CAS 98/213 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) / C. & Federazione Ciclistica Italiana (FCI)

• Cycling
• Doping (testosterone)
• Jurisdiction of CAS
• Endogenous substance

1. By applying for a licence and by participating in races belonging to the international calendar of the UCI, athletes agree to comply with and to be bound by all provisions of the Regulations applying thereto, i.e. the UCI rules including the AER.

2. For endogenous steroids, a sample is deemed positive if the T/E ratio is higher than 6, unless it can be proven that this ratio is due to physiological or pathological condition.

3. Pursuant to the UCI Regulations, a sanction, in order to be effective, must be served during the period of normal activity. As a consequence, a suspension falling to a considerable extent within a “dead period”, which means a period where the athlete does usually not compete, cannot be regarded as an effective sanction.

In Juni 1998 the Italian Cycling Federation (FCI), initiated by the International Cycling Union (UCI), has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian Athlete C. after his A and B samples, provided in April and May 1998, tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold. Thereupon the Athlete underwent an endocrinological examination which showed that the Athlete did not have naturally elevated T/E ratio.

On 31 August 1998 the FCI Disciplinary Commission decided to impose on the Athlete C. a 6 month period of ineligibility and a CHF 2’000,-- fine without specification of the starting and or ending of the suspension.

Hereafter the UCI appealed in October 1998 the FCI decision of 31 August 1998 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The UCI requested the CAS Panel for disqualification of two competition results and to impose a sanction on the Athlete of at least 9 months including a higher fine.

The Panel – with the approval of the UCI – decides to consider the different positive results as one single offence. The Panel thus holds that the analysis of the A-samples, confirmed by the analysis of the B-samples, revealed the presence of prohibited substances, which as such constitutes an infringement of the UCI Rules.

With regard to the sanction, the Panel only partially agreed and therefore modifies the decision of the FCI.
The Panel notices that the discussion about the dead period is a consequence of the particular sanction system of the UCI, which provides for a minimal duration of suspension of less than one year. The discussion could be avoided if the UCI would harmonize its sanctions with other sport federations and provide for minimum suspension of at least twelve months.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 February 1999:

1.) The appeal by the UCI is partially upheld.

2.) The decision of the Federazione Ciclistica Italiana (FCI) dated 31 August 1998 is partially modified:

a.) The disqualification from the “Giro del Trentino” 1998 is cancelled.

b.) The Athlete C. is sanctioned as follows:
- disqualification from the “Tour de Romandie” 1998;
- suspension for nine months from 6 September 1998 to 5 June 1999;
- fine of CHF 2’000.-- (two thousand Swiss francs).

(...)

CAS 98/212 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) / M. & Federazione Ciclistica Italiana (FCI)

• Cycling
• Doping (nandrolone)
• Determination of the competent appeals tribunal
• Endogenous substance
• “Effective” sanction
• Probation

1. Quantities up to 2 ng/ml are not considered to constitute a doping offence. The laboratories do normally not report concentrations below 2 ng/ml to the Federation. There is uncertainty among experts as to the maximum concentration of Nandrolone produced by a human body. Consequently, the mere finding of Nandrolone in a concentration between 2 and 5 ng/ml may constitute a doping offence, but requires further investigations in order to confirm the result of the analysis. However, within the “grey zone” the likelihood that Nandrolone is produced endogenously, is decreasing exponentially. The probability of an endogenous production of Nandrolone in quantities beyond 5 ng/ml was held to be very unlikely. Therefore quantities beyond 5 ng/ml are very likely to be confirmed by further investigations and may be regarded as sufficient evidence to constitute a doping offence.

2. Pursuant to the UCI Rules, a sanction, in order to be effective, must be served during the period of normal activity. As a consequence, a suspension falling to a considerable extent within a “dead period”, which means a period where the athlete does usually not compete, cannot be regarded as an effective sanction.

In May 1998 the Italian Cycling Federation (FCI), initiated by the International Cycling Union (UCI), has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian Athlete M. after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances norandrosterone and noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone) in a low concentration.
On 31 August 1998 the FCI Disciplinary Commission decided to impose on the Athlete a 6 month period of ineligibility and a CHF 2’000,-- fine without specification of the starting and or ending of the suspension.

Hereafter in September 1998 the Athlete M. appealed the decision of the FCI Disciplinary Commission both with the FCI Appeal Commission and with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Also the UCI appealed in October 1998 the FCI decision of 31 August 1998 with CAS. Meanwhile in October 1998 the Athlete withdrew his appeal with CAS.
UCI requested the CAS Panel to impose a sanction on the Athlete of at least 6 months and to increase the fine.

The Panel finds that the Athlete M. was not able to give any reasonable explanation for the origin of the prohibited substances. He further failed to submit any evidence in order to support the motion that in his particular case the endogenous production of Nandrolone could reach or even exceed the threshold of 5 ng/ml. The Panel therefore held that the analysis of the A-sample, confirmed by the analysis of the B-sample, revealed the presence of prohibited substances in a concentration not only higher than 2 ng/ml but also beyond the unofficial “grey zone” and as such established an infringement of the AER.
With regard to the sanction, the Panel only partially agrees and therefore modifies the decision of the FCI.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 February 1999:

1.) The appeal by the UCI is partially upheld.
2.) The decision of the Federazione Ciclistica Italiana (FCI) dated 31 August 1998 is partially modified:
The Athlete M. is sanctioned as follows:
- disqualification from the “Settimana Bergamasca” 1998;
- suspension for nine months from 14 July 1998 to 13 April 1999;
the suspension is lifted by 21 January 1999 and M. is granted probation for the remaining period of suspension, i.e. two months and three weeks (according to Art. 95 UCI AER);
- fine of CHF 2’000.-- (two thousand Swiss francs).
(...)

1999 List of Prohibited Classes of Substances and Prohibited Methods / IOC Medical Commission. – International Olympic Committee (IOC), 1999

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE MEDICAL CODE

PROHIBITED CLASSES OF SUBSTANCES AND PROHIBITED METHODS

31st January 1999

I. PROHIBITED CLASSES OF SUBSTANCES
A. Stimulants
B. Narcotics
C. Anabolic Agents
D. Diuretics
E. Peptide hormones, mimetics and analogues

II. PROHIBITED METHODS
A. Blood doping
B. Pharmacological, chemical and physical manipulation

III. CLASSES OF DRUGS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN
RESTRICTIONS
A. Alcohol
B. Cannabinoids
C. Local anaesthetics
D. Corticosteroids
E. Beta-blockers

SUMMARY OF IOC REGULATIONS FOR DRUGS WHICH NEED THE WRITTEN NOTIFICATON OF A PHYSICIAN

SUMMARY OF URINARY CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE WHICH IOC ACCREDITED LABORATORIES MUST REPORT FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC SUBSTANCES

LIST OF EXAMPLES OF PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES

Source: Bibliothèque du CIO / IOC Library

TAS 97/180, P. & consorts / Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA)

• Swimming
• Doping (metandienone)
• Burden of proof

1. According to FINA Rules, only the presence of a prohibited substance, such as steroids, constitutes a violation and results in a suspension for a minimum of four years plus a retroactive sanction resulting in the cancellation of any results obtained during the competitions which took place over a period of six months before the violation occurred. However, the sanction may be mitigated in proportion to the circumstances in the particular case.

2. As consequence of testing positive in a doping control, competitors have the onus to reverse the burden of proof. In the case of exculpatory evidence, strict demands need to be made for the evidence showing absence of guilt or weak guilt of the sanctioned athletes.

In October 1997 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the 3 Russian Athletes K., M. and P. after their samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone.

All 3 Athletes were members of the Russian Swimming team and as a consequence of the positive tests criminal investigations were conducted in Russia. Another Russian Athlete T. admitted that she had spiked the food of the Athletes with the prohibited substance because of her frustration about her exclusion of the national swimming team.

Considering the burden of proof the FINA Anti-Doping Commission found that the Athletes could not explain how the prohibited substance came into their body and could not reverse the burden of proof with their statements and evidence that the violation was committed intentionally.
On 24 December 1997 the FINA Anti-Doping Commission decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athletes K., M. and P.

In December 1997 the Court of Arbitration (CAS) dismissed the request of the three Russian Athlete to lift the suspension ordered by the FINA for their participation in the World Championships in January 1998.
Hereafter in February 1998 the three Russian Athletes appealed the FINA decision of 24 December 1997 with CAS.

The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the decision of the FINA Anti-Doping Commission and to impose no sanction on the Athletes or a sanction reduced to a 6 month period of ineligibility.

The CAS Panel did not accept the evidence and statements produced by the Athletes about the Russian criminal investigation and the admission of the Athlete T. that she had spiked the food of the Athletes with the substance 13 days before the doping test.
The Panel also upholds the FINA conclusion that the Athletes failed to explain how the substance came unintentionally into their body. Considering the circumstances in this case the Panel holds that the imposed sanction wasn’t disproportional.

Therefore on 14 January 1999 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides to dismiss the appeal of the Athletes K., M. and P. and confirms the decision of 16 December 1997 of the FINA Anti-Doping Commission.

Doping control analysis : the 6th World Championships of Athletics, Athens, Greece / Costas G. Georgakopoulos, Christina Tsitsimpikou, Maria-Helen E. Spyridaki, Emmanouel Lyris, Efstathios G. Cookeas, Detlef Thieme. - (TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 18 (1999) 1 (January); p. 1-13)

• https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-9936(98)00101-0

Abstract

The first official report on the organization, analytical methodologies, and the results of the doping control analysis performed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)-accredited Doping Control Laboratory of Athens, Greece, during the 6th World Championships of Athletics, held in Athens on 1–10 August 1997, is presented. The significance of the various analytical parameters of the doping control is shown. The results include 20 positive cases, of which two were detected in screening procedures and confirmed exclusively by high resolution mass spectrometry. The screening results and analytical data on the excretion of a new black-market doping agent, phenylpiracetam or carfedon, which was unknown in the literature, are also presented.

Growth Hormone Secretagogues : Physiological Role and Clinical Utility / Felipe F. Casanueva, Carlos Dieguez

• Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism 10 (1999) 1 (1 January), p. 30-38
• PMID: 10322392
• DOI: 10.1016/s1043-2760(98)00116-7

Abstract

Growth hormone secretagogues (GHSs) are artificial compounds developed to release GH in vitro. GHSs mimic an unknown endogenous factor that activates the GHS receptor in the pituitary and the hypothalamus. With the cloning of the human GHS receptor it has been demonstrated that GHS is a new physiological system that regulates GH secretion along with growth hormone-releasing factor (GHRH) and somatostatin. GHSs administered alone or in combination with GHRH are the most potent and reproducible GH releasers, and are useful tools for the diagnosis of GH deficiency when tested in a variety of pathological conditions, both in children and in adults. As therapeutic agents, they show clinical effectiveness in enhancing GH release after short-term treatment.

Does growth hormone therapy in conjunction with resistance exercise increase muscle force production and muscle mass in men and women aged 60 years or older? / J.J. Zachwieja, K.E. Yarasheski. -  (Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Journal 79 (1999) 1 (1 January); p. 76-82)

• PMID: 9920193
• DOI: 10.1093/ptj/79.1.76

Abstract

Improved muscle protein mass and increments in maximum voluntary muscle force have rarely been observed in men and women aged 60 years and older who were treated with rhGH. Although rhGH administration has been reported to increase lean body mass in older men and women, it is doubtful that this increase is localized to skeletal muscle contractile proteins. When rhGH administration was combined with 16 weeks of resistance exercises, increases in muscle mass, muscle protein synthesis, and muscle force were not greater in the rhGH-treated group than in a weight training group that received placebo injections. Side effects of rhGH treatment in elderly people are prevalent, not trivial, and further limit its usefulness as an effective anabolic agent for promoting muscle protein accretion in men and women. In particular, the induction of insulin resistance and carpal tunnel compression reduces the efficacy of rhGH replacement therapy in elderly individuals. The evidence for a GH-induced increase in human skeletal muscle protein and maximum voluntary muscle force is weak. The optimum dose and GH-replacement paradigm (GHRH, GH-secretagogues) have not been identified. Whether rhGH therapy improves muscle protein mass and force in individuals with severe cachexia associated with major trauma, burns, surgery, or muscular dystrophy is controversial and under investigation.

Enquête onder topsporters over doping, dopingcontroles en medicijngebruik in de sport : evaluatie van de kennis en houding van topsporters over doping, dopingcontroles en medicijngebruik in de sport, alsmede hun oordeel over het voorlichtingsprogramma hieromtrent / S. de Groot, F. Hartgens, M.F. Zweers. – Rotterdam : Nederlands Centrum voor Dopingvraagstukken (NeCeDo), 1999. – 40 p. : fig.. – (NeCeDo praktijkpublikaties). – Uitg. in samenw. met Nationaal Olympisch Comité*Nationale Sport Federatie (NOC*NSF)
Met lit. opg. – Met samenvatting in het Engels
ISSN 1383-6730 ; 2

Het doel van deze enquete was voor het Nederlands Centrum voor Dopingvraagstukken (NeCeDo) tweeledig. Ten eerste was de enquete bedoeld om inzicht te krijgen in de huidige kennis en houding van topsporters over doping, dopingcontroles en medicijngebruik in de'sport. Ten tweede wilde het NeCeDo evalueren welke mening de topsporters over het voorlichtingsprogramma omtrent doping hebben, hoe de naamsbekendheid van het NeCeDo is en hoe de topsporters de dopingwaaier beoordelen.

Inhoud:
1. Samenvatting
2. Summary
3. Inleiding
4. Methoden
5. Resultaten
6. Discussie
7. Conclusie
8. Aanbevelingen

Summary:

Aim of the study:
For this study two main goals were set. Firstly, the study was performed to determine the knowledge and attitude of elite athletes about doping, doping tests and drug use. In the second place this investigation was pointed towards the opinion of the elite athletes regarding the education program of doping. Therefore, the following questions were formulated: a) How do elite athletes evaluate the doping education program? b) Are the elite athletes familiar with the Netherlands Centre for Doping Affairs (NeCeDo) and the doping guide and how do they assess this guide? c) Which groups (e.g. age, level of sport) need extra education concerning doping?

Methods:
The study was performed by means of a questionnaire. A total number of 1332 elite athletes, registered in the files of the Dutch Olympic Committee (NOC*NSF), received a questionnaire.

Results:
Subjects: A response rate of 44.7% was obtained. Most of the subjects were aged between 18 and 25 years (56.8%). The cooperating elite athletes performed their sport mainly at the A- (40.2%) or B2- level (44.8%). The majority of the respondents was supported by a national coach (59.8%), the individual/club trainer (55.5%), the individual/club coach (54.6%), the parents (44.5%) and a physical therapist (44.0%). A great part of the respondents (53.2%) had never experienced a doping test.
Knowledge: 69.7% of the respondents did not know that, even if the athlete doesn't agree with the doping test, he or she always has to sign the doping test form. 21.2% of the athletes were not aware that a refusal of a doping test may lead to a ban of the athlete. A majority did not know that dietary supplements (37.5%), cough mixture (19.2%), natural food products (41.4%) and drugs on doctors prescription (27.9%)
may contain substances of doping.
Attitude: Sixteen subjects (2.7%) admitted to have used a doping substance in the past. Nineteen respondents (3.2%) admitted to consider the use of performance enhancing drugs. One third of the respondents did not examine their own drugs with respect to doping regulations. A vast majority of the respondents (87.2%) indicated that there were no pressures present to use performance-enhancing drugs. In addition, a large majority (72.4%) indicated that there was no pressure concerning not using doping in the Netherlands. Most elite athletes advocated an increase in the number of doping tests (54.5%), of out-of-competition doping tests (46.2%) and of doping tests during important competitions (68.3%). To the opinion of, most respondents (67,9%) the punishments after a positive test result had to be more severe.
Education: Most elite athletes had received information of doping, doping tests and drug use from the NOC*NSF (51.3%), the national sport association (36.6%) and the NeCeDo (33.8%). The respondents were not well informed about the doping rules in the sport (52.1%), the procedure of doping tests (49.7%), use of drugs (64.2%) and about dietary supplements (74.2%). The youngest athletes (younger than 18 years) admitted to feel informed badly. For information about doping related subjects, the majority consulted to the doctor of their national team (44.2%). Older athletes (31 years and older) consulted their general practitioner about doping more frequently. The elite athletes appreciated to receive more information about doping regularly.
NeCeDo/Doping guide: Half of the respondents had never heard of the NeCeDo before they received the questionnaire. Those who knew the NeCeDo before, were made familiar by the NOC*NSF (75.1%). A majority of the athletes (53.4%) did not know how to contact the NeCeDo. Almost 55% of the respondents were familiar with the NeCeDo doping guide in a fan-shaped formation. 84% of them had received this doping guide, mainly via the NOC*NSF. Three quarter of the cooperating athletes was satisfied with the quality of the doping guide. Again the youngest athletes were less familiar with the NeCeDo and the doping guide.

Conclusions:
Overall, it can be concluded that the general knowledge of elite athletes concerning doping is not optimal and needs to be improved. Most of the athletes supported the idea of a more severe doping policy regarding the number of doping tests and penalties. Not all the respondents felt well informed about doping. Certain items, like dietary supplements and the use of drugs, need more attention. The NeCeDo was not very well known in the group of athletes. Not everybody knew how to contact the NeCeDo. The doping guide was evaluated rather well although several topics should be added or extended. Especially, the youngest group of elite athletes (below 18 years) requires more education.

Recommendations:
To increase the response rate of the survey it will be better to send the questionnaire to the elite athletes in the months November/December. Those months are quieter concerning competition or tournaments.
A great part of the athletes supported a more severe doping policy. The NOC*NSF and Dutch government have started a more sever doping policy. The youngest athletes (younger than 18) and the athletes of the lowest sport category are not well informed. Those groups need more information about doping. This might be realized by informing these groups about doping as soon as they receive their official B/C license of the NOC*NSF. An important way to inform the athletes seems to be via the sports associations (e.g. the associations magazine), at training hours and tournaments. Up to date information can be provided by a newsletter for the athletes supported by the NOC*NSF. The education program has to be objective and practical. The NeCeDo doping guide in a fan-shaped form provides a lot of information. According to the respondents the guide has to contain up to date information. This may be realized by releasing a new edition every year or by releasing some pages with the latest developments, which can be added to the doping guide. The terminology should be simple and unequivocal. Because the athletes would like to receive a lot of information about doping and the fan-shaped doping guide should stay handy-sized, it might be an interesting idea to release a more detailed book besides the doping guide. Furthermore, a number of athletes indicated interest in improving their knowledge about doping by means of a symposium or course. The education program should also be directed towards coaches, doctors et cetera.
Most of the athletes will first contact these persons with questions about doping. The NeCeDo is not very well known by the athletes. Therefore, the name and address of the NeCeDo should be written more prominent on the distributed information.

Stilger VG, Yesalis CE.
J Community Health. 1999 Apr;24(2):131-45.
West Virginia University, Morgantown 26506, USA.

Eight-hundred seventy-three Indiana high school football players were surveyed to investigate the use of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS). Subjects were varsity football players that were randomly selected from 27 high schools throughout Indiana. Out of a possible 1,325 subjects, 873 or 66% participated in the study. Subjects completed a 50 item questionnaire that measured demographic information, perceived use of AAS, reasons for use, and how AAS are taken.

The results indicate that 6.3% of Indiana high school football players were current or former AAS users. The average age at time of first use of AAS was 14 years and 15% began taking before the age of ten. Almost half of respondents indicated they could obtain AAS if they so desired, and that other athletes, physicians, and coaches were listed as sources for AAS.

Athletic trainers can play a vital role in disseminating accurate information about AAS abuse, including the long-term adverse health risks. These messages should begin with students and athletes as early as the fourth and fifth grades and delivered as often as possible throughout the school years.

PMID:
10202692
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Curry LA, Wagman DF.
Percept Mot Skills. 1999 Feb;88(1):224-33.
Department of Health and Human Performance, University of Montana, MT 59812-1055, USA. curry58@selway.umt.edu

Powerlifters have been suspected to be a population wherein use of anabolic androgenic steroids is prevalent (Yesalis, Herrick, & Buckley, 1988). To access commentary from these athletes on issues related to these drugs and the effectiveness of doping controls, a survey was developed. From 28 U.S. Powerlifting Team members who competed internationally since 1988, 26 were contacted by mail, and 15 questionnaires were returned. The questionnaire solicited yes/no responses and qualitative descriptions about current and previous use of anabolic androgenic steroids in powerlifting. Analysis indicated that ten U.S. Powerlifting
Team members admitted to using these drugs, and five athletes admitted to beating the International Olympic Committee's doping control procedures. Reported use of anabolic androgenic steroids by these athletes was consistent with data presented by Yesalis, et al. and illustrated continued discrepancy between admitted use of these drugs prior to or during national and international events and the lack of reported positive test data. Discussion focused on the value of this study to elicit in an athlete's own words commentary specific to the use of anabolic androgenic steroids and the need for more effective doping controls.

PMID:
10214647
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]