Beyond Consent? Paternalism and Pediatric Doping

19 Jan 2012

Beyond Consent? Paternalism and Pediatric Doping / Mike McNamee. - (Journal of the Philosophy of Sport36 (2009) 2; p. 111-126)

  • DOI: 10.1080/00948705.2009.9714751


Abstract: 

In this essay, I argue that the issue of pediatric/adolescent doping is one that merits serious philosophical attention. I consider whether an adolescent who is legally competent to consent to medical pharmacologies such as contraceptive pills ought to be allowed to consent to doping products. I first discuss issues of vulnerability and exploitation of adolescent athletes that might underwrite a soft paternalistic response. I go on to argue that the harms attendant to doping, as opposed to the regulated use of the medical profession to prescribe oral contraceptives, are of a potentially greater magnitude to the successful adolescent patient/sportsperson themselves in contrast to therelatively well known risks of contraception. I also argue that the complexity of the weighing of potential harms and benefits are such that informed consent cannot be reached by adolescents. Moreover, given the public prominence of the WADA antidoping legislation, and the general public support for them, there will necessarily be a lack of transparency in the potential consent process, which undermines any audit for the accountability of the consent process. I conclude that Gillick competence ought not, therefore, to be viewed as a precedent for pediatric or adolescent consent to doping and that the “weak” or “soft” paternalistic prevention of doping is justified.

When better is worse. On the therapy/enhancement distinction in sports

31 May 2016

When better is worse. On the therapy/enhancement distinction in sports / Alberto Carrio Sampedro. - (Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 9 (2015) 4; p. 413-426) 

  • DOI: 10.1080/17511321.2015.1130741

Abstract

The standard therapy/enhancement distinction is usually related to health purposes and some sense of normality. In this paper, I will challenge the basis of the distinction arguing that only the first part of it is related to health and, consequently, the distinction should be better understood as differentiating between qualitative and quantitative consequences of interventions. As health and normality are broad concepts inside of which it is possible to make some ulterior distinctions, I will propose three different senses of normality in order to more easily grasp the therapy/enhancement distinction. As with the distinction between therapy and enhancement, the difference between sports- and non-sports-persons is usually stated in terms of health and normality. I will challenge this assumption, too. In my opinion, the main difference between people, sportspeople and athletes should be related to the practice itself. Once the practice of a sport is taken seriously, along with its tough and demanding lifestyle, it is possible to properly analyse the distinction between people who practice and do not practice sport; the different levels at which they participate — quite obviously — have little to do with health purposes. Finally, I will revisit the standard therapy/enhancement distinction in sport in order to provide a way to easily reformulate this distinction allowing embarrassing blunders to be avoided and athletes’ health to be adequately cared for. I will conclude this paper with two open questions related to the use of the therapy/enhancement distinction for sport purposes and the challenge that it represents for some basic values of sport.

Effectiveness of Anabolic Steroid Preventative Intervention among Gym Users: Applying Theory of Planned Behavior

25 Jul 2011

Effectiveness of Anabolic Steroid Preventative Intervention among Gym Users : Applying Theory of Planned Behavior / Farzad Jalilian, Hamid Allahverdipour, Babak Moeini, Abbas Moghimbeigi. - (Health Promotion Perspectives 1 (2011) 1; p. 32-40)

  • PMID: 24688897
  • PMCID: PMC3963614
  • DOI: 10.5681/hpp.2011.002


Abstract

Background: Use of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) has been associated with adverse physical and psychiatric effects and it is known as rising problem among youth people. This study was conducted to evaluate anabolic steroids preventative intervention efficiency among gym users in Iran and theory of planned behaviour was applied as theoretical framework.

Methods: Overall, 120 male gym users participated in this study as intervention and control group. This was a longitudinal randomized pretest - posttest series control group design panel study to implement a behaviour modification based intervention to prevent AAS use. Cross -tabulation and t-test by using SPSS statistical package, version 13 was used for the statistical analysis.

Results: It was found significant improvements in average response for knowledge about side effects of AAS (P<0.001), attitude toward, and intention not to use AAS. Additionally after intervention, the rate of AAS and supplements use was decreased among intervention group.

Conclusion: Comprehensive implementation against AAS abuse among gym users and ado-lescences would be effective to improve adolescents' healthy behaviors and intend them not to use AAS.

ISU 2021 ISU vs Jan Blokhuijsen

3 Aug 2021

In May 2021 the International Skating Union (ISU) has reported a violation of the ISU Consititution and the ISU Code of Ethics against the Dutch skater Jan Blokhuijsen for his refusal to wear a mask during a blood test at his home in April 2021 in the times of the COVID-19 pandemic.

After notification the Athlete or the KNSB failed to respond against the charges filed by the ISU.

The ISU contended that the Athlete has violated Article 7 of the ISU Code of Ethics and requested the ISU Disciplinary Commission to impose a warning on the Athlete in accordance with Article 25 Paragraph 9 a) i) of the ISU Consitution.

The ISU Disciplinary Commission deems that by refusing to wear a face maks the Athlete violated WADA's rules on the protection of doping control officers. Such behaviour cannot be qualified but as irresponsible and unethical.

Therefore the ISU Disciplinary Commission decides on 3 August 2021:

  1. Mr. Jan Blokhuijsen is guilty of a misconduct and a violation of Article 7 Paragraph 1 a) and c) of the ISU Constitution in connection with WADA Guidance for testing during COVID-19 PANDEMIC and Article 3 of the ISU Code of Ethics.
  2. Mr. Jan Blokhuijsen is reprimanded and warned to not engage in similar conduct in the future, which conduct will cause a more severe action.
  3. Mr. Jan Blokhuijsen bears his own costs.

UKAD 2021 Mark Dry vs UKAD - Appeal

2 Aug 2021

Related cases:

  • UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Mark Dry
    October 8, 2019
  • UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Mark Dry - Appeal
    February 25, 2020
  • UKAD 2020 UKAD vs Mark Dry - Revision
    May 7, 2021


On 25 February 2020 the Appeal Panel of the National Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Mark Dry for Tampering. The Athlete had provided a false account to United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) as to why he was not at the address at the time after a missed test in October 2018.

In December 2020 the Athlete requested UKAD for reconsideration of his sanction in light of the 2021 World-Anti-Doping Code.

The Athlete invoked the principle of lex mitior and the provisions in the UK ADR Article 10.3.1(b) regarding  exceptional circumstances for the imposition of a reduced sanction. In addition the Athlete requested UKAD to start the sanction backdated to the date of the Doping Control, i.e on 15 October 2018.

Based on exceptional circumstances and the Athlete's light degree of Fault UKAD decided on 7 May 2021 to reduce the Athlete's period of ineligibility from 4 years to 28 months. Yet UKAD deemed that there were no grounds to start the sanction backdated to the date of the Doping Control.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the UKAD decision of 7 May 2021 with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel. The Athlete argued that the imposed sanction was completely disproportionate, that there was a lack of fraudulent behaviour on the part of the Athlete, and the sanction should have been backdated to the date of the Doping Control.

Considering the submissions of the Parties the Appeal Panel finds that there is no reason to conclude that the Appealed Decision was erroneous in the imposition of a sanction of 28 months. Also the Appeal Panel deems that there are no grounds to start the sanction backdated to the date of the Doping Control.

Therefore on 2 August 2021 the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel decides to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to confirm in full UKAD's Decision of 7 May 2021.

UKAD 2020 UKAD vs Mark Dry - Revision

7 May 2021

Related cases:

  • UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Mark Dry
    October 8, 2019
  • UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Mark Dry - Appeal
    February 25, 2020
  • UKAD 2021 Mark Dry vs UKAD - Appeal
    August 2, 2021



On 25 February 2020 the Appeal Panel of the National Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Mark Dry for Tampering. The Athlete had provided a false account to United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) as to why he was not at the address at the time after a missed test in October 2018.

The Appeal Panel concluded that the deliberate provision of false information was committed by the Athlete with the intention of evading the operation of the Rules and it disagreed with the conclusion of the Tribunal in First Instance.

Hereafter in December 2020 the Athlete requested UKAD for reconsideration of his sanction in light of the 2021 World-Anti-Doping Code.

The Athlete invoked the principle of lex mitior and the provisions in the UK ADR Article 10.3.1(b) regarding  exceptional circumstances for the imposition of a reduced sanction. In addition the Athlete requested UKAD to start the sanction backdated to the date of the Doping Control, i.e on 15 October 2018.

UKAD considers that the Appeal Panel's comment, and the Athletics Integrity Unit's (AIU) agreement with that comment, constitute exceptional circumstances that trigger a discretion to reduce the Athlete's period of ineligibility to between 2 and 4 years, depending on his degree of Fault.

In view of the Athlete's conduct UKAD deems that the Athlete's Fault lies in the middel of the light degree of Fault, corresponding to a period of ineligibility of 28 months. Yet UKAD holds that there are no grounds to start the sanction backdated to the date of the Doping Control.

Therefore UKAD decides on 7 May 2021 to reduce the Athlete's period of ineligibility from 4 years to 28 months.

World Athletics 2021 WA vs Fernanda Martins

4 Aug 2021

In July 2021 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) for World Athletics (WA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian Athlete Fernanda Martins after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal.

In this case the Parties accepted that the anti-doping rule violation was the result of the use of a contaminated supplement made at the compounding pharmacy in Brazil.

WA contended that the Athlete acted with direct intent, or recklessness because of the known escalating risks regarding contamination of supplements from compound pharmacies. Due to the Athlete's Significant Fault or Negligence WA requested for the imposition of a 4 year sanction.

The Athlete argued that she only had used prescribed supplements from one of the top doctors in the country whereas these supplements only could be obtained in Brazil from compounding pharmacies. She asserted that she had not received any warning of the risks of using compounding pharmacies nor had she received significant anti-doping training. Further she had conducted Internet research concerning the reputation of the compounding pharmacy and her doctor had a personal conversation with the pharmacy about the manufacture of products and product purity.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the violation was not intentional and that there was no evidence that the Athlete acted reckless. The Arbitrator deems that the Athlete's Fault is at the lowest end of the permissible range and that she cannot be faulted simply for using a compounding pharmacy.

Therefore the Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 4 August 2021 to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 May 2021.

As the Athlete already has served the 2 month sanction during the provisional suspension she is free to compete again.

CAS 2021_O_7668 World Athletics vs Danil Lysenko

21 May 2021

CAS 2021/O/7668 World Athletics v. Danil Lysenko

Related cases:

  • World Athletics 2019 WA vs Alexander Parkin
    February 16, 2021
  • World Athletics 2019 WA vs Artur Karamyan & Dmitry Shlyakhtin
    February 8, 2021
  • World Athletics 2019 WA vs Elena Ikonnikova (1)
    March 6, 2020
  • World Athletics 2019 WA vs Elena Ikonnikova (2)
    February 16, 2021
  • World Athletics 2019 WA vs Elena Orlova (1)
    August 21, 2020
  • World Athletics 2019 WA vs Elena Orlova (2)
    February 16, 2021


In August 2018 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation of Tampering against the Russian high jumper Danil Lysenko after the AIU had opened an investigation against the Athlete regarding his Whereabouts Failures.

With the assistance of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) the AIU discovered that the Athlete had forged medical documents to the AIU. It also concluded that RusAF officials had been involved in the provision of false explanations and forged documents to the AIU in order to explain whereabouts failures by the Athlete. 

As a result in November 2019 the AIU issued charges against Mr Dmitry Shlyakhtin (RusAF President), Mr Artum Karamyan (RusAF Board Member), and several other RusAF officials for committing multiple anti-doping rule violations: 

  • Tampering or Attempted Tampering
  • Complicity
  • Refusal or failure to report an Anti-Doping Rule Violation
  • Refusal or failure to cooperate with investigations.

All those charged by the AIU have been sanctioned and their decisions are now final and binding.

In a separate proceeding, the athlete’s coach, Evgeniy Zagorulko, admitted to violations of Tampering and Complicity in connection with the AIU’s investigation into the Lysenko whereabouts case and accepted a 4-year period of ineligibility under the applicable rules. The coach provided Substantial Assistance to the AIU in connection with the charges against Shlyakhtin and Karamyan.


The AIU referred the case against the Athlete Danil Lysenko to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

The CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete had committed multiple breaches of the Anti-Doping rules including whereabouts failures and tampering with the results management process.

The CAS Panel deems that 2 years of the 6 year period of ineligibility should be suspended on account of the Substantial Assistance that the athlete provided to the AIU in bringing charges against former RusAF officials, Dmitry Shlyakhtin and Artur Karamyan.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decides on 21 May 2021 that:

  1. The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics against Mr Danil Lysenko on 1 February 2021 is partially upheld.
  2. Mr Danil Lysenko is found to have committed (i) a first anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.4 (Whereabouts Failures) of the 2018 IAAF Anti-Doping Rules; and (ii) a second anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.5 (Tampering and/or Attempted Tampering) of the 2018 and 2019 IAAF Anti-Doping Rules.
  3. Mr Danil Lysenko is subject to a two (2) year period of ineligibility with respect to the first anti-doping rule violation (Article 2.4) and a four ( 4) year period of ineligibility
    with respect to the second anti-doping rule violation (Article 2.5).
  4. The total period of ineligibility with respect to the first and second anti-doping rule violations is six ( 6) years, starting as of the date of this Award, with credit given for the
    ineligibility period already served by Mr Danil Lysenko (i.e. from 3 August 2018).
  5. The total period of ineligibility to be served by Mr Danil Lysenko shall be suspended for a period of twenty-four (24) months in consideration of the Substantial Assistance
    provided by Mr Lysenko to the Athletics Integrity Unit, pursuant to Article 10.7.1 of the Anti-Doping Rules of the World Athletics in force from 1 January 2021.
  6. All competitive results of Mr Danil Lysenko as from 1 July 2018 until 2 August 2018 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of medals, titles,
    ranking points and prize and appearance money).
  7. The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne in their entirety by World Athletics.
  8. World Athletics and Mr Danil Lysenko shall bear their own legal costs.
  9. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

World Athletics 2021 WA vs Alex Leonardo Quiñonez

14 Jul 2021

In June 2021 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) for World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation agaist the Ecuadorian sprinter Alex Leonardo Quiñonez for his Whereabouts Filing Failures and 3 Missed Tests within a 12 month period.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the World Athletic Disciplinary Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted the violation and explained that his representative Mr Suarez made the entries in ADAMS on his behalf. The Athlete and Mr Suarez testified with evidence that 2 Missed Tests in June 2020 in September 2020 were the result of miscommunication. The failure to update the Athlete's Whereabouts filing beyond 6 May 2021 was only attributed to human error by Mr Suarez and resulted in the 3rd Missed Test on 19 May 2021.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete had admitted the violation although he had not caused or contributed to Mr Suarez's human error. Yet the Athlete remains personally responsible for the Missed Test resulting from the Filing Failure as he cannot hide behind the failure of his representative.

Further the Sole Arbitrator considered the Athlete's degree of fault in view of the inexplicable human error made by Mr Suarez and the Athlete's failure to independently check the entries in ADAMS.

Therefore the Sole Arbitrator decides on 14 July 2021 to impose a reduced 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 25 June 2021.

CAS 2021_A_7983 Brianna McNeal vs World Athletics | World Athletics vs Brianna McNeal

2 Jul 2021

CAS 2021/A/7983 Brianna McNeal v. World Athletics
CAS 2021/A/8059 World Athletics v. Brianna McNeal

Related case:

World Athletics 2021 WA vs Brianna McNeal
April 21, 2021



On 21 April 2021 the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decided to impose a 5 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for Tampering.

In this matter the AIU had established that the Athlete had provided false statements and in support had produced falisified documents in order to explain her missed test on 12 January 2020. When interviewed in August 2020 the Athlete admitted that she had altered documents.

In First Instance the Disciplinary Tribunal Panel regarded that the subjective elements of this case are very specific and exceptional. The Panel considered that the personal circumstances and trauma the Athlete was suffering at the time she committed her Tampering violation justify a reduction of her degree of Fault and reduction of the period of ineligibility for her second anti-doping rule violation.

Hereafter both the Athlete and World Athletics appealed the Decision of 21 April 2021 with the Court of Arbitratration for Sport (CAS).

After assessment of the case the CAS Panel dismissed the appeal filed by the Athlete Brianna McNeal and partially upheld the appeal filed by World Athletics. The Challenged Decision is confirmed, with one additional element.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 July 2021 that:

  1. The appeal filed by Ms Brianna McNeal on 21 May 2021 against the decision of the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal dated 21 April 2021 is dismissed.
  2. The appeal filed by World Athletics on 17 June 2021 against the decision of the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal dated 21 April 2021 is partially upheld.
  3. The decision of the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal dated 21 April 2021 is confirmed in full, with the following additional item:
    "All competitive results obtained by Ms. Brianna McNeal between 13 February 2020 and 14 August 2020 shall be disqualified with all resulting consequences includingforfeiture of any medals, titles, points, prize money and prizes."
  4. This Award is pronounced without costs, except for the CAS Court Office of CHF 1 '000 (one thousand swiss francs) paid by Ms Brianna McNeal and World Athletics which is retained by the CAS.
  5. Each Party shall bear its own legal and other costs incmTed in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
  6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
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