Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M31 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on December 4, 2004, respondent provided a sample for doping test purposes. Analysis of the samples 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 doesn't provide any explanation for the positive doping test.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months, from which four months conditionally, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by approved French sport federations.
2. The decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Federation of Ice Sports (Fédération Française des Sports de Glace, FFSG) charges respondent M30 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on November 13, 2004, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of ephedrine which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
Respondent had used drops as medication while exercising in Slovakia, this medication is the cause of the positive test. He claims not to have any knowledge about the prohibited substance in the medication.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months, from which two months conditionally, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the (FFSG).
2. The decision will starts after June 1, 2005.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M29 for a violation of the Anti-Doping rules. During a match on November 27, respondent didn't attend the doping control.

History
The respondent claims that because his daughter had an asthma attack he couldn't attend the doping control, he had to take her to a doctor; the doctor who had examined her confirms this crisis. However he didn't present a document for his state of denial needed for this matter.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of two years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFHMFAC.
2. The decision starts after June 20, 2005.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Anabolic Steroid Abuse : Physiological and Anaesthetic Considerations / P.C.A. Kam, M. Yarrow. - (Anaesthesia 60 (2005) 7 (16 June); p. 685-692).
- PMID: 15960720.
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2005.04218.x

Abstract

This review summarises the physiological and pharmacological effects of the anabolic steroids used to enhance performance in sports. The anabolic steroids promote muscle growth and protein synthesis. Side-effects of anabolic steroids include cardiomyopathy, atherosclerosis, hypercoagulopathy, hepatic dysfunction, and psychiatric and behavioural disturbances. It is therefore appropriate that the anaesthetist be familiar with the abuse of anabolic steroids, their potential adverse effects, and the peri-operative risk associated with the use of these drugs.

CAS 2004/A/717 Intemational Paralympic Committee v/ Broekman & WADA

In July 2004 the TUE Committee of the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) decided to dismiss the TUE application of the British Parathlete Andrew Brockman.

By contrast on 23 August 2004 the WADA TUE Committee decided to reverse the IPC decision and to grant the Athlete's TUE application for the use of his medication.

Hereafter in September 2004 the IPC appealed the WADA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). IPC requested the Panel to set aside the WADA Decision and to deny the TUE granted to the Parathlete.

IPC argued that a TUE can be denied even in the case the Technical Criteria are satisfied, when the health of the athlete would be seriously impaired by the use of the otherwise prohibited substance and/or by the practice of sport under the effect of the otherwise prohibited substance.

WADA, on the other hand, while agreeing on the importance of the "health factor" for the practice of sport, claimed that the list of the Technical Criteria Is exhaustive, so that an athlete has the right to obtain a TUE if he fulfils them all.

In view of the evidence the Panel determines that the Athlete was suffering from a chronic medical condition, that the otherwise prohibited substance was not specificaliy used for sport, but also in the course of the normal life of the Athlete.

The Panel deems that the administration of the otherwise prohibited substance was medically justified. The Panel finds that no evidence, assessed on the basis of a direct examination of the Athlete, was given that the cessation of the practice of the sport by the Athlete was a reasonable alternative to the administration of the prohibited substance.

As a result, the IPC, by denying the TUE, did not properly apply the Technical Criteria (as set forth by the WADC TUE International Standards and by the IPC Anti-Doping Code). WADA, therefore, was entitled to reverse the IPC Decision
pursuant to Article 6.3 of the IPC Anti-Doping Code.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 8 June 2005:

1.) The Appeal filed by the International Paralympic Committee on 15 September 2004 is dismissed.

2.) The decision adopted by the Therapeutic Exemption Committe of the World Anti-Doping Agency on 23 August 2004 is confirmed.

3.) (...)

4.) (...)

Rapportage Audit Commissie Doping : periode september 2004 t/m februari 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 7 juni 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:

- Leden Audit Commissie
- Jaarlijks 2 rapportages
- Bonden zonder categorie 1 of 2 topsportonderdelen
- Respons
- Uitslagen verrichte controles van september 2004 t/m februari 2005
- Nog openstaande zaken vanuit voorgaande rapportages
- Historisch overzicht, aantal zaken per rapportageperiode
- Openstaande zaken
- Afhandeling positieve uitslagen/weigeringen door sportbonden, al dan niet conform reglement
- Rapportage Audit Commissie Doping 18 mei 2004
- Historisch overzicht, aantal zaken per rapportage periode
- Rapporage Audit Commissie Doping 7 juni 2005

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Joseph Frans (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. Pursuant to the rules of CADP the Athlete provided a urine sample for testing on 8 March 2005. His sample tested positive for cocaine and its metabolites, these substances are on the Prohibited List of the
International Standard issued by World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

History
The athlete has no idea how he got contaminated. He does visit parties where he smokes.

Decision
I am satisfied that the Athlete was given every opportunity to participate in a hearing before me. He failed to respond to the various attempts made to acquire his participation in a hearing or waiver of the same. The parties were advised that I was closing the hearing in this matter and that it would proceed merely upon the written record I had received.
The proper selection of the Athlete for testing, the integrity of the sample collection and the chain of custody of the urine sample are all established on the record. The Lab has reported an adverse analytical finding and there is no indication that the chemical analytical process used by the Lab was in any way flawed.
Rule 7.17 and 7.18 make an athlete responsible for any prohibited substance found in the urine sample analysis. As was held in the decision of Arbitrator it is not necessary that intent, fault or knowing 'use* by an athlete be demonstrated to establish this anti-doping rule violation. I am comfortably satisfied that, on a review of all of the evidence before me, an anti-doping rule violation has occulted.
Cocaine is not a "specified substance" identified in Rule 7.7. It is a prohibited substance when it is detected at any level; a point made in the recent cocaine case, supra, by Arbitrator Mew. The failure of the Athlete to participate in these proceedings means that there is no necessity for me to refer to the Exceptional Circumstances Rules 7.38 and 7.39. There must be evidence from the Athlete, or presented on his behalf, that there was either no fault or negligence or no significant fault or negligence. The only evidence before me from the Athlete is the 11 April 2005 explanation sent to the CCES. That statement is one of denial and an inability to explain what has occurred. I take notice of the fact that cocaine cannot enter the human body by the consumption of alcoholic drink or the smoking of tobacco as referred to in the Athlete's explanation. In short, the Athlete has provided no explanation of the adverse analytical finding. In the absence of any satisfactory evidence, by way of explanation from the Athlete, I need not address further the Exceptional circumstances provisions of the Rules. They have no application in this case.
I find that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred under the CADP and the Rules prohibiting the use of a prohibited substance. In the circumstances I have no other choice than to impose the sanction for a first anti-doping rule violation of a two-year period of ineligibility and permanent ineligibility for direct financial support from the Government of Canada. The foregoing period of ineligibility starts on the date of this decision in accordance with the Rules.

Costs
No submission was made on costs. Unless applied for, I make no order in respect of the same.

Effects of dehydroepiandrostenedione, superimposed on growth hormone substitution, on quality of life and insulin-like growth factor I in patients with secondary adrenal insufficiency: a randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial / Sjoerd W. van Thiel, Johannes A. Romijn, Alberto M. Pereira, Nienke R. Biermasz, Ferdinand Roelfsema, Albert van Hemert, Bart Ballieux, Johannes W.A. Smit. - (Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 90 (2005) 6 (1 June); p. 3295–3303)

• PMID: 15797966
• DOI: 10.1210/jc.2004-1802

Abstract

To assess whether dehydroepiandrostenedione (DHEA) substitution, superimposed on GH substitution, improves quality of life of patients with secondary adrenal failure, we studied the effects of DHEA (50 mg/d, 16 wk) vs. placebo (16 wk) in GH- and ACTH-deficient men (n = 15; age, 52 +/- 3 yr), and postmenopausal women (n = 16; age, 61 +/- 2 yr) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. All patients were receiving stable hormone replacement therapy, including a fixed dose of human recombinant GH during the study. The men received testosterone substitution. The female patients did not receive estrogen substitution. At baseline, multiple parameters of quality of life were impaired compared with age- and sex-matched controls, especially in female patients. These parameters were not improved by DHEA treatment. DHEA only slightly improved the depression score (women) and health perception (women and men), although these parameters were not abnormal at baseline. DHEA increased serum IGF-I concentrations in female patients (by approximately 18%; P < 0.001), but not in male patients. In neither group did DHEA affect IGF-binding protein-3 levels. We conclude that DHEA, superimposed on GH substitution, does not substantially improve quality of life in patients with secondary adrenal insufficiency regardless of gender. In addition, DHEA increases IGF-I levels only in estrogen-depleted females, but not in testosterone-treated males, with secondary adrenal insufficiency.

Barbosa J, Cruz C, Martins J, Silva JM, Neves C, Alves C, Ramos F, Da Silveira MI. Food Addit Contam. 2005 Jun;22(6):563-6.
Laboratório Nacional de Investigação Veterinária, Lisboa, Portugal.
Abstract

This paper describes the occurrence of four cases of acute food poisoning, involving a total of 50 people, due to the ingestion of lamb and bovine meat containing residues of clenbuterol. Symptoms shown by the intoxicated people may be generally described as gross tremors of the extremities, tachycardia, nausea, headaches and dizziness. Analytical methodology developed for the determination of clenbuterol in meat, liver and blood samples is described. Procedures are described which should be followed when the described symptoms are evident in a group of people who have ingested contaminated meat, and particularly liver of ruminants.

Canadian Centre for Ethics annual report 2004-2005 / Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport

CONTENTS

• Board of Directors
• Ethics in Sport Initiatives
• Canada’s Doping Control Program
• Canadian Partnerships
• International Partnerships
• The CCES Team
• Auditors’ Report