Aggression Is Associated With Increased Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Use Contemplation Among Adolescents

29 Jun 2016

Aggression Is Associated With Increased Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Use Contemplation Among Adolescents / Dominic Sagoe, Rune A. Mentzoni, Daniel Hanss Pallesen, Ståle Pallesen. - (Substance Use & Misuse 51 (2016) 11 (18 September); p. 1462-1469)

  • PMID: 27356242
  • DOI: 10.1080/10826084.2016.1186696


Abstract

We investigated the relationship between aggression and anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) use intent among adolescents. A nationally representative sample of Norwegian 18-year-olds (N = 1,334, females = 58.7%) took part in a survey in 2013 (response rate = 64.9%). Participants completed the physical and verbal subscales of the Short-Form Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire, the Intent to use AAS Scale, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. They also provided demographic information and answered questions about AAS use, gambling participation, as well as cigarette and snus use. Descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regression were used to analyze the data. Lifetime and past year prevalence of AAS use was 0.1%. Between 0.4% and 1.7% of participants disclosed intent to use while between 1.1% and 2.5% expressed neutral intent to initiate AAS use. Compared to persons low on aggression, individuals high on aggression were more likely to report intent and curiosity towards initiating AAS use. Our findings indicate that aggression is a risk factor for AAS use contemplation among adolescents.

The influence of age of onset and acute anabolic steroid exposure on cognitive performance, impulsivity, and aggression in men

19 May 2014

The influence of age of onset and acute anabolic steroid exposure on cognitive performance, impulsivity, and aggression in men / Tom Hildebrandt, James W. Langenbucher, Adrianne Flores, Seth Harty, Heather A. Berlin. - (Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 28 (2014) 4 (December); 1096-1104)

  • PMID: 24841181
  • PMCID: PMC4237679
  • DOI: 10.1037/a0036482

Erratum included:

  • Psychol Addict Behav. 2014 Dec;28(4):1104. Berlin, Heather [corrected to Berlin, Heather A]


Abstract

A growing translational literature suggests that adolescent exposure to anabolic-androgenic steroids (AASs) leads to increased aggression and impulsivity. However, little is known about the cognitive effects of AASs among AAS users or the differences between adolescent- and adult-onset users. This study provides a test of the effects of acute naturalistic AAS use and age of onset (adolescent vs. adult) on measures of inhibitory control, planning and attention, and decision making. Seventy-one active adult male AAS users completed self-report measures of impulsivity and aggression, and a subsample (11 adolescent onset vs. 11 adult onset) matched on current age were administered 4 computerized tests from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) (Cambridge Cognition, 2002) and the Iowa Gambling Task (Stanton, Liening, & Schultheiss, 2011). Multiple regression analyses and a series of 2 (adolescent vs. adult) × 2 (on-cycle vs. off-cycle) analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to examine the differential effects of age of onset and acute drug use on cognition and behavior. Regression analyses revealed larger on-cycle effects for adolescent users than adult users. Subsample analyses indicated that on-cycle users performed less well on cognitive measures of inhibitory control and attention, but not on tests of planning or decision making. Adolescent onset was associated with greater impulsivity and more acute sensitivity to AAS effects on attention. These preliminary findings suggest the possibility that acute AAS use is associated with some differences in inhibitory control and impulsivity and to a lesser degree, aggression. These effects may be more potent for those initiating AAS use in adolescence.

The diagnostic dilemma of pathological appearance and performance enhancing drug use

5 Nov 2010

The diagnostic dilemma of pathological appearance and performance enhancing drug use / Tom Hildebrandt, Justine K. Lai, James W. Langenbucher, Melanie Schneider, Rachel Yehuda, Donald W. Pfaff. - (Drug and Alcohol Dependence 114 (2011) 1 (1 March); p. 1-11)

  • PMID: 21115306
  • PMCID: PMC3039045
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.09.018


Abstract

Appearance and performance enhancing drug (APED) use includes the use of a range of pharmacologically distinct substances and concurrent investment in outward appearance or achievement, dietary control, and frequent exercise. A number of existing reviews and conceptual papers have defined pathological forms of APED use within the APED class of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AASs) and using the framework of AAS dependence. We review published data on APED use including human studies of AAS users and identified three defining phenomenological features associated with increased health risk and pathology. These features included (1) polypharmacy or the concurrent use of several pharmacologically distinct substances used to change outward appearance or increase likelihood of personal achievement; (2) significant body image disturbance; (3) rigid practices and preoccupations with diet and exercise. Investigations into the latent structure of APED use suggest these features cluster together in a homogenous group of APED users who have the highest health risk and most psychopathology. These features are discussed in the context of AAS dependence and problems with defining classic tolerance-withdrawal symptoms among APED users. Suggestions for a resolution and outline for future research needed to determine the best system for identifying and diagnosing pathological APED use are discussed.

WA 2020 WA vs Daniel Kinyua Wanjiru

8 Oct 2020

In April 2020 the the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Daniel Kinyua Wanjiru after an AIU Expert Panel concluded unanimously in September 2019 in their Joint Expert Opinion that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping. 

This conclusion of the AIU Expert Panel was based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 20 April 2017 until 25 April 2019 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP). 

After notification the Athlete submitted several explanations and objections to the AIU about the circumstances surrounding the collected samples. However after consideration the Expert Panel rejected the Athlete’s explanations and objections in their 2nd (March 2020), 3rd (June 2020) and 4th (August 2020) joint report. A provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal. 

The AIU contended that the abnormalities in the heamatological module of the Athlete’s ABP from sample 14 indicate blood manipulation since it had extremely abnormal HGB values. Supported by expert witnesses the Athlete denied the violation, disputed the reliablility of the ABP and asserted that the values in his ABP could be explained due to his travel from altitude to sea level. 

Based on the formidable scientific evidence the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the AIU has discharged its burden that blood manipulation is the irresistible explanation for the abnormal HB and OFF-score values in sample 14 in the Athlete’s ABP. The Panel holds that the AIU and the Expert Panel established that the presented doping scenario caused the abnormalities in the Athlete’s ABP and that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 8 October 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 9 December 2020.

ISR 2019 KNCB Decision Appeal Committee 2019009 B

17 Sep 2020

Related case:

ISR 2019 KNCB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2019009 T
March 20, 2020

On 20 March 2020 the ISR-KNCB Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Person after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis. Here the Committee deemed that the violation was not intentional but found that the Person failed to respond and consequently refrained to explain how the substance entered his system.

Hereafter in April 2020 the Person appealed the decision of 20 March 2020 with the ISR-KNCB Appeal Committee.

The Person admitted the violation and expressed his remorse. He argued that his recreational use of Cannabis was an incident and does not enhance his performances. He disputed the jurisdiction of the ISR and claimed that the charges against him were not filed within the stipulated time limit. He asserted that in first instance he had not a fair trial because he had not received the KNCB notification of the violation and thereby he was unable to file a statement in his defence. He acknowledged that he had received the communications from the Dopingautoriteit.

The Appeal Committee establish that at the Person's residence there was signed postal confirmation that the Notification of the violation had been received. Official documents demonstrated that the ISR has jurisdiction to handle the KNCB anti-doping proceedings and the KNCB had timely filed the charges against the Person with the ISR.

The Appeal Committee considers the Person's conduct and his degree of fault regarding his recreational use of the substance and finds that there are grounds to reduce the imposed sanction.

Therefore the ISR-KNCB Appeal Committee decides on 17 September 2020 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on the date of the first instance decision, i.e. on 20 March 2020.

Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the Person.

ISR 2020 NGB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2020002 T

1 Oct 2020

In April 2020 the Dutch Weightlifting Association (NGB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Drostanolone, Methandienone and Methylphenidate.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Person waived his right for hearing and did not file a statement in his defence. The case was settled based on the filed submissions.

The ISR-NGB Disciplinary Committee finds that the presence of multiple prohibited substances had been establised in the Person's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Also the Committee deems that the Person failed to file a statement in his defence and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction

Therefore the ISR-NGB Disciplinary Committee decides on 1 October 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 April 2020.

Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the Person.

NADO Flanders 2020 Disciplinary Commission 2020001 T

22 Sep 2020

In 2020 NADO Flanders reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Dutch Muaythai boxer after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide. After notification the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission.

The Disciplinary Commission 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.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 22 September 2020 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision. 

Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne partially by the Athlete.

NADO Flanders 2018 Disciplinary Commission 2018009 T

26 Mar 2019

In 2018 NADO Flanders reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Dutch kickboxer after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.

After notification the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission. In this case NADO Flanders deemed that the violation was not intentional. 

The Disciplinary Commission 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.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 26 March 2019 to impose a fine and a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision. 

Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne partially by the Athlete.

ADAK 2020 ADAK vs George Nganga Kimotho

28 Jul 2020

In December 2019 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete George Nganga Kimotho after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained with evidence that he suffered from several conditions and underwent treatment with prescribed medication while he mentioned to his doctor that he was an Athlete. He believed that the administered Nandrophen injections were the source of the positive test and acknowledged that he didn't check his medication before using. He didn't mentioned the injections on the Doping Control Form because he was embarrassed about his erectile problem.

ADAK contended that the Athlete gave a prompt admission, cooperated with the proceedings and demonstrated how the prohibited substance entered his system. However he acted negligently since he failed to check the ingredients of the prescribed medication before using.

Considering the circumstances the Panel concludes that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete had acted negligently. Further the Panel considers that he gave a prompt admission, provided substantial assistance en demonstrated how the prohibited substance entered his system.

Therefore the Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 28 July 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 December 2019.

ADAK 2019 ADAK vs Stephen Kimani Maina

3 Jun 2020

In May 2019 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the swimmer Stephen Kimani Maina after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Amfetamine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Kenya Sports Disputed Tribunal rendered a decision case based on the written submissions of the parties.

The Athlete admitted the violation an denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that he had used the substance as a student in preparation for his exams to keep him awake while he had mentioned his use of products on the Doping Control Form.

The Panel established that there was a breach of confidentiality through disclosure of the anti-doping rule violation and ADAK had not notified the Athlete about his right to test the B sample but the Athlete had admitted the anti-doping rule violation.

The Panel deems that the Athlete had not indicated which of the products he mentioned on the Doping Control Form contained the prohibited substance nor explained how the substance entered his system. Consequently he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the Kenya Sports Disputed Tribunal decides on 3 June 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 May 2020.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin