Men´s experiences of using anabolic androgenic steroids / Annica Börjesson, Margaretha Ekebergh, Marja-Liisa Dahl, Lena Ekström, Mikael Lehtihet, Veronica Vicente. - (International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being 16 (2021) 1 (December))

• PMID: 34006211
• DOI: 10.1080/17482631.2021.1927490

Abstract

Purpose: Anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) are used by men for their aesthetic and performance-enhancing effects and are associated with risk for side effects. Our research aims to deepen knowledge and understanding of men´s experiences of using AAS.

Method: This phenomenological study is based on the reflective lifeworld research approach. Lifeworld interviews were conducted with twelve men about their experiences of using AAS.

Results: By using AAS, men strive towards a muscular, strong and athletic ideal. Self-imposed demands, self-discipline and performance accelerate male physical development. The perfect male body ideal thus attained is fragile from both an existential and a biological perspective. The perfect self-image can easily be shattered by adversity. A man's very existence may be jeopardized if the use of AAS is revealed to others or if the body is let down by illness.

Conclusions: Men´s use of AAS is a complex phenomenon. It partly concerns a traditional view of masculinity that is reflected in the community. It requires both broad and deep knowledge and understanding to be able to meet men using AAS in their problems and vulnerability; a meeting that is hampered by their low trust in healthcare, and by the fact that AAS are illegal.

IOC Anti-Doping Testing Statistics 2002 / International Olympic Committee (IOC). - Lausanne : IOC, 2004

IOC Anti-Doping Testing Statistics 2001 / International Olympic Committee (IOC). - Lausanne : IOC, 2004

IOC Anti-Doping Testing Statistics 2000 / International Olympic Committee (IOC). - Lausanne : IOC, 2004

In December 2020 the Royal Dutch Athletics Association (KNAU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance LGD-4033 (Ligandrol).

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

The Person denied the intentional use and could not explain how it the substance had entered his system. He assumed that a contaminated supplement had caused the positive test. Yet Analysis of 2 supplements in question did not reveal the presence of any prohibited substance.

The Dopingautoriteit contended that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Person's samples and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation without grounds for a reduced sanction.

The Disciplinary Committee finds that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor how the substance had entered his system. It observes that the Person, after analysis of 2 supplements, made no additional requests for analysis of other supplements or medication in order to find the source of the positive tests.

Therefore the ISR KNAU Disciplinary Committee decides on 22 April 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 October 2020.

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

Related case:

BND 2021 Dopingautoriteit Decision Appeal Commmittee National Doping Regulations 2019011 AB
April 8, 2021

In December 2019 the Royal Dutch Athletics Association (KNAU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Modafinil, without a valid TUE and without a medical prescription.

After notification in October 2019 a provisional suspension was ordered. The Person filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the ISR KNAU Disciplinary Committee.

The Dopingautoriteit contended that the Person had used the substance without a valid TUE and accordingly had committed an anti-doping rule violation. It accepted that the violation was not intentional and that she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The Person admitted the violation and accepted the test results. She explained that she suffered from Narcolepsy using Modafinil as self-treatment. She acknowledged that in 2019 she became aware that the use of the substance in-competition was prohibited. For that reason she stopped using her medication 4 days before the competition in question.

Meanwhile medical examination had diagnosed that the Person suffered from ADHD while her Narcolepsy was misdiagnosed. With a valid prescription for Modafinil from her doctor she applied in November 2020 for a retroactive TUE. On 30 November 2020 the TUE Commission granted the Person a TUE for the use of Modafinil starting on 12 November 2020, yet without retroactive effect.

Hereafter in February 2021 the Person appealed the decision of the TUE Commission with the Appeal Committee National Doping Regulations (BND) which decided on 8 April 2021 to approve the Person's request for a retroactive TUE, starting backdated on the date of the sample collection.

The Dopingautoriteit requested the ISR KNAU Disciplinary Committee in April 2021 to suspend the proceedings pending approval from WADA regarding the Person's retroactive TUE. Further in May 2021 the Dopingautoriteit contended that the Person had received a retroactive TUE for her ADHD despite she had committed an anti-doping rule violation for using the prohibited substance Modafinil as self-treatment for her Narcolepsy.

The Disciplinary Committee finds that there were insufficient grounds to suspend the proceedings pending a response from WADA regarding the retroactive TUE. Further it deems that the Athlete's use of the prohibited substance based on her misdiagnosis for Narcolepsy does not effect the BND's Final Ruling for granting a retroactive TUE for the use of Modafinil.

Therefore the ISR KNAU Disciplinary Committee concludes that under the Rules the charges against the Person are unsubstantiated and decides on 31 May 2021 to acquit the Person.

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

Related case:

ISR 2019 KNAU Decision Disciplinary Committee 2019011 T
May 31, 2021

In December 2019 the Royal Dutch Athletics Association (KNAU) had reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Modafinil, which was used without a TUE and without a medical prescription.

The Person admitted the violation and explained that she suffered from Narcolepsy using Modafinil as medical treatment. Medical examination diagnosed that she in fact suffered from ADHD while her Narcolepsy was misdiagnosed. With a valid prescription for Modafinil from her doctor she applied in November 2020 for a retroactive TUE backdated to sample collection.

On 30 November 2020 the TUE Commission granted the Person a TUE for the use of Modafinil starting on 12 November 2020 without retroactive effect. Hereafter in February 2021 the Athlete appealed the decision of the TUE Commission with the Appeal Committee National Doping Regulations (BND).

The BND established that the Athlete indeed was diagnosed with ADHD in 2020 and that she was not included in any Testing Pool. Further the BND assessed the performance improvement effect of the substance and it considered that alternative medications are also included as prohibited on the WADA Prohibited List.

Therefore on 8 April 2021 the BND decides to approve the Athlete's request for a retroactive TUE starting backdated on the date of the sample collection.

Related case:

UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Ellis Richards
February 24, 2020

On 24 February 2020 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his use of the prohibited substance Clenbuterol.

In First Instance the Panel deemed that the Athlete unequivocally had confirmed to UKAD in his interview that Clenbuterol was the substance he prior had admitted using to his coaches. Also the Panel was troubled that had he retracted his admissions and rather seeked to rely upon a totally different version of events.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision of 24 February 2020 and the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel reviewed the First Instance case.

The Appeal Panel concludes that UKAD had indeed established that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation for use of Clenbuterol based on the evidence of the coaches combined with the Athlete's admissions.

Furthermore the Appeal Panel upholds the conclusion that there were no grounds for a reduced sanction, nor grounds for backdating the commencement of the suspension to the date of the sample collection.

Therefore the Appeal Panel decides on 5 May 2021 to dismiss the Athlete's Appeal and to confirm the Decision of 24 February 2020 of the National Anti-Doping Panel.

Related case:

UKAD 2020 Ellis Richards vs UKAD - Appeal
May 5, 2021

After sample collection in August 2018 the rugby player Ellis Richards told his condition coach and his head coach that he had taken a sip of a pre-workout drink immediately before the test. When interviewed by United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) they could not remember exactly what substance the Athlete had named in this matter.

Analysis of the Athlete's sample in October 2018 revealed not the presence of any prohibited substances. The Athlete was interviewed by UKAD in November 2018 where he accepted that he had made an admission to the coaches of taking the prohibited substance Clenbuterol.

Consequently the Athlete was removed of the rugby team and hereafter in May 2019 the UKAD reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for the use of the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete denied the use of Clenbuterol although he acknowledged that he made an admission about his use to his coaches. The Athlete asserted that he had used some tablets that he had found in the changing room of a gym. After having experienced chest pains and conducting some online research his speculative conclusion was that it must have been Clenbuterol.

UKAD contended that the Athlete had made a clear and unambiguous admission in this case which he has subsequently attempted to retract. As a result the reliability of the Athlete's initial admission against the reliability of the subsequent retraction needed to be considered by the Panel.

The Panel holds that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Also the Panel was troubled about the Athlete's "gym" explanation since he had retracted his 2 part admission and rather seeked to rely upon a totally different version of events.

By contrast the Panel is willing to accept the statements of the coaches with their version of events. Also the Athlete had unequivocally confirmed to UKAD in his interview that Clenbuterol was the substance he admitted using to his coaches.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 24 February 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 May 2019.

Medals, Diplomas and Medallist Pins Reallocation 

• Olympic Games London 2012
• Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018

/ International Olympic Committee Executive Board (EB). - Lausanne : International Olympic Committee (IOC), 2021

The IOC Executive Board (EB) took the decision to reallocate medals, diplomas and medallist pins from the Olympic Games London 2012 and the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018, based on decisions made by the IOC Disciplinary Commission and the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Following the disqualification of certain athletes, the results have been adjusted accordingly by the International Federations involved.

In the men’s 69kg weightlifting event at London 2012, the third-placed and sixth-placed athletes have been disqualified, so the bronze medal is reallocated to Myong Hyok Kim of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the subsequent ranking until eighth place has been adjusted.

In the women’s 69kg weightlifting event at London 2012, the second-placed, third-placed and fourth-placed athletes have been disqualified. 

As the reallocation of medals can be undertaken only if the athletes concerned are not currently under suspension for an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) and/or no anti-doping proceedings are currently initiated against them, the IOC EB decided not to reallocate the silver medal to Anna Nurmukhambetova of Kazakhstan at the present time, as she is currently suspended for an ADRV until 17 September 2023.

The bronze medal is reallocated to Ubaldina Valoyes Cuesta of Colombia, and the subsequent ranking until eighth place has been adjusted.

Other diplomas and medallist pins from London 2012 and PyeongChang 2018 have also been reallocated. 

For reference, the reallocation of medals is not automatic and is decided by the IOC on a case-by-case basis. If the IOC decides to reallocate the medals, this takes place only after all the remedies of the sanctioned athletes or teams have been exhausted and once all procedures are closed.

Where such samples are available, at least one sample from any athlete bumped up should be reanalysed and confirmed negative. If no sample is available to be re-analysed, the athlete is given the benefit of the doubt.

Since 2018, athletes can choose from six options for receiving their reallocated medals in a way that recognises their achievements. This is in accordance with the Olympic Medal Reallocation Principles that were proposed by the IOC Athletes’ Commission and subsequently approved by the IOC EB.