Related case:
CAS 2002/A/431 UCI vs R & FFC
May 23, 2003

In May 2002 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French Athlete R after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances methylamphetamine, parahydroxyamphetamine, d'amphetamine and betamethasone. The Athlete had a TUE for betamethasone.
The Fédération Française de Cyclisme (FFC), the French Cycling Federation decided on 8 October 2002 not to sanction the Athlete due the circumstances of the sample collection were an infringement of the French public order.

In November 2002 the UCI appealed the FFC decision of 8 October 2002 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS Panel rejected the Athlete’s argument that after signing the FFC sport licence he did not accept the CAS jurisdiction to appeal a case. The Panel also ruled that the circumstances related to the Athlete’s sample collection were not a breach of the French public order. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport sanctioned the Athlete on 23 May 2003, as second violation with a 4 year period of ineligibility and a fine of CHF 4000, -. (TAS / CAS 2002/A/431)

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS Decision of 23 May 2003 with the Swiss Federal Court.
The Athlete disputed the CAS’ jurisdiction and claimed that his right to be heard was violated.
The Swiss Federal court considers the Athlete’s arguments and decides on 31 October 2003 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal.

Related cases:

• ITF 2005 ATP vs Guillermo Cañas
  August 7, 2005
• CAS 2005/A/951 Guillermo Cañas vs ATP – Revision
  May 23, 2006 & May 23, 2007
• European Court of Justice T-508_09 Guillermo Cañas vs European Commission
  March 26, 2012
• European Court of Justice C-269_12 P Guillermo Cañas vs European Commission
  June 20, 2013

In March 2005, the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Guillermo Cañas after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide (HCT). Consequently the ATP Anti-Doping Tribunal decided on 7 August 2005 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 11 June 2005.

On 29 August 2005 the Athlete appealed the ATP decision of 7 August 2005 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the CAS Panel for a reopening of the case based on new facts and on new evidence pursuant to the exceptional circumstances provision of the rules.

Considering the evidence and statements, the CAS Panel finds that the Athlete has established that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence in this exceptional case, allowing to be reduced the period of ineligibility, nevertheless he acted negligence in ingesting a banned substance.

Thefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling de novo decides:

1.) The appeal filed by the Athlete Mr Guillermo Cañas on 29 August 2005 is partially upheld.

2.) Mr Guillermo Cañas has committed a Doping Offense during the “Abierto Mexicano de Tenis” held in Acapulco, Mexico on 21 February 2005 and his results from the competition shall be disqualified. Any prize money collected at such Tournament not previously returned to ATP Tour shall be returned to ATP Tour within 7 days of the date of this award.

3.) Mr Cañas shall be ineligible to compete on the ATP Tour for the fifteen months period beginning from 11 June 2005.

4.) To the extent that ATP Tour has collected prize money for competitions in which Appellant competed after the Tournament, those amounts shall be returned to Appellant by ATP Tour within 7 days of the date of this award.

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

6.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS decision of 23 May 2006 (CAS 2005/A/951) with the Swiss Federal Court. The Athlete argued that his right to be heard was violated by the CAS Panel.

On 22 March 2007, the Swiss Federal Court ruled that the Appellant’s right to be heard was disregarded by the CAS Panel and on that basis, the Swiss Federal Court annulled the CAS Panel’s award (Swiss Federal Court 4P.172_2006 Guillermo Cañas vs ATP Tour & CAS).

In the light of the judgment of the Swiss Federal Tribunal, the CAS Panel has reviewed the submissions and evidence originally submitted by the parties and issues a new revised award (23 May 2007) in substitution of the award rendered on 23 May 2006.

Related cases:
CAS 2000_A_262 Stanley Roberts vs FIAB – Preliminary Award
July 28, 2000
DIS U (K) 1651_02 Stanley Roberts vs District Court Munich
October 10, 2002

On 24 November 1999 the U.S. National Basketball Association (NBA) imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for a prohibited amphetamines substance.
Based on the NBA decision, FIBA also sanctioned the Athlete with a 2 year period of ineligibiltiy for FIBA competitions. As a consequence the Athlete’s contract to join the Turkish basketball team Efes Pilsen was cancelled.
The FIBA sanctioned the Athlete under a new set of rules in order to prevent basketball players go overseas without restrictions to resume their career after being expelled from the NBA. The Athlete claimed the FIBA decision damaged his career.
Hereafter, between 2009 until 2003, the Athlete filed without success severals lawsuits before courts in the USA, Germany and Switzerland against the FIBA for cancellation of the sanction and damages of just under $1 million.

The Athlete’s appeal with the FIBA Appeal Commission was dismissed on 4 February 2000.
On 3 March 2000 the Athlete appealed his case with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
On 31 August 2000 (CAS 2000/A/262) the CAS Panel ruled it has jurisdiction about the imposed FIBA sanction, but considered itself incompetent to rule about damages.
The Athlete appealed hereafter with the Swiss Federal Court, which decides to dismiss his complaint on 7 February 2001.
Again the Athlete appealed his complaint with the German Distric Court in Munich (dismissed on 20 December 2001) and the German Institution of Arbitration (dismissed on 10 October 2002).

Swiss Federal Court 4P.268_2002 Larissa Lazutina & Olga Danilova vs IOC and FIS
Swiss Federal Court 4P.269_2002 Larissa Lazutina & Olga Danilova vs IOC and FIS
Swiss Federal Court 4P.270_2002 Larissa Lazutina & Olga Danilova vs IOC and FIS

Related cases:
IOC 2002 IOC vs Larissa Lazutina
IOC 2002 IOC vs Olga Danilova
CAS 2002/A/370 Larissa Lazutina vs IOC
CAS 2002/A/397 Larissa Lazutina vs FIS
CAS 2002/A/371 Olga Danilova vs IOC
CAS 2002/A/398 Olga Danilova vs FIS

Ms. Larissa Lazutina and Olga Danilova are Russian Athletes competing in de women’s cross country skiing at the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympic Winter Games.

On 21 February 2002 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported two anti-doping rule violations against the two Russian Athletes Larissa Lazutina and Olga Danilova after their samples tested positive for the prohibited substance darbepoetin (dEPO), related substance to erythropoietin (EPO).

Therefore the IOC Executive Board decided, as recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, that these two athletes are:
1.) disqualified from the women’s 30 km classical cross country skiing event;
2.) excluded from the XIX Olympic Winter Games Salt Lake City 2002, according to Chapter II, Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code.
3.) The International Ski Federation is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
4.) The National Olympic Committee of the Russian Federation is hereby ordered to return to the IOC, not later than 17:00 hours today, the medal and diploma awarded to the athletes in relation to the above-mentioned event.
5.) The decision shall enter into force immediately.

On 3 June 2002 the Council of the International Ski Federation (FIS) decided to impose a two year period of ineligibility on the two Athletes, starting on 8 December 2001 for Ms. Larissa Lazutina and on 21 February 2002 for Ms. Olga Danilova.

On 29 November 2002 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) dismissed the 4 appeals filed by the two Russian Athletes (CAS 2002/A/370, CAS 2002/A/397, CAS 2002/A/371, CAS 2002/A/398) against the decisions made by the IOC on 24 February 2002 and FIS on 3 June 2002.

Hereafter the Athletes appealed the CAS decision with the Swiss Federal Court. The Athletes argued that the CAS Panel refused to hear their expert witnesses as violation of their right to be heard or the equality of the parties.
On 27 May 2003 the Swiss Federal Court rules that all the Athletes’ complaints about the CAS arbitration procedures are without ground or are inadmissible.

Related case:
IOC 2000 IOC vs Andreea Raducan & Oana Ioachin
September 26, 2000
CAS OG_2000_011 Andreea Raducan vs IOC
September 28, 2000

Ms. Andreea Raducan is a Romanian Athlete competing in the Women’s Individual Gymnastics at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.

On 25 September 2000 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance pseudoephedrine in a concentration above the IOC threshold.
On 26 September 2000 the IOC Executive Board decided to disquality the Athlete and ordered to withdraw and return the gold medal and the diploma awarded to the Ahlete.
Considering the circumstances the FIG Executive Committee hereafter decided on 27 September 2000 not to impose any sanction on the Athlete.

On 28 September 2000 the Athlete appealed the IOC decision of 26 September 2000 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the CAS Panel to set aside the IOC decision and restoring the gold medal to the Athlete.
The Athlete argued that she bears no responsibility for the anti-doping violation, due to a cold and cough she suffered she used Nurofen medication provided to her by the Romanian team doctor. She also disputed the validation of the doping test.
The CAS Panel ruled that the Athlete’s arguments does not effect the fact that a prohibited substance was present in her system during a competition. Therefore the Court of Arbitration Panel agrees with the sanction imposed by the IOC and dismissed the Athlete’s appeal.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS Decision of 28 September 2000 with the Swiss Federal Court.
On 4 December 2000 the Swiss Federal Court considers the Athlete’s arguments and rules that these are without ground and therefore dismiss the Athlete’s appeal.

Annual Report 2021 / Swiss Sport Integrity; Anti-Doping Switzerland. - Bern : Swiss Sport Integrity, 2022

Annual Report 2022 / Swiss Sport Integrity. - Bern : Swiss Sport Integrity, 2023

Symptoms and correlates of anabolic-androgenic steroid dependence / K.J. Brower, F.C. Blow, J.P. Young, E.M. Hill. - (British Journal of Addiction 86 (1991) 6 (June); p. 759-768)

• PMID: 1878625
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb03101.x

Abstract

Forty-nine male weight lifters, all users of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AASs), completed an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire to investigate addictive patterns of use. At least one DSM-III-R symptom of dependence was reported by 94% of the sample. Three or more symptoms, consistent with a diagnosis of dependence, were reported by 57%. Dependent users (n = 28) could be distinguished from non-dependent users (n = 21) by their use of larger doses, more cycles of use, more dissatisfaction with body size, and more aggressive symptoms. Multiple regression analysis revealed that dosage and dissatisfaction with body size were the best predictors of dependent use. Patterns of other substances used, although not predictive of AAS dependence, revealed very low cigarette use and at the same time high alcohol consumption. These data support the notion that AASs are addicting, and suggest that dissatisfaction with body size may lead to dependent patterns of use. The implications for both prevention and treatment are discussed.

Synthesis and anabolic/androgenic evaluation of novel 9α-fluorosteroids / M. Reyes-Moreno, J.A. Ruiz-García, Y. Ibarra-Reyes, A. Fuente-Hernández, H. Vélez-Castro, I. Hernández-Balmaseda, I. Martínez-Hormaza, I. Rodeiro-Guerra, J. Sandoval Ramírez, S. Meza Reyes, S. Montiel-Smith. - (European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 44 (2009) 11 (November); p. 4567-4571)

• PMID: 19615789
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2009.06.025

Abstract

3Beta,11beta-dihydroxy-9alpha-fluor-5alpha-androstane-17-one (2), 3beta-acetoxy-9alpha-fluor-11beta-hydroxy-5alpha-androstane-17-one (3), 3beta-acetoxy-9alpha-fluor-11beta,17beta-dihydroxy-5alpha-androstane (4), 3beta,17beta-diacetoxy-9alpha-fluor-11beta-hydroxy-5alpha-androstane (5), 3beta-acetoxy-9alpha-fluor-11beta-hydroxy-5alpha-androstane 17beta-propionate (6), 3beta-acetoxy-9alpha-fluor-11beta-hydroxy-5alpha-androstane 17beta-enanthate (7), 3beta-acetoxy-9alpha-fluor-11beta-hydroxy-5alpha-androstane 17beta-isobutyrate (8) were synthesized in the present study. Compounds 2 and 8 exhibited higher anabolic activity than the rest of the synthesized compounds. The structure of all these newly synthesized compounds was confirmed by analytic spectral data (mass, (1)H NMR and (13)C NMR).

Thevis M, Schänzer W.
Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2010;(195):99-126.

The central role of testosterone in the development of male characteristics, as well as its beneficial effects on physical performance and muscle growth, has led to the search for synthetic alternatives with improved pharmacological profiles. Hundreds of steroidal analogs have been prepared with a superior oral bioavailability, which should also possess reduced undesirable effects. However, only a few entered the pharmaceutical market due to severe toxicological incidences that were mainly attributed to the lack of tissue selectivity. Prominent representatives of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) are for instance methyltestosterone, metandienone and stanozolol, which are discussed as model compounds with regard to general pharmacological aspects of synthetic AAS. Recently, nonsteroidal alternatives to AAS have been developed that selectively activate the androgen receptor in either muscle tissue or bones. These so-called selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) are currently undergoing late clinical trials (IIb) and will be prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency from January 2008. Their entirely synthetic structures are barely related to steroids, but particular functional groups allow for the tissue-selective activation or inhibition of androgen receptors and, thus, the stimulation of muscle growth without the risk of severe undesirable effects commonly observed in steroid replacement therapies. Hence, these compounds possess a high potential for misuse in sports and will be the subject of future doping control assays.