Related case:
KNWU 2005 KNWU Decision Disciplinary Committee 2005120 T
September 5, 2005

In April 2005 the Royal Dutch Cycling Union (KNWU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his A and B samples for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.
After notification the Athlete filed a statement with medical files in his defence and he was heard for the KNWU Disciplinary Committee.

The Person explained that his high T/E ratio is caused by his exceptional low testosterone level and that he underwent further medical examinations for his condition.
The Person assumed also that the food supplements he used could have contained contaminations.

The KNWU Disciplinary Committee accepted the Person’s explanation and decided on 1 July 2005 to acquit the Person with the recommendation to apply for a TUE because of his high T/E ratio.

Hereafter in August 2005 the UCI appealed this KNWU decision for acquittal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS Panel concluded that the testosterone in the samples were of exogenous origin and decided to annul the KNWU decision of 1 July 2005 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Person.

In addition CAS decided in a new proceeding in 2006 to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Person because the he had committed a second anti-doping violation in 2005 .

The IAAF Arbitration Panel : The Heritage of Two Decades of Arbitration in Doping-Related Disputes / Christoph Vedder. – (International Sports Law Journal (2005) 3-4 : p. 16-23)

Content:
1.) Introduction
2.) The legal Basis
2.1.) The Formation and Composition of the Arbitration Panel
2.2.) The Independence of the Arbitration Panel
2.3.) Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Panel
2.4.) The Procedure before the Arbitration Panel
2.5.) The Effects of the Awards
3.) The Doping Offence
3.1.) The Elements of Doping
3.2.) The Burden of Proof
4.) Major Achievements
4.1.) Doping Offence
4.2.) Prohibited Substances, Food Supplements
4.3.) Endogenously Produced Substances
4.4.) Strict Liability, Burden of Proof
4.5.) Sanctions, Length of the Period of Ineligibility
4.6.) Procedural Issues
5.) At the End: an Oulook

In summer 2001, the 43rd Congress of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) during its Edmonton session decided to discontinue its Arbitration Panel and to join the arbitral dispute settlement system provided by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). However, according to a transitory provision several cases still came before the Arbitration Panel in 2002 and 2003 while the very last dispute to be decided by it was referred to the Panel as late as in 2004. Having been established in 1982, the Arbitration Panel operated since 1984 when the first list of arbitrators was composed.
Now, we are able to look back on two decades of settlement of sport-related disputes by arbitration, in particular in doping matters, within the framework of a major International Federation. In August 2003 as a next step the 44th IAAF Congress in Paris amended the IAAF’s constitutional rules on doping to bring them into line with the WADA Code. The overall result was a streamlining of the IAAF’s anti-doping policy both in substance and procedure, in accordance with the general trend of international and inter-sports harmonisation.

The Ad Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games – An Overview / Domenico Di Pietro. – (International Sports Law Journal (2005) 3-4 : p. 23-27)

Content:
1.) Introduction

2.) The Cases:
- CAS OG 04/001,
Russian Olympic Committee v. Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI)
- CAS OG 04/003,
Torri Edwards v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and USA Track and Field (USATF)
- CAS OG 04/004,
David Munyasia v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)
- CAS OG 04/005,
David Calder and Christopher Jarvis v. Federation Internationale des Societes d’Aviron (FISA)
- CAS OG 04/006,
Australian Olympic Committee (“AOC”)) v. International Olympic Committee (“IOC”)and International Canoe Federation (“ICF”)
- CAS OG 04/007,
Comite’ National Olympique et Sportif Francais (CNOF), British Olympic Association (BOA) and United States Olympic Committee (USOC) v Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI) and National Olympic Committee for Germany
- CAS OG 04/008,
Comité National Olympique et Sportif Français (“CNOSF”) v. International Canoe Federation (“ICF”) and International Olympic Committee (“IOC”)
- CAS OG 04/009,
Hellenic Olympic Committee (“HOC”) and Nikolaos Kaklamanakis v. International Sailing Federation (“ISAF”)
- CAS OG 04/010,
Mr Yang Tae Young v International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) and United States Olympic Committee (USOC)

3.) Conclusions

The cases administered by the ad hoc division of CAS at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games showed an increase in the challenges to refereeing decisions which were either wrong or perceived to be unfair. Even though only a few complaints were eventually formalised into actual CAS proceedings many more were about to reach that stage.

A regrettable element of the Olympic Games was obviously the presence of doping violations. The stringent regulations aimed at eradicating this terrible plague as well as the diligent enforcement of such regulations by CAS are to be praised and supported. It has been observed in this respect that, perhaps, the fight against doping should differentiate between sanctions to be imposed on deliberate cheating and sanctions to be imposed where the violation is the result of mere and genuine negligence. The objective difficulty in ascertaining the nature of the offence that such differentiation would be likely to give rise to is however a problem that may stop any future policy in that direction at least as long as doping remains such a malicious and unfortunately widespread enemy of sport and health.

Despite the presence of such difficult issues that the Olympic Movement will have to tackle in the future, one of the many positive notes in Athens, together with the excellent organisation of the Games, was that - once again since the creation of the ad hoc division - the Court of Arbitration for Sport has not failed to provide the Olympic Games with highly professional and perfectly organised service for the fast and effective protection of the rule of law in sport disputes.

Hormonen in importvlees : Een evaluatie van recente gegevens over gehalten aan van nature voorkomende hormonen / P.R. Kootstra, H.J. van Rossum, P.W. Zoontjes,  P.L.W.J. Schwillens, K.L. Wubs, H.A. Herbold, R.W. Stephany, S.S. Sterk en L.A. van Ginkel. - Bilthoven : Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM), 2004. - (RIVM Rapport 310302002/2004).

Samenvatting

Consumptie van vlees, geimporteerd uit Zuid-Amerika, met name Argentinie en Brazilie, leidt niet tot inname van lichaamsvreemde hormonen. Bovendien zijn er geen aanwijzingen voor inname van verhoogde hoeveelheden lichaamseigen hormonen. Onderzoek naar het illegaal gebruik van groeibevorderende stoffen vindt binnen de Europese Unie plaats in het kader van Nationale residu controleprogramma's, uitgevoerd in het kader van Europese regelgeving. Zulk onderzoek vindt plaats zowel gedurende de boerderijfase als ten tijde van de slacht. Veelal richt dit onderzoek zich op excreta zoals urine of mest, of op orgaanvlees. Bij import van buiten de Europese Unie is als regel uitsluitend het voor consumptie bedoelde spiervlees beschikbaar. Het systematisch onderzoek van dit materiaal heeft tot op heden slechts zeer beperkt plaatsgevonden waardoor gegevens over de blootstelling van de consument nauwelijks beschikbaar zijn. Dit rapport beschrijft de resultaten van onderzoek van ca. 300 monsters rund- en varkensvlees op lichaamseigen en lichaamsvreemde hormonen. Geen van de lichaamsvreemde hormonen waarop onderzoek is verricht werd aangetroffen. In zes monsters varkensvlees werden nortestosteron en boldenon aangetroffen. De aanwezigheid van deze hormonen betekent dat ook vlees van beren (niet gecastreerde mannelijke varkens) wordt geexporteerd. In een monster rundvlees overschreed het gehalte aan 17beta-oestradiol de voorlopige grenswaarde van 0,1 microg/kg.

Abstract

Consumption of meat imported from South America, mainly Argentina and Brazil, does not result in the intake of exogenous hormones. In addition, there are no indications for the intake of elevated amounts of endogenous (natural) hormones. Testing for the illegal use of growth promoting compounds within the European Union is conducted within the framework of national residue control programmes, based on European legislation. Such testing takes place "on farm" and after slaughter. Most of the tests are conducted on excreta like urine and manure and on organ tissues. However, in case of import only the muscle tissue intended for consumption is available. Systematic testing of this material, however, has been very limited. Consequently limited information on the actual intake by consumers is available. This report describes the results of the analyses of approximately 300 samples of bovine and porcine meat for the presence of xenobiotic and endogenous hormones. None of the xenobiotic hormones analyzed for was detected in these analyses. In six samples of pork meat nortestosterone and boldenone were detected. The presence of these hormones indicates that boar meat was exported too. In one sample the level of 17beta-oestradiol exceeded the provisional reference value of 0.1 microg/kg.

Detection of modafinil in human urine by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry / Ying Lung Tseng, Victor Uralets, Chien-Tzong Lin, Fan-Hsin Kuo. - (Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 39 (2005) 5 (4 October); p. 1042-1045)

• PMID: 15993026
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2005.04.050

Abstract

The main purpose of this study was to detect and quantify modafinil in human urine by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Urinary samples were collected from three healthy male volunteers following oral administration of a clinical dose (100 mg) of modafinil (Provigil). Urine specimens were extracted with t-butylmethyl ether (TBME) prior to GC-MS analysis. The results demonstrate that the chromatographic characteristics and the mass spectrum of the unchanged parent drug extracted from urine samples were identical to that obtained from the authentic standard. The times for the unchanged modafinil to reach peak concentration in the urine of the three volunteers were at 2 h (6.14 microg/mL), 4 h (9.93 microg/mL) and 8 h (3.58 microg/mL), respectively. Total clearance occurred in approximately 48-72 h with 2-5% eliminated through urine as unchanged modafinil. The present study demonstrates that modafinil is detectable in the absence of hydrolysis and derivatization steps.

In December 2004 Antidoping Norge (Anti-Doping Norway) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete David Morgan after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance ephedrine.
After notification the Athlete’s basketball club in Norway terminated the Athlete’s contract due to the positive test and the Athlete returned to Canada.
In January 2005 the Athlete filed a statement in his defence with Antidoping Norge and admitted he used a supplement and did not know it contained a prohibited substance.
In March 2005 the Athlete requested to be heard for the FIBA Commission. On 5 April 2005 the FIBA Commission concluded that the Athleteacted negligently without intention to enhance his performance and decided to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility, starting on 18 December 2004.

Hereafter in April 2005 WADA appealed the FIBA decision of 5 April 2005 with the FIBA Appeals Commission.
WADA requested the Appeal Commission to set aside the FIBA Commission decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. WADA argued that the Athlete’s sample had a high concentration of the prohibited substance due to his intention to enhance his sport performance and not due to the use of a contaminated food supplement.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the FIBA Commission made a procedural error in this case because they imposed a limited power of review on itself in relation to the Athlete’s statement.
Therefore the Sole Arbitrator of the FIBA Appeals Commission decides to set aside the Decision of 5 April 2005 and to refer the case back to the FIBA Commission to be re-decided.

Facts
The French Equestrian Federation (Fédération Française d'Équitation, FFE) charges respondent M33 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules.
During an event on October 17, 2004, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The 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.

History
The respondent didn't provide any information about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

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 FFE.
2. The present decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Equestrian Federation (Fédération Française d'Équitation, FFE) charges respondent M32 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules.
During an event on October 17, 2004, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The 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.

History
The respondent admitted the use of cannabis as an occasional user.

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 FFE.
2. The present decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

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.