most powerful weapons in the current doping arsenal: recombinant proteins [Sweeney HL. Gene doping. Sci Am 2004;291:62-9; Unal M, Ozer Unal D. Gene doping in sports. Sports Med 2004;34:357-62]. Recombinant erythropoietin (EPO) and human growth hormone (hGH) are currently being abused but are fortunately detectable either directly by employing isoelectric focusing and immunoassays or indirectly by assessing changes in selected hematopoietic parameters. The detection is technically demanding due to the extent of similarity between the recombinant proteins and their endogenous counterparts. Another issue facing detection efforts is the speed and conditions at which blood samples are collected and analyzed in a sports setting. Recently, gene doping, which stemmed out of legitimate gene therapy trials, has emerged as the next level of doping. Erythropoietin (EPO), human growth hormone (hGH), insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-delta (PPAR delta), and myostatin inhibitor genes have been identified as primary targets for doping. Sports clinical scientists today are racing against the clock because assuring the continued integrity of sports competition depends on their ability to outpace the efforts of dopers by developing new detection strategies.

TAS 2005/A/958 R. c. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), ordonnance du 9 novembre 2005

• Football
• Doping (Cocaine)
• Provisional measures
• Suspensive effect
• Risk of irreparable damage

On 30 August 2005 the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) Appeals Body decided to impose an 8 month period of ineligibility on the Dutch minor football player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

Hereafter in September 2005 the Athlete appealed the UEFA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

In this preliminary proceeding the Athlete requested the Panel for suspension of the imposed sanction by the UEFA. The Athlete argued that the chances of success of his appeal are real and the UEFA Appeals Body already denied his request for suspension while in his case a serious departure occurred with testing of his sample.
Also the Athlete asserted that he already had served 3 months of the imposed period of ineligibility while he was also denied the opportunity to participate in an important competition.

The UEFA contended that it does not grant suspension on the basis that the Athlete already has served his sanction before CAS has rendered its decision. Also the suspension of the imposed sanction was not the ground to appeal the UEFA decision with CAS.

The Panel holds that it must act restraint in ordering a suspension of a sanction. However the Panel agrees that in this case there is the risk that the Athlete already has served the sanction before the Final Award has been rendered. Above all the UEFA already rejected the Athlete’s request for suspension.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 November 2011 to order the suspension of the imposed sanction pending the rendering of the final CAS decision in this case.

Larry Wade is an elite-level athlete in the sport of track and field. He is a member of the USA Track & Field (USATF) and has been serving on USATF’s Athlete Advisory Committee since 2002. Since the fourth quarter of 2000 and prior to the subject test of this arbitration, Mr. Wade had had no positive laboratory test reported by the IAAF or to USADA.

On May 11, 2004, Mr. Wade submitted to out-of-competition drug testing at the request of IAAF. As required by the collection process, Mr. Wade informed the Doping Control officer that he was taking multi-vitamins and minerals at the time of the collection.

The WADA-accredited Barcelona Laboratory conducted an initial test of Mr. Wade’s A sample and detected the presence of the metabolite of an anabolic steroid.
On June2, 2004 the Barcelona Laboratory took three replicates from Mr. Wades A sample and conducted three separate analyses. All three analyses indicated the presence of the anabolic steroid metabolite 19-norandrosterone. The Barcelona Laboratory subsequently reported the A sample as positive to the IAAF.

After being notified of the positive result, Mr. Wade requested that the B sample be tested in the presence of his representative.
On July 29, 2004, in the presence of Mr. Wade’s representative, the Barcelona Laboratory took three replicates form the B sample and performed three separate analyses. The results confirmed the existence of 19-norandrosterone.

On May 30, 2005, WADA issued a “Clarification about Nandrolone Testing” and an accompanying “ Explanatory Technical Note” discussing the phenomenon of “unstable urine” in which, in rare cases and under special conditions, a chemical reaction occurs in a vial of urine. WADA also provided some additional information about this phenomenon prior to the hearing.

On June 2, 2005, The North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel held a hearing in Los Angeles. WADA provided further information on urine instability in response to Mr. Wade’s document request.

The Panel finds that Mr. Wade failed to provide any evidence that would indicate that his positive test result should be discounted due to instability of his urine. Mr. Wade’s Supplemental Brief and attached expert affidavit failed to provide any support for the specific proposition that Mr. Wade’s urine was unstable.
In Summary, the Panel is of the opinion that (1) USADA has proved that the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone was found above the cutoff level in Mr. Wade’s urine sample to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel; and (2) Mr. Wade has failed to rebut the doping violation and to meet his burden to prove any defences.

For these reasons, the North American Arbitration for Sports Panel finds Mr. Wade guilty of a doping violation under the IAAF rules. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Mr. Wade should be declared ineligible for two (2) years with credit for suspension time already served from July 12, 2004 until the date of this Award. Mr. Wade should therefore be eligible for competition on July 12, 2006.
The Panel therefore rules as follows:
- Mr. Wade is guilty of a doping violation under IAAF rules, so that he should be declared ineligible for two years, less the period of suspension he has previously.
- Mr. Wade shall be ineligible for two years from July12, 2004, under the IAAF rules, including from participating in U.S. Olympic, Pan American or Paralympic Games; trials or qualifying events, being a member of any U.S. Olympic, Pan American or Paralympic Games team and having access to the training facilities of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC including, but not limited to, grants, awards, or employment pursuant to the USOC Anti-Doping Policies.