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

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.