CAS 2002_O_373 COC & Beckie Scott vs IOC

18 Dec 2003

TAS 2002/O/373 COC & Scott v/IOC
CAS 2002/O/373 Canadian Olympic Committee (COC) & Beckie Scott / International Olympic Committee (IOC)

  • Olympic Winter Games Cross-country skiing
  • Standing to challenge a decision even if the claimant was not a party in the first instance
  • Exclusion of the Olympic Games
  • Interpretation of the Olympic Charter

1. In Swiss civil procedural law, the basic principle is that a claimant has standing to sue and the claim is admissible providing the person is invoking a substantive right of its own, i.e. a right deriving from contract, tort or another source. Gaining an Olympic medal is one of the ultimate goals in a star athlete’s career, which can bring with it many fruits, thereby giving her/him a very particular interest in challenging a decision if the modification of the decision could allow her/him to obtain a gold medal or a medal she/he did not get.

2. The interpretation of Rule 25 §2.2.1 of the Olympic Charter (“In case of exclusion from the Games…any medals or diplomas obtained shall be returned to the IOC”) is that the exclusion of an athlete under this provision must always be combined with the disqualification of the sanctioned athlete from all the competitions in which she/he participated during the games and by the forfeiture of all related medals.



On 15 February 2002, Olga Danilova, Larissa Lazutina and Beckie Scott competed in the women’s 5 km pursuit cross-country skiing competition at the 2002 Salt Lake City 2002 Olympic Winter Games. They placed first, second and third respectively, with Beckie Scott receiving the bronze medal.

Prior to the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Winter Games, in two post-competition doping controls on 8 and 20 December 2001, Larissa Lazutina tested positive for the banned substance Darbepoetin.

Larissa Lazutina nevertheless took part in the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympic Winter Games because the International Ski Federation (FIS) only imposed its sanction - a two-year suspension effective 8 December 2001- in June 2002 after the Games.

In February 2002 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete Olaga Danilova after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Darbepoetin (dEPO). On 24 February 2002 the IOC Disciplinary Commission disqualified the athlete Olga Danilova and excluded her from the 2002 Olympic Winter Games.

In June 2002, due to Larissa Lazutina’s positive testing prior to the Olympic Games, the FIS suspended her from competition from 8 December 2001 to 7 December 2003.
Accordingly, on 29 June 2003, the IOC’s Executive Board announced its decision to annul all the results of Larissa Lazutina obtained at the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Winter Games.

The affect of the above decisions upon Beckie Scott is that she would receive the silver medal in the women’s 5 km free pursuit cross-country skiing competition at the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Winter Games. However, Beckie Scott considers she is entitled to receive the gold medal in such event because Olga Danilova should have had all her medals withdrawn, including the silver medal obtained in the women’s 5 km pursuit cross-country skiing competition.

Consequently, the COC and Beckie Scott decided to challenge the IOC’s decision of 24 February 2002 and filed their claim with CAS.

The CAS Panel considers that it necessarily follows from the IOC Executive Board’s decision to exclude Olga Danilova from the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games that she be disqualified from all the competitions she participated in and that all her corresponding medals be forfeited.

Because Beckie Scott is waiting to receive the medal she is entitled to, the Panel considers the IOC must render its new decision as soon as possible. However, in order to leave the IOC sufficient time to prepare its new decision and since the scheduled date for the next meeting of its Executive Board is the end of February 2004, the Panel considers 15 March 2004 to be an appropriate deadline within which the new decision must be rendered.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides unanimously on 18 December 2003:

1.) The request for relief filed by Beckie Scott on 30 June 2003 is admitted.

2.) The request for relief filed by the Canadian Olympic Committee on 30 June 2003 is rejected.

3.) The decision of 24 February 2002 issued by the Executive Board of the International Olympic Committee is annulled.

4.) The matter in dispute is remitted to the Executive Board of the International Olympic Committee with the order for it to render a new decision, by 15 March 2004, whereby in effect the IOC:

- i. Confirms the exclusion of Olga Danilova from the XIX Olympic Winter Games of Salt Lake City 2002.

- ii. Disqualifies Olga Danilova from all the cross-country skiing competitions in which she participated at the XIX Olympic Winter Games of Salt Lake City 2002.

- iii. Annuls all the results obtained by Olga Danilova at the XIX Olympic Winter Games of Salt Lake City 2002.

- iv. Gives the necessary orders and takes the measures required to withdraw all the medals obtained by Olga Danilova at the XIX Olympic Winter Games of Salt Lake City 2002.

- v. Gives the necessary orders and takes the measures required to amend accordingly the rankings in the women’s 5 km free pursuit cross-country skiing competition at the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Winter Games, in which Olga Danilova participated; ensuring in particular that Beckie Scott is ranked first and awarded the Olympic gold medal in the foregoing competition.

5.) (...).

CAS 2002_A_389 Walter Mayer, Marc Mayer, Achim Walcher, Peter Baumgart, Volker Müller vs IOC

20 Mar 2003

CAS 2002/A/389, 390, 391, 392 & 393 A., B., C., D. & E. / International Olympic Committee (IOC)

  • CAS 2002/A/389 Walter Mayers vs IOC
  • CAS 2002/A/390 Marc Mayer vs IOC
  • CAS 2002/A/391 Achim Walcher vs IOC
  • CAS 2002/A/392 Peter Baumgart vs IOC
  • CAS 2002/A/393 Volker Müller vs IOC

  • Cross country skiing
  • Blood doping
  • Use of a prohibited method
  • No legitimate medical treatment

1. The definition of Blood Doping pursuant to the Olympic Movement Antidoping Code (OMAC) includes the administration of the athlete’s own blood. The definition of blood doping is met irrespective of the amount of blood withdrawn and re-injected and whether or not it is potentially harmful to athletes’ health and/or capable of enhancing their performance.

2. The conditions under which a certain medical treatment, which would otherwise fall under the definition of doping, may be justified are truly exceptional and must therefore be demonstrated by the athlete or the person performing such treatment. To determine whether a certain medical treatment is legitimate under the OMAC, the CAS applies the following test:
a) The medical treatment must be necessary to cure an illness or injury of the particular athlete;
b) Under the given circumstances, there is no valid alternative treatment available which would not fall under the definition of doping;
c) The medical treatment is not capable of enhancing the athlete’s performance;
d) The medical treatment is preceded by a medical diagnosis of the athlete;
e) The medical treatment is diligently applied by qualified medical personnel in an appropriate medical setting;
f) Adequate records of the medical treatment are kept and are available for inspection.

3. In the present case, the UV Blood Transfusions were administered in a private place by a coach with no medical support and without supervision of, or disclosure to, the team doctor, the IOC Medical Commission or the team management. The UV Blood Transfusions were not even documented by proper records. Consequently, the test for legitimate medical treatment was not met and the blood transfusion must be considered as blood doping.



On 26 February 2002, shortly after the Salt Lake 2002 Olympic Winter Games, various items were found by a cleaner in a chalet in Midway, Utah, which was occupied by the Austrian cross-country and biathlon coach along with his wife. It was subsequently determined that the chalet had been frequently visited by members of the Austrian cross-country and biathlon teams.

The material discovered by the cleaner included vials and ampoules, various phosphate and sodium salts, vitamins and amino acids and transfusion equipment, including 3 blood bags (with blood residue), a blood transfusion device, multiple infusion sets (with blood in the IV lines), butterfly needles, syringes and used needles.

After an investigation, the IOC sanctioned on 26 May 2002 the Austrian team coach, the team chiropractor, and two Austrian athletes. Hereafter in June 2002 the IOC decision was appealed with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The main issues to be resolved by the Panel are:

(a) Was the IOC EB competent to issue a sanction against the Appellants?

(b) If yes: Did the IOC EB violate the minimum requirements regarding due process by not explicitly referring to the witness statement of Dr. Frick?

(c) Does the UV-Blood Transfusion as admittedly performed by Mr. Walter Mayer qualify as Prohibited Method according to the OMAC?

(d) If yes: Does the UV-Blood Transfusion as performed by Mr. Walter Mayer have to be considered as legitimate medical treatment?

(e) If UV-Blood Transfusions as performed by Mr. Walter Mayer are considered as a prohibited method: did Dr. Peter Baumgartl or Mr. Volker Müller facilitate the use of doping?

(f) Do the treatments performed by Mr. Volker Müller at the 2002 Winter Games have to be considered infractions on regulations applicable during these Games?

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 March 2003:

1.) The Appeals filed by Walter Mayer, Marc Mayer, Achim Walcher and Dr. Peter Baumgartl are dismissed.

2.) The Appeal filed by Volker Müller is partially upheld.

3.) The CAS renders the following decision:

The ineligibility of Volker Müller to participate in all Olympic Games up to and including the Olympic Games held in 2010 is replaced by a strong warning.

4.) The Court Office fee of CHF 500.-- per Appellant remains with the Court Office. The Award is rendered without further costs.

5.) The Appellants shall pay to the Respondent as contribution towards its expenses the following amounts:

  • Walter Mayer CHF 3.000.--,
  • Marc Mayer, Achim Walcher and Dr. Peter Baumgartl CHF 2.000.-- each, and
  • Volker Müller CHF 1.000.--.

CAS 2002_A_376 Alain Baxter vs IOC

15 Oct 2002

CAS 2002/A/376 Baxter / International Olympic Committee (IOC)

  • Alpine skiing / Olympic Games
  • Doping (methamphetamine)
  • Strict liability
  • Irrelevance of any fault or of any enhancing effect
  • Disqualification and exclusion from the Olympic Games

1. Consistent CAS case law has held that athletes are strictly responsible for substances they place in their body and that for purposes of disqualification (as opposed to suspension), neither intent nor negligence needs to be proven by the sanctioning body. Article 2.2 of Chapter II of the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code (OMAC) states that doping is the “presence in the body of a prohibited substance”, whether or not intentional or negligent, can affect the results of the event so that the presence of the substance is sufficient to find a doping violation.

2. Appendix A (I) to the OMAC lists among the classes of prohibited substances “amphetamines”. Thus, any form of amphetamines is covered by this listing, and there can be no doubt that both isomers of methamphetamine, including levmetamfetamine, are amphetamines within the meaning of that term. The IOC has not established any threshold level for methamphetamine. As a result, any level of methamphetamine constitutes a doping violation.

3. Disqualification is the minimum sanction that automatically follows a doping offence, in accordance with Article 3.3 of the OMAC. It is reasonable for the IOC to have determined that it may not always be possible to prove or disprove fault or performance-enhancing effect, but that in order to ensure the integrity of results the mere presence of a prohibited substance requires disqualification and invalidation of the result obtained.



Mr. Alain Baxter competed for the British team in the men's alpine skiing slalom event on 23 February 2002 at the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympic Winter Gamesy. He finished third and was awarded a bronze medal in the event.

On 21 March 2002, the IOC Executive Board decided for disqualifying Mr. Baxter and removing his bronze medal and diploma after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Levmetamfetamine and Methamphetamine.

As a consequence of the positive urine test, the Fédération Internationale de Ski (“FIS”) suspended the Athlete from competition for three months. Mr. Baxter did not challenge the suspension or the length of the suspension.

Yet, in a separate CAS proceeding the Athlete appealed the manner of calculating the three-month period. Another CAS panel upheld the appeal and re-calculated the effective dates of the three-month suspension.

The issue of any suspension is therefore not before this Panel, which is only asked to determine the appropriateness of the disqualification of Mr. Baxter‟s Olympic results.

The Panel is not without sympathy for the Athlete, who appears to be a sincere and honest man who did not intend to obtain a competitive advantage in the race. It is unfortunate that, for whatever reason, he did not see the term levmetamfetamine on the package he bought or did not understand its import, and that he did not consult with his team doctor before taking the medication.

Nevertheless, because Mr. Baxter took the medication, at the time of his slalom race his body contained a prohibited substance. The consequence for this doping violation must be a disqualification and the loss of his bronze medal.

On 15 October 2002 the Court of Arbitration for Sport:

1.) Denies the appeal filed by Mr. Baxter and upholds the ruling of the IOC Executive Board disqualifying Alain Baxter from the men‟s alpine skiing slalom event at the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, withdrawing his Bronze medal and diploma, and excluding him from the XIX Olympic Winter Games, Salt Lake City 2002;

2.) (…).

CAS 2010_A_2041 Yuliya Chepalova vs Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS)

1 Oct 2010

CAS 2010/A/2041 Yuliya Chepalova v. Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS)

CAS 2010/A/2041 Y. v. Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS)

  • Cross country skiing
  • Doping (rEPO)
  • Validity of the method to find the presence of rEPO in a urine sample
  • Validity of the adverse analytical finding
  • Extent of the right to attend the B sample “opening and analysis”
  • Sanction

1. Considering that the IEF-DB Method which is a “direct detection method” codified by TD2007EPO and TD2009EPO (Technical Document issued by WADA) has been applied for years to detect the presence of rEPO in the sample provided by the athlete and has also been repeatedly validated by the CAS jurisprudence, the application of the new identification criteria under TD2009EPO to address, as “Other Epoetins”, the new types of EPOs does not require a new validation. The application of the SDS-PAGE Method cannot be considered to be a mandatory supplement to the IEF-DB Method under TD2009EPO in every case. If a doubt exists as to the origin of the EPO found in a sample not showing a typical endogenous profile, the SDS-PAGE Method can be applied (as additional evidence) to discriminate between forms of EPO on the basis of a different, compared to the IEF-DB Method, principle: not the acidity of the molecules, but their mass.

2. As long as (i) the results shown by the IEF-DB Method, indicating that the identification criteria for “Other Epoetins” are clearly met, are reliable and are sufficient to support the Adverse Analytical Finding, (ii) the results of the SDS-PAGE Method cannot be deemed to exclude the positive finding based on the IEF-DB Method and (iii) there is no evidence invalidating the Adverse Analytical Finding for any procedural reasons, then the detection of rEPO in the athlete's urine is established and the athlete is to be found in violation of the anti-doping rule constituted by Article 2.1 of the FIS ADR.

3. The opportunity for the athlete and/or his/her representative to attend the B sample “opening and analysis” is indeed a basic right in doping-control proceedings, since it reflects the need that an athlete is heard before an adverse analytical finding is finally reported and provides the possibility for the athlete to verify that the procedures intended to confirm the initial adverse analytical finding are properly conducted. However this right does not necessarily extend to the right to attend the performance of those analyses which are not required to confirm the initial adverse analytical finding like the attendance of the performance of the analysis performed on the “extended gel”.

4. An athlete who has violated an anti-doping rule (presence of a prohibited substance in his/her urine sample – Article 2.1 of the FIS ADR) is to be sanctioned with two years’ ineligibility pursuant to Article 10.2 of the FIS ADR.



In August 2009 the International Ski Federation (FIS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian skier Yuliya Chepalova after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Recombinan Erythropoietin (RhEPO).

Consequently the FIS Doping Panel decided on 22 December 2009 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Hereafter in January 2010 the Athlete appealed the FIS Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and the many issues raised by the Athlete and determines that:

  • The results shown by the IEF-DB Method, indicating that the identification criteria for “Other Epoetins” are clearly met, are reliable and are sufficient to support the Adverse Analytical Finding.
  • The results of the SDS-PAGE Method cannot be deemed to exclude the positive finding based on the IEF-DB Method.
  • The Adverse Analytical Finding is not invalid for any procedural reasons.
  • Given the detection of RhEPO in her urine, the Athlete. is to be found in violation of the anti-doping rule constituted by Article 2.1 of the FIS ADR.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 October 2010 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the Athlete against the decision issued on 22 December 2009 by the Doping Panel of the Fédération Internationale de Ski is dismissed.

(…)

4.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS OG_2006_04 Deutscher Skiverband & Evi Sachenbacher vs FIS

12 Feb 2006

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Turin) 06/004 Deutscher Skiverband & Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle v. International Ski Federation (FIS)

Related cases:

  • IBU 2014 IBU vs Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle
    July 14, 2014
  • IOC 2014 IOC vs Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle
    February 21, 2014
  • CAS 2014_A_3685 Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle vs IBU
    November 14, 2014


  • Cross-country skiing
  • Haemoglobin (Hb) value exceeding the threshold under the FIS Rules
  • Alleged naturally high elevated level of Hb
  • Application for a dispensation from the FIS Hb Rule

Since 2003 requests have been made each year to issue a dispensation for a naturally elevated high level of Haemoglobin (Hb) for this Athlete. All requests have been unsuccessful in persuading the FIS that this Athlete has a naturally high elevated level of Hb. FIS does agree that this Athlete does have a modestly elevated level of Hb but it is not sufficient to justify issuing a dispensation pursuant to Rule FIS B.4.8. Far be it for the CAS Panel to substitute its views to those of the experts who have declined to grant the dispensation to this Athlete for a naturally high elevated level of Hb over the past 3 years. The Panel is being asked to make a medical expert’s judgement through the guise of cancelling a Notification of Start Prohibition. It is not for the Panel to perform an evaluation similar to that contemplated by the FIS B.4.8, which would apply for the duration of theOlympic Games.


Ms Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle is a German Athlete selected to compete in the Women's Cross Country Skiing Events at the Turin 2006 Olympic Winter Games.

Following a blood screening/testing on 9 February 2006 that showed a level of haemoglobin above the maximum tolerated values, Ms Sachenbacher-Stehle was obliged by the FIS not to start any competitions for five consecutive days. As a result, the athlete would be forced to miss her first Olympic Games event on 12 February 2006.

Hereafter the German Ski Federation and the German cross-country skier Ms Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle filed an application in order to cancel the “Notification of Start Prohibition” issued by the International Ski Federation (FIS).

The athlete further asked the Panel to declare that the levels of haemoglobin were naturally elevated and had no connection with any haematological disease. The Panel refused to make a medical expert’s judgment and dismissed the application; moreover, it was convinced that the athlete did not have a naturally high level of haemoglobin.

On the basis of the facts and legal aspects, the ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport renders the following decision:

1.) The application filed by Ms Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle and Deutscher Skiverband against the International Ski Federation is denied.

2.) (…).

Risk Factors for Illicit Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Use in Male Weightlifters: A Cross-Sectional Cohort Study

1 Feb 2012

Risk Factors for Illicit Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Use in Male Weightlifters: A Cross-Sectional Cohort Study / Harrison G. Pope, Jr., Gen Kanayama, James I. Hudson. - (Biological Psychiatry 71 (2012 3 (February); p. 254–261)

  • PMID: 21839424
  • PMCID: PMC3218214
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.06.024


Background

Illicit anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) abuse, though an important public health problem, remains inadequately studied. Almost all AAS abusers are male and lift weights, but the risk factors for AAS use among male weightlifters remain poorly understood.

Methods
We recruited 233 experienced male weightlifters, of whom 102 (44%) reported lifetime AAS use, and assessed their childhood and adolescent attributes retrospectively using structured clinical interviews and computerized questionnaires. This “cross-sectional cohort” approach—a design that we have formally presented in the recent methodological literature— utilizes a study cohort, not selected for outcomes of interest, and assesses exposures and outcomes retrospectively. We hypothesized that conduct disorder and body-image concerns would be major risk factors for subsequent AAS use among male weightlifters.

Results
Within our study population, many attributes showed little association with AAS use, but conduct disorder and body-image concerns showed strong associations. For individuals with prior conduct disorder vs. those without, the hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] for subsequent AAS use was 2.2 [1.5, 3.4]. For individuals in the middle vs. lowest tertile of scores on a retrospective adolescent “muscle-dysmorphia” scale, the hazard ratio was 1.5 [0.84, 2.6]; for the highest vs. lowest tertile, the hazard ratio was 3.3 [2.0, 5.3]; and for the linear trend of hazard ratios, P < 0.001.

Conclusions
Conduct disorder and body-image concerns represent important risk factors for AAS use among male weightlifters. Thus, assessment of these attributes may help to identify individuals most likely to require interventions to discourage this form of substance abuse.

Human Growth Hormone Abuse in Male Weightlifters

1 Jan 2011

Brian P. Brennan, Gen Kanayama, James I. Hudson, and Harrison G. Pope, Jr.
Am J Addict. 2011 Jan-Feb; 20(1): 9–13.

In a study of performance-enhancing substance use among 231 experienced young male weightlifters, we found that 27 (12%) reported illicit use of human growth hormone (HGH) or its bioactive derivative, insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-I). All of these 27 men also reported use of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) and 22 (81%) met criteria for current or past AAS dependence. Fifteen (56%) also reported current or past dependence on opioids, cocaine, and/or ecstasy. These findings suggest that among young male weightlifters, illicit HGH use has become a common form of substance abuse, frequently associated with both AAS dependence and classical substance dependence.

Amphetamine-induced psychosis - a separate diagnostic entity or primary psychosis triggered in the vulnerable?

5 Dec 2012

Amphetamine-induced psychosis - a separate diagnostic entity or primary psychosis triggered in the vulnerable? / Jørgen G. Bramness, Øystein H. Gundersen, Joar Guterstam, Eline B. Rognli, Maija Konstenius, Else-Marie Løberg, Sigrid Medhus, Lars Tanum, Johan Franck. - (BMC Psychiatry (2012), 12:221

  • doi:10.1186/1471-244X-12-221


Use of amphetamine and methamphetamine is widespread in the general population and common among patients with psychiatric disorders. Amphetamines may induce symptoms of psychosis very similar to those of acute schizophrenia spectrum psychosis. This has been an argument for using amphetamine-induced psychosis as a model for primary psychotic disorders. To distinguish the two types of psychosis on the basis of acute symptoms is difficult. However, acute psychosis induced by amphetamines seems to have a faster recovery and appears to resolve more completely compared to schizophrenic psychosis. The increased vulnerability for acute amphetamine induced psychosis seen among those with schizophrenia, schizotypal personality and, to a certain degree other psychiatric disorders, is also shared by non-psychiatric individuals who previously have experienced amphetamine-induced psychosis. Schizophrenia spectrum disorder and amphetamine-induced psychosis are further linked together by the finding of several susceptibility genes common to both conditions. These genes probably lower the threshold for becoming psychotic and increase the risk for a poorer clinical course of the disease.

The complex relationship between amphetamine use and psychosis has received much attention but is still not adequately explored. Our paper reviews the literature in this field and proposes a stress-vulnerability model for understanding the relationship between amphetamine use and psychosis.

Psychiatric and medical effects of anabolic-androgenic steroid use. A controlled study of 160 athletes

1 May 1994

Psychiatric and medical effects of anabolic-androgenic steroid use. A controlled study of 160 athletes / Harrison G. Pope Jr, David L. Katz. - (Archives of general psychiatry 51 (1994) 5 (May); p. 375-382)

  • PMID: 8179461
  • DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.1994.03950050035004


Abstract

Background: We sought to expand on preliminary findings suggesting that anabolic-androgenic steroids produce psychiatric effects in some athletes who use them.

Methods: We compared 88 athletes who were using steroids with 68 nonusers, using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R to diagnose psychiatric syndromes occurring in association with steroid use (if applicable) and in the absence of steroid use. Demographic, medical, and laboratory measures were also performed.

Results: Steroid users displayed more frequent gynecomastia, decreased mean testicular length, and higher cholesterol-high-density lipoprotein ratios than nonusers. Most strikingly, 23% of steroid users reported major mood syndromes--mania, hypomania, or major depression--in association with steroid use. Steroid users displayed mood disorders during steroid exposure significantly more frequently than in the absence of steroid exposure (P < .001) and significantly more frequently than nonusers (P < .01). Users rarely abused other drugs simultaneously with steroids.

Conclusion: Major mood disturbances associated with anabolic-androgenic steroids may represent an important public health problem for athletes using steroids and sometimes for the victims of their irritability and aggression.

Clenbuterol residues in pig muscle after repeat administration in a growth-promoting dose.

20 Jun 2010

Clenbuterol residues in pig muscle after repeat administration in a growth-promoting dose / Pleadin J, Vulić A, Persi N, Vahcić N. Meat Sci. 2010 Nov;86(3):733-7.

  • doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.06.013. Epub 2010 Jun 20

Laboratory for Analytical Chemistry, Croatian Veterinary Institute, Savska 143, HR-10 000 Zagreb, Croatia.


The aim of this study was to determine the level of clenbuterol residues in muscle tissue of pigs after repeat administration in a growth-promoting dose. An anabolic dose of clenbuterol (20 μg/kg body mass per day) was administered orally to experimental group (n=12) for 28 days, whereas control animals (n=3) were left untreated. Clenbuterol treated pigs were randomly sacrificed (n=3) on days 0, 3, 7 and 14 of treatment discontinuation and clenbuterol residues determined in muscle tissue. Determination of residual clenbuterol was by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) as a screening method and liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) as a confirmation method. The highest clenbuterol content in the muscle of treated animals was recorded on day 0 of treatment cessation (4.40±0.37 ng/g) and significantly (p<0.05) exceeded the maximum residue limit (MRL) of 0.1 ng/g. On day 3 of withdrawal, it was 0.49±0.22 ng/g and on day 7 0.10±0.02 ng/g (at MRL); on day 14 of treatment discontinuation, clenbuterol content was below the limit of detection (<0.1 ng/g) in all samples. Administration of clenbuterol as a growth promoter in pig production could lead to residues in meat for human consumption up to 7 days after treatment discontinuation.

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