Facts
Miguel Gallardo Valles (player) provided an urine sample during the ATP sanctioned Tournament "Stella Artois Championships" in London, England on June 4, 2005. His A sample showed the prohibited substance cannabis (11-nor-9-carboxy-delta9-tetrahydrocannobinol). His B sample analysis confirmed the presence of the prohibited substance.

History
The player believes that the positive test originates from an attended post-event party in Germany on May 23, 2005. He was persuaded to smoke marijuana, which was his first time in life. He is concerned about the embarrassment this matter will bring to himself, his family and the sport of tennis and deeply regrets the mistake he has made.
He started with a voluntary suspension on August 29, 2005.

written submissions player
Player asks for a minimum sanction, a suspension of two months with reference at the "Melle van Gemerden" and "Oliver case".
He didn't intend to enhance his sport performance.

written submissions ATP
The counsel for the ATP thinks a period of ineligibility of 60 days is appropriate, the player admits his doping offense and it is his first doping offense. The use of the prohibited substance was not intended to enhance sport performance. The period of voluntary suspension should be considered within his period of ineligibility.

Decision
The Tribunal makes the following orders.
1. The Player under Rule K. 1.c admitted a first doping offense thereby establishing the doping offense defined in Rule C
1. The doping offense involved the use of a Specified Substance Cannabinoids referred in S. 8 of Appendix Three "The 2005 Prohibited List".
2. Rule L. 1 disqualifies the results obtained at the "Stella Artois Championships" in London, England June 5 2005. Any medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money (without reduction of tax) obtained at the competition are forfeited. The commencement of the foregoing consequences is to be effective in accordance with Rule M. 8.
3. Under rule m. 3. the period of ineligibility otherwise applicable is determined to be time served to date of this decision. In accordance with Rule M. 8. c. i. this suspension shall be deemed to commence on September 15, and cease on the day ate this decision is dated but not later than November 10, 2005.
4. Under Rule M. 7. fairness dictates that there is no disqualification of results from the time of sample collection until the commencement of the period of ineligibility on September 15, 2005.

Cholestasis induced by parabolan successfully treated with the molecular adsorbent recirculating system / Jacek Sein Anand, Zygmunt Chodorowski, Adam Hajduk, Wojciech Waldman. -  (ASAIO Journal 52 (2006) 1 (January-February); p. 117-118)

• PMID: 16436902
• DOI: 10.1097/01.mat.0000196712.32953.21

Abstract

We describe a case of a 21-year-old male bodybuilder who overdosed on Parabolan (trenbolone acetate) because of its anabolic activity. The patient, with no previous medical history, experienced pruritus and yellow discoloration of the skin and sclerae. Basic biochemical laboratory examination revealed signs of cholestasis with a serum bilirubin level of up to 65.5 mg/dl. Because supportive medical treatment was ineffective, the patient was treated with the molecular adsorbent recirculating system (MARS). Five MARS cycles lasting from 8 to 12 hours were performed every second day. The procedure was well tolerated by the patient and resulted in a sustained relief of pruritus. At the 2-month follow-up visit the plasma bilirubin level had decreased to 2 mg/dl.

The Development and Validation of a Doping Attitudes and Behaviour Scale / S. Guerin, K. Kirby, A.Moran

Athletes’ use of prohibited ergogenic substances for performance enhancement is a form of cheating behaviour which can jeopardise both their health and their careers. Given such importance, it is not surprising that the problem of drug-use in competitive sport has been widely studied. Unfortunately, research in this field has at least three obvious limitations. First, few studies have attempted to explain why athletes are willing to use these substances, given the risks involved (Anshel, 2005). Second, little effort has been made to understand the theoretical mechanisms underlying cheating/doping behaviour in athletes. Finally, there is a paucity of research on elite athletes’ attitudes to, and beliefs about, doping in sport. These oversights are unfortunate because antidoping measures cannot be fully effective unless they are based on solid evidence about why athletes (especially elite performers) engage in drug-taking in the first place. To address these gaps in the literature, the first phase of the present study examines the psychological variables underlying attitudes to drug use in sport.
To date, 375 high performance (HP) athletes have been surveyed on their attitudes to doping, and a number of relevant psychological variables have also been measured. Interesting findings have emerged on the perceived and reported incidence of doping in sport, athletes’ knowledge of doping substances and differences in attitudes between various demographic groups. Statistical results also show some significant relationships emerging between doping attitudes and psychological characteristics, including perfectionist tendencies and motivational variables. This is the first time an empirical investigation has examined such a multitude of relationships, and the results have guided the next stage of the research; a qualitative focus on the views of athletes
who have direct experience of doping.

Phase 2 of the study involved exhaustive searches of media reports, seeking athletes who publicly admitted to engaging in doping practices. Over a 30-month period, this list extended to almost 80 elite athletes who were identified as potential interview candidates for this qualitative phase of the research. Following the compilation of the list, efforts were made to contact these athletes through their national governing bodies, national anti-doping agencies, and journalists with whom they had spoken in the past.
However, this proved much more difficult than originally anticipated for two reasons:
(a) because it was not possible to obtain contact details for high profile athletes and
(b) because those who were contacted were not willing to partake in the research, despite assurances of anonymity and confidentiality. The sample size totals 4 athletes who have
admitted doping offences, but in light of the very limited number of potential participants and the sensitive nature of the research topic, this was a reasonable number from which to extract a thematic analysis. Interesting explorations of both the internal and external sources of influence on athletes’ doping practices emerged, along with more in-depth analysis of the psychological variables which may guide doping decisions.

The final stage of the research, the development and validation of a doping attitudes and behaviour scale (DABS) will be informed by findings from both the aforementioned quantitative and qualitative research studies.

Legal Opinion on whether Article 10.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code is compatible with the Fundamental Principles of Swiss Domestic Law / Claude Rouiller. - World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2005

Contents:

I. THE EXPERT
II. THE FRAMEWORK OF THE MANDATE
1. The mandate
2. The documents provided
3. Customary disclaimer
III. THE OVERALL LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE CONSULTATION
1. Preamble
2. The European Convention of November 16, 1989
3. The World Anti-Doping Agency and the World Anti-Doping Code
(a) The World Anti-Doping Agency
(b) The World Anti-Doping Code
4. The UNESCO Convention of October 19, 2005
(a) The adoption of the Convention and its preamble
(b) The Convention and the World Anti-Doping Code
IV. DISCUSSION
1. Preamble
(a) The rules under discussion
(b) The status quaestionis
2. The interpretation of Article 10.2 of the Code and the legal nature of the sanctions it provides for
(a) The interpretation of Article 10.2 of the Code
(b) The legal nature of the sanctions provided for
3. The content of the fundamental rights and general principles of autonomous Swiss law that could be applied by arbitrators reviewing the application of Article 10.2 of the Code and that could come into play in the context of a limited review by the Federal Tribunal
(a) Introductory note
(b) Personal liberty
(c) Economic liberty
(d) Brief outline of fundamental rights practice
(e) The relative practical similarities between the modalities of application of Article 36 Cst. and the modalities of application of Article 27 SCC
(f) Informal examination of the compatibility of Article 10.2 of the Code with fundamental rights and the concrete standard of Article 27, paragraph 2 Cst.
4. The scope of the means of defence available to persons seeking to allege that a sanction based on Article 10.2 of the Code and its confirmation by arbitrators is injurious to their interests legally
protected by these rights and principles of autonomous Swiss law, and the definition in Swiss law of the concepts of arbitrariness and public policy
(a) The right of appeal to an arbitral tribunal
(aa) The ordinary appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
(bb) Appeals to arbitral tribunals established on an ad hoc basis pursuant to Article 13.2.2 of the Code or to the CAS acting as a domestic arbitrator
(b) The subsequent recourse to the Swiss Federal Tribunal to quash an arbitral award (recourse available under public law)
(aa) Introductory note concerning the recourse available under public law in an arbitration matter
(bb) Appeal from an award rendered by a domestic arbitrator
(cc) Appeal from an “international” arbitral award
(dd) The capacity to challenge an award before the Federal Tribunal
(ee) The concept of arbitrariness under Article 36, letter f of the Intercantonal Concordat on Arbitration
(ff) The concept of public policy under Article 190, paragraph 2, letter e PILS
(c) The consequence of the limits of the Swiss Federal Tribunal’s power of substantive review of arbitral awards for the question at hand
V. THE ANSWER

CAS 2004/A/766 IAA.F v/ Athletics Australia & Stuart Lyall

In December 2001 the Australian Athlete Stuart Lyall was arrested on criminal charges for using and trafficking cocaine and ecstasy (methylenedioxymethamphetamine - MDMA). In April 2003 the Athlete pleaded guilty to the criminal charges against him and in May 2003 he was convicted on a number of counts, including the use of cocaine and trafficking ecstasy.

As a consequence of the criminal charges also anti-doping rule violations were reported against the Athlete in September 2003 followed by a number of significant admissions made by the Athlete that substantially shortened the length and lowered the cost of the hearing.

On 20 August 2004 the Athletics Austria Doping Control Tribunal decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for trafficking. On 1 October 2004 the Tribunal decided to reinstate the Athlete immediately due to exceptional circumstances in this case.

Hereafter in December 2004 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) appealed the decision of the Athletics Australia with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The IAAF requested the Panel to set aside the decision of Athletics Australia Doping Control Tribunal of 1 October 2004 and to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The IAAF contended that Athletics Australia has no jurisdiction to consider exceptional circumstances and to allow the Athlete’s early reinstatement.

Considering the IAAF 2000 Procedural Guidelines for Doping Control the Panel concludes that the Athletics Australia Tribunal did not have the power to reinstate the Athlete (ultra vires). In the IAAF Guidelines this power lies exclusively with the IAAF Council only.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 October 2005 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the IAAF on 7 December 2004 is granted.

2.) The AUS decision of 1 October 2004 is amended as follows: Mr Stuart Lyall shall be declared ineligible for life.

3.) All other claims are dismissed.

4.) This award is rendered without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 paid by the IAAF, which is retained by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

5.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

International Convention Against Doping In Sport / United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). - Paris : UNESCO, 2005. - 339 p

• English version: p. 2-19;
• French version: p. 20-36;
• Spanish version: p. 37-56;
• Russian version: p. 56-74;
• Arabic version: p. 75-92;
• Chinese version: p. 93-112.

Content:

1.) Scope
2.) Anti-doping activities at the national level
3.) International cooperation
4.) Education and training
5.) Research
6.) Monitoring of the Convention
7.) Final clauses

• Annex I – The Prohibited List – International Standard
• Annex II – Standards for Granting Therapeutic Use Exemptions
• Appendix 1 – World Anti-Doping Code
• Appendix 2 – International Standard for Laboratories
• Appendix 3 – International Standard for Testing

The International Convention against Doping in Sport is a multilateral UNESCO treaty by which states agree to adopt national measures to prevent and eliminate drug doping in sport. States that agree to the Convention align their domestic rules with the World Anti-Doping Code, which is promulgated by the World Anti-Doping Agency. This includes facilitating doping controls and supporting national testing programmes; encouraging the establishment of "best practice" in the labelling, marketing, and distribution of products that might contain prohibited substances; withholding financial support from those who engage in or support doping; taking measures against manufacturing and trafficking; encouraging the establishment of codes of conduct for professions relating to sport and anti-doping; and funding education and research on drugs in sport.

The Convention was adopted at the General Conference of UNESCO in Paris on 19 October 2005. It entered into force on 1 February 2007 after it had been ratified by 30 state parties. As of October 2013, the Convention has been ratified by 176 states, which includes 175 UN member states plus the Cook Islands.

CAS 2004/A/726 Maria Luisa Calle Williams v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)

CAS 2005/A/726 Maria Luisa Calle Williams v/IOC

• Track cycling
• Doping (Isometheptene)
• CAS jurisdiction
• Substance with “a similar chemical structure or similar pharmacological effects” to the substances listed as prohibited
• Criteria to be considered when deciding to treat a substance as similar to a listed substance

1. In contrast to a decision to include a particular substance on the Prohibited List, a WADA determination to treat a substance as “similar” to a listed substance can be challenged by athletes.

2. The classification of a substance as having “a similar chemical structure or similar pharmacological effect(s)” requires a similarity to one or several of the particular substances on the list. It is not sufficient for WADA or the IOC, or any other anti-doping agency, simply to assert that a substance, such as Isometheptene, is “a stimulant” and thus a prohibited substance (when that assertion is disputed by an athlete) without specifying the particular substance on the List with which similarity is supposed to exist.

3. Before treating a substance as similar, the three criteria mentioned in 4.3 of the WADA Code (potential performance enhancement, health risk, violation of the spirit of sport) must be considered. Only if two of these three are met can a substance be treated as similar and thus prohibited.

Ms Maria Luisa Calle Williams is a Colombian Athlete competing in the Women’s point race for track cycling at the 2004 Athens Olympic Games.

On 29 August 2004 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to disqualify the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Heptaminol.
Here the Athlete stated that she had used the prescribed medication Neo-Saldina containing Isometheptene as treatment for a migraine headache.

Hereafter in October 2004 the Athlete appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

In this case during the proceedings with CAS the parties accepted the findings en conclusion of an expert report:

• that both Heptaminol and Isometheptene, even though not expressly listed in WADA’s Prohibited List, have a “similar chemical structure or similar pharmacological effect(s)” as those substances expressly named as “S.1-stimulants” in the WADA Prohibited List; and
• that both Heptaminol and Isometheptene are prohibited substances pursuant to the IOC Rules; and
• that Heptaminol is a marker for Isometheptene, i.e. “a compound, group of compounds or biological parameters that indicates the use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method”.

Subsequent UCI and the Lausanne Lab also concluded that the substance Isometheptene has not a similar chemical structure or pharmacological effect as the stimulants listed on the WADA 2004 list and can thus not be considered to be prohibited under IOC Rules.

The parties in this case, including WADA, agreed that the presence of Heptaminol in the Athlete’s sample was not due to she ingested that substance but the result of metabolizing Isometheptene into Desmethyl-Isometheptene which transformed in Heptaminol during laboratory analysis.

Initially, the IOC Decision argued that as a result of the strict liability principle the mere finding of Heptaminol - which the IOC claims was a prohibited substance at the relevant point in time - in the Athlete’s sample must lead to her disqualification.

However, during the proceedings before the Panel the IOC agreed that contrary to its original submissions the substance for which the Athlete tested positive was Isometheptene not Heptaminol. This was the result of the her’s admission to having taken Neo-Saldina and the biological and chemical process. Therefore, the Panel does not have to determine whether Heptaminol is in fact a prohibited substance.

The Panel is unanimously of the view that the classification of a substance as having “a similar chemical structure or similar pharmacological effect(s)” requires a similarity to one or several of the particular substances on the list.

It is not sufficient for WADA or the IOC, or any other anti-doping agency, simply to assert that a substance, such as Isometheptene, is “a stimulant” and thus a prohibited substance (when that assertion is disputed by an athlete) without specifying the particular substance on the List with which similarity is supposed to exist.

In summary, the Panel is unanimous in finding:

• that a decision by WADA to treat a substance as “similar” is subject to challenge;
• that the S1-Stimulants category of the 2004 Prohibited List is not an “open list” and that similarity must exist with a particular substance before a non-listed substance can be treated as similar; and
• that before treating a substance as similar the three criteria mentioned in 4.3 of the WADA Code must be considered.

Further, the majority of the Panel finds that the IOC failed to discharge the burden of proving that Isometheptene is a prohibited substance under the applicable rules.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 19 October 2015:

1.) The decision of the IOC of 29 August 2004 is set aside.

2.) The award to Maria Luisa Calle Williams of the bronze medal for the women’s Point race at the 2004 Olympic Games is confirmed.

(…)

AUSTRALIAN SPORTS DRUG AGENCY 2004-05 ANNUAL REPORT
© Commonwealth of Australia
ISSN 1037-378

Table of contents iv
Figures vi
Acronyms vii
About this report ix
Chairperson’s message 1
Acting Chief Executive report 3
ASDA snapshot: 2004–05 8
Outcome and output structure 9
2004–05 ASDA highlights 10
2005–06 outlook 11
Australia’s anti-doping framework 12
ASDA’s corporate structure 13
Deterrence 16
Drug testing 17
Key projects 23
Education, communication and advocacy services 24
International response 36
Facilitating international consistency 36
Representing Australia internationally 38
Business improvement 46
Effective corporate governance 46
Contracting and purchasing 50
Responding to business opportunities 51
Employing best practice 51
People 56
Developing staff potential 56
Attracting and retaining staff 58
Corporate governance 64
The ASDA Board 64
Audit Committee 67
Senior management staff 67
Management committees 68
Reporting compliance 68
Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee 76
Glossary 80
Appendices 82
Appendix A: ASDA Strategic Plan performance outcomes 2004–05 82
Appendix B: Drug testing statistics 2004–05 83
Appendix C: ASDA drug tests completed - 1989 to 30 June 2005 93
Appendix D: Drug testing statistics 2003–04 — Amendments to 2003–04
Annual Report Appendix B 94
Appendix E: Register of Notifiable Events (RNE) 2004–05 95
Appendix F: List of International Incidences (LII) 97
Appendix G: Entries on RNE and LII from previous years where outcomes were
to be advised 98
Appendix H: International anti-doping arrangements and drug testing agreements 99
Appendix I: Financial statements 101
Appendix J: 2001–05 ASDA Strategic Plan 143
Appendix K: Powers of the Minister under the ASDA Act 144
Appendix L: The objects, functions and powers of the Agency as specified
in the ASDA Act 145
Appendix M: Portfolio Budget Statements performance summary 147
Appendix N: Summary of Portfolio Budget Statements by outcome 148
Appendix O: ASDMAC functions (excerpt from ASDA Regulations 1999) 149
Appendix P: ASDMAC approvals by sport July 1 2004 to 30 June 2005 150
Compliance index 154
Index 155
Figures
Figure 1: ASDA’s outcome and output structure
Figure 2: Australia’s anti-doping framework
Figure 3: ASDA’s corporate structure
Figure 4: Deterrent effect of ASDA’s programs 2000 to 2005
Figure 5: ASDA drug tests completed 1989 to 2005
Figure 6: Register of Notifiable Events trends 1998 to 2005
Figure 7: Distribution of ASDA’s education resources
Figure 8: ASDA’s client engagement
Figure 9: ASDA staff survey satisfaction ratings 1998 to 2004
Figure 10: Gender composition of ASDA permanent staff
Figure 11: ASDA Board details as at 30 June 2005
Figure 12: ASDA Audit Committee details as at 30 June 2005
Figure 13: ASDMAC’s budget 2004–05

Results of the WADA monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the 2004 Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport. These substances are:
- Caffeine
- Pseudoephedrine
- Phenylpropanolamine
- Synephrine
- Phenylephrine
- Pipradrol
- Morphine / Codeine

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M49 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on July 6, 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
Respondent claims the need for medication because of a medical condition. It appears from the medical record that the respondent would be subject to longstanding medical treatment; but documents submitted by the interested to the Council do not involve any element of nature that establish the reality of this disease.

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