Incongruence in Doping Related Attitudes, Beliefs and Opinions in the Context of Discordant Behavioural Data: In Which Measure Do We Trust?

26 Apr 2011

Incongruence in Doping Related Attitudes, Beliefs and Opinions in the Context of Discordant Behavioural Data: In Which Measure Do We Trust? / Andrea Petroczi, Martina Uvacsek, Tamas Nepusz, Nawed Deshmukh, Iltaf Shah, Eugene V. Aidman, James Barker, Miklos Toth, Declan P. Naughton (2011)
PLoS ONE 6(4): e18804. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018804

Social psychology research on doping and outcome based evaluation of primary anti-doping prevention and intervention programmes have been dominated by self-reports. Having confidence in the validity and reliability of such data is vital.

Methodology/Principal Findings
The sample of 82 athletes from 30 sports (52.4% female, mean age: 21.48±2.86 years) was split into quasi-experimental groups based on i) self-admitted previous experience with prohibited performance enhancing drugs (PED) and ii) the presence of at least one prohibited PED in hair covering up to 6 months prior to data collection. Participants responded to questionnaires assessing a range of social cognitive determinants of doping via self-reports; and completed a modified version of the Brief Implicit Association Test (BIAT) assessing implicit attitudes to doping relative to the acceptable nutritional supplements (NS). Social projection regarding NS was used as control.

PEDs were detected in hair samples from 10 athletes (12% prevalence), none of whom admitted doping use. This group of ‘deniers’ was characterised by a dissociation between explicit (verbal declarations) and implicit (BIAT) responding, while convergence was observed in the ‘clean’ athlete group. This dissociation, if replicated, may act as a cognitive marker of the denier group, with promising applications of the combined explicit-implicit cognitive protocol as a proxy in lieu of biochemical detection methods in social science research. Overall, discrepancies in the relationship between declared doping-related opinion and implicit doping attitudes were observed between the groups, with control measures remaining unaffected. Questionnaire responses showed a pattern consistent with self-reported doping use.

Following our preliminary work, this study provides further evidence that both self-reports on behaviour and social cognitive measures could be affected by some form of response bias. This can question the validity of self-reports, with reliability remaining unaffected. Triangulation of various assessment methods is recommended.

Mediating Mechanisms in a Program to Reduce Intentions to Use Anabolic Steroids and Improve Exercise Self-Efficacy and Dietary Behavior

31 Jan 2001

David P. MacKinnon, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, e.a.
Prevention Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2001

This study investigated the mediating mechanisms responsible for the effects of a program designed to reduce intentions to use anabolic steroids, improve nutrition, and increase strength training self-efficacy.

Fifteen of 31 high school football teams (N D 1,506 players at baseline) in Oregon and Washington were assigned to receive the intervention. The multicomponent program addressed the social influences promoting ergogenic drug use and engaging students in healthy nutrition and strength training alternative behaviors. Although the results differed across the three dependent variables, the program appeared to work by changing team norms.

Unlike prevention of other drugs, changes in knowledge and perceived severity were mediators of program effects in this study.

Psychological drivers in doping: The life-cycle model of performance enhancement

10 Mar 2008

Psychological drivers in doping : The life-cycle model of performance enhancement / Andrea Petróczi and Eugene Aidman
Kingston University, Faculty of Science, School of Life Sciences - UK & University of Adelaide, School of Psychology, Australia
Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2008 Mar 10;3:7.

Performance enhancement (PE) is a natural and essential ingredient of competitive sport. Except for nutritional supplement contamination, accidental use of doping is highly unlikely. It requires deliberation, planning and commitment; and is influenced by a host of protective and risk factors.

In the course of their career, athletes constantly set goals and make choices regarding the way these goals can be achieved. The cycle of choice - goal commitment - execution - feedback on goal attainment - goal evaluation/adjustment has numerous exit points, each providing an opportunity for behaviour change, which may or may not be related to the use of prohibited methods. The interplay between facilitating and inhibiting systemic and personality factors, constantly influenced by situational factors could result in an outcome vector of 'doping attitudes', which combines with subjective norms to influence intentions to choose prohibited PE methods. These influences also vary from one stage of athlete development to the next, making some athletes more vulnerable to engaging in doping practices than others, and more vulnerable at certain time periods - and not others.

Model-testing requires a series of carefully planned and coordinated studies. Correlational studies can establish relationships where the directionality is not-known or not important. Experimental studies with the manipulation of doping expectancies and risk factors can be used to demonstrate causality and evaluate potential intervention strategies. The final model can be tested via a behavioural simulation, with outcomes compared to those expected from literature precedence or used as a simulated computer game for empirical data collection.

A hypothesized life-cycle model of PE identifies vulnerability factors across the stages of athlete development with the view of informing the design of anti-doping assessment and intervention. The model suggests that, instead of focusing on the actual engagement in prohibited PE practices, deterrence strategies are likely to be more effective if they target the influencing factors at the appropriate stage and identify groups of athletes and their respective career stages, which pose particular risks of engagement in doping practices. This enables a more effective intervention approach by targeting specific risk factors and expectancies.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

CAS 2011_A_2612 Liao Hui vs IWF

23 Jul 2012

CAS 2011/A/2612 Liao Hui v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)

Related case:
Swiss Federal Court 4A_576_2012 Liao Hui vs IWF
February 28, 2013

Doping (boldenone)
Conditions for the admissibility of a request for declaratory relief
Internal and external chain of custody according to the WADA Technical Document TD2009LCOC
Compatibility of the standard sanction rule of an international federation with the WADC
Legal relationship between an international federation and WADA or the IOC
Principle of hierarchy of norms under Swiss law
Special situation in a particular sport as “aggravating circumstance” according to the WADC

1. A request for declaratory relief is – in line with the Article 182 PILA - only admissible under two conditions. First, the purpose of the declaratory relief must be aimed at clarifying the (non-)existence of a legal relationship between the parties. Declaratory relief sought in relation to facts or general questions of law are, therefore, not admissible. In addition, the party requesting declaratory relief must show a special legal interest to obtain the respective declaration from the arbitral tribunal.

2. According to the WADA Technical Document TD2009LCOC there is an internal and an external chain of custody. The WADA Technical Document TD2009LCOC does not establish any prerequisites or conditions for the latter. The addressees of this document are the WADA-accredited laboratories, which are by their very nature not involved in the sample collection process and, therefore, cannot document the external chain of custody.

4. The wording of Art. 10.2 of the IWF Anti-Doping Policy (ADP) and Art. 10.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) is different. A standard doping sanction of two (2) years is significantly different than a standard sanction of four (4) years. This is all the more true, since the requirements listed in the WADC are – in principle – not only to be construed as minimum standards but also as maximum standards. The four year standard sanction in the IWF ADP is, thus, a “substantive change”, which is not “mitigated” by a deviating standing practice of the IWF.

5. The legal relationships between an international federation and WADA or the IOC on the one hand are distinct from the contractual relationship between an athlete and an international federation on the other hand. The latter is solely governed by the federation’s regulations (including the documents referred therein) and subsidiarily by Swiss law. Whether or not the international federation is in breach towards third parties in respect of the way it enacted its anti-doping policy is, therefore, in principle of no avail for the legal relationship between the athlete and the federation, since the legal effects arising from the different contractual relationships are, in principle confined to the parties of that legal relationship. Hence, the WADC is – even if the relevant international federation is a signatory to the WADC - not a document that by its very nature is directly applicable between said federation and its affiliated athletes.

6. According to the principle of hierarchy of norms, and subject to well-defined exceptions, rules and resolutions enacted by an association must be in compliance with the highest regulatory framework, i.e. the statutes of the associations. In case of contradiction between lower ranking norms and the statutes it is the latter – subject to well-defined exceptions - that take precedence.

7. The comments to Art. 10.6 IWF ADP / WADC do not refer in the context of “aggravated circumstances” to the general circumstances and conditions in a particular sport or within a specific federation as such. The fact that some sports may have a more nuanced doping problem as others is, therefore, of no avail in the context of this provision. According to the rationale of the WADC, differences between various sports cannot command nor justify a different regime on sanctions.

The CAS Panel concludes that:

- the Appellant committed an anti-doping rule violation (presence of boldenone / boldenone metabolites in his bodily specimen);
- the period of ineligibility to be imposed upon the Appellant is to be reduced from four (4) to two (2) years; and
- all other prayers for relief are rejected or dismissed.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 23 July 2012:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Liao Hui on 25 October 2011 is upheld insofar as the Appellant requests the Panel to set aside the decision rendered by the IWF Doping Hearing Panel and to declare that he shall be suspended for a period of two (2) years.
2.) The period of ineligibility imposed by the IWF Doping Hearing Panel on Mr Liao Hui is reduced from four (4) years ineligibility to two (2) years ineligibility.
3.) (…)
4.) (…)
5.) All other or further prayers of relief are dismissed.

CAS 2009_A_1914 WADA vs IFBB & Kelli Johnson

1 Feb 2010

CAS 2009/A/1914 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. International Federation of Bodybuilding & Fitness (IFBB) & Kelli Johnson

Doping (possession of prohibited substances)
Applicable law
Scope of the appeal
Significant fault or negligence excluding a reduction of the sanction
Admission of a doping offense as mitigating circumstances justifying a reduction of the sanction
Credit for delays in the proceedings not attributable to the athlete

1. If the rules contained in the three different versions of a federation’s Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) for 2007, 2008, 2009 are in all material respects the same in respect of the anti-doping violations committed by an athlete, the findings of violations are not affected by the fact that a federation hearing body may have been having regard to the wrong edition of the ADR. The fact that the last edition of the ADR contain different provisions in respect of penalties is not material in considering the violations alleged. Unlike the substantive anti-doping rules, the new procedural rules adopted by the federation apply as of the day of their entry into force.

2. The matter before the CAS panel is an appeal against the decision of the federation’s hearing body which was dealing with a specific allegation and found specific facts. It is not possible for WADA to seek to bring into the appeal matters with which the athlete was never charged and to seek to base the introduction of these matters on a copy of a document which was not in existence at the time of the federation’s hearing, the provenance of which was not the subject of any evidence.

3. So far as the “no significant fault” provision is concerned, it is well established that to benefit from a reduction of the otherwise applicable sanction an athlete must establish that s/he did not know or suspect and could not reasonably have known or suspected, even with the exercise of the utmost caution, that s/he had used or been administered the prohibited substance. The burden on an athlete seeking to establish “no significant fault or negligence” is high. Athletes are notably responsible for the choice of their medical personnel. The failure for a doctor to check the prescribed substance does not exclude the personal responsibility of the athlete especially if no evidence establish that the latter had taken any steps by way of precaution.

4. An athlete’s “admissions” of a doping offence cannot be taken into account as basis for mitigating the applicable penalty when such admissions are made because of the findings of the offending products in the athlete’s possession by the national customs.

5. Under the IFBB ADR, for a first violation, possession of prohibited substances should be sanctioned by a period of two years. If there have been delays in the proceedings which cannot in any way be attributed to the athlete, fairness requires that not only should the athlete be given credit for the period of ineligibility already served but that the remaining period should be treated as commencing before the date on which the decision is published.

This arbitration concerns the penalty of 6 months ineligibility imposed on Ms Johnson by a decision of the IFBB Hearing Panel dated 7 December 2008 for her violation of the IFBB Anti-Doping Rules ("IFBB ADR").

On September 26, 2007, an inspector of the Australian customs found some medication in Ms Johnson's possession as she was returning from the 2007 Women's World Bodybuilding, Fitness and Bodyfitness Championships which had been held in Santa Susana, Spain on 21 to
23 September 2007. The products found in her possession were testosterone and dehydroepiandrosterone ("DHEA").

The case was reported to the Australian Sport Anti-Doping Agency ("ASADA"), which decided to enter the details of this matter onto its Register of Findings and to inform IFBB of these details. Ms Johnson did not have any Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for either of these substances. By its decision dated 7 December 2008, the IFBB Hearing Panel imposed on Ms Johnson a six month period of ineligibility for her violation of the anti-doping rules. That penalty was a reduction from the usual sanction of two years ineligibility.

Hereafter in July 2009 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the IFBB decision of 7 December 2008 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 February 2010:

1.) The appeal of the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the IFBB Hearing Panel rendered on 7 December 2008 is allowed.
2.) Ms Kelli Johnson is sanctioned with a two year period of ineligibility, the period of six months ineligibility which she has already served being credited against that period and the remaining period of 18 months should be treated as commencing six months before the date of this award.
3.) All competitive results obtained by Ms Kelli Johnson from 7 September 2008 to the date of this award shall be disqualified with the consequent forfeiture of any medals, points or prizes.
4.) (…).
5. Any further claims for relief are dismissed.

CAS A4_2006 AWF vs Camilla Fogagnolo

22 Feb 2006

CAS A4/2006 Australian Weightlifting Federation vs Camilla Fogagnolo

In October 2005 the Applicant conducted the 2005 Australian Open Weightlifting Championships in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. The Respondent competed in the 75kg Women's category finishing in second (2nd) place. On 30 October 2005 the Respondent was tested in accordance with the Applicant's ADP. The results of the tests of the "A" and "B" samples, completed on 15 November 2005 and 1
December 2005 respectively, revealed the presence of Benzylpiperazine (BZP). BZP is a stimulant but is not specifically referred to in Schedule S.6 of the 2005 Prohibited List of the Code. It is regarded as being included, however, because of the definition "stimulant and the use of the words "and other substances with a
similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)." It is a substance with similar structure or biological effect(s) to amphetamines, which are included in Schedule S.6.

There was no challenge by the Respondent to the tests conducted by the Australian Sports Drug Testing Laboratory and the results obtained, nor was there any challenge to the Applicant's assertion that BZP has a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s) to the stimulant known as amphetamine, nor that BZP is a prohibited substance as defined by the Code.

As a result of the positive tests, the Applicant lodged an Application for a Provisional Suspension of the Respondent with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Application was lodged pursuant to Articles 10 and 11 of the Applicant's ADP. The Applicant and the Respondent both agreed to the jurisdiction of CAS and a Provisional Hearing was held on 14 December 2005 (CAS A5/2005). The Application for Provisional Suspension by the Respondent was dismissed. The reason for the dismissal of the application was that the Respondent would be incurably prejudiced if she was prevented from competing in the selection trials for the Commonwealth Games to be held in Melbourne in March 2006, which trials were scheduled for 17 December 2005, a date prior to any possible hearing of the allegation of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation before the Court. The prejudice would clearly arise as there was no other opportunity for the Respondent to compete prior to the deadline for selection of the team on 15 February 2006.

On 20 January 2006 the Applicant lodged and served an Application alleging an Anti-Doping Rule Violation against the Respondent, with CAS.

CAS A3_2007 ASADA vs Belinda van Tienen

16 Jun 2008

CAS A3/2007 ASADA v/ Belinda Van Tienen

In June 2005, as a member of the AWF, the Respondent represented Australia at the Mermet Cup Weightlifting event in the United States. The competition was held between 24 and 26 June 2005, At 6.33 p.m. on 25 June 2005, the Respondent received notification from the United States Anti-Doping Agency that she would have to provide an In-competition urine sample for drug testing. She provided that sample. The sample was tested for a number of substances (with negative results) at the University of California Los Angeles Olympic Drug Testing Laboratory of UCLA"). The sample was not tested for the presence of Benzylpiperazine ("BZP"). At the time, SZP was not a target substance in the UCLA screenlng procedure for stimulants. The data obtained from the testing of the sample was retained electronically by UCLA but the actual sample itself was discarded in accordance with WADA protocol. The same situation pertained to other Australian Weightlifters who competed at the Mermet Cup event.

As a result of the investigation, the Applicant requested UCLA to review the results of analysis of a number of samples of urine taken from Australian Weightlifters at the Mermet Cup Competition between 24-26 June 2005, including the sample provided by the Respondent, to specifically check for the substance BZP. Although the urine samples had been destroyed, UCLA still had the analytical data from the screening performed on these samples stored in its computer files. To accommodate the Applicant's request to determine whether or not any of the samples contained BZP, UCLA obtained a reference Standard of BZP and then compared the retention time and chromatogram of that reference Standard with the data from the Respondent's sample. That analysis established that the A sample of the Respondent contained BZP. The same analysis detected BZP in the A samples of other Australian weightlifters In the Mermet Cup event.

Bigger, Stronger, Faster - the side effects of being american

30 May 2008

In America, we define ourselves in the superlative: we are the biggest, strongest, fastest country in the world. Is it any wonder that so many of our heroes are on performance enhancing drugs?

Director Christopher Bell explores America's win-at-all-cost culture by examining how his two brothers became members of the steroid subculture in an effort to realize their American dream.

Director: Chris Bell
Released by: Magnolia Pictures, 2008

show » details »

American Roulette - Contaminated Dietary Supplements

15 Oct 2007

Pieter A. Cohen American Roulette - Contaminated Dietary
Supplements. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:1523-1525, 15 October, 2009.

In August 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) discovered products, most of them labeled as dietary supplements, that contain a wide variety of undeclared active pharmaceutical ingredients. Now, more than 140 contaminated products have been identified, but these represent only a fraction of the contaminated supplements on the market. Unfortunately, lenient regulatory oversight of dietary supplements, combined with the FDA's lack of resources, has created a marketplace in which manufacturers can introduce hazardous new products with virtual impunity. Although manufacturers have since 2007 been required to report serious supplement related adverse events to the FDA, the great majority of the estimated 50,000 adverse events that occur annually remain unreported.

Why Calories Count. From Science to Politics

18 Apr 2012

Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim. Why calories count. From science to politics. University of California Press, 2012.

Calories - too few or too many - are the source of health problems affecting billions of people around the world. Although calories are vital to health and survival, they cannot be seen, smelled or tasted, making them hard to understand. In Why Calories Count, Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim explain in clear and accessible language what calories are and how they work in food, in the body, in society, and in the world. As they take readers through the issues that are fundamental to our understanding of food and diet, weight gain and loss, Nestle and Nesheim sort through the misinformation put forth by food manufacturers and diet promotors. They lay out the political stakes and show how federal and corporate policies have come together to create an 'eat more' environment. Finally, having given readers the necessary tools to interpret food labels, evaluate diet claims, and understand evidence as presented in popular media, the authors offer some candid advice about coping with today's food environment: Eat less. Eat better. Move more. Get political.

  • 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