Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Robert Dedig (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 26 September 2004 following the semi-final of the Top 10 cup competition of the Confederation Africaine de Rugby (“CAR”) between Namibia and Zimbabwe in Windhoek, the Player provided a urine sample as part of the doping control procedures for the match. After analysis, the sample was found to contain salbutomol in a concentration exceeding 100ng/ml.

History
The player suffers from seasonal asthma and exercise induced bronchospasm, the effects of which are relieved by regular salbutamol inhalations. The Player wrote to the Board on 10 November admitting his use of salbutomol as prescribed by Dr. B.P. Viljoen for asthma and allergic symptoms, and waiving his right to have the B sample tested. He requested an expedited hearing before a Board Judicial Committee to deal with his case.

Decision
It is not required that the player serves any additional period of suspension and that they will be adequately served by reprimanding the Player, but emphasising to him that he has been found guilty of an antidoping violation which will be a matter of formal record, and warning him of the severe consequences for him of any further anti-doping rule violation.

CAS 2004/A/607 B. v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)

• Weightlifting
• Doping offence
• Manipulation of sample
• Standard of proof
• Sanction

1. When the physical manipulation of the samples is undisputed, a prohibited doping method in the form of manipulation has occurred under Rule 5.1(b) of the IWF Anti-Doping Policy. The result is a doping offence as the alleged breach in the chain of custody, the alleged manipulation occurring during the period of custody and the alleged fact that the athlete has been victim of a conspiracy have not Under Rule 5.1(b) of the IWF Anti-Doping Policy been demonstrated. As a result, the athlete should be suspended according to the applicable rules.

2. As to the standards of proof to establish that an anti-doping violation has occurred, the IWF Anti-Doping Policy remains silent. According to Swiss law, which has been chosen by the parties, the Panel, based on objective criteria, must be convinced of the occurrence of an alleged fact. However, according to the jurisprudence of the Swiss Supreme Court, no absolute assurance is required; it suffices that the Tribunal has no serious doubts on a specific fact or that the remaining doubts appear to be light. This test is in line with standard CAS practice, providing that an anti-doping rule violation must be established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal. This standard of proof is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In November 2013 the Bulgarian Weightlifting Federation (BWF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete B and two other athletes for tampering (physical manipulation) after the laboratory had reported that their three samples contained the urine from the same athlete.

The IWF submitted a letter to the BWF on 31 March 2004. The letter stated that following negotiations between the IWF and the BWF, the parties agreed to reduce the Athlete’s sanction from a life time ban to eight years and the other athletes’ suspensions from a two year ban to 18 months.

This compromise was accepted by the Board of the IWF to avoid a long-lasting and expensive legal process if the athletes appealed. The letter also indicated that the BWF would have
to pay a fine of USD 60,000, of which USD 30,000 had already been paid, because the BWF had three doping offences within one calendar year.

On 13 April 2004, the Athlete sent to the Executive Board of the IWF a statement in which he refused the 8 year suspension and hereafter he appealed the IWF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

A rigorous analysis of the events surrounding the sample collection phase leads to the Panel's conclusion that the conditions under which the test took place were not satisfactory and offered several opportunities for the Athlete and the other two athletes to engage in manipulation.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete had the motive and the opportunity to manipulate the sample himself or with the assistance of others. The Panel is comfortably satisfied that the IWF has demonstrated that the Athlete did manipulate the sample himself or with the assistance of others.

Therefore on 6 December 2004 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

1.) The appeal of Athlete B. against the decision issued on 31 March 2004 by the International Weightlifting Federation is dismissed.

2.) The decision issued by the International Weightlifting Federation on 31 March 2004 concerning the Athlete B. is upheld.

(…)

Effects of oral administration of androstenedione on plasma androgens in young women using hormonal contraception / Thomas Bassindale, David A. Cowan, Sian Dale, Andrew J. Hutt, Anthony R. Leeds, Michael J. Wheeler, Andrew T. Kicman. - (Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 89 (2004) 12 (1 December); p. 6030-6038)

• PMID: 15579755
• DOI: 10.1210/jc.2004-0790

Abstract

Androstenedione as a dietary supplement has been targeted at the sporting community, but there are limited data regarding its effects on plasma androgens in young women. A double-blind, cross-over study was undertaken involving 10 women (20-32 yr) using hormonal contraception. Because contamination of supplements has been reported, an in-house oral formulation was prepared containing purified androstenedione, the control being lactose only. After oral administration of a single dose of androstenedione (100 mg), blood was collected frequently up to 8 h and at 24 h. Maximum plasma androgen concentrations observed between volunteers were well above the upper limit of reference ranges for women, being 121-346 nmol/liter for androstenedione, 14-54 nmol/liter for testosterone (T), 11-32 nmol/liter for 5alpha-dihydrotestosterone, and 23-90 nmol/liter for 3alpha-androstanediol glucuronide. The free androgen index and T concentration changed in a similar manner. The mean change in area under the plasma concentration-time curve (0-24 h), compared with control data were: androstenedione approximately 7-fold, T approximately 16-fold, 5alpha-dihydrotestosterone approximately 9-fold, and 3alpha-androstanediol glucuronide approximately 5-fold; the mean conversion ratio of androstenedione to T was 12.5% (range 7.8-21.6%). Increases in T area under the plasma concentration-time curve were correlated with SHBG concentration (r = 0.80; P = 0.005). Formulation characteristics and SHBG levels appear to be important factors when considering plasma androgen increases after acute androstenedione administration.

Magkos F, Kavouras SA. Caffeine and ephedrine: physiological, metabolic and performance-enhancing effects. Sports Med. 2004;34(13):871-89.

Rapportage Audit Commissie Doping de Algemene Vergadering NOC*NSF, 16 november 2004 / C.A. Segaar, S.J.U. Veen-van der Wielen, C. van Bentum. - Arnhem : Audit Commissie Doping, 2004.
- Halfjaarlijkse rapportage over de periode maart 2004 t/m augustus 2004 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:

- Hoofdstuk 1 Inleiding
- Hoofdstuk 2 Gegevens verzameling
- Hoofdstuk 3 Toelichting overzichten
- Hoofdstuk 4 Bevindingen
- Hoofdstuk 5 Conclusies en aanbevelingen

On March 25, 2004, Respondent gave a urine sample at the Redlands Classic in Redlands, California. In the A and B sample the presence of Oxymetholone metabolites was found. The USADA agrees that this violation is subject to sanction under UCI AER Article 130.1, a first offence, other than intentional doping.
The Evidentiary Hearing took place on November 8, 2004. Respondent argued that the penalty sought by USADA should be reduced substantially. He contended that the circumstances surrounding the offence, his character, age and experience, the gravity of the consequences of the penalty for his social, sporting and economic position, the risk to his professional career, and his normal discipline and programme all support the contention that the penalty should be no more than six moths. He also sought credit for the voluntary suspension served thus far and requested that a fine be waived due to his economic situation.

Decision and award: A two-year period of ineligibility
beginning from March 25, 2004, imposed on UCI Regulations AER 130. All competitive results after that date are cancelled (AER 143). No access to the training facilities of de USOC Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC, including grants, awards, or employment is imposed. Pursuant to Respondent was a TT/III licence-holder for three months in 2004. Therefore, in accordance with AER 128 a fine is reduced proportionally to 165 CHF.

The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association and the compensation and expenses of the arbitrators shall by borne entirely by USADA.

Pharmacoepidemiology of anabolic androgenic steroids : a review / Ingemar Thiblin, Anna Petersson. - (Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology 19 (2005) 1 (February); p. 27-44)

• PMID: 15660958
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-8206.2004.00298.x

Abstract

Non-prescribed use of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) has been associated with a number of physical and psychiatric/behavioural complications, some of which are potentially lethal. Here, we review both observational and experimental studies on human subjects concerned with such side-effects. The only physical complication of AAS use that receives definitive support from such investigations is unfavourable changes in blood lipid profiles. Support for various psychiatric complications has also been provided by a number of cross-sectional studies, most involving comparisons between weight-training individuals who use or do not use AAS. Certain of these complications, in particular hypomania and increased aggressiveness, have been confirmed in some, but not all, randomized controlled studies. Epidemiological attempts to determine whether AAS use triggers violent behaviour have failed, primarily because of high rates of non-participation. Studies regarding the prevalence of AAS use in different populations typically report life-time prevalences of 1-5% among adolescents. However, the life-time prevalence (i.e. use on at least one occasion) is of doubtful relevance in attempting to estimate the number of individuals at risk for side-effects, as most of these complications appear to develop during prolonged use of AAS. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the symptoms and signs of AAS use are often overlooked by healthcare professionals, so that the number of cases of possible AAS-related complications is virtually unknown. These limitations, together with an apparently low prevalence of prolonged AAS use among the general population, indicate that future epidemiological research in this area should focus on retrospective case-control studies and, perhaps, also on prospective cohort studies of populations selected for a high prevalence of AAS use, rather than attempting to perform large-scale population-based studies.

Vladimir Buben (Respondent) is a Belarussian athlete in the sport of IPC Powerlifting, participating in the 2004 Athens Paralympic Games.
On 27 September 2004 the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Mr. Buben after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance metandienone.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee concluded Respondent committed an anti-doping rule violation. Without reasons to consider no fault or no significant fault or negligence the Committee decided for:
- automatic disqualification of the Respondent’s individual results including forfeit of any medals, points and prizes;
- disqualification of all of the Respondent’s previous individual results obtained in the 2004 Athens Paralympic Games;
- disqualification of all of the Respondent’s subsequent individual results obtained after the occasion date;
- imposition of lifetime ineligibility, in accordance with a second violation commencing 27 September 2004.

On 3 November 2004 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

World Anti-Doping Agency Independent Observers' Report XII Paralympic Games Athens 2004 / George Walker. - Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2004

Facts
The International Chess Federation (FIDE) charged Bobby Miller, the player, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On October 28, 2004, during the Chess Olympiad in Calvia, Mallorca the player refused a doping test.

History
The statement of the player was the following. He confessed that he refused to submit to the doping control. His teamcaptain has advised him to refuse. He did not know about the possible sanctions. Bermuda is a low team in the ranking. Bobby Miller is an amateur. He has no FIDE-rating . He played between the Olympiad in Bled in 2002 and the Olympiad in 2004 only one FIDE rated event, the Bermuda Open 2003. In that event he played only one game against a FIDE-rated player.
The panel considers: the player keeps his own responsibility to decide if he submits to the doping control or refuses. The advise of the team captain does not deprive the player from his own responsibility. The refusal of submitting a sample means that the player is considered to be positive tested. According to the FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations the disqualification of individual results is the automatic consequence in each doping case, also the exclusion from participating in events organised by FIDE or national chess federations is further the normal sanction after a refusal. However, the Panel has discovered that the FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations are not well known in a part of the federations in FIDE. Further, Bobby Miller is an amateur player who came on his own cost to the Olympiad. The FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations are in the first place meant for the professional players of whom there are many in chess. There is no place for an exclusion, but only a warning should
be given. A minority of two members of the Panel judges that also this sanctioning is to severe and there should be no cancelling of points, but just a warning.

Decision
1. The sanction is a warning.
2. The points obtained since the Bermuda Open 2003 till the Chess Olympiad 2004 are cancelled.