Stimulating cases tracked down: evaluation of amendment of the act for the fight against doping in sport / J. Snippe, C. Ogier, H. Naayer, B. Bieleman. - Intraval ; i.o.v. ministerie van Justitie. - Groningen : Intraval, 2005
ISBN 9077115676

SUMMARY
Abuse of doping substances may lead to various risks for public health such as injuries due to improper use or due to the use of a product that has been prepared under suspicious circumstances, or injuries because veterinary drugs are mixed with human drugs. An important aim of the doping policy is to fight the use of doping substances in top sport and recreational sport.
To tackle the use of doping substances more effectively, an amendment of the applicable Act came into force in May 2001. The illegal trade in drugs wich are used for doping has now become part of the Economic Offences Act (Wet op de Economische Delicten: WED) while before it was part of the Dutch Provision of Medicine Act (Wet op de Geneesmiddelenvoorziening: WOG). The unauthorised production and delivery of medicines as well as the preparation, selling, delivery, import, trading or keeping in stock for delivery purposes of unregistered medicines are now regarded as economic offences. The objective of the amendment of the Act is to fight the illegal production and trade in medicines and is, therefore, also an approach that can be used more effectively for fighting the production and trade in doping substances. Experience of the investigative services has shown that the low punishment of offences of the Dutch Provision of Medicine Act in particular had an impeding effect on the investigation and prosecution of the illegal production and trade in doping substances. Therefore punishment has been increased with the amendment of the Act and the powers of the investigative services have been extended considerably.

Evaluation
INTRAVAL, bureau for research and consultancy, has evaluated the amendment to the Act on behalf of the Research and Documentation Centre (Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum: WODC) of the Dutch Ministry of Justice. INTRAVAL has analysed if the fight against the illegal trade and production of doping substances has improved since the amendment of the Act. Within the framework of the research, interviews have been held with representatives of the organisations involved such as the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate (Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg: IGZ), the Economic Surveillance Department of the Inland Revenue Intelligence and Investigations Department (Economische Controle Dienst van de Fiscale Inlichtingen- en Opsporingsdienst: FIODECD), public prosecutors and heads of regional crime squads. In addition to this INTRAVAL has analysed and compared records related to criminal cases before and after the amendment of the Act, has analysed available registration data and has made a study of literature.
The research has shown that there are different bottlenecks. Due to the low priority given to trade in doping, familiarity with doping cases amongst the police and the Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie: OM) is slight. As a result, the available number of doping-related cases is limited. It is also quite difficult to find records of doping trade in the registrations of the police and the Public Prosecution Service. In spite of the limitations of the registrations, it seems that most doping cases have been found again. This is also due to the intensive personal approach of investigating and prosecuting officers.

Results
It seems that the number of criminal cases has not increased after the amendment of the Act, but proportionally more doping-related investigations (preliminary to prosecution) have been started. The extended investigative powers have, moreover, been used more
often. The deployment of scarce and expensive investigative resources (telephone taps and surveillance teams) indicates that the Public Prosecution Service is giving higher priority to doping-related cases. A few investigations (preliminary to prosecution) have been started according to the involved parties since the amendment of the Act which would probably not have been carried out should the Act not have been amended. The cooperation between the Public Prosecution Service and the FIOD-ECD with regard to doping investigations seems to have intensified during the last few years. The FIOD-ECD becomes involved in the fight against doping substances because of their fight against various types of fraud, including intellectual property fraud. Frequent use is made of the expertise of the IGZ by all the parties involved in the fight against doping substances and trade, as was the case before the Act was amended. It is unknown to what extent the amendment of the Act has affected the size of the trade and the production of doping substances. Interviews with experts have, however, shown that traders are taking more care. The threat of a more severe punishment and the possible deployment of (extended) investigative resources have lead to them being more selective in their choice of customers. Obtaining doping substances has become more difficult for users because of the above. Doping substances are mainly imported from abroad into the Netherlands. No changes have occurred regarding this either, although there have been slight shifts in the countries of origin.

Conclusion
In spite of the bottlenecks encountered during the research and the information at hand, which is limited in scope, it seems that the contemplated effect of the amendment of the Act - the improvement of the fight against the illegal trade and production of doping
substances - has been achieved. Visible improvements have, in any case, occurred with regard to the effectiveness of the fight against this type of crime. The options to tackle the illegal trade have become greater since the amendment of the Act. The set of instruments available has become broader which has lead to more investigations (preliminary to prosecution). Due to the more severe punishments the Public Prosecution Service has become more eager in starting an investigation into the trade in doping substances. Various investigations (preliminary to prosecution) would not have been carried out without the amendment to the Act.

Anti Doping Denmark annual report 2004 / Anti-Doping Denmark (ADD). - Brøndby : ADD, 2005

Related case:
CAS 2005/A/951 Guillermo Cañas vs ATP
May 23, 2007

Facts
Guillermo Cañas (player) was reported for an Anti-Doping violation. His urine sample was tested positive for the substance hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) during the ATP sanctioned tournament the "Abierto Mexicano de Tenis" in Acapulco, Mexico on February 21, 2005. The B analysis confirmed the existence of the prohibited substance, the player was informed and he requested a hearing which took place July 20-21, 2005.

History
The player has no idea how he took the prohibited substance. Arriving at the tournament he arrived with a sore throat and symptoms of a cold or influenza. He went for a prescription at the offices of the ATP physicians, he arranged the medicine and didn't read the label.

submissions on behalf of the player
The player is known for his fair play.
It is likely that the prescription of the ATP physicians is the cause of the contamination, which would mean the ATP is the origin of the contamination.
The small amounts of the prohibited substances prove it was not taken to eliminate other doping substances. The urine was insufficiently diluted to have traces of other substances, this is a technical violation of the Anti-Doping Rules.
There has been no infraction of the ATP Anti-Doping Rules, suspension should be considerably less in all circumstances of this case.

submissions by the respondent ATP
The player committed a Doping Offence by having the prohibited substance HCT in his body.
The eventually wrong prescription is not the responsibility of the ATP.
Exceptional circumstances can't be established.
The analytical result is not a technical positive as HCT is not a threshold substance.

Estoppel
The player claims to have been treated by the tournament doctors, both doctors can't remember him. There is no foundation for an allegation.

Existence of a doping offence
Because there is no indication how the prohibited substance entered his body there is no reduction in the ineligibility.
The is no proof that the contamination is caused by the medicine he claimed to have used.
Exceptional circumstances can be dismissed.
The player didn't verify the contents of his medication.
There are technical doubts that the HCT had been used the days before the tournament.

Decision
The doping offence has been established.
Results of the tournament in Acapulco must be forfeited as well as any medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money obtained at that tournament.
The period of ineligibility will be, for a first offence, two years starting on June 11, 2005.
Competition results will be disqualified, except the results obtained in Roland Garros.

The New Zealand Sports Drug Agency (NZSD) and Touch New Zealand (Touch NZ) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.
Touch NZ notified the Respondent and ordered a provisional suspension. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.
The Respondent admitted his doping infraction and stated his use was unrelated to his sport activity. He told the Tribunal that he smoked Cannabis on one occasion before the competition in order to alleviate significant and continuous stresses in his life, the full details of which he provided in written form to the Tribunal and confirmed orally during the hearing. Respondent’s statements were endorsed in submissions made on Respondent’s behalf by his uncle.

The Tribunal notes that there were strong mitigating factors in Respondent’s case, but an aggravating factor in the case was the fact the Respondent had only very recently signed Player Participation Agreements with Touch NZ. In these agreements the athletes undertook to abide by all drug/doping rules and regulations, including those provided by the International Federation, WADA, the International Olympic Committee and the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency.
The Tribunal notes that although it was fashionable in some circles to debate whether cannabis should be a prohibited substance, this did not form part of the Tribunal’s decision making.

The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility, a severe warning and a strong reprimand on the Respondent.

Related cases:

• SDT 2006_13 Touch New Zealand vs William Morunga
  July 4, 2006
• ST 2023_04 DFSNZ vs William Morunga
  June 1, 2023
  
  

In April 2005 the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency (NZSD) and Touch New Zealand (Touch NZ) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.

After notification Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal. He admitted he had smoked Cannabis and denied the intentional use of the substance.

The Tribunal deems that an aggravating factor is the fact the Athlete had only very recently signed Player Participation Agreements with Touch NZ. In these agreements the athletes undertook to abide by all drug/doping rules and regulations, including those provided by the International Federation, WADA, the International Olympic Committee and the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency.

Further the Tribunal deems that an additional aggravating factor is the past history of his Athlete’s Counties-Manukau team with drugs. The Athlete was a member of the side when its members twice transgressed seriously on drug offences in 2004.

The Tribunal considers that the Athlete clearly understood the protocols and rules but simply elected to ignore them.
The Tribunal notes that although it was fashionable in some circles to debate whether Cannabis should be a prohibited substance, this did not form part of the Tribunal’s decision making.

The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 2 August 2005 to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility, including a severe warning and a strong reprimand on the Athlete.

Evaluation and analysis of exposure levels of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate from blood bags / Inoue K, Kawaguchi M, Yamanaka R, Higuchi T, Ito R, Saito K, Nakazawa H. - (Clin Chim Acta. 2005 Aug;358(1-2):159-66)

Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Hoshi University, 2-4-41 Ebara, Tokyo 142-8501, Japan

BACKGROUND:

The US FDA and The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan have indicated that the risk assessment of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) released from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) medical devices requires immediate attention. In particular, the analysis of the exposure to DEHP from blood bags is very important for medical treatment. However, human exposure to DEHP via blood transfusion remains poorly understood. We evaluated DEHP and mono(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (MEHP) levels, migration patterns, and metabolism in blood products for the detailed assessment of exposure to DEHP.

METHODS:
A method that is based on column-switching liquid chromatography-electrospray mass spectrometry (LC-MS) coupled with on-line extraction was used for the direct analysis of DEHP and MEHP in the blood products. From the Japanese Red Cross Society, 78 blood products (red blood cell concentrate: n=18, irradiated red blood cell concentrate: n=18, whole blood: n=18, blood platelet: n=18, and frozen plasma: n=6) were sampled in January 2003 for use in this study.

RESULTS:
The detection levels of DEHP and MEHP ranged from 1.8 to 83.2 microg/ml and from 0.1 to 9.7 microg/ml, respectively. The levels of MEHP and DEHP in the blood products were increased with increasing storage time. In addition, whole blood products in PVC bags had the highest DEHP levels compared to the other blood products. Our results indicate that the maximum level of human exposure to DEHP released from blood bags is 0.7 mg/kg weight/time.

CONCLUSION:
This first quantitative evidence may be useful for the risk assessment of DEHP released from blood bags.

Pseudoephedrine enhances performance in 1500-m runners / Kate Hodges, Sarah Hancock, Kevin Currell, Bruce Hamilton, Asker E. Jeukendrup. - (Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 38 (2006) 2 (February); p. 329-333)

• PMID: 16531903
• DOI: 10.1249/01.mss.0000183201.79330.9c

Abstract

Pseudoephedrine is an over-the-counter drug to relieve nasal and sinus congestion. Although it has been suggested that pseudoephedrine could be a stimulant and ergogenic aid, pseudoephedrine was recently removed from the banned substance list by the International Olympic Committee and placed on the monitoring program (from January 2004). It was felt that evidence was lacking for an ergogenic effect, although few studies have investigated the effects of pseudoephedrine on exercise performance. This study, therefore, aimed to investigate the effects of pseudoephedrine on 1500-m running performance.

Methods: In a double-blind, randomized crossover design, seven male athletes completed two 1500-m running trials on an outdoor track after having completed a familiarization trial. All trials were 7 d apart. After a 12-h overnight fast, subjects reported to the laboratory and received a standardized breakfast (energy asymptotically equal to 500 kcal 50% CHO). Subjects were given either 2.5 mg.kg(-1) bw pseudoephedrine or 2.5 mg.kg(-1) bw maltodextrins (placebo) in gelatin capsules 70 min before the start of the warm-up, which started 20 min before they ran 1500 m all-out. Pre- and postexercise blood samples were collected and analyzed for lactate and glucose concentrations, partial pressure of oxygen (PO2) and carbon dioxide (PCO2), and percent oxygen saturation.

Results: Pseudoephedrine significantly decreased time to completion of 1500-m time trials in the present study by 2.1% (from 279.65 +/- 4.36 s with placebo to 273.86 +/- 4.36 s with pseudoephedrine) with no reported side effects. No changes in the measured blood parameters were found, suggesting a central effect of pseudoephedrine rather than a metabolic effect.

Conclusion: The finding was that 2.5 mg.kg(-1) bw pseudoephedrine ingested 90 min preexercise improves 1500-m running performance.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) charges Kolyshkin Vadym (the player) for committing a doping offence. An urine sample provided in the course of a doping control test was taken at the European Nations Cup match between Romania and Ukraine in Bucharest, Romania, on 18 March 2005, the sample contained a Prohibited Substance, 11-nor-delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid (Cannabinoids) at a concentration of higher than 15ng/ml.

History
The Player did not avail himself of the opportunity of having the “B” sample of his specimen analysed. In a translated writing he explained that because of a strong pain in his knee he went to a chemist’s shop and bought an anaesthetic according to the chemist’s advice. He took 6 pills, and my pain reduced. He doesn’t use this medicine any more. He doesn't remember the name of the medicine. He didn’t take any other medicine before.

Decision
The Player should be suspended for six months. We have ascertained that, aside from a mid-season break of two weeks, such a term will coincide with the playing season in Ukraine. Accordingly we direct that the period of suspension should run from 27 April 2005 (the date upon which the Union advised the Board that it had provisionally suspended the Player) until and including 26 October 2005.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Edwin Shimenga (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping rules. When an urine sample provided in the course of a doping control test taken at the Rugby World Cup Sevens 2005 in Hong Kong on 15 March 2005, was found to have contained a Prohibited Substance, namely metabolites of hydrochlorothiazide.

History
The player accepted the results of the A sample. On 6 May 2005 the Union forwarded to the Board a completed abbreviated TUE
application form completed by the Player and his cardiologist. A Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for hydrochlorthiazide requires a “full” application in accordance in a letter to the Board dated 12 May 2005, the Player admitted taking a prescription medication called “Atacand Plus” for the treatment of hypertension, which he had subsequently discovered to have contained hydrochlorthiazide. The Player was informed that a Board Judicial Committee (BJC) would be appointed to consider his case. The Player claimed that he was a victim of the failure of others to provide information concerning anti-doping. The Player clearly cannot establish that he bore No Fault or Negligence. He did not take all due care to prevent this violation.

Decision
Player is suspended for a period of two years commencing on 4 May 2005 (the date of his provisional suspension). During that time he will be subject to the conditions of ineligibility provided in
Regulation 21.22.7.

CAS 2004/A/725 USOC & Michael Johnson, Antonio Pettigrew, Angelo Taylor, Alvin Harrison, Calvin Harrison vs IOC & IAAF

Related case:
CAS 2004/A/628 IAAF vs USATF & Jerome Young
June 28, 2004

1. This case, in its essence, concerns the interpretation of relevant IAAF Rules and their application to five members of the gold medal-winning U.S.A. team (the “U.S.A. team”) in the men's 4 x 400m relay event at the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games (the “relay event”). It is a most peculiar case, arising in most unusual circumstances.

2. As explained more fully in this Award, the results of the relay event and the fate of the medals awarded to the U.S.A. team at the 2000 Sydney Games have, five years later, been called into question as a result of two occurrences.

3. First, on 28 June 2004, a Panel of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) found that a Doping Appeals Board of USA Track & Field (“USATF”), the national federation that governs the sport of athletics in the United States of America, had misdirected itself and reached an erroneous conclusion when, on 10 July 2000, it exonerated Mr. Jerome Young (a sixth member of the U.S.A. team, who is not one of the Appellants in this arbitration) of having committed a doping offence on 26 June 1999, just prior to the Sydney Games. The CAS Panel found that Mr. Young had committed a doping offence, that the resulting period of ineligibility extended through the Sydney Games, and that Mr. Young should therefore not have participated in those Games (CAS Arbitration 2004/A/628, IAAF v/ USATF & Jerome Young, award of 28 June 2004).

4. Second, on 18 July 2004, the IAAF Council determined that “as a consequence of Jerome Young’s ineligibility to have competed at the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000 [by virtue of having committed a doping offence on 26 June 1999], the result of the USA Men's 4 x 400m relay event is annulled and the final placings are revised accordingly.”

5. It is the subject matter of the second of these decisions - that is, whether under IAAF Rules in force at the time of the Sydney Games, the results of the relay event should be annulled and the final placings revised accordingly – that is the primary issue in the present appeal.

The CAS Panel is unanimously of the opinion that the decision taken by the IAAF Council on 18 July 2004 interpreting its rules is incorrect, and should be overturned. The Panel reaches this conclusion with all due respect to the IAAF Council and its role under the IAAF Constitution as the primary decision-maker regarding the interpretation of its Rules.

On the basis of IAAF rules applicable at the time of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the results obtained by the Athletes in the men's 4 x 400m relay event at the Sydney Games shall not be amended. Those results therefore stand. Furthermore, it is the understanding of the Panel that only Jerome Young in the US relay team should be stripped of his gold medal pursuant to the CAS award 2004/A/628 of 28 June 2004.

Having so found, the Panel considers it unnecessary for it to consider the other issues raised by the parties in these proceedings. In particular, the Panel considers that there is no need for it to determine, and it refrains from determining:

• Whether the IAAF has the jurisdiction, power or authority to annul the results of the relay event (the Panel having determined that, even assuming (without deciding) that the IAAF has such jurisdiction, its decision in this case was incorrect);
• Whether the IAAF decision should be overturned on grounds unrelated to the merits of that decision (for example, whether modification of the results of the relay event is time-barred, or whether the IAAF decision is vitiated by a lack of due process);
• Whether or not USOC, as distinct from the Athletes, has standing to appeal the IAAF decision.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel rules that:

1.) The appeal filed by Michael Johnson, Antonio Pettigrew, Angelo Taylor, Alvin Harrison and Calvin Harrison on 27 September 2004 is upheld.

2.) The IAAF Council decision of 18 July 2004 is hereby overturned.

3.) On the basis of IAAF Rules in force and applicable at the time of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the results of the men's 4 x 400m relay event at those Games shall not be amended; those results stand.

4.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500.- already paid by the Appellants and which is retained by the CAS.

5.) The IAAF shall pay an amount of US$ 10’000.- to the Appellants Michael Johnson, Antonio Pettigrew, Angelo Taylor, Alvin Harrison and Calvin Harrison as contribution towards their expenses incurred in this arbitration.