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

CAS 2004/A/651 Mark French vs Australian Sports Commission & Cycling Australia

• Appeal Partial Award
  July 11, 2005
• Interlocutory Award
  January 31, 2005
• Interlocutory Award
  March 30, 2005

In December 2003 cleaners found in the guesthouse room previously occupied by the Australian cyclist Mark French a plastic bag of used syringes and needles in the cupboard and a bucket of the sort which normally contained protein powder, also containing used syringes and needles. This discovery was followed by an investigation conducted by the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) and Cycling Australia (CA).

Consequently in February 2004 the ASC and the CA reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for:

(1) Trafficking in a prohibited substance, namely Glucocorticosteroid;

(2) Trafficking in a prohibited substance, namely equine growth hormone (eGH);

(3) Knowingly assisting a doping offence, namely assisting in trafficking glucocorticosteroid by others; and,

(4) Knowingly assisting a doping offence, namely assisting in trafficking equine growth hormone by others.

In the matter of trafficking the substance Glucocorticosteroid and equine Growth Hormone (eGH) the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Oceania Registry decided on 8 June 2004 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete and a A$ 1,000 fine.

In the Final Arbitration Award the Athlete was further ordered to:

(1) return to the ASC a trek road bike;
(2) pay the ASC the sum of A$12,031.37 for the financial assistance they provided to the Athlete; and
(3) pay the sum of A$20,000 to the ASC towards the costs of their proceedings.

Hereafter in June 2004 the Athlete appealed the first instance decision of with CAS.

In this case the scope of the appeal became controversial between the parties. The Panel was unable to deal with that controversy until it was reconstituted in late January of 2005. The Panel issued two interlocutory rulings dated 31 January 2005 and 30 March 2005 in which the Panel interpreted the CAS Code and prescribed the scope of this appeal.

By the interlocutory rulings the ASC and CA were permitted to file a cross-appeal against the finding of the Arbitrator at first instance that the Athlete did not breach CA Anti-Doping Policy by committing a Doping offence by using eGH. The finding was that the particular was not proven or accepted. The cross-appeal of the ASC and CA relates to this single particular.

Through the interlocutory rulings, all parties were able to file new evidence before the Panel in the rehearing and cross-appeal that had not been called at the first instance. The Athlete and the ASC and CA both filed extensive new evidence before the Panel.

The Athlete admitted to injecting himself with vitamins, supplements and the product Testicomp but denied injecting eGH. He admitted to injecting these substances in the company of other athletes but testified and stated that he was unaware of any athlete, who was present with him injecting eGH.

The Panel finds that this Athlete’s admission of Testicomp does not amount to an admission that there has been use of a prohibitied substance due to the product Testicomp was tested negative for the presence of a prohibited substance. As a result the Panel can’t find that a breach of the CA Anti-Doping Policy has occurred and that all allegations in the matter of Testicomp are dismissed as not established.

The Panel concludes that the scientific evidence does not demonstrate to the necessary degree of satisfaction the Athlete’s use of eGH and thereby breached the CA Anti-Doping Policy.

In the matter of trafficking eGH the Panel holds that the evidence in this case establish, unlike to the substance Testicomp, that there is evidence that the phials found in the bucket contained a prohibited substance, i.e. eGH, and it is being undisputed that the substance is a prohibited substance under the CA and UCI Anti-Doping Rules.

Further the Panel finds that not has been established that the requisite significant degree of satisfaction of proof that the Athlete knew he was in possession of eGH. In the absence of that knowledge the allegation of trafficking in eGH cannot be upheld nor the allegations for aiding & abetting. Finally the Panel is unable to uphold the conclusions of the Arbitrator in first instance.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 11 July 2005 that:

1.) The decision of Arbitrator Holmes QC at first instance be set aside and replaced with this decision of the Appeal Panel. As a consequence the two year period of ineligibility imposed as a sanction is terminated immediately. As a further consequence the fine of A$1,000 Australian dollars ordered to be paid at first instance is to be returned to French within one week of the date herein.

2.) The first instance order to return the trek bike and A$12,031.37 by way of an athlete scholarship are to be included in the written submission referred to in order number four below.

3.) This being an appeal procedure this award is public under CAS Rule 59 unless the parties agree otherwise; and

4.) Costs associated with the first instance decision; the interlocutory proceedings; and this appeal by rehearing and cross-appeal will be considered but on the principles of CAS international and the CAS Rule 65. Counsel are directed to make a written submission not exceeding 10 pages double spaced as to their costs and the matters referred to in order number two above within 15 days of this award.

5.) The Court office filing fees paid by the ASC and by CA at first instance and the filing fee paid by the Appellant French each in the amount of A$500 are retained by CAS.

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.
After notification by Touch NZ the Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.
Respondent stated he had smoked cannabis at a party approximately two weeks before the tournament. The Tribunal accepted that the Respondent did not smoke the cannabis with the intention of enhancing his performance at the tournament and was unaware that cannabis was a banned substance.

The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a reprimand and a warning on the Respondent.
Each party will bear their own costs.

Facts
Melle van Gemerden (player) was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an in competition ATP sanctioned challenger tournament in Phoenix his doping test showed the presence of a cannabis metabolite. His B sample analysis confirmed the existence of the prohibited substance. The player applied for a hearing which took place on April 28, 2005.

History
The player stated that a visit in an Amsterdam disco in a period he was having serious personal (family) problems. He drank to much and took two zips of somebody else's joint. Marijuana is not illegal in the Netherlands. He regrets the embarrassment of this incident brought upon the ATP and has no intention to repeat his misconduct.

Consideration ATP
There is no evidence of the statement of the player how the prohibited substance entered his body, also there is no evidence that he was not intending to improve is sport performance.

Considerations panel
A doping offense has occurred which means disqualification of the results. The panel finds that the use of cannabis was not intended to enhance performances. In an earlier case 2 months of ineligibility was suitable, considering the voluntary suspension this should be the starting point of the period of ineligibility till the day of the decision.

Decision
The Tribunal makes the following orders.
1.
The Player, under Rule K. 1. c., admitted a First Doping Offense
thereby establishing that a Doping Offense occurred as defined in Rule C 1. The Doping Offense involved the use of the Specified Substance cannabinoids, referred to in S. 3 of Appendix Three “the 2004 Prohibited List”.
2. Rule L. 1. disqualifies the results obtained at the tournament in Pheonix, Mauritius on 2 December 2004. Any medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money (without reduction for 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 the period of voluntarily foregoing participation in
Competitions. In accordance with Rule M. 8. c. (i) this
Ineligibility shall terminate on the day May 16, 2005.

CAS 2004/O/679 USADA v/Bergman

In July 2004 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Adam Bergman after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. USADA deemed that Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. Thereupon the Athlete did not accept the proposed fine and the sanction of a 2 year period of ineligibility.

Hereafter in August 2004 the Parties requested for arbitration with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Undisputed between the Parties is that rhEPO is a prohibited substance. However the only contested issue is what are the acceptable criteria for calling a sample positive for rhEPO.

The Athlete denied that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation because USADA had ignored the fact that he has not been tested positive according to the universally recognized BAP standard of 80%. He asserted that USADA was improperly relying on other criteria to establish a positive test.

After examining and considering all the evidence, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete's sample contalned the prohibited substance rhEPO. Accordingly the Panel finds that the Athlete is guilty of a doping vlolation under the UCI Antidoping Regulations.

Further the Panel considers that the Athlete failed to explain how the prohibited substance had entered his system and thereupon tested positive for rhEPO. The Panel can only conclude that the Athlete intentionally had used rhEPO.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 April 2005 that:

1.) The Respondent Adam Bergman is guilty of a doping offence under the UCI Antidoping Regulations applicable in April 2004.

2.) The Respondent is declared ineligible for a period of two years under article 261 of the new 2004 UCI Antidoping Regulations. The period of ineligibilty commenced 23 July
2004 and ends on 22 July 2006, having taken account of the provisional suspension already being served by the Respondent.

3.) The costs of the present arbitration, to be determined and notifled to the parties by the Secretary General of CAS, shall be borne by USADA.

4.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

The International Federation of Rowing Associations (FISA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Tomasz Mrozowicz after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone, metabolite of nandrolone.

The Polish Rowing Association notified the Athlete and a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and reported he was not possible for him to appear for the FISA Anti-Doping Hearing Panel. The Athlete stated he did not knowingly take prohibited substance and he could not provide an explanation how the substance came into his body.

Due to the Athlete failed to explain how the prohibited substance came to be in his bode the FISA Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 2 September 2004.

In April 2005 the Lyfjaráð ÍSÍ, the Iceland ISI Anti-Doping Committee, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances amphetamine, methyl amphetamine and cannabis.
After notification the Athlete was provisional suspended and heard for the ISI Tribunal.
The Athlete admitted the use of these substances and claimed he had no intention to enhance his sport performance.
The ISI Tribunal decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the notification, i.e. 1 April 2005.