Calbet JA, Lundby C, Koskolou M, Boushel R. Importance of hemoglobin concentration to exercise: acute manipulations. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2006 Apr 28;151(2-3):132-40. Epub 2006 Mar 3.
Schmidt W, Prommer N. Impact of alterations in total hemoglobin mass on VO2-max. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2010 Apr;38(2):68-75.
Brien AJ, Simon TL. The effects of red blood cell infusion on 10-km race time. JAMA. 1987 May 22-29;257(20):2761-5.
Borrione P, Mastrone A, Salvo RA, Spaccamiglio A, Grasso L, Angeli A. Oxygen delivery enhancers: past, present, and future. J Endocrinol Invest. 2008 Feb;31(2):185-92.
CAS 2008/A/1471 FINA vs Tagliaferri and Federazione Italiana Nuoto CAS 2008/A/1486 WADA v/ CONI and Tagliaferri CAS 2008/A/1471 Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) v. Marco Tagliaferri & Federazione Italiana Nuoto (FIN) and CAS 2008/A/1486 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI) & Marco Tagliaferri Aquatics (water polo) Doping (stanozolol) Legitimate interest to have a decision reviewed by the CAS Mitigation of the penalty due to the fact that the athlete was minor Principle of lex mitior in a doping case 1. The applicable regulations provide that every “interested party” has the right to appeal against decisions by the highest national decision-making body in doping disputes irrespective of whether said “interested party” was a party to the proceedings, in which the decision appealed against was pronounced. Nor does the provision stipulate any limitation to the right to appeal in terms of the “kind” of decision. Whether or not the decision issued deals with procedural issues only is, therefore, irrelevant for the right of appeal. However, not only the wording, but also the intent and purpose of the relevant provision, are a reason for interpreting the right of appeal broadly. The broad right of appeal is supposed to allow all doping-related decisions to be reviewed in order to help harmonize the decisions and to contribute to an equal treatment of all athletes. Even if the decision-making body decided not to punish an athlete for procedural reasons, this does not alter the “nature of the dispute”. It is and remains a doping matter with the consequence that the International Federation and the World Anti-Doping Agency have a legitimate interest to also have this decision reviewed by the CAS. 2. In order to apply mitigating grounds, the athlete has to establish how and because of which surrounding circumstances the prohibited substance was present to the athlete’s body. Whether and how often the athlete ingested the prohibited substance is irrelevant for the extent of the penalty. The fact that the athlete was a minor at the time of the positive doping sample is, in itself, no reason to mitigate the penalty. 3. Because of the principle of lex mitior, the rule that is more favourable to the athlete can be resorted to, even if it was not in force at the time the offence was committed. _________________________________________________ On 21 July 2006 the Disciplinary Commission of the Italian Swimming Federation (FIN) decided to revoke to provisional suspension of the minor swimmer Marco Tagliaferri after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. Here his father had administrated without the Athlete’s knowledge the prohibited substance which FIN sanctioned with a lifetime ban. When appealed by the International Swimming Federation (FINA) the FIN Appeals Commission decided on 6 November 2007 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Athlete appealed the FIN Appeals Commission decision with the CONI Giudice di Ultima Instanza in Materia di Doping (the CONI Anti-Doping Supreme Court) and on 10 January 2008 the CONI GUI decided to set aside the FIN Appeals Commission decision on the basis that the FINA appeal was inadmissible. Hereafter in January and in February 2008 both FINA and WADA appealed the CONI GUI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). FINA and WADA requested the Panel to annul the CONI GUI decision of 10 January 2008 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Panel concludes that the CONI GUI decision of 10 January 2008 was erroneous and must be set aside because the FINA appeal with the Italian FIN Appeals Commission was filed within the time limit and therefore not inadmissible. The Panel rules that as a result of all the inconsistencies in the presentation of the facts, it has not been established to the Panel’s comfortable satisfaction how, and because of what circumstances, the substance Stanozolol entered the Athlete’s system. The fact that the Athlete was a minor at the time is no reason for a reduced sanction. The Panel finds that a 2 year period of ineligibility muse be imposed back dated and taking into account the time already served by the Athlete. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 February 2009: 1.) The appeal of the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Giudice di Ultima Istanza in Materia di Doping (GUI) dated 10 January 2008 is admissible. 2.) The appeal of the Federation Internationale de Natation against the decision of the Giudice di Ultima Istanza in Materia di Doping (GUI) dated 10 January 2008 is admissible inasmuch as it is directed against Mr Marco Tagliaferri. Insofar as the appeal is directed against the Federazione Italiana Nuoto (FIN) it is dismissed. 3.) The decision issued by the Giudice di Ultima Istanza in Materia di Doping (GUI) is set aside. 4.) The Player, Mr Marco Tagliaferri, is declared ineligible from 1 May 2008 until 30 November 2009. 5.) All competitive results obtained by Marco Tagliaferri from 16 March 2006 through 19 December 2008 shall be disqualified with all of the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes. 6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed. 7.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for each of the court office fees of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss francs) paid by WADA and by FINA, which are retained by CAS.
CAS 2003/A/459 Van Herk v/FINA On 9 September 2002 the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal Dutch Swimming Federation (KNZB) decided to impose a 4 year period perod of ineligibility on the minor Dutch swimmer (14) Linda van Herk for committing an anti-doping rule violation. 6 months of this sanction was unconditional and 42 months with a probation period of 2 years. Here the Athlete failed to provide a sample despite several attempts. The Athlete's father requested to stop the sample collection due to business appointments and she left the Doping Control Station after she was warned about the consequences of her refusal. In September 2002 the Appellant appealed the KNZB decision and on 26 October 2002 the KNZB Appeal Committee decided to annul the decision of the KNZB Disciplinary Committee, and acquit the Athlete. When referred to FINA the Disciplinary Committee decided on 11 April 2003 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for her refusal to provide a sample. Hereafter in July 2003 the Athlete appealed the FINA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Panel considered the arguments filed by the Athlete and finds that it has jurisdiction in this case and that the admitted departure by the KNZB from the doping control procedures is certainly regrettble. However the Panel holds that the non-compliance by officials with the procedures does not justifies an acquittal of the Athlete. Considering the circumstances the Panel concludes that the Athlete intentionally refused to submit to doping control by providing a sample and that there are grounds for a reduced sanction. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 October 2003: 1.) The appeal filed by ihe Appellant on 8 July 2002 is upheld in part and the decision of the FINA Doping Panel varied in part. 2.) The Appellant's suspension is reduced to one-year period to expire on 25 October 2003. The FINA Doping Panel's decision otherwise stands. 3.) The award is pronounced without costs. except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500.-- (five hundred Swiss francs) aheady paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS.
Ekblom B, Goldbarg AN, Gullbring B. Response to exercise after blood loss and reinfusion. J Appl Physiol. 1972 Aug;33(2):175-80.
Blood doping and erythropoietin. The effects of variation in hemoglobin concentration and other related factors on physical performance.
Ekblom B. Blood doping and erythropoietin. The effects of variation in hemoglobin concentration and other related factors on physical performance. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(6 Suppl):S40-2.
Ashenden MJ, Schumacher YO, Sharpe K, Varlet-Marie E, Audran M. Effects of Hemopure on maximal oxygen uptake and endurance performance in healthy humans. Int J Sports Med. 2007 May;28(5):381-5. Epub 2006 Oct 6.
CAS 2005/A/830 G. Squizzato v/ FINA CAS 2005/A/830 S. v. FINA Swimming Doping (clostebol) Strict liability Duty of diligence Proportionality of the sanction 1. Under the FINA Doping Policy, an offence has been committed when it has been established that a prohibited substance was present in the athlete’s body. There is thus a legal presumption that the athlete is responsible for the mere presence of a prohibited substance. The burden of proof lies within FINA and its Member Federation to establish that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. 2. An athlete fails to abide by his/her duty of diligence if, with a simple check, he/she could have realised that the medical product he/she was using contained a prohibited substance, the latter being indicated on the product itself both on the packaging and on the notice of use. Furthermore, it is indeed negligent for an athlete willing to compete in continental or world events to use a medical product without the advice of a doctor or, at the very least, a physiotherapist. However, if it appears that the athlete had no intention whatsoever to gain advantage towards the other competitors, his/her negligence in forgetting to check the content of the medical product can be considered as mild in comparison with an athlete that is using a doping product in order to gain such advantage. Accordingly, although it cannot be considered that the athlete bears no fault or negligence in such a case, it can be held that he/she bears no significant fault or negligence, which opens the door to a reduced sanction. 3. Substantial elements of the doctrine of proportionality have been implemented in the body of rules and regulations of many national and international sport federations by adopting the World Anti-Doping Code, which provides a mechanism for reducing or eliminating sanctions i.a. in cases of “no fault or negligence” or “no significant fault or negligence” on the part of the suspected athlete. However, the mere adoption of the WADA Code by a respective Federation does not force the conclusion that there is no other possibility for greater or lesser reduction of a sanction. 4. A mere “uncomfortable feeling” alone that a one year penalty is not the appropriate sanction cannot itself justify a reduction of the sanction. The individual circumstances of each case must always hold sway in determining any possible reduction. Nevertheless, the implementation of the principle of proportionality as given in the WADA Code closes more than ever before the door to reducing fixed sanctions. Therefore, the principle of proportionality would apply if the award were to constitute an attack on personal rights which was serious and totally disproportionate to the behaviour penalised. _________________________________________________ In September 2004 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Gioriga Squizzato after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clostebol. On 9 December the FINA Doping Panel decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision. Hereafter in February 2005 the Athlete appealed the FINA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete argued that the violation was non intentional and admitted that she had used a cream to her foot as treatment for her skin condition which does not enhance her performance. On this basis, she claims that she did not commit any fault nor she had been negligent. She requests the Panel to acquit her from the charge, or in any event, to reduce the sanction. The Panel finds that the Athlete certainly established how the prohibited substance entered her system; however she failed to abide by her duty of diligence. With a simple check, she could have realised that the cream was containing a doping agent, as clostebol is indicated on the product itself both on the packaging and on the notice of use. At least she could have asked her doctor, coach or any other competent person to double-check the contents of the cream bought by her mother. As the Athlete was effectively suspended from 30 September 2004 onwards, the Panel is of the opinion that fairness requires that the sanction should not last more than one year and should therefore end on September 30, 2005. Therefore, as requested by the Athlete, the commencement of the sanction shall be September 30, 2004 and not December 9, 2004. On 15 July 2005 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides that: 1.) The appeal filed by the Athlete is partially upheld. 2.) The decision of the FINA is confirmed with the exception of the commencement of the sanction that shall be September 30, 2004. (…)