Softball New Zealand (SNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.
After notification by SNZ the Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.
Respondent admitted the violation and stated he had smoked Cannabis prior the tournament. The Respondent had no intention to enhance performance and he apologized for committing the violation.

The Tribunal concludes that Respondent did not smoke Cannabis for performance-enhancing purposes and the use of cannabis was unrelated to the sport. Therefore the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a reprimand and a warning on the Respondent.

Softball New Zealand (SNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.
After notification by SNZ the Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.
The Respondent admitted he had smoked Cannabis at a party a week before the tournament. Respondent had no intention to enhance his sport performance, apologised and requested that he be allowed to continue play softball.

The Tribunal concludes that the Respondent did not smoke cannabis for performance-enhancing purposes and the use of Cannabis was unrelated to the sport. Therefore the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a warning and a reprimand on the Respondent.

Related cases:

• SDT 2005_07 Touch New Zealand vs William Morunga
  August 2, 2005
• ST 2023_04 DFSNZ vs William Morunga
  June 1, 2023
  
  

In April 2006 Touch New Zealand reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.

This was the Athlete’s second anti-doping violation. On the first occasion, on 2 August 2005, a 2 month period of ineligibility, a severe warning and a strong warning were imposed on the Respondent.

After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal. The Tribunal concludes that although the Athlete had not acted intentionally he had indeed committed a second anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 4 July 2006 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on Athlete starting from the date of this decision.

Basketball New Zealand (BBNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.
After notification by BBNZ the Respondent was provisional suspended and heard for the Tribunal.
Respondent admitted the recreational use of Cannabis at a party 5 weeks before the positive doping test. Respondent was not under contract to any basketball organisation at the time of the Cannabis use.

The Tribunal notes that Respondent had already been suspended for matches and also suffered financial penalty as a result of his suspension. Therefore the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a warning and a reprimand on the Respondent.

Related cases:
SDT 2004_14 New Zealand Rugby League vs Vince Whare
February 17, 2005
ST 2010 DFSNZ vs Vince Whare
March 1, 2010

The New Zealand Rugby League (NZRL) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis. This was Respondent’s second anti-doping violation. On the first occasion, on 17 March 2005, he was reprimanded, fined and ordered to pay costs.
NZRL notified the Respondent and ordered a provisional suspension. The Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal. Respondent testified he had used Cannabis for relief during a time of difficult personal circumstances and not to enhance his sport performance.
The Tribunal concludes this was Respondent’s second violation and he did not use Cannabis for performance-enhancing purposes.
The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of his provisional suspension.

The New Zealand Rugby League (NZRL) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.
NZRL notified the Respondent and ordered a provisional suspension.
Respondent affirmed to the Tribunal that he had used Cannabis three weeks before the competition when he did not expect to be reselected for the season.
The Tribunal finds that he did not smoke Cannabis to enhance his sport performance. Aggravating circumstance was that Respondent had signed a declaration acknowledging that he was aware of NZRL ant-doping policy.
Therefore the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on Respondent starting from the date of this decision.

The New Zealand Federation of Bodybuilders (NZFBB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after her sample tested positive for the substance Cannabis.
After notification the Respondent was heard for the Tribunal. Respondent admitted she had smoked Cannabis while celebrating a cousin’s birthday a fortnight before competition.

The Tribunal accepts that Respondent had no intention to sport performance and the use was unrelated to the sport.
Therefore the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a warning and a reprimand on the Respondent. The Tribunal also decides to disqualify Respondent from the 2006 Senior 72 kg Female national event and that she forfeits all results, titles, medals and prizes won at the event.

Searching for new long-term urinary metabolites of metenolone and drostanolone using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry with a focus on non-hydrolysed sulfates / Aðalheiður Dóra Albertsdóttir, Wim Van Gansbeke, Gilles Coppieters, Kyzylkul Balgimbekova, Peter Van Eenoo, Michael Polet. - (Drug Testing and Analysis 12 (2020) 8 (August); p. 1041-1053)

• PMID: 32386339
• DOI: 10.1002/dta.2818

  Abstract

Sulfated metabolites have been shown to have potential as long‐term markers of anabolic–androgenic steroid (AAS) abuse. In 2019, the compatibility of gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) with non‐hydrolysed sulfated steroids was demonstrated, and this approach allowed the incorporation of these compounds in a broad GC–MS initial testing procedure at a later stage. However, research is needed to identify which are beneficial.

In this study, a search for new long‐term metabolites of two popular AAS, metenolone and drostanolone, was undertaken through two excretion studies each. The excretion samples were analysed using GC–chemical ionization–triple quadrupole MS (GC–CI–MS/MS) after the application of three separate sample preparation methodologies (i.e. hydrolysis with Escherichia coli–derived β‐glucuronidase, Helix pomatia–derived β‐glucuronidase/arylsulfatase and non‐hydrolysed sulfated steroids).

For metenolone, a non‐hydrolysed sulfated metabolite, 1β‐methyl‐5α‐androstan‐17‐one‐3ζ‐sulfate, was documented for the first time to provide the longest detection time of up to 17 days. This metabolite increased the detection time by nearly a factor of 2 in comparison with the currently monitored markers for metenolone in a routine doping control initial testing procedure. In the second excretion study, it prolonged the detection window by 25%.

In the case of drostanolone, the non‐hydrolysed sulfated metabolite with the longest detection time was the sulfated analogue of the main drostanolone metabolite (3α‐hydroxy‐2α‐methyl‐5α‐androstan‐17‐one) with a detection time of up to 24 days. However, the currently monitored main drostanolone metabolite in routine doping control, after hydrolysis of the glucuronide with E.coli, remained superior in detection time (i.e. up to 29 days).

Secretagogues govern GH secretory-burst waveform and mass in healthy eugonadal and short-term hypogonadal men / Johannes D. Veldhuis, Daniel M. Keenan

• European Journal of Endocrinology 159 (2008) 5 (November), p. 547-554
• PMID: 18703567
• PMCID: PMC2680123
• DOI: 10.1530/EJE-08-0414
• Erratum in:
  • European Journal of Endocrinology 159 (2008) 6 (December) p. 841
  • DOI: 10.1530/EJE-08-0414e

Abstract

Background: GH pulses are putatively initiated by hypothalamic GH-releasing hormone (GHRH), amplified by GH-releasing peptide (GHRP), and inhibited by somatostatin (SS).

Objective: To ascertain how secretagogues control the waveform (time evolution of release rates) as well as the mass of secretory bursts.

Design: We quantified the shape of GH secretory bursts evoked by continuous combined i.v. infusion of maximally effective doses of GHRH and GHRP-2, and by bolus injection of each peptide after delivering L-arginine to restrain hypothalamic SS release in 12 healthy young men.

Methods: A mathematically verified and experimentally validated variable-waveform deconvolution model was applied to intensively sampled GH time series.

Results: The secretory-burst mode (time from burst onset to maximal secretion) was 19+/-0.69 min during saline infusion, and fell to a) 10.4+/-3.0 min during constant dual stimulation with GHRH/GHRP-2 (P<0.01), b) 14.6+/-1.8 min after l-arginine/GHRH (P<0.025), and c) 15.0+/-1.0 min after l-arginine/GHRH (P<0.01). Secretagogues augmented the mass of GH secreted in pulses by 44-, 42-, and 16-fold respectively, over saline (2.2+/-0.81 microg/l per h; P<0.001 for each). Pulse number and variability were unaffected. Applying the same methodology to ten other young men with acute leuprolide-induced hypogonadism yielded comparable waveform and mass estimates.

Conclusion: The present analyses in men demonstrate that peptidyl secretagogues modulate not only the magnitude but also the time course of the GH-release process in vivo independently of the short-term sex-steroid milieu.

Seeking legitimacy for broad understandings of substance use / Niki Kiepek, Katinka Van de Ven, Matthew Dunn, Cynthia Forlini

• International Journal of Drug Policy 73 (November 2019, p. 58-63
• PMID: 31336295
• DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.07.014

Abstract

This commentary invites discussion about implicit and explicit factors that impede research about substance use from a nuanced perspective that recognises potential benefits and advantages. It is argued that explicit efforts to engage in scholarship beyond those informed by theoretical and philosophical assumptions that substance use is inherently risky and problematic can enhance genuine inquisition about substance use and transform which discourses and interpretations are legitimised. Prioritisation of scholarly funding and publication has largely been predicated on the notion that illicit substances pose an inherent risk for individual and social harm. This has implicitly and explicitly influenced what type of research has been conducted and how substance use is constructed. Researchers who engage in scholarship that suspends assumptions of risk and problems associated with substance use may become subject to judgement about their credibility, ethics, and expertise. Moving forward, we suggest that conscientiously attending to broad, nuanced experiences associated with substance use will contribute to a stronger evidence base. Equal opportunity should be given to examine the complexity of lived experiences. It may also be timely to consider what brings value to scholarly pursuit, recognising that health is but one valued social outcome. Perhaps other outcomes, such as human rights, compassion, and justice are equally commendable. To advance substance use scholarship, it is essential that decision-makers (e.g., funding bodies, editors) embrace research that does not conform to assumptions of risk or inherent problems as exclusively legitimate, advocate for scholarship that resists conforming to dominant discourses, and create spaces for critical perspectives and interpretations.