In October 2022 the International Football Federation (FIFA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Costa Rican football player Orlando Moisés Galo Calderón after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Clostebol

Folowing notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He demonstrated with corroborating evidence that the application of a product to his partner had caused the positive test result.

He explained that his partner underwent surgery while he was in charge of her care. He applied to her a Neobol Spray prescribed by her doctor three times a day, approximately seven days before the sample collection in South Korea.

The Committee finds that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Committee accepts the Athlete's explanation that the violation was not intentional and that he had established the source of the prohibited substance. Further the Committee considers that the found concentration of Clostebol in his sample was consistent with his explanation.

The Committee assessed the Athlete's conduct and deems that his degree of fault was light in view of mitigating circumstances in this case.

Therefore the FIFA Disciplinary Committee decides on 25 January 2023 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 October 2022.

On 20 June 2022 the Italian National Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Nigerian football player Orji Okwonkwo for committing an anti-doping rule violation.

Hereafter the case was notifed to FIFA in order to worldwide extend the imposed sanction. Following assessment of the case documentation the Chairperson of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee deemed that the conditions for worldwide extension have been met.

Therefore on 23 August 2022 the FIFA Disciplinary Committee decides to worldwide extend the 4 year period of ineligibility imposed on the Athlete, starting from 25 February 2022.

On 23 September 2022 the Costa Rican National Doping Appeal Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the football player Henry Adalberto Figueroa Alonzon for committing an anti-doping rule violation.

Hereafter the case was notifed to FIFA in order to worldwide extend the imposed sanction. Following assessment of the case documentation the Chairperson of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee deemed that the conditions for worldwide extension have been met.

Therefore on 28 September 2022 the FIFA Disciplinary Committee decides to worldwide extend the 4 year period of ineligibility imposed on the Athlete, starting from 22 June 2020.

On 30 March 2022 the Disciplinary Committee of the Tunisian National Anti-Doping Agency (ANAD) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the football player Taieb Ben Zitoun for committing an anti-doping rule violation.

Hereafter the Tunisian Football Federation (FTF) notified the case to FIFA in order to worldwide extend the imposed sanction.

Following assessment of the case documentation the Chairperson of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee deemed that the conditions for worldwide extension have been met.

Therefore on 27 September 2022 the FIFA Disciplinary Committee decides to worldwide extend the 2 year period of ineligibility imposed on the Athlete, starting from 1 July 2022.

CAS 2022/A/9141 Mariano Tammaro v. International Tennis Federation (ITF)

Related case:

ITF 2022 ITF vs Mariano Tammaro
August 25, 2022

In November 2021 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian tennis player Mariano Tammaro after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Clostebol. Consequently the ITF Independent Tribunal decided on 25 August 2022 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In first instance the Panel accepted that the Athlete had demonstrated the source of the prohibited substance and that the violation was not intentional. Considering the circumstances in this case the Panel deemed that there were no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Hereafter in September 2022 both the Athlete and the ITF appealed the ITF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Following assessment of the case the CAS Panel rendered an operational award.

Therefore the The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 March 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Mariano Tammaro on 12 September 2022 against the decision rendered on 25 August 2022 by the Independent Tribunal of the International Tennis Federation (ITF) is partially upheld.

2.) The decision rendered on 25 August 2022 by the Independent Tribunal of the International Tennis Federation  ITF) is partially set aside. The 3rd bullet point of paragraph 109 of the decision of the Independent Tribunal of the International Tennis Federation (ITF) is set aside and replaced with the following:

Mr. Mariano Tammaro is declared Ineligible and barred from participating in any Competition, Event or other activity or funding in accordance with the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme for a period of fifteen (15) months commencing on 30 November 2021.

3.) This arbitral Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss francs) paid by Mr. Mariano Tammaro, which is retained by the CAS.

4.) Each Party shall bear their own legal fees incurred in connection with this arbitration.

5.) All other and further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

• CAS 2022/A/9031 Stephane Houdet v. International Tennis Federation
• CAS 2022/A/9137 International Tennis Federation v. Stephane Houdet

Related case:

ITF 2022 ITF vs Stéphane Houdet
June 30, 2022

In October 2021 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French wheelchair tennis player Stéphane Houdet for his whereabouts filing failures and 3 missed tests within a 12 month period. Consequently the ITF decided on 30 June 2022 to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In first instance the Panel deemed that the Athlete had acted with a degree of fault in his obligation to be present and available for testing. Bij contrast the Panel concluded that the DCO did what was reasonable in the circumstances to locate the Athlete.

Hereafter in July 2022 the Athlete, and in September 2022 the ITF, appealed the Decision of 30 June 2022 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to eliminate or reduce the imposed sanction. By contrast ITF requested the Panel to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed the circumstances regarding the 3 missed tests and addressed the issues raised by the Parties in these matters. The Sole Arbitrator establishes that the incidents of 2 January 2021, 26 July 2021 and 21 September 2021 amounted in 3 missed tests.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete's degree of fault in respect of the whereabouts filing of 2 January 2021 warrants a reduction of the period of ineligibility. In respect to the 26 July 2021 missed test the Athlete had admitted his negligence.

The Sole Arbitrator deemed that the Athlete's degree of fault in respect to the missed test on 27 September 2021 does not warrant a further reduction of the sanction. Further the Arbitrator agrees that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 March 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Stéphane Houdet on 14 July 2022 against the decision issued on 30 June 2022 by the ITF Independent Tribunal is admissible and is upheld in part.

2.) The appeal filed by the International Tennis Federation on 12 September 2022 against the decision issued on 30 June 2022 by the ITF Independent Tribunal is admissible and is upheld in part.

3.) The decision issued on 30 June 2022 by the ITF Independent Tribunal is set aside.

4.) Mr Houdet is found to have committed an ADRV under Article 2.4 of the 2021 TADP as a result of three Missed Tests on (i) 2 January 2021, (ii) 26 July 2021, and (iii) 27 September 2021.

5.) Mr Houdet is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 14 months.

6.) The period of ineligibility is deemed to have started on 27 December 2021 and concludes upon notification of this Award.

7.) Mr Houdet's results from 27 December 2021 to the date of this Award (and any medals, titles, ranking points and prize money won by virtue of those results) are disqualified.

8.) Mr Houdet's results from 27 September 2021 to the commencement of his period of ineligibility on 27 December 2021 (and any medals, titles, ranking points and prize money won by virtue of those results) shall not be retroactively disqualified.

9.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by each of Mr Houdet in respect of his appeal and the International Tennis Federation in respect of its appeal, which is retained by the CAS.

10.) Each party shall bear its own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.

11.) All other and further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

In December 2021 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violations against the Iranian cyclist Hossein Mohammadiha after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Recombinant Erythropoietin (rhEPO) and Oxycodone. In addition the UCI reported that the Athlete had tampered with any part of the Doping Control.

The Doping Control Officer and the Chaperone reported that in August 2021 at the Cross Country Marathon the Athlete had been duly notified and had signed the notification form. Thereupon the Athlete rode away on his bike despite being warned several times.

When the Chaperon lost contact, and was able to locate the Athlete again, he claimed to be someone els by providing a false identity. Yet he had prior already signed the notification form. Eventually he complied and submitted to sample collection.

A provisional suspension was ordered in December 2021. Delays in this case were attributed to the Athlete because he did not participate in the results managment process and communication had to go through the Cycling Federation of the Islamic Republic of Iran (CFI).

Between December 2021 and June 2022 the CFI forwarded the communications adressed to the Athlete and the UCI. However in June 2022 the Athlete refused to sign the proposed Acceptance of Consequences Form within the set deadline, notwithstanding repeated warnings from the CFI about the consequences of his refusal.

In September 2022 the case was referred to the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal and settled based on the written submissions of the Parties. Although the Athlete was duly notified by the CFI he failed to file a statement in his defence, nor participated in the proceedings.

In his previous submissions the Athlete accepted the test result and explained that he had used a pain killer provided by a friend for his injury. He denied the intentional use of rhEPO whereas he claimed that he only had used a supplement with rhEPO not listed on the label.

Following assessment of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordinghly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. He concludes that the Athlete failed to produce corroborating evidence that the supplement in question was indeed the source of the prohibited substance.

In this matter the Sole Arbitrator determines that rhEPO can't be used orally as alleged by the Athlete. Furthermore his supplement in question was not tested, nor did he provide details about the purchase and use of this alleged supplement.

Finally the Sole Arbitrator deems that there are aggravating circumstances in this case because the Athlete had used multiple prohibited substances whereas he deliberately had attempted to tamper with any part of the Doping Control.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 12 January 2023 to impose a 6 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 December 2021. The UCI's costs for the results management shall be borne by the Athlete.

The potential of urinary androstdiene markers to identify 4-androstenediol (4-ADIOL) administration in athletes / Adam T. Cawley , Graham J. Trout, Rymantas Kazlauskas, Adrian V. George

• Forensic Science International 208 (2011) 1-3 (20 May), p. 129-138
• PMID: 21177052
• DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.11.016

Abstract

Doping control laboratories accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) require criteria that allow endogenous steroids to be distinguished from their synthetic analogues in urine. Methodology based on "looking outside the metabolic box" was used in this study to identify diagnostic urinary markers of 4-androstenediol (4-ADIOL) administration. Androst-2,4-diene-17-one and androst-3,5-diene-17-one are proposed to be formed in urine from acid-catalyzed hydrolysis of 4-ADIOL sulfoconjugate, a major phase II metabolic product of 4-ADIOL. The presence of these markers in the routine gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) steroid screen was suitable to identify samples requiring confirmation by gas chromatography-combustion-isotope ratio mass spectrometry (GC-C-IRMS) - to measure the carbon isotope ratio (δ(13)C) of the androstdiene markers and confirm their likely synthetic origin based on depleted (13)C content.

17beta-hydroxy-5alpha-androst-1-en-3-one (1-testosterone) is a potent androgen with anabolic properties / A. Friedel, H. Geyer, M. Kamber, U. Laudenbach-Leschowsky, W. Schänzer, M. Thevis, G. Vollmer, O. Zierau, P. Diel

• Toxicology Letters 165 (2006) 2 (August), p. 149-155
• PMID: 16621347
• DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2006.03.001

Abstract

Since the begining of the year 2005, the use of steroid precursors (prohormones) is illegal in the United States; nevertheless, there is still an enormous abuse of such substances. One of the most frequently misused steroids, often declared to be a prohormone, is 1-testosterone (17beta-hydroxy-5alpha-androst-1-en-3-one, 1-Testo). In this study, we have characterised molecular mechanisms of its action, determined its tissue specific androgenic and anabolic potency and investigated potential adverse effects. 1-Testo binds highly selective to the androgen receptor (AR) and has a high potency to stimulate AR dependent transactivation. In vivo an equimolar dose of 1-Testo has the same potency to stimulate the growth of the prostate, the seminal vesicles and the androgen sensitive levator ani muscle as the reference compound testosterone propionate (TP). Administration of 1-Testo, in contrast to TP, results in a significant increase of liver weight. Our results demonstrate that 1-Testo, even without being metabolised, is a very potent androgen. It binds selectively to the AR and transactivates AR dependent reporter genes. In vivo it has a high androgenic and anabolic potency and increases liver weight. In summary 1-Testo can be characterised as a typical anabolic steroid. It has to be assumed that consumption of this substance is associated with adverse side effects typical for this class of compounds. Therefore, a strict control of its ban is essential.

Detection of dehydroepiandrosterone misuse by means of gas chromatography- combustion-isotope ratio mass spectrometry / Ute Mareck, Hans Geyer, Ulrich Flenker, Thomas Piper, Mario Thevis, Wilhelm Schänzer

• European Journal of Mass Spectrometry 13 (2007) 6 (December), p. 377-384
• PMID: 18417762
• DOI: 10.1255/ejms.900

Abstract

According to World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) rules (WADA Technical Document-TD2004EAAS) urine samples containing dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) concentrations greater than 100 ng ML(-1) shall be submitted to isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) analysis. The threshold concentration is based on the equivalent to the glucuronide, and the DHEA concentrations have to be adjusted for a specific gravity value of 1.020. In 2006, 11,012 doping control urine samples from national and international federations were analyzed in the Cologne doping control laboratory, 100 (0.9%) of them yielding concentrations of DHEA greater than 100 ng mL(-1). Sixty-eight percent of the specimens showed specific gravity values higher than 1.020, 52% originated from soccer players, 95% were taken in competition, 85% were male urines, 99% of the IRMS results did not indicate an application of testosterone or related prohormones. Only one urine sample was reported as an adverse analytical finding having 319 ng mL(-1) DHEA (screening result), more than 10,000 ng mL(-1) androsterone and depleted carbon isotope ratio values for the testosterone metabolites androsterone and etiocholanolone. Statistical evaluation showed significantly different DHEA concentrations between specimens taken in- and out-of- competition, whereas females showed smaller DHEA values than males for both types of control. Also a strong influence of the DHEA excretion on different sport disciplines was detectable. The highest DHEA values were detected for game sports (soccer, basketball, handball, ice hockey), followed by boxing and wrestling. In 2007, 6622 doping control urine samples were analyzed for 3alpha,5-cyclo-5alpha-androstan-6beta-ol-17-one (3alpha,5-cyclo), a DHEA metabolite which was described as a useful gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) screening marker for DHEA abuse. Nineteen urine specimens showed concentrations higher than the suggested threshold of 140 ng mL(-1), six urine samples yielded additionally DHEA concentrations higher than 100 ng mL(-1), none of them showing positive IRMS findings. These results should be taken into consideration in future discussions about threshold values for endogenous steroids in doping control.