In October 2013 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping violation against the minors Athletes Franciso Climent and Philipp Aleksanyan after their A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.

After notification the ITF ordered a provision suspension. The Athletes filed statements in their defence and were heard for the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal.

Both minor Athletes denied any intent to cheat and attributed the positive test results to vitamin and protein supplements given to them by their coach. Later they indicated that the positive test result could be due to a pill given to them in the dressing room of the Gandia Tennis Club during August 2013, or to a contaminated vitamin supplement. They were unable to identify the pill and the person who allegedly gave it to them was identified only as a pharmacist.

The Tribunal concludes that the Athletes failed to provide clear evidence of the circumstances of the ingestion. They were not able to identify the man at their tennis club who, they said, provided the pills. They also failed to make proper enquiries about the content of the pills and supplements they ingested.

Therefore the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athletes, starting on the date of their provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 November 2013.

The International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping violation against the Athlete Nuria Llagostera Vives after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance d-methamphetamine.
After notification the ITF ordered a provisional suspension. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete did not hold a valid TUE for d-amphetamine and was not able to demonstrate how the d-amphetamine entered her system. She was, therefore, unable to satisfy the preconditions for mitigation under article 10.5.1 or 10.5.2 of the Programme.

Therefore the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 September 2013.

• CAS 2013/A/3327 Marin Cilic v. International Tennis Federation (ITF)
• CAS 2013/A/3335 International Tennis Federation (ITF) v. Marin Cilic

Related case:

ITF 2013 ITF vs Marin Čilić
September 23, 2013

• Tennis
• Doping (nikethamide)
• Principles applicable to the length of the period of ineligibility
• Circumstances in which a full standard of care apply to the athlete
• Circumstances in which a lighter standard of care apply to the athlete, with exceptions
• Subjective element of the level of fault in an anti-doping rule violation
• Elements other than fault and violation of the principle of proportionality
  
  

1. The decisive criterion based on which the period of ineligibility shall be determined within the applicable range of sanctions is fault. There are three degrees of fault which can be applied to the possible sanction range of 0 – 24 months: (a) significant degree of or considerable fault, with a sanction range from 16 to 24 months, and a “standard” significant fault leading to a suspension of 20 months; (b) normal degree of fault, with a sanction range from 8 to 16 months, and a “standard” normal degree of fault leading to a suspension of 12 months; (c) light degree of fault, with a sanction range from 0 to 8 months, and a “standard” light degree of fault leading to a suspension of 4 months. In order to determine into which category of fault a particular case might fall, it is helpful to consider both the objective and the subjective level of fault. The objective element describes what standard of care could have been expected from a reasonable person in the athlete’s situation. The subjective element describes what could have been expected from that particular athlete, in light of his personal capacities. The objective element should be foremost in determining into which of the three relevant categories a particular case falls. The subjective element can then be used to move a particular athlete up or down within that category. In exceptional cases, it may be that the subjective elements are so significant that they move a particular athlete not only to the extremity of a particular category, but also into a different category altogether. That would be the exception to the rule, however.

2. An athlete can be reasonably expected to follow all of the following steps:
(i) read the label of the product used (or otherwise ascertain the ingredients),
(ii) cross-check all the ingredients on the label with the list of prohibited substances,
(iii) make an internet search of the product,
(iv) ensure the product is reliably sourced and
(v) consult appropriate experts in these matters and instruct them diligently before consuming the product, in the following circumstances:
- (a) for substances that are prohibited at all times (both in and out-of-competition), because these products are particularly likely to distort competition, and
- (b) for substances prohibited in-competition only, when the prohibited substance is taken by the athlete in-competition.

3. When the substance prohibited in-competition is taken by the athlete out-of-competition (but the athlete tests positive in-competition), a lighter standard of care should apply, as the illicit behaviour lies in the fact that the athlete returned to competition too early, or at least earlier than when the substance he had taken out-of-competition had cleared his system for drug testing purposes in competition. In such cases, the level of fault is different from the outset. Requiring from an athlete not to ingest the substance at all would be to enlarge the list of substances prohibited at all times to include the substances contained in the in-competition list. However, two exceptions, calling for a higher duty of care, should be made: - (a) where the product that is advertised/sold/distributed as “performance enhancing”, and
- (b) where the product is a medicine designed for a therapeutic purpose, as medicines are known to have prohibited substances in them. The principle underlying the two exceptions is that they are instances of an athlete who could easily make the link between the intake of the substance and the risks being run.

4. Matters which can be taken into account in determining the level of subjective fault can for example be: an athlete’s youth and/or inexperience; language or environmental problems encountered by the athlete; the extent of anti-doping education received by the athlete (or the extent of anti-doping education which was reasonably accessible by the athlete); any other “personal impairments” such as those suffered by
(i) an athlete who has taken a certain product over a long period of time without incident;
(ii) an athlete who has previously checked the product’s ingredients;
(iii) an athlete who is suffering from a high degree of stress;
(iv) an athlete whose level of awareness has been reduced by a careless but understandable mistake.

5. Elements other than fault should – in principle –not be taken into account since it would be contrary to the rules. Only in the event that the outcome would violate the principle of proportionality such that it would constitute a breach of public policy should a tribunal depart from the clear wording of the text.

On 23 September 2013 the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete Marin Čilić after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance nikethamide.

Hereafter in September 2013 the Athlete and ITF appealed the ITF Tribunal decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete argued that he ingested the substance out-of-competition whereas the substance is forbidden only in-competion. Therefore he did not commit any anti-doping rule violation. Also the Coramine glucose supplement was not a product which was sold as performance enhancing.

The CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete did take some precautions before using the supplement and finds that is conduct is a standard case of a light degree of fault with mitigating circumstances.

Thefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 11 April 2014 that:

1. The appeal filed by Mr Marin Čilić on 24 September 2013 is partially upheld.
2. The appeal filed by the International Tennis Federation on 26 September 2013 is dismissed.
3. The International Tennis Federation Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal's decision on sanction (found at subparagraphs (2), (3) and (6) of paragraphs 108) of 23 September 2013 is set aside and replaced with the following:
   

   a.) Mr Cilic's individual results shall be disqualified in respect of the BMW Open in Munich, and in consequence any prize money and ranking points obtained by Mr. Čilić through his participation in that event must be forfeited;
   b.) Mr Marin Čilić is declared ineligible from participating in any capacity in any event or activity (other than authorised anti-doping education or rehabilitation programmes) or competition authorised, organised or sanctioned by the ITF or any of the other bodies referred to in Article 10.10,l(a) of the Programme for a period of four months commencing on 23 September 2013. The period of Provisional Suspension (26 June 2013 until 23 September 2013) served by Mr Čilić shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.

4. All results, ranking points and prize money earned between 2 May 2013 and 25 June 2013 (inclusive) are undisturbed (and therefore reinstated).
5. The ITF makes a contribution to the Athlete's expenses and legal fees in the amount of CHF5’000.
6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

In June 2013 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping violation against the Athlete Marin Čilić after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance nikethamide.
After notification the ITF ordered a provisional suspension. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete accepted the presence of the substance in his body and stated that the nikethamide, for which he did not hold a valid TUE, had entered his system through his ingestion of Coramine glucose tablets that had been purchased on his behalf from a pharmacy.

The Tribunal concludes that the Athlete failed to research the ingredients of the supplement before using and without intention to enhance his sports performance.
Considering mitigating circumstances the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decides to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 1 May 2013.

Successful DNA typing of ultrafiltered urines used to detect EPO doping / V. Castella, M.L. Morerod, N. Robinson, M. Saugy, P. Mangin. – (Forensic Science International: Genetics 1 (2007) 3/4 (19 February) : p. 281-282) doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2007.02.010. Epub 2007 Mar 23.

Endogenous and exogenous erythropoietin (EPO) present in urine can be distinguished according to their isoelectric profiles. This methodology requires urine samples to be concentrated about 200 to 1000 times with manipulations that should remove most of the cells occurring in the original sample. In this study, we tried to obtain DNA profiles from 10 ultrafiltered urines (retentates) in order to evaluate whether a formal genetic identification was technically feasible. No nuclear DNA profiles could be established from retentates, despite 34 PCR-cycles amplifications. Contrastingly, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) profiles were obtained for 9 out of the 10 retentates. Apart from some particularities, retentate mtDNA profiles were all distinct and matched mtDNA profiles of corresponding reference samples.

The analytical chemistry of drug monitoring in athletes / L.D. Bowers. – (Annual Review of Analytical Chemistry (2009) 2 (July) : p. 485-507)

• doi: 10.1146/annurev-anchem-060908-15515

Content:

1.) Introduction
2.) The World Anti-Doping Agency
2.1.) The Prohibited List: International Standaard
2.2.) The International Standard for Laboratories
3.) Analytical challenges and advances
3.1.) Anabolic Agents
3.1.1.) Exogenous anabolic agents
3.1.2.) Endogenous anabolic steroids
3.2.) Proteins and Peptides
3.2.1.) Human chorionic gonadotropin
3.2.2.) Insulin
3.2.3.) Recombinant human growth hormone
3.2.4.) Recombinant erythropoieting and mimetics
3.3.) Enhancement of Oxygen Transport : Allogenic (Homologous) Blood Transfusion

The detection and deterrence of the abuse of performance-enhancing drugs in sport are important to maintaining a level playing field among athletes and to decreasing the risk to athletes’ health. The World Anti-Doping Program consists of six documents, three of which play a role in analytical development: The World Anti-Doping Code, The List of Prohibited Substances and Methods, and The International Standard for Laboratories. Among the classes of prohibited substances, three have given rise to the most recent analytical developments in the field: anabolic agents; peptide and protein hormones; and methods to increase oxygen delivery to the tissues, including recombinant erythropoietin. Methods for anabolic agents, including designer steroids, have been enhanced through the use of liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry and gas chromatography/combustion/isotope-ratio mass spectrometry. Protein and peptide identification and quantification have benefited from advances in liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Incorporation of techniques such as flow cytometry and isoelectric focusing have supported the detection of blood doping.

The International Antidoping System and Why It Works / Larry D. Bowers. – (Clinical Chemistry 55 (2009) 8 (August) : p. 1456-1461)

Purpose of this article is to provide an overview of how the current antidoping rules came into effect, to review some of the science underlying the antidoping rules, and to discuss a few of the cases decided by the Court of Arbitration in Sport (CAS).

Testing for natural and synthetic anabolic agents in human urine / C. Ayotte, D. Goudreault, A. Charlebois. – (Journal of Chromatography B: Biomedical Applications (1996) 687 (6 December) : p. 3-25)

• PMID: 9001949

This paper describes a comprehensive method for the detection of natural and synthetic anabolic agents, including some veterinary preparations such as trenbolone, zeranol (a non-steroidal agent) and clenbuterol (a beta 2-agonist). For the natural steroids such as testosterone, the precise determination of urinary androgens during routine procedures allowed the description of statistical distribution of relevant parameters of the endogenous steroid profile amongst male athletes. The validity of the results is discussed, taking into account some factors that may cause the degradation of the specimen.

Content:
1.) Introduction
2.) Experimental
2.1.) Standards
2.2.) Chemicals, solvents, reagents
2.3.) Enzymatic preparations
2.4.) Trimethylsilyl derivatizations
2.5.) Preparation of calibration standards
2.5.1.) Testoserone and epitestosterone
2.5.2.) Androsterone and etiocholanolone
2.6.) Isolation of the free and glucuroconjugated substances
2.7.) Isolation of the sulfoconjugated substances
2.8.) GC and GC-MS
2.9.) Luteinizing hormone (LH) measurements
3.) Results and discussion
3.1.) GC-MS detection and identification of anabolic agents
3.2.) Detection of testosterone administration and determination of the steroid profile
3.3.) Degradation of urinary samples
4.) Conclusion

Floyd Landis: an unsafe conviction, regardless of the quality of the data / N.K. Faber. – (Clinica Chimica Acta (2010) 411 (12 October) : p. 117-118)

• doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2009.10.001. Epub 2009 Oct 12.

Comment on:

Bad Science: The instrumental data in the Floyd Landis case / Robert D. Blackledge. – Clinica Chimica Acta (2009) 406 (22 May) ; p. 8-13)

• doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2009.05.016. Epub 2009 May 22

Advocacy versus impartial scientific review: a problem for scientists and the courts / Larry D. Bowers. – (Clinica Chimica Acta (2009) 406 (19 May) ; p. 14-17)

• doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2009.05.006. Epub 2009 May 19

The debate in the Clinica Chimica Acta has centered on the quality of the isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) data in the Floyd Landis case.
Here, some fundamental problems with current doping tests are outlined with the purpose to strongly argue from a fairly broad perspective that Floyd Landis is the victim of an unsafe conviction. For simplicity, the IRMS data quality is not questioned. Neither do we wish to discuss the processing of the (raw) data, although e.g. not being able to reproduce calculations during the trial does not speak in favor of the prosecution. Nevertheless, one can imagine that this author finds it particularly disturbing that accounts in the open literature largely ignore serious doubts about the IRMS method on the side of some anti-doping researchers.

Advocacy versus impartial scientific review: a problem for scientists and the courts / Larry D. Bowers. – (Clinica Chimica Acta (2009) 406 (19 May) : p. 14-17)

• doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2009.05.006. Epub 2009 May 19

Comment on:
Bad Science: The instrumental data in the Floyd Landis case / Robert D. Blackledge. – Clinica Chimica Acta (2009) 406 (22 May) ; p. 8-13)

• doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2009.05.016. Epub 2009 May 22

Blackledge has reviewed a portion of the instrumental data in the Landis doping arbitration case. This rebuttal to his review presents an impartial review of the gas chromatography-combustion-isotope ratio
mass spectrometric data in the case. The rebuttal also discusses the responsibilities of expert witnesses in courtroom testimony.