The problems of oral contraceptives in dope control of anabolic steroids / Douwe de Boer, E. de Jong, R.A. Maes, J.M. van Rossum. - (Biomedical & Environmental Mass Spectrometry 17 (1988) 2 (August); p. 127-128)

• PMID: 3191251
• DOI: 10.1002/bms.1200170209

Abstract

Caution should be practiced with oral contraceptives in dope control of anabolic steroids. Research in the Netherlands has shown that there are problems in the area of dope control of anabolic steroids: 1) when the oral contraceptive norethisterone is introduced, it changes within the body to a small amount of 19-norandrosterone, the primary metabolite of the anabolic steroid 19-nortetosterone. As a result, this transformation makes it hard to detect the origin of 19-norandrosterone. The derivatives of the main metabolite of norethisterone and methenolone have similar retention times and mass fragments, making screening difficult. The main metabolite of norethisterone also interferes with methenolone, another anabolic steroid. However, the latter problem is a solvable one. The derivatisation process used to confirm the use of methenolone is described. More testing of urine samples after sporting events will be presented in a successive report. A gas chromatography-mass spectrometry process for detecting and confirming metabolites is recommended by the Medical Commission of the International Committee.

CAS 98/222 B. / International Triathlon Union (ITU)

• Triathlon
• Doping (nandrolone)
• Threshold for endogenous substances
• Strict liability
• In dubio pro reo

1. Low concentrations of nandrolone metabolites no longer permit a reliable conclusion as to the ingestion of nandrolone. In other words, it appears to be beyond scientific doubt that such low concentrations falling within what is often referred to as the “grey zone” (i.e., concentrations between 2,0 and 5,0 ng/ml), can as well be the result of endogenous production of the human body. When the concentration of nandrolone falls within the “grey zone”, the likelihood that nandrolone is produced endogenously, is decreasing exponentially within the limits of the “grey zone”.

2. The rule on strict liability is essential and indispensable for an efficient fight against doping in sport and for the protection of fairness towards all competitors and of their health and well-being. The principle of strict liability rule does not exempt the sports federations to prove the existence of a doping offence. The effect of any rule of law imposing strict liability is merely to render obsolete the proof of guilt on the part of the person subjected to the regime of strict liability, while on the other hand such rule does not eliminate the need to establish the wrongful act itself and the causal link between the wrongful act and its consequences.

3. The legal impact of a “grey zone” should be reflected in a rule that, in such cases, the sanctioning body can no longer rely on legal presumption that the presence of a prohibited substance is a consequence of external application, but should provide additional evidence supporting this presumption, or, at least, excluding all other causes.

In June 1998 the Swiss Triathlon Federation (STF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete B. after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

Consequently on 10 December 1998 the STF Doping Commission decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in December 1998 the Athlete appealed the STF Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel te set aside the Appealed Decision and to annul the imposed sanction.

In this case the Panel determines that this is a typical example of multiple and possibly parallel causes leading to the presence of the forbidden substance. The Panel considers that it would be unrealistic to require from the Athlete to establish that the presence of metabolites was not and could not have been the external application of Nandrolone: even if alleged by the athlete, it could hardly be supported by convincing evidence.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete has established at least a probability that the concentrations of Nandrolone metabolites found in his urine were a result of endogenous production of his body. Although it is clear that the Athlete was unable to prove with certainty such endogenous production, the evidence provided can be deemed sufficient to create reasonable doubt concerning external application.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 August 1999:

1.) The appeal lodged by B. is upheld.

2.) The decision of the ITU Hearings and Appeals Board of 10 December 1998 is hereby cancelled.

3.) The suspension of the Appellant for a one-year period (from 1 September 1998 until 31 August 1999), pronounced by the Swiss Triathlon Federation on 29 August 1998 is lifted.

4.) The disqualification of the Appellant from all competitions between 7 June 1998 and 31 August 1998, pronounced by the Swiss Triathlon Federation on 29 August 1998 is cancelled; the results and titles achieved by the Appellant during this period are confirmed.

5.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500.-- paid by the Appellant and which is kept by the CAS.

6.) The Respondent shall reimburse to the Appellant the half of the Court Office fee in the amount of CHF 250.--; moreover, each party shall bear its own costs.

J. Torres-Calleja, M. González-Unzaga, R. DeCelis-Carrillo,
L. Calzada-Sánchez, N. Pedrón
Life Sciences 68 (2001) 1769–1774

The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of the administration of high doses of androgenic anabolic steroids (AAS) on endocrine and semen parameters. Thirty volunteering bodybuilders were studied (ages ranging between 26.6
6 4.1 years). A history of anabolic steroid administration
was recorded for fifteen subjects, and results of semen analysis and endocrine parameters were compared with data from fifteen bodybuilders not using steroids. In those subjects using AAS, eight had sperm counts under the lower normal limit (20 3 10 6 sperm /ml), three had azoospermia, two polyzoospermia, and two had normal sperm counts. The percentage of morphologically normal sperm was significantly reduced, only 17.7% had normal spermatozoa. In the control group, only one subject
had oligozoospermia. The hormonal parameters revealed reduced FSH (1.5 6 3.2 vs 5.0 6 1.6, p, 0.001) and PRL (5.1 6 4.9 vs 9.2
6 4.4, p , 0.01) levels. LH, T, E2 and DHEA levels did not
vary.

O Torres‐Bugarín, R Covarrubias‐Bugarín, A L Zamora‐Perez, B M G Torres‐Mendoza, M García‐Ulloa, and F G Martínez‐Sandoval
Br J Sports Med. 2007 September; 41(9): 592–596.

Objective

To evaluate genotoxicity of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) in male bodybuilders by a micronucleus assay in buccal mucosa cells.
Methods

11 male bodybuilders volunteered to participate in this study and two groups were formed: group 1 (n = 6), without AAS consumption and group 2 (n = 5), with AAS consumption. A sample of buccal epithelium was taken from each participant once a week for 6 weeks. Samples were fixed, stained and analysed by a light microscope, and 2000 cells were counted from each slide. Results are expressed as micronucleated cells (MNC) per 1000 cells and were analysed by the Mann–Whitney U test and Wilcoxon's test.

Results

A marked increased in MNC was seen in bodybuilders with AAS consumption compared with those without AAS consumption (mean (SD) 4.1 (2.4) MNC/1000 cells vs 0.4 (0.4) MNC/1000 cells, respectively; p<0.004). Intragroup comparisons showed no differences in the MNC frequencies during the sampling time in group 1, whereas the MNC frequency in group 2 varied significantly, reaching the highest MNC frequencies in the third and fourth week of sampling (5.9 (2.4) MNC/1000 cells; 5.8 (1.8) MNC/1000 cells, respectively); frequency in the first sampled week was 1.1 (0.1) MNC/1000 cells. Significant differences in all sampled weeks were found between the two groups.

Conclusion

AAS consumption increased the frequency of MNC from buccal mucosa in bodybuilders

Haff, G. Gregory
Strength & Conditioning Journal 28(6):42-55, December 2006

summary: With the discovery of tetrahydrogestrinone and desoxymethyltestosterone, a widespread conspiracy to supply athletes with anabolic agents, which were not currently on doping control lists, was uncovered. This realization, plus the Congressional Hearings on Steroid Use in Sport, has brought discussions about anabolic-androgenic steroids to the forefront of popular culture. Within this movement, a plethora of nonscientifically sound data has been presented in the popular media. The present roundtable is the first part of a 2-part series designed to present current information on the topic.

(C) 2006 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Adolescent use of anabolic-androgenic steroids and relations to self-reports of social, personality and health aspects / Anna M.S. Kindlundh, Berit Hagekull, Dag G.L. Isacson, Fred Nyberg. - (European Journal of Public Health 11 (2001) 3 (September) : p. 322-328)

• PMID: 11582614
• DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/11.3.322

Abstract

Background: Over the last decade adolescent males have been shown to use anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) in order to improve their sports performance and appearance, as well as in combination with alcohol and psychotropic drugs. However, the risk profile of AAS use is still not well understood. This study analysed the importance of social, personality and health factors for the use of AAS.

Methods: More than 2,700 senior high school students in Uppsala, Sweden, filled out an anonymous closed-response questionnaire.

Results: The findings from multiple logistic regression analyses of adolescent males (n = 1,353) showed that immigrant status, average/low self-esteem, average/low perceived school achievement and use of prescription tranquillisers/sedatives had independent significant associations with the use of AAS after controlling for age and previously known factors such as strength training, truancy and heavy alcohol consumption.

Conclusion: The characteristics of AAS users extend beyond activities such as strength training and multiple drug use to include social, personality and health aspects.

Kurt Skårberg
Örebro Studies in Medicine 28 (2009)

This dissertation is based on interviews with 36 users of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) seeking help at an addiction centre. A comparison group of 277 gym clients wereasked to answer a questionnaire. The dissertation consists of four studies.
Histories of a troubled childhood as well as current social disadvantage were both more frequent among the AAS users. Users also reported poor relationships with their parents and almost half of them had experienced physical or mental abuse. The AAS
user’s experiences from school were mostly negative, and included concentration problems, boredom and learning difficulties. Their current circumstances included abuse of other drugs, battering of spouses and other crimes such as assault, illegal possession of
weapons and theft.

There was significant variation in the development of drug use in relation to socialbackground, onset of drug use, relationship to AAS use and experience of AAS effects.
All patients had initially experienced positive effects from AAS but, over time, thenegative experiences had outweighed the positive effects. All patients were dedicated to excess training and took AAS in combination with gym training, indicating that the use
of these drugs is closely related to this form of training.

The results indicated that a history of polysubstance use among the patients was frequent. Over half were using drugs of abuse and also taking various other pharmaceuticals. Almost half of the patients also used human growth hormones. Moreover, almost half of the interviewed persons were drinking alcohol to a hazardous or harmful extent. Themost common reason given for using AAS and other hormones was to increase muscle mass and strength, but some participants also used insulin as a mean of losing fat.
Cannabis was used to improve sleep, heroin to decrease pain and amphetamine to increase endurance and burn fat. Our data suggest that most of the current AAS users who have been admitted to a treatment programme are multiple drug users with
polysubstance dependence. The criminal activity level increased significantly for the majority of the participants after they began using drugs. This was particularly obvious in the two subgroups who
started their involvement with drugs by using AAS. Crimes of violence and weapon offences showed the greatest increases in incidence after drug use was initiated. The study also showed a significant decrease in criminality after treatment, particularly among participants who started their drug use with AAS. The results suggest that there is an association between the use of AAS and criminality, in particular with respect to crimes
of violence and weapon offences, and that this criminality is enhanced when AAS are combined with other drugs of abuse.
This dissertation shows that AAS users often have a history of and a current problematic social situation, that AAS use is often combined with a polysubstance drug use, that AAS use is connected to criminal activities including crimes of violence and
weapon crimes, and that AAS use can be a gateway to the use of other drugs of abuse.

CAS 2009/A/2012 Doping Authority Netherlands v/ Mr Nick Zuijkerbuijk

CAS 2009/A/2012 Doping Authority Netherlands v. N.

• Billiards
• Doping (benzoylecgonine/cocaine)
• Interpretation of anti-doping rules
• Standard of proof – balance of probability
• Degree of fault or negligence of the athlete
• Principle of proportionality

1. One of the main intentions of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) is the harmonisation of the worldwide fight against doping. In order to achieve this goal, it is necessary to interpret anti-doping rules that have been established on the basis of the WADC in harmony with the WADC, the respective set of rules of other international sport federations and the respective CAS case law.

2. The balance of probability standard means that the indicted athlete bears the burden of persuading the judging body that the occurrence of the circumstances on which he relies is more probable than their non-occurrence or more probable than other possible explanations of the doping offence. This means also that the evidence considered must be specific and decisive to explain the athlete’s departure from the expected standard of behaviour.

3. The circumstances, that the athlete was only 23 years old, has admitted the anti-doping rule violation and was not aware of the possible consequences, are not relevant as with regard to the degree of his fault. Because cocaine (and its metabolites) is a prohibited substance, it is also irrelevant whether there was a lack of intention to enhance his sport performance.

4. The WADC considerably restrict the application of the principle of proportionality. The athlete’s age, that he took the prohibited substance unthinkingly and not with the intention to enhance performance, the question of whether taking the cocaine metabolite had a performance-enhancing effect, the (not timely) admission, the admission in public, his unawareness of the traceability of cocaine, the fact that the presence of cocaine in the sample of an athlete in an out-of-competition control does not constitute a violation of the Doping Regulations or the peculiarities of the particular type of sport, are not – according to the WADC – matters to be weighed when determining the period of ineligibility. The purpose and intention of the WADC is, inter alia, to make the fight against doping more effective by harmonising the legal framework and to provide uniform sanctions to be applied in all sports. These rules, for instance, do not distinguish between amateur or professional athletes, old or young athletes or individual sport or team sport.

In April 2009 the Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands (ADAN) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the billiards player Nick Zuijkerbuijk after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

Consequently the Royal Dutch Billiards Federation (KNBB) decided on 25 August 2009 to impose a 2 year sanction on the Athlete. Following the Athlete's appeal the Dutch Appeals Committee (DAC) decided on 26 November 2009 to impose a reduced sanction of 1 year on the Athlete.

Hereafter in December 2009 ADAN appealed the Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). ADAN requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of inelgibility on the Athlete.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He acknowledged that he had used Cocaine recreationally 3 days before the competition and that the substance could not enhance his sport performance anymore at the material time.

ADAN contended that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and that under the Rules a sanction of 2 years is appropriate. Further ADAN asserted that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's samples and accordinghly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Arbitrator considers that the Athlete had admitted the violation and deems that he failed to demonstrate that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. He determines that a sanction of 2 years is not unacceptable according to standards of reasonableness and fairness in the given circumstances.

Therfore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 11 June 2010:

1.) The appeal of the Doping Authority Netherlands (NADO) against the decision dated 26 November 2009 of the Committee of Appeal of the ISR (DAC) is upheld.

2.) The decision dated 26 November 2009 of the Committee of Appeal of the ISR (DAC) is set aside.

3.) The Athlete is suspended for a period of two years, starting from 25 August 2009.

(…)

6.) All other prayers for relief are rejected.

CAS 2010/A/2268 I. v. Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA)

CAS 2010/A/2268 Igor Walilko vs FIA

Related cases:

• FIA 2010 FIA vs Igor Walilko
  October 11, 2010
• FIA 2011 FIA vs Igor Walilko
  September 15, 2011
• Swiss Federal Court 4A_636/2011 Igor Walilko vs FIA
  June 18, 2012

In August 2010 the International Automobile Federation (FIA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Polish Karting Driver Igor Walilko (12) after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Nikethamide.

Consequently on 11 October 2010 the FIA Anti-Doping Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 18 July 2010.

Hereafter in November 2010 the Athlete appealed the FIA decision  with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to annul the imposed sanction.

The Panel assessed and addressed the following issues raised by the parties:

• The Athlete's submission to the anti-doping regulations.
• The Athlete's representation at the anti-doping control.
• The impact of the anti-doping rules on everyday life.
• The alleged ignorance about the specific substance Nikethamide.
• Applicability on anti-doping rules to minors.
• Evidence of doping.
• Measure of the sanction.

The Panel finds that it must apply the principle of proportionality in order to assess a sanction which could be appropriate to the case at stake. As a result, the Panel finds the suspension of two years decided by the FIA to be excessive and disproportionate.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 September 2011:

1.) The Appeal filed by the Athlete is partially upheld.

2.) The decision of 11 October 2010 by the Anti-Doping Committee-FIA Medical Commission of the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) is set aside.

3.) The Athlete is declared ineligible for a period of 18, starting from 18 July 2010.

4.) The Athlete is disqualified from the individual results obtained in the karting event held in Ampfing, Germany on 18 July 2010, as well as from any competitive results obtained thereafter, with all resulting consequences including forfeiture of any trophies, points and prizes.

5.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) already paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS.

6.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

7.) All other requests, motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 96/149 A.C. / Fédération Internationale de Natation Amateur (FINA)

TAS 96/149 Cullwick v/ FINA

• Doping of a waterpolo player (salbutamol)
• Special status of salbutamol in the FINA rules
• Omission to declare the use of such substance to the testing agent Good faith of the athlete

1. On the basis of the FINA Rules and Guidelines, the omission to declare the use of salbutamol prior to the doping control constitutes an offence equivalent to a technical breach only.

2. The doctrine of lex mitior, i.e. that which permits a criminal court to apply current sanctions to the case before it, if such sanctions are less severe that those which existed at the time of the offence, is applicable to disciplinary matters such as doping cases.

On 1 December 1995 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) Executive decided to impose a sanction of 2 years on the New Zealand waterpolo player Antony Cullwick after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Salbutamol related to his prescribed Asthma medication.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the FINA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete asserted that he had used Salbutamol as prescribed medication for his Asthma. He argued that and under the rules or regulations Salbutamol by inhalation is a permitted and not a banned substance and therefore no doping offence was committed.

FINA contended that under the rules and guidelines in order to constitute Salbutamol a permitted as distinct from a banned substance not only had it to be taken by inhalation, but also there must be prior notification to a relevant authority, either a national federation or FINA itself.

In view of the evidence the Panel determines that the Athlete's violation was a technical breach and not an intentional violation because of the prescribed medication he used for his Asthma. However the Athlete, his doctor, or other appropriate agent, failed to inform his national federation, or FINA or other relevant body about his use of the Ventolin inhaler for medical purposes.

The Panel deems that the fault in this matter appears to lie with the NZL swimming federation in their obligation to take every step to ensure that competitors under their jurisdiction were familiar with all rules, regulations, guidelines and requirements in sucht a sensistive area as doping control.

In addition the Panel made recommendations to FINA to make clear and more precise the relevant rules so that athletes could understand them more easily and disputes over the meaning, if possible, avoided.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 March 1997:

1.) The appeal lodged by A.C. is partially upheld.

2.) The sanction pronounced against the Appellant is cancelled.

3.) (...)