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.

Metabolites of ephedrines in human urine after administration of a single therapeutic dose / Ying Lung Tseng, Min-Hua Shieh, Fan-Hsin Kuo. - (Forensic Science International 157 (2006) 2-3 (10 March); p. 149-155)

• PMID: 15885945
• DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.04.008

Abstract

Ephedrine (EPH), pseudoephedrine (PEPH), phenylpropanolamine (PPA), methylephedrine (MEPH) and cathine are sympathomimetic amines. These drugs are commonly found in over-the-counter (OTC) cold medicines and some dietary supplements. In Taiwan, the misuse of these drugs has resulted in an increase in athletic violations. Excretion studies of the ephedrine-related drugs have been performed to better understand the metabolic yields of ephedrines in urine. After consuming a single clinical dose of each of these drugs, urine samples from volunteers (n=3 for each drug) were subjected to tert-butyl-methyl-ether (TBME) extraction and trifluoroacetic acid (TFAA) derivatization before gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis. Most ephedrines were excreted unchanged in urine, including EPH (40.9%), PEPH (72.2%), and PPA (59.3%). However, only a relatively small amount of MEPH (15.5%) was excreted unchanged in urine. In addition, a trace amount of PPA (1.6%) and cathine (0.7%) was found to be the metabolites of EPH and PEPH, respectively. Urinary EPH, PEPH, and PPA reached peaks at 2-6h and disappeared in urine at approximately 24-48 h post-administration. For MEPH, the peaks of excretion extended from 4 to 12h post-administration and were undetectable at approximately 48 h. A single clinical dose of EPH (25 mg) may exceed threshold level (10 microg/mL) in sport drug testing if the urine samples are tested within approximately 8h post-administration. However, a single dose of MEPH (20 mg) never reached the threshold value (10 microg/mL).

Facts
The French Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M22 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on September 18, 2004, a sample was taken for doping tests 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 list.

History
The respondent admits the use of cannabis.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 2 months, for which one month conditionally, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFBB.
2. The decision starts after October 1, 2005.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

In November 2004 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis at a concentration of 130 ng/mL. The Athlete had used cannabis after the competition and before he provided a sample for drug testing, which explains the reason why his results were so high. Also the Athlete walked away to smoke cannabis with some fans after he was notified by the DCO and Chaperone and finally showed up within the allotted time to provide a sample.

The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the SDRCC Doping Tribunal. The Athlete admitted that he had used cannabis and stated that he already had expressed his apologies to the DCO and Chaperone for his behavior after he had returned to provide a sample.
The arbitrator finds that the Athlete had no intention to enhance sport performance and normally only a warning and reprimand would be imposed as first anti-doping violation. However the arbitrator considers the Athlete’s disappearance after notification by the DCO an aggravating factor.

Therefore on 6 May 2005 the SDRCC Doping Tribunal decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision. Any period of provisional suspenstion shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.

The New Zealand Sports Drug Agency (NZSD) and the New Zealand Rugby League (NZRL) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after he failed to provide a sample for testing by NZSD. After notification by the NZRL a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Tribunal.

After initially failing to provide a sample (by discarding a sample down a toilet during the sampling process), the Athlete left the drug control room but returned a few minutes later. He provided a second sample which proved negative on analysis.

The Tribunal holds that a failure to provide a sample would be sanctioned severely when this sample returned with a positive result. The Tribunal finds that, although the initial refusal to provide a sample was a clear breach of the anti-doping code, there were truly exceptional circumstances which justifies the imposition of reduced sanction.

The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 6 May 2005 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 18 November 2004.

Facts
The Canadian Center for Ethics in Sport (CCES) charges Yvan Darsigny (the athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The athlete Yvan Darsigny committed a violation by refusing or avoiding the sample collection on January 23, 2005.

History
Due to family matters the applicant didn't treat the Doping Control Officer in a kind way and refused to comply when they came for an unannounced doping test. According to his testimony, the technique of no advance notice testing was unknown to the athlete. The DCO indentified herself correctly and the athlete understood the reason for her visit.

Decision
The period of Ineligibility imposed for this anti-doping rule violation shall be: Two (2) years Ineligibility

Androgen regulation of satellite cell function / Yue Chen, Jeffrey D. Zajac, Helen E. MacLean. - (Journal of Endocrinology 186 (2005) 1 (July); p. 21–31)

• PMID: 16002532
• DOI: 10.1677/joe.1.05976

Abstract

Androgen treatment can enhance the size and strength of muscle. However, the mechanisms of androgen action in skeletal muscle are poorly understood. This review discusses potential mechanisms by which androgens regulate satellite cell activation and function. Studies have demonstrated that androgen administration increases satellite cell numbers in animals and humans in a dose-dependent manner. Moreover, androgens increase androgen receptor levels in satellite cells. In vitro, the results are contradictory as to whether androgens regulate satellite cell proliferation or differentiation. IGF-I is one major target of androgen action in satellite cells. In addition, the possibility of non-genomic actions of androgens on satellite cells is discussed. In summary, this review focuses on exploring potential mechanisms through which androgens regulate satellite cells, by analyzing developments from research in this area.