CAS 2003/A/452 IAAF v/MAR and Brahim Boulami

Arbitration CAS 2003/A/452 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v/ Fédération Royale Marocaine d’Athlétisme (MAR) and B.

• Athletics
• Doping (r-EPO)
• Reliability of the testing method
• Accreditation of the testing laboratory

1. The direct urine test used by the laboratory is a valid and reliable test for the detection of r-EPO in urine (the respondents have failed to cast doubt on the evidence brought forth by the IAAF that 80% is a reasonable cut-off point that largely eliminates the risk of false positives in urinary r-EPO test); this direct urine test has sufficient international acceptance for the purpose of detecting r-EPO in the urine of athletes.

2. The laboratory’s lack of specific accreditation to conduct r-EPO testing is not fatal to the legal validity of its r-EPO tests. However, the lack of specific accreditation shifts the burden to the federation to show that the laboratory conducted its testing in accordance with the scientific community's practices and procedures, and that it satisfied itself as to the validity of the method before using it. Such a burden-shifting rule provides the necessary balance between the needs of IOC laboratories to implement new, reliable testing methods as quickly as possible, on the one hand, and the interests of athletes and the sporting community in ensuring trustworthy test results, on the other.

In August 2002 the Marrocco Athletics Federation (Fédération Royale Marocaine d’Athlétisme, MAR) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Brahim Boulami after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

On February 6, 2003, the MAR Disciplinary Commission found the Athlete not guilty of a Doping Offense. The MAR provided the following reasons for the decision to the IAAF in a fax dated February 11, 2003:

i.) The athlete was not notified of his right to be accompanied by a representative when he provided a urine and blood sample on 15 August 2002 in breach of paragraph 2.9 of the IAAF's Procedural Guidelines;

ii.) The "B" sample which was provided on 16 August 2002 was analyzed even though the "A" sample result had never been communicated to the athlete;

iii.) The MAR representative Professor Stambouli was denied the opportunity to attend the analysis of the 15 August "B" sample (numbered B071981 in breach of IAAF Procedural Guidelines;

iv.) No results had been provided concerning the athlete's blood sample;

v.) The r-EPO method of testing has not been recognized scientifically or validated by the international scientific community;

vi.) The Lausanne laboratory does not have specific ISO accreditation to conduct r-EPO testing; and

vii.) The athlete categorically denies administering r-EPO.

Hereafter in April 2003 the IAAF appealed the MAR decision of 6 February 2003 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel concludes that:

(i) on August 15, 2002, the prohibited substance r-EPO was present in the Athlete's urine,

(ii) the direct urine test used by LAD in this case, described both above and elsewhere, is a valid and reliable test for the detection of r-EPO in urine,

(iii) this direct urine test has sufficient international acceptance for the purpose of detecting r-EPO in the urine of athletes, and

(iv) LAD conducted its testing in accordance with the scientific community's practice and procedures for r-EPO testing, and adequately satisfied itself as to the test’s validity prior to use.

For all these reasons, the Panel finds the Athlete guilty of a Doping Offense under the IAAF Rules. Accordingly, the Panel finds that B. should be declared ineligible for two years, pursuant to IAAF Rule 60.2 (a)(i), with credit for suspension time already served from August 28, 2002, until the date of this Award. B. should therefore be eligible for competition on August 28, 2004.

Therefore 19 November 2003 the Court of Arbitration for Sport:

1.) Grants the appeal filed by the IAAF asking the Court to find B. guilty of a Doping Offense under IAAF Rules, and asking the Court to find that the Athlete should be declared ineligible for two years, less the period of suspension served by the athlete.

2.) Declares that the Athlete shall be declared ineligible for two years from August 28, 2002.

3.) (...).

CAS 2004/A/628 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. USA Track & Field (USATF) & Y.

Related case:

CAS 2004/A/725 USOC & IAAF vs Michael Johnson, Antonio Pettigrew, Angelo Taylor, Alvin Harrison, Calvin Harrison

• Athletics
• Doping (nandrolone)
• Jurisdiction of the IAAF
• Arbitration Panel to review a decision made by a national body Sanction

1. Pursuant to its own confidentiality rules then in effect, USATF did not notify the IAAF of the positive doping test so as to enable the IAAF to bring the matter before its Arbitration Panel. In those special circumstances, it is fair and reasonable for the CAS to accept the jurisdiction of the IAAF Arbitration Panel to review a decision made by a national body outside the time limit defined by the International Federation Rule (IAAF Rule 21.1 applicable in 2000-2001), given the fact that the IAAF was effectively disabled from reviewing the Appellant’s case until it had seen a copy of the decision challenged and also considering that the IAAF acted prudently in seeking disclosure of that decision before referring the Appellant’s case to arbitration.

2. It would be appropriate to apply the 1999-2000 Rules to the question of the sanction to be applied to the athlete. The consequence of this finding is that the athlete should not have been eligible to compete in any competition during that period, including the Olympic Summer Games in Sydney in 2000 and that the other members of the United States relay team would inevitably lose their Gold Medals. However, it is a matter for the IOC and/or the IAAF to consider, and not for the CAS.

On 11 March 2000 the USATF Doping Hearing Panel sanctioned the Athlete Jerome Young after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

However the USATF Doping Appeals Board (DAB) exonerated the Athltete on 10 July 2000. The DAB found that the fact of the negative test results produced in six days after the sample in this case was taken raised a reasonable doubt as to whether a violation had been committed.

On 27 August 2003 the Los Angeles Times revealed that Jerome Young was the athlete who had competed in Sydney 2000 Olympic Games following a positive test. Shortly afterwards, on 29 August 2003, Young himself confirmed in the media that he had tested positive in June 1999 but that he had subsequently been exonerated of a doping violation.

This was the first time that Young had been identified. On 28 August 2003, the IOC wrote to the IAAF, USOC and WADA requesting information on Young’s case. On 29 August 2003 WADA wrote to the IAAF demanding that it take action in the light of the new information.

After delibarations between the parties about this case the matter was referrred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the Panel received voluminous pleadings from the parties about the two issues that it has to decide.

Issue 1) “Pursuant to IAAF Rule 21.1 in IAAF Handbook 2000-2001, would it be fair and reasonable for a Panel in the position of the IAAF Arbitration Panel to accept jurisdiction in this case outside the six month deadline?”

Issue (2) “Did the USATF Doping Appeals Board misdirect itself or otherwise reach an erroneous conclusion on 10 July 2000 when it exonerated Young of a Doping Offence?”

On 28 June 2004 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides that:

1.) In respect of Issue 1, the answer is that it is fair and reasonable for it to accept jurisdiction outside the six month time limit.

2.) In respect of Issue 2, the answer is that the Doping Appeals Board did misdirect itself and reach an erroneous conclusion when it exonerated Young.

(…).

CAS 2002/A/409 Longo / International Association of Athletic Federations (IAAF)

• Athletics
• Doping
• Application for early reinstatement
• CAS jurisdiction

1. The nature of the appealed decision should determine whether an appeal is possible within the meaning of art. 47 of the Code. The test should be whether the nature of the decision is disciplinary, irrespective of whether a judicial or an administrative authority has made the decision against which an appeal is directed.

2. A decision of the IAAF Council admitting an application for early reinstatement in case of exceptional circumstances (IAAF Rule 60.9) relates to the execution of a sanction, not to the sanction itself. Consequently, according to art. R47 of the Code, the CAS has no jurisdiction to review a decision of this nature.

3. A right of appeal against decision of the IAAF Council could be drawn from other IAAF rules than Rule 60.9, in particular Rules 21.2 & 21.3. However applications for reinstatement based on exceptional circumstances are not proceedings between two parties in the sense of IAAF Rule 21.2 and do not fall under the category of disputes listed in IAAF Rule 21.2. Therefore decision on reinstatement applications on the grounds of exceptional circumstances pursuant to IAAF Rule 60.9 cannot be appealed against by invoking the CAS.

On 29 November 2001 the Italian Federazione Italiana di Atletica Leggera (FIDAL) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineglibility on the Athlete Mr. Andrea Longo after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Nandrolone. The FIDAL decision was upheld by the FIDAL Appeal Committee on 23 January 2002.

The Athlete did not appeal against the decision of the FIDAL’s appeal tribunal of 23 January 2002 to the CAS nor to the IAAF’s Arbitration Panel. On 13 April 2002, The Athlete, with the assistance of FIDAL, applied to the IAAF Council under IAAF Rule 60.9 for early reinstatement on the grounds of exceptional circumstances.

By letter dated 22 July 2002, The Athlete Mr. Andrea Longo was informed by FIDAL that the IAAF had rejected his application for early reinstatement.

Hereafter on 20 August 2002 the Athlete filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the decision of the IAAF Council of 3 and 4 July 2002 rejecting Mr. Andrea Longo’s application for early reinstatement.

The CAS Sole Arbitrator concludes that decisions of the IAAF Council on reinstatement applications on the grounds of exceptional circumstances pursuant to IAAF Rule 60.9 cannot be appealed against by invoking the CAS.

Therefore on 28 March 2003 The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

1.) The jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport is denied.

2.) The appeal filed by Mr. Andrea Longo on 20 August 2002 is not entertained.

3.) (…).

CAS 2003/A/448 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) / Fédération Camerounaise d’Athlétisme (CMR)

• Athletics
• Doping (nandrolone)
• Hearing de novo
• Consumption of wild boar meat
• Exceptional circumstances

1. By virtue of IAAF Rule 21.9, all appeals before the CAS constitute a re-hearing de novo of the issues raised by the case, and that in doping cases before the CAS the IAAF shall have the burden of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that a doping offence has been committed. However, the only issue raised by the present case concerns the sanction applicable in the circumstances, the athlete having apparently decided not to appeal the decision of the national federation acknowledging the doping offence. In that context, there is simply no need for the IAAF to revisit in its appeal materials the factual and scientific evidence of a doping offence.

2. The unintended consumption of foodstuffs or supplements responsible for the presence of a prohibited substance in an athlete’s body is hardly an unusual occurrence, let alone a "truly exceptional circumstance". It is, rather, one of the very “mischiefs” at which the anti-doping provisions of the IAAF Rules, as indeed the rules of other sports federations, are aimed. Even if the athlete were able to demonstrate that the meat she consumed could, and did, cause the elevated levels of norandrosterone detected in her samples, indeed even if the entirety of the athlete’s evidence were taken as true, the wholly "unexceptional" nature of her explanation would preclude the Panel from making the recommendation to the IAAF Council that the period of ineligibility be reduced.

In May 2002 the Cameroon Athletics Federation (FCA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete (-M) after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

The Athlete submitted that her consumption of meat from an uncastrated male wild boar constituted, in the circumstances, a reasonable and plausible explanation for the elevated level of norandrosterone in her urine at the time of the testing in question.

The FCA accepted the Athlete's statement and decided on 15 January 2003 to impose a warning on the Athlete. Hereafter in March 2003 the IAAF appealed the FCA decision with the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel unanimously finds that all of the elements of a doping offence are proven and that the IAAF has carried its burden of demonstrating that the athlete committed a doping offence within the meaning of the CAS Code and the IAAF Rules, which impose a two-year minimum suspension.

Given that the athlete competed several times while she knew that she was suspended and that the last date on which she competed was 8 May 2003, her period of ineligibility should run as of that date.

M.’s explanation regarding the cause of her elevated norandrosterone levels does not, in the opinion of the Panel, reveal circumstances of a truly exceptional nature such as to persuade it to recommend to the IAAF Council that the period of ineligibility be reduced in accordance with IAAF Rules.

The Athlete's request that the Panel recommend that the IAAF Council reduce such period of ineligibility is therefore denied, without prejudice to the athlete's right to apply directly to the IAAF Council for such a reduction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 October 2003:

1.) The jurisdiction of CAS is affirmed.

2.) The appeal filed by the IAAF on 17 March 2003 is upheld.

3.) The decision issued by the Cameroon Athletics Federation on 15 January 2003 is annulled.

4.) M. shall be declared ineligible for competition for two years commencing on 8 May 2003.

5.) (...)

CAS ad hoc Division (O.G. Sydney) 00/015 Mihaela Melinte / International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF)

• Athletics
• Doping (nandrolone)
• Provisional suspension imposed by an IF during the Olympic
• Games CAS jurisdiction
• Principle of strict liability

1. By reason of their commitment to the Olympic Movement and their participation in the Olympic Games, the international federations must be deemed to have subscribed to the arbitration clause in the Olympic Charter.

2. If an athlete is removed from the field of play moments before his/her turn to compete, such action creates a dispute arising during the Games within the meaning of Article 74 of the Olympic Charter. On that basis CAS has jurisdiction to rule on the dispute.

In September 2000 the IAAF has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Romanian Athlete Mihaela Melinte after her sample tested positive for 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). After notification to the Romanian Athletic Federation a provisional suspension was ordered.

The Athlete was participating at the Sydney Olympic Games and not notified when she was informed on 27 September 2000 that she has been removed from the participants’ list on account of a doping violation. She was then escorted off the field.

Hereafter on 28 September the Athlete filed an appeal with the CAS Sydney Ad hoc division.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Panel rendered the following oral ruling on the Application:

• a.) This is an Application for urgent relief affecting the Applicant’s eligibility to compete in the hammer throw later today.
• b.) The Panel finds that the manner in which the Applicant was advised of her suspension and removed from the athletic field was embarrassing and disrespectful. During the hearing, the IAAF expressed its apology for this circumstance.
• c.) The Panel finds that it does have jurisdiction to order the relief requested if it deems that relief justified.
• d.) The Applicant’s essential contention is that the IAAF failed to follow its own rules - particularly because the athlete never had a chance to put forth her position explaining this positive test result.
• e.) However, the Applicant acknowledged at this hearing that she had the opportunity to present to this Panel the positions which she would have provided to the IAAF. The Panel has also heard the explanations of the IAAF.
• f.) The Panel has considered all of the forgoing and finds no violation by the IAAF of its rules which justifies granting the relief requested.
• g.) The Application is therefore denied.

CAS 2011/A/2566 Andrus Veerpalu v. International Ski Federation

Related cases:

• CAS 2020_ADD_7 ISF vs Andrus Veerpalu
  March 17, 2021
• CAS 2020_A_6781 Andrus Veerpalu vs FIS
  July 21, 2020
• FIS 2011 FIS vs Andrus Veerpalu
  August 21, 2011

In February 2011 the International Ski Federation (FIS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Estonian skier Andrus Veerpalu after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant Human Growth Hormone (hGH) at the same time that the Athlete announced his retirement from professional cross-country skiing.

On 21 August 2011 the FIS Doping Panel decided to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of his retirement, i.e. 23 February 2011. The FIS Doping Panel ruled that the Adverse Analytical Finding of hGH in the Athlete’s blood had been proven in violation of the FIS ADR.

In first instance the FIS Doping Panel rejected the Athlete’s argument that the delay between the analyses of the A and B samples had affected the accuracy of the Test. In the matter of the collection and handling of the samples the FIS Doping Panel also rejected the Athlete’s argument that the samples were no longer fit for testing at the time they had arrived at the Laboratory.

Hereafter in September 2011 the Athlete appealed the decision of the FIS Doping Panel with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete denied having admitted the use of hGH, nor that he had violated the applicable doping rules. He asserted that the Test is unreliable for the following reasons:

• the Test is defective and scientifically invalid, particularly because of unreliable decision limits;
• the Laboratory was not accredited to perform the Test;
• the Test was improperly applied and administered by the DCO and the Laboratory; and
• the Athlete’s individual circumstances render any positive Test result meaningless.

FIS contended that the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation has been established by three different means:

• through the AAFs from the A and B samples;
• by the alleged admissions from the Athlete of hGH use; and
• from the Athlete’s longitudinal profile, that is, the common range of his previous test results.

The CAS Panel did not admit the FIS’s third submission regarding the Athlete’s longitudinal profile because the FIS failed to submit the relevant DCO reports and laboratory documentation for verification of such results.

Following assessment of the evidence the Panel concludes that the Athlete has failed to meet the required burden of proof regarding the reliability of the Test (except for that of the decision limits). Furthermore the Panel finds that FIS has failed to meet its burden of proof in relation to the reliability of the test’s decision limits and in establishing the violation of FIS ADR by means other than the Test, namely through admission.

Because FIS has not established, to the Panel’s comfortable satisfaction, that the test’s decision limits are reliable, the Panel finds that the Athlete’s AAF is not upheld. The Panel reiterates its view that FIS has proven that the Test itself is reliable, but that, as a matter of procedure, it has not proven the same in respect of the test’s decision limits.

The Panel notes that there are many factors in this case which tend to indicate that the Athlete did in fact himself administer exogenous hGH. However because the decision limits have not been proven as reliable in the course of this proceeding, the violation of the FIS ADR cannot be upheld on appeal. Consequently the ban imposed by the decision of the FIS Doping Panel is overturned.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 25 March 2013:

1.) The Appeal filed by Andrus Veerpalu on 12 September 2011 is upheld.

2.) The decision of the FIS Doping Panel of 22 August 2011 is set aside.

3.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Andrus Veerpalu, which is retained by the CAS.

4.) The FIS shall pay to Andrus Veerpalu CHF 10’000 (ten thousand Swiss francs) as contribution towards his costs incurred in the course of these proceedings.

5.) All further and other claims for relief are dismissed.

In this Consumer Update video, FDA Product Safety Expert Deborah Autor, J.D., helps explain the agency's warning to stop using body building products that claim to contain steroids or steroid-like substances.

More information can be found on:
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm173739.htm

Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport : New Generation Performance and Image Enhancing Drugs and Organised Criminal Involvement in their use in Professional Sport / Australian Crime Commission (ACC). - Canberra City : ACC, 2013

Contents:

- LIMITATIONS ON DISCLOSURE OF FINDINGS
- KEY FINDINGS
- PERFORMANCE AND IMAGE ENHANCING SUBSTANCES
- PEPTIDE AND HORMONE CONSUMERS
- SOURCES OF PEPTIDES AND HORMONES
- ORGANISED CRIME, DRUGS AND SPORT
- VULNERABILITIES TO INTEGRITY MECHANISMS

In 2011, the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) highlighted threats to the integrity of professional sport and concluded that there was potential for organised crime to infiltrate sport in Australia, as has occurred overseas.

Data from the ACC’s 2010–11 Illicit Drug Data Report indicated that the market for Performance and Image Enhancing Drugs (PIEDs) has expanded, with record numbers of seizures, detections and arrests and increasing reports by users that they were injecting them. The ACC also received information from the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), as part of the ACC’s routine monitoring of all illicit drug markets, which suggested a potential threat to a number of sports from the use of new generation PIEDs.

In early 2012, the ACC, with the assistance of ASADA, began a project to consider the extent of use of PIEDs by professional athletes, the size of this market and the extent of organised criminal involvement. This project focused particularly on a new form of PIEDs,
known collectively as peptides and hormones. These substances may provide effects similar to anabolic steroids and are considered by users to be next generation PIEDs. Some of these substances are perceived by athletes to be undetectable, making them attractive to those seeking to gain an unfair advantage.

This report provides a summary of findings from this project. In particular, the ACC has now identified use of these substances, which are prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), by professional athletes in a number of sports in Australia. Widespread use has been identified or is suspected in a number of professional sporting codes.

In detailing the nature and extent of this threat to the professional sporting industry and the Australian Community, this report provides an important opportunity for Government, regulatory bodies and the sporting industry to address these issues head on.

Risicogedrag bij het online bestellen van geneesmiddelen (Dutch title)

Intomart GfK has, by order of the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, conducted a quantitative research in early 2009, and a second wave in October 2012.

The aim of the re-search is to gain insight in the target group of people who have purchased medication on-line or who consider doing so (‘considerers’). This research provides insights in the background details of on-line purchasers and developments in their motives, behavior, risk perception and need for information.

Profile people purchasing and considering on-line purchase 13% of the of the adults (18+) indicate, in Autumn 2012, ever having purchased medication on-line. A further 6% of the adults have at some point in time considered purchasing medication on-line.

On-line medication is often purchased without a doctor’s prescription. The percentage of Dutchmen that have purchased medication on-line without a prescription at some point in their lives increased from 3% in 2009 to 11% in 2012. Dutchmen who do not purchase medication on-line are, on average, older and tend to have a slightly lower level of education than those who do. Female consumers buy medication on-line slightly more often than male consumers.

The prime motive for purchasing medication on-line is convenience; the possibility to order out-side office hours and home delivery are considered great advantages. The motives for not buying medication on-line are widely divergent, but mostly concern lack of clarity of the information.

Purchase behavior
On-line medication is often purchased without a doctor’s prescription (ranging from 30% for antibiotics to 96% for diet pills). Usually people do not consult their doctor when considering the on-line purchase of medication. However, people do have a need for information, and they often look for it on the internet.

Although more and more Dutchmen order medication on-line, the frequency of the purchases has decreased. Medication is bought on-line rather occasionally. For ordering medication, people usually go to Dutch websites. Customer satisfaction with the medication ordered is high, as is the willingness to promote the on-line purchase of medication to others; over half of the customers (55%) would recommend others to buy their medication on-line. This especially holds true for contraceptives and painkillers.

Satisfaction with on-line purchase is lowest for hypnotic medication, anti-smoking medication and diet pills. The most common reasons for dissatisfaction are the lack of improvement of sleep, failure to quit smoking or insufficient weight loss.

Risk perception
People who have purchased medication on-line and considerers are to a large degree aware of the risks involved. Two in three buyers and considerers acknowledge that control by a pharmacist’s may be lacking, and the composition of a product may be different. More than half of the customers know that the Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) may be missing or is unclear, or that the product has the wrong label.
Even though buyers and considerers are equally aware of the different risk factors associated with the on-line purchase of medication, there is a difference between these two groups in the perception of the magnitiude of the risks these pose for one’s health. For example, buyers estimate the risk of on-line medication being falsified at 28%, whereas considerers estimate this risk at 52%.

Buyers are aware of the risks but think they can manage them, and therefore they purchase their medication on-line. Considerers are more cautious. The greatest perceived risk is the lack of checks on possible side effects due to interactions with other medication. However, the other risk factors are estimated as being at an almost equally high level. The risks of side effects due to interactions can be brought to the attention of people currently already using other medications. For people currently not using any medications, this message will have no deterrent effect whatsoever.

Need for information
Considerers often have a higher demand for information than buyers (buyers: 31%, considerers: 43%). The need for information has, in 2012, increased somewhat since the previous wave of 2009. On-line buyers of medication who seek information about ordering medication on-line safely, mostly declare to do so via their regular pharmacy. The primary source of information to considerer is the internet. The Dutch Ministry of Health uses the website internetpillen.nl, along with other sources, to provide buyers and considerers with information about, for example, how to identify suppliers of counterfeit medication and how to order medication on-line safely. The website is mostly unknown, with only 3% awareness amongst buyers and 2% amongst considerers. The target audience either does not find its way to, or does not remember, the website.

Opinions vary widely about which would be the most obvious source of information about safely purchasing medication on-line. There are several credible parties that could provide the information. Buyers seem to have a slight preference for their regular pharmacy, while considerers prefer the general practitioner. Both groups also name the Ministry of Health and the RIVM (the National Institute of Public Health and Environment of the Netherlands) as obvious providers of the information.

Conclusions
More and more Dutchmen order their medication on-line, often without consulting a physician. To a large degree they are satisfied with the delivered product, and recommend it to others. In light of the high degree of satisfaction among a large group of Dutchmen, it can be expected that the on-line purchase of medication will increase further, and will even become widely accepted, in the years to come.
Even though on-line buyers of medication are aware of the risks involved with the on-line purchase of medication, they are confident that they are capable of assessing a provider’s trustwor-thiness. The lack of any check on possible side effects due to interactions with other medication is considered the greatest risk. The risks of side effects due to interactions can be brought to the attention of people currently already using other medications. Buyers see their regular pharmacy as an obvious and reliable source of information, making it the logical choice as a provider of information about the risk of purchasing medication on-line.

WADA - Play True Magazine
2011, issue 1
Tried, Tested and True - Profiling the Global Network of WADA Accredited Anti-Doping Laboratories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content

Editorials
01 Editorial John Fahey: Objectives for a New Mandate
02 Editorial David Howman: Maximizing Results

Cover Story
03 Anti-Doping Laboratories
05 The Accreditation Process
06 Quality Assessment (EQAS)
07 Map of WADA Accredited Laboratories
09 The New Concept of Approved Laboratories
10 Interview with Dr Günter Gmeiner
11 The importance of Research

Features
12 Code Compliance
13 Social Science Symposium
15 Athlete Profile: Daichi Suzuki
17 Revamped Outreach Model
19 New Anti-Doping Resources

WADA Updates
20 Fahey to Remain President
20 2013 World Conference
20 Staff Updates
21 CoachTrue Awards
21 UNESCO Convention