CAS A9/98 Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) vs. Sarah Rockell

In May 1998 the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor cyclist (14) Sarah Rockell after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance pseudoephedrine in a concentration above the threshold. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Court of Arbitration (CAS) Oceania Division.

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. She explained that she suffered from exercise induced asthma and that she used Demazin recommended by the family doctor. Also when the minor Athlete was selected for Doping Control her father as her coach was not notified while he was on site and could have been notified at any time.

She and her father testified that at the time of the test Demazin was used and that they were not aware that Demazin was prohibited. They had never received the banned substance list from the Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA) or from their Cycling Federations, nor did they receive any anti-doping advice.

The Sole Arbitrator accepts the Athlete’s explanation and establish that extenuating circumstances exist for a reduced sanction. The Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete clearly didn’t know that she had used a prohibited substance and that she acted reasonably in all the circumstances.
Further the Arbitrator establish that the Doping Control was not conducted in accordance with the Rules as the minor Athlete’s father was not notified about the sample collection while on site.

Considering the circumstances in this case the Arbitrator decides on 22 December 1998 that the Athlete should not be sanctioned for the reported anti-doping rule violation.
In addition recommendations were made to sporting organisations to ensure that they have anti-doping policies and anti-doping education programmes provided to athletes.

CAS 98/208 N., J., Y., W. / Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA)

• Swimming
• Doping (Triamterene)
• (Non-) discrimination
• Burden of proof
• Strict liability

1. The burden of proof lay upon FINA to establish that an offence had been committed. This flows from the language of the doping control provisions as well as general principles of Swiss Law. The presumption of innocence operates in the athlete’s favour until FINA discharged that burden. The standard of proof required of FINA is high: less than criminal standard, but more than the ordinary civil standard.

2. It is the presence of a prohibited substance in a competitor's bodily fluid which constitutes the offence under the FINA rules, irrespective of whether or not the competitor intended to ingest the prohibited substance.

3. If the presence of a prohibited substance is established to the high degree of satisfaction required by the seriousness of the allegation, then the burden of proof shifts to the competitor to show why the maximum sanction should not be imposed. It is only at the level of sanction, not of finding of innocence or guilt, that the concept of shifting burden becomes relevant at all. And it is only at this juncture that questions of intent become relevant.

In January 1998 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) has reported anti-doping rule violations against the four Chinese Athlete’s N., J. Y. and W after their A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance triamterene.

Consequently and on 24 July 1998 the FINA Doping Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the four Athletes. Hereafter in August 1998 the Athletes appealed the FINA decision of 24 July 1998 with the Court of Aribitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel finds that there was no evidence that ingestion of six tablets a day (paying all due regard to the contention that Actovegin tablets are not chemically formulated and can vary from tablet to tablet) since 22 December 1997 (the Athletes unchallenged evidence as to their own consumption) would produce the results shown in the “A” and “B” samples. The Athletes accordingly failed to discharge the burden that lies upon them.

In reaching the conclusion that the offence was committed, and that the Athletes had not discharged the burden which lay upon them to mitigate the maximum sanction of two years, the Panel have borne in mind that all the swimmers have denied on affidavit that they took Triamterene. The Panel has treated that evidence as if it had been given on oath. However, it is regrettable that the currency of such denial is devalued by the fact that it is the common coin of the guilty as well as of the innocent.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 December 1998:

1.) The appeal filed by the Athletes N., J., Y., W. on 18 August 1998 is dismissed.

2.) The decision issued by the FINA Doping Panel on 24 July 1998 is confirmed.

(...)

A case of anabolic steroid abuse / John H. Porcerelli, Bruce A. Sandler. - (Psychiatric Clinics of North America 21 (1998) 4 (1 December); p. 829-833)

Abstract

This case report is of a young man who developed significant psychiatric symptomatology, which warranted brief hospitalization, as a result of anabolic-androgenic steroid abuse. His symptoms included hostility, agitation, and homicidal and paranoid thinking. The initiation of steroid use was motivated by efforts to master an adult trauma (being shot with a shotgun). Individual (outpatient) psychotherapy helped the patient to understand his fears and to discover and work through the meanings that the shooting and injuries had for him. Cessation of steroid use eliminated his presenting symptoms. However, the major depressive symptoms, indicative of steroid dependence, developed and were treated successfully on an outpatient basis with antidepressant medication.

Anabolic-androgenic steroid abuse and psychopathology / John H. Porcerelli, Bruce A. Sandler. - (Psychiatric Clinics of North America 21 (1998) 4 (1 December); p. 829-833)

• PMID: 9890124
• DOI: 10.1016/s0193-953x(05)70043-5

Abstract

Anabolic steroid abuse is a significant public health problem. There is evidence from both case reports and empirical studies that abuse of these drugs causes significant psychiatric and medical effects. There appears to be a relationship between increased dosages and severity of psychiatric symptomatology. Research is needed on the role of pathologic personality traits in the initiation and maintenance of anabolic steroid abuse.

TAS 98/203 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) / F. & Federazione Ciclistica Italiana (FCI)

• Cycling
• Doping (testosterone and metenolone)
• Double infringement

1.) When an athlete tested positive for the same substance or method several times in a short period of time and it is decided that these positive test results are caused by one anti-doping violation, these cases will be joined into one imposed sanction and into one imposed fine. On the other hand, when the athlete tested positive for two different substances and that these positive tests are the result from different doping acts, there is a double infringement. In both cases disqualification will be applied on all competition events where the athlete tested positive.

2.) The CAS summary proceedings is a guarantee of double degree of jurisdiction. Therefore, and provided that there is a domestic legal remedy in de legislation of the country in question, the UCI considers that CAS is the only court of appeal.

In August 1997 the International Cycling Union (UCI) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian Athlete F. after his 2 samples provided at the Tour of Switzerland in June 1997 tested positive for the prohibited substances metenolone and testosterone with a T/E ratio above the threshold.

Also in October 1997 the UCI reported a second anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample provided at the Tour of Poland in September 1997 tested positive for methyltestosterone.

On 12 January 1998 the Italian Cycling Federation, Federazione Ciclistica Italiana (FCI), decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility and a CHF 2.000,- fine on the Athlete including 50 points loss.

On 8 April 1998 the FCI decided for the Athlete’s second violation to impose an additional 1 year period of ineligibility and a CHF 4.000,- fine including including 75 points loss. Here the Athlete admitted that he had used doping during the Tour of Switzerland but denied the use of doping during the Tour of Poland.

The Athlete appealed the FCI decision of 8 April 1998 and on 16 May 1998 the FCI Appeal Commission concluded that no double infringement occurred and decided to set aside the challenged sanctions and to impose on the Athlete a 8 month period of ineligibility and a CHF 3.500,- fine including 70 points loss.

Hereafter the UCI appealed the FCI Appeal Commission decision of 16 May 1998 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The UCI requested the Panel to set aside the decision of the FCI decision and to uphold the FCI decisions of 12 January and 8 April 1998.

Considering the evidence and statements in this case the Panel concludes that the Athlete has committed two anti-doping violations for the use of the substances testosterone and metenolone during the 1997 Tour of Switzerland and for methyltestosterone during the 1997 Tour of Poland.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 November 1998:

• To set aside the decision of the FCI Appeal Commission of 16 May 1998;
• To uphold the FCI decision of 12 January 1998 (1997 Tour of Switzersland);
• To disqualify the Athlete’s results obtained at the 1997 Tour of Poland;
• To impose a 1 year period of ineligibility, including 5 months as suspended sanction, for the Athlete’s second violation (1997 Tour of Poland); and
• CHF 4.000,- fine.

Perceptions Of Benefits and Losses Associated With The Use and Discontinuance Of Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids Among Male Bodybuilders / Olrich, Tracy W. - (Journal of Personal and Interpersonal 4 (1999) 3; p. 231-242)

• DOI: 10.1080/10811449908409732

Abstract

Research has shown the mesomorphic physique to be the most preferred body type among males. Specifically, the hypermesomorphic physique, which displays extreme muscularity and definition, is the most desired (Tucker, 1983). Mishkind, Rodin, Silberstein, and Streigel-Moore (1987) concluded that multiple reasons exist for this preference, most notably the intimate ties that exist among societal conceptions of masculinity, the male sex role, and the mesomorphic physique. Bodybuilding has been perceived as an avenue by which males attempt to develop the preferred mesomorphic physique, and, at times, anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) have been ingested as a means for further development. This study entailed in-depth interviews with 10 male bodybuilders, all of whom had taken, or were currently taking, AAS. This article presents the findings of the interviews concerning the perceived benefits of and psychological dependency on AAS. The data, particularly responses concerning psychological dependency, are noted within Mishkind et al.'s framework as a mechanism to avoid loss of muscle strength, muscle mass, and masculinity.

The growth hormone response to hexarelin in patients with different hypothalamic-pituitary abnormalities / M. Maghnie, V. Spica-Russotto, M. Cappa, M. Autelli, C. Tinelli, P. Civolani, R. Deghenghi, F. Severi, S. Loche

• Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 83 (1998) 11 (1 November); p. 3886–3889
• PMID: 9814463
• DOI: 10.1210/jcem.83.11.5242

Abstract

We evaluated the GH-releasing effect of hexarelin (Hex; 2 microg/kg, i.v.) and GHRH (1 microg/kg, i.v.) in 18 patients (11 males and 7 females, aged 2.5-20.4 yr) with GH deficiency (GHD) whose hypothalamic pituitary abnormalities had been previously characterized by dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Ten patients had isolated GHD, and 8 had multiple pituitary hormone deficiency. All patients were receiving appropriate hormone replacement therapy. Twenty-four prepubertal short normal children (11 boys and 13 girls, aged 5.9-13 yr, body weight within +/-10% of ideal weight) served as controls. MRI studies revealed an ectopic posterior pituitary at the infundibular recess in all patients. A residual vascular component of the pituitary stalk was visualized in 8 patients with isolated GHD (group 1), whereas MRI showed the absence of the pituitary stalk (vascular and neural components) in the remaining 10 patients (group 2), of whom 8 had multiple pituitary hormone deficiency and 2 had isolated GHD. In the short normal children, the mean peak GH response to GHRH (24.8 +/- 4.4 microg/L) was significantly lower than that observed after Hex treatment (48.1 +/- 4.9 microg/L; P < 0.0001). In the GHD patients of group 2, the mean peak GH responses to GHRH (1.4 +/- 0.3 microg/L) and Hex (0.9 +/- 0.3 microg/L) were similar and markedly low. In the patients of group 1, the GH responses to GHRH (8.7 +/- 1.3 microg/L) and Hex (7.0 +/- 1.3 microg/L) were also similar, but were significantly higher that those observed in group 2 (P < 0.0001). In the whole group of patients, a significant correlation was found between the GH peaks after Hex and those after GHRH (r = 0.746; P < 0.0001). In this study we have confirmed that the integrity of the hypothalamic pituitary connections is essential for Hex to express its full GH-releasing activity and that Hex is able to stimulate GH secretion in patients with GHD but with a residual vascular component of the pituitary stalk.

Effects of erythropoietin administration in training athletes and possible indirect detection in doping control / M. Audran, R. Gareau, S. Matecki, F. Durand, C. Chenard, M.T. Sicart, B. Marion, F. Bressolle. - (Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 31 (1999) 5 (May); p. 639-645)

• PMID: 10331881
• DOI: 10.1097/00005768-199905000-00003

Abstract

Purpose: This study investigated the effects of repeated subcutaneous injection of rHuEpo (50 IU x kg(-1)) in athletes and proposes a method based on the measurement in blood samples of the sTfR/serum protein ratio to determine if the observed values of this marker are related to rHuEpo abuse.

Methods: Serum erythropoietin concentrations, and hematological and biochemical parameters were evaluated, during treatment and for 25 d posttreatment in nine training athletes. Moreover, the effect of rHuEpo administrations on the maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) and ventilatory threshold (VT) of these athletes was also studied. Threshold values for sTfr and the sTfr/serum protein ratio were determined from 233 subjects (185 athletes, 15 athletes training at moderately high altitude, and 33 subjects living at >3000 m).

Results: Significant changes in reticulocytes, hemoglobin (Hb) concentration, hematocrit (Hct), sTfr, and sTfr/serum proteins were observed during and after rHuEpo treatment. The maximal heart rate of 177 beats x min(-1) at the beginning of the study was significantly higher than the value of 168 beats x min(-1) after 26 d of rHuEpo administration. Compared with the values measured at baseline, the VT measured after rHuEpo administration occurred at a statistically significant high level of oxygen uptake.

Conclusions: When oxygen uptake measured at the VT was expressed as a percentage of V02 max, the values obtained were also significantly higher. The increased values of Tfr and sTfr/serum proteins, respectively, above 10 microg x mL(-1) and 153, indicated the probable intake of rHuEpo.

CAS 98/192 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) / S., Danmarks Cykle Union (DCU) and Danmarks Idraets-Forbund (DIF)

• Cycling
• Doping (testosterone)
• Conflict between the rules of an International Federation and those of a National Olympic Committee

1. Rule 30 of the Olympic Charter assigns the international federations the responsibility to “establish and enforce, in accordance with the Olympic spirit, the rules concerning the practice of their respective sports and to ensure their application”. The mission of the NOC's, on the other hand, is to “fight against the use of substances and procedures prohibited by the IOC or the IFs”. This mission is focused upon political actions vis-à-vis the competent authorities of their respective countries.

2. The international federations enjoy the principal competence with regard to the fight against doping. The natural consequence of this is that their rules prevail over those which an NOC or national sports authority (for example an NF) might have enacted.

3. Pursuant to the UCI regulations, in case of endogenous steroids, a sample is deemed positive if the urine T/E ratio is above 6, unless this ratio is attributable to a physiological or pathological condition.

In August 1997 the Danish national cycling federation (DCU) - initiated by the International Cycling Union (UCI) - has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete S. after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.

On 18 January 1998 the Doping Tribunal of the Danish NOC decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete under the Danish Rules starting on 13 December 1997.
The Athlete appealed this decision and on 4 May 1998. The Danish Commission for Appeals and Arbitration of the Danish NOC decided to uphold the imposed 2 year sanction.

After deliberations between the UCI. the DCU and the Danish NOC about the imposed sanction and respecting the UCI Rules the UCI filed an appeal in February 1998 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Pending the appeal of the Athlete S. with the Danish Commission for Appeals and Arbitration the UCI’s appeal with CAS was postponed and resumed after the Danish Commission for Appeals and Arbitration issued its decision on 4 May 1998.

The UCI argued that the imposed sanction of 2 years under the Danish Rules on the Athlete exceeds the maximum sanction prescribed in the UCI Rules and it requested the CAS Panel to impose an appropriate sanction under the UCI Rules. Also UCI disputed the fact that no disqualification from the Tour of Denmark or a fine was imposed on the Athlete.

The Panel concludes that the jurisdiction of the CAS is based on Art. 84 UCI. The Doping Tribunal of the Danish NOC acted as the “competent body” of the DCU with the knowledge and consent of the UCI. The DCU, in turn, exercised the original jurisdiction of the UCI as prescribed by the applicable provisions of the UCI Rules.

The UCI initiated the doping proceedings against the Athlete S. in accordance with UCI Rules, informed the DCU regarding applicable deadlines and requested to be kept informed of all measures taken by the DCU in the proceedings. Its good faith reliance upon the DCU's representations is evidenced in the exchange of information between the UCI and the DCU, on the one hand, and the DCU/Danish NOC and the Athlete S., on the other.

It is shown clearly in the UCI's timely filing of its appeal to the CAS in accordance with Art. 84 and its refusal to accept the jurisdiction of the Danish NOC with regard to the appeal by the Athlete S. to the Commission of Appeals of the Danish NOC.

The Panel dismissed the arguments filed by the Athlete and reduced the imposed sanction from 2 years to 9 months. The Panel has taken into consideration the fact that the UCI Rules prescribes a maximum suspension of one year for the first offence as opposed to the maximum suspension of two years prescribed in the Rules applied by the Danish NOC.

It cannot be overlooked, however, that the reduction in the sentence is also justified by the disadvantages suffered by the Athlete S. in formulating his defence as a result of the jurisdictional dissent between the UCI, the DCU and the Danish NOC.

Therefore on 21 October 1998 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

1.) The 19 January 1998 Decision of the Doping Tribunal of the National Olympic Committee and Sports Confederation of Denmark (Danmarks Idreaets-Forbund) as modified by the Decision of the Commission of Appeals and Arbitration of 4 May 1998 shall be modified as follows:

(a) The term of the sentence shall be reduced from two years to nine months commencing on 12 December 1997. Accordingly, the term of suspension ends 11 August 1998.

(b) The Court of Arbitration for Sport imposes a fine on the Athlete S. in the amount of CHF 2’000.00 (two thousand Swiss Francs).

(...)

A five day treatment with daily subcutaneous injections of growth hormone-releasing peptide-2 causes response attenuation and does not stimulate insulin-like growth factor-I secretion in healthy young men / E.A. Nijland, C.J. Strasburger, C. Popp-Snijders, P.S. van der Wal, E.A. van der Veen

• European Journal of Endocrinology 139 1998 4 (October), p. 395-401
• PMID: 9820615
• DOI: 10.1530/eje.0.1390395

Abstract

The synthetic hexapeptide growth hormone-releasing peptide (GHRP)-2 specifically stimulates GH release in man. To determine the effects of prolonged treatment and whether response attenuation occurs in man, we administered to nine healthy subjects a daily s.c. injection of 100 microg GHRP-2 over 5 days. Every day blood samples were taken to determine GH, IGF-I, IGF-binding protein (IGFBP)-3 and osteocalcin levels. On days 1,3 and 5, GH was measured at -20,0,20,40,60,90,120 and 180 min using an immunometric and an immunofunctional assay. Mean-/+S.D). peak GH concentrations were 83+/-31, 59+/-22 and 51+/-13 microg/l on days 1, 3 and 5 respectively. Mean+/-S.D. areas under the curve for days 1, 3 and 5 were 6366+/-2514, 3987 +/- 1418 and 3392+/-1215 mU/l per min. Despite the maintained GH release, analysis of variance revealed that significant response attenuation occurred (P < 0.01). Mean serum IGF-I concentration did not increase after a 5 day treatment with GHRP-2. Mean basal levels were 22, 25,23,25,23,24 nmol/l measured on days 1 to 6. However, osteocalcin, another serum marker of GH activity in tissue, increased significantly from 3.2+/-1.0 to 4.2+/-0.4 microg/l (mean+S.D.) (P< 0.01).