Context
The mission of WADA is to “promote, co‐ordinate and monitor, on an international basis, the fight against doping in sport in all its forms” (WADA, 2009; p. 2). To further WADA’s anti‐doping initiatives, a Social Sciences Research Grant Program was created to “encourage research in the social sciences and to obtain information, which will enable more efficient doping‐prevention strategies” (p.2).

The present study was funded by the WADA Social Sciences Research Grant Program. The general aims of this project were to:

1. Identify factors that motivate young athletes to use performance enhancing drugs (PEDs)
2. Identify factors that deter young athletes from using PEDs.

Conclusions
The findings of the present research show that there is a clear link between moral functioning, as originally conceptualized by Rest (1984) and attitudes towards PEDs. There is also a clear link
between moral disengagement, as originally conceptualised by Bandura (1991) and attitudes towards PEDs. In short, morality, however it is theoretically conceptualised and operationalised, predicts attitudes to doping.
It is necessary to develop training programs that aim to educate young athletes and thus deter future drug use. However, there are some conceptual issues that should be addressed before embarking on any such efforts. While the current study shows a strong link between morality and attitudes to PEDs, when asked to identify the ‘top of mind’ disadvantages of PED use, the respondents overwhelmingly identified health related problems.
Future research employing measures of morality based on both Rest’s and Bandura’s may be warranted, particularly if placed in a broader framework aiming to develop a reliable and valid measure of morality in sporting contexts. This should clearly include contexts such as PED use.

CAS 2008/A/1516 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI), Federazione Italiana Tennis Tavolo (FITET) & Valentino Piacentini

• Table tennis
• Doping (Cocaine)
• Exceptional circumstances
• Suspension already served

1. The list of circumstances which may but do not have to lead to a reduction of the suspension cannot be exhaustive. In other words, it is not limited to the exemplifying list contained in the comment regarding art. 10.5.2 of the World Anti Doping Code or related provisions. However, no exceptional circumstances can justify an elimination or reduction of the stipulated suspension in the case of an athlete who knew prior to consuming the cocaine positively of the character of the substance which he may well have consumed in a state of euphoria but nevertheless in knowledge of the circumstances and finally intentionally.

2. The suspension already served has to be credited against the two-year suspension imposed in favour of the athlete.

On 15 November 2007 the Italian Corte di Apello Federale decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Table Tennis player Valentiono Piacentini after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

Following the appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) the Giudice di Ultima Istanza in material di doping del CONI decided on 4 February 2008 to impose a 1 year and 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter WADA appealed the decision of 4 February 2008 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 2 years on the Athlete.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He stated that he had used the substance 2 days before the competition.

The Sole Arbitrator determines that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 11 September 2008:

1.) The appeal filed by the WADA on March 17, 2008 is admissible.

2.) The appeal filed by the WADA on March 17, 2008 is upheld, and the appealed Decision issued by the Giudice di Ultima Istanza in material di doping del CONI on February 4, 2008 is varied to impose a two-year sanction.

3.) Valentino Piacentini is declared ineligible for competition for two years commencing on July 12, 2007. The competitive results obtained by Mr. Piacentini from June 8, 2007 to July 12, 2007 are disqualified.

4.) (…).

5. All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2008/A/1577 USADA v/ Reed

CAS 2008/A/1577 USADA v. R.

Related cases:

• AAA 2001 No. 30 190 00701 01 USADA vs Barney Reed
  April 22, 2002
• AAA 2007 No. 30 190 000548 07 USADA vs Barney Reed
  May 21, 2008
  
  

• Table Tennis
• Doping (Carboxy THC)
• Status of marijuana under the law and under the WADC
• Legitimacy of the medical diagnosis for the prescription of a prohibited substance
• Applicable rules in case of a second offence occurring after the entry into force of the WADC
• Multiple violations involving a prohibited substance and a specified substance
• Sanctioning discretion for “mixed multiple violations”

1. Cannabinoids, among them hashish and marijuana, are listed under as a Prohibited Substance. Marijuana is, however, not a prohibited substance if taken out-of-competition. The issue of legality of the use of marijuana under another legal system is of no relevance to a dispute before CAS; even if such use had been illegal, there would have been no conflict with the WADA Code as long as the substance was not present in the athlete’s body “in competition”.

2. The issue of legitimacy of the medical diagnosis which formed the basis for a prescription of a prohibited substance is not an issue in a CAS-dispute, since even if the prescribing physician was not properly licensed, erroneously diagnosed the athlete’s pathological condition or incorrectly prescribed the use of a prohibited substance as treatment of that condition, such a finding would have no relevance to the issue of whether the athlete committed an anti-doping violation.

3. According to the CAS jurisprudence, the fact that the applicable pre-WADC anti-doping rules at the time of the first offense may have provided for a more lenient sanction in the event of a second offense is of no relevance in adjudicating a doping offense committed in 2007 (where the new rules apply).

4. In case of multiple, but separate violations involving a Prohibited Substance and a specified substance the sanctioning body has a range of discretion in setting a separate and independent penalty for a repeated offense. The opportunity for eliminating or reducing the ineligibility sanction pursuant to “exceptional circumstances” is granted only “in the case of a second or third violation” which involve exclusively specified substances, and not within the context of a first violation where the ineligibility penalty may be eliminated entirely or within the context of a multiple violation offense involving both a Prohibited Substance offense and a specified substance offense.

5. The WADC does not specify the criteria for the exercise of the sanctioning discretion granted to the Panel with regard to “mixed multiple violations”, i.e., where both a Prohibited Substance violation and a specified substance violation have been committed. However, the deciding issue is that the athlete is granted no “opportunity” to resort to an elimination or reduction of the ineligibility period for “Exceptional Circumstances”. The Panel has thus no discretion to reduce the penalty for such cases below the two year minimum term.

In May 2007 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Table Tennis player Barney Reed after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.

Consequently the American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel (AAA) decided on 21 May 2008 to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his second anti-doping rule violation.

Prior on 22 April 2002 the Athlete was sanctioned for 2 years after he tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Hereafter USADA appealed the AAA Decision of 21 May 2008 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). USADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

USADA contended that there were no grounds for a reduced sanction on the basis of exceptional circumstances. Furthermore USADA challenged the Athlete's medical diagnosis and prescription for the use of Cannabis whereas he failed to apply for a TUE.

Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that:

• After in-competition testing the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• the AAA Panel was erroneous in permitting exceptional circumstances.
• The violation was not intentional.
• This is the Athlete's second violation.
• It is irrelevant to address the validity of the Athlete's medical diagnosis and his prescription for the use of Cannabis.
• The Athlete acted negligently and he failed to apply for a TUE.
• A period of ineligibility of 2 years is both a fair and appropriate sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 December 2008:

1.) The appeal filed by the United States Anti-Doping Agency in the matter United States Anti-Doping Agency v. R. (AAA No. 30 190 000548 07) is upheld.

2.) The decision of the American Arbitration Association / North American Court of Arbitration for Sport dated 21 May 2008 is partially annulled.

3.) R. is declared ineligible for competition for two years commencing as of 10 May 2007, including his ineligibility from participating in U.S. Olympic, Pan American or Paralympic Games, trials or qualifying events, being a member of an U.S. Olympic, Pan American or Paralympic Games team and having access to the training facilities of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC, including, but not limited to grants, awards, or employment pursuant to the USOC Anti-Doping Policies.

4.) All competitive results achieved by R. in the sport of Table Tennis commencing on or after 3 March 2007, in particular, all medals, points and prizes obtained in competitive events between 10 August 2008 and the date of this Award, if any, are hereby declared retroactively cancelled and rendered null and void.

5.) All remaining points of the Decision and Award of the American Arbitration Association / North American Court of Arbitration dated 21 May 2008 are confirmed.

(…)

CAS 2006/A/1025 Mariano Puerta v/ International Tennis Federation (ITF)

Related cases:

• ITF 2005 ITF vs Mariano Puerta
  December 21, 2005
• ITF 2003 Mariano Puerta vs ATP Tour
  January 1, 2001

• Tennis
• Doping (etilefrine)
• Applicable law
• Relevance of the concentration of prohibited substance
• Duty of utmost caution placed on the athlete as well as his/her entourage
• Sanction for two offences committed with “No Significant Fault or Negligence”
• Filling of a lacuna in the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC)
• Flexibility of the WADC to satisfy the principle of proportionality

1. The rules of a Swiss private law entity such as WADA should comply with Swiss law. Therefore, if the ITF Programme provides that it is to be governed by and construed in accordance with English law, but that provision in the ITF Programme is expressly stated to be subject to the requirement to interpret the Programme “in a manner that is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Code [WADC]”, those provisions must be interpreted as requiring to construe the WADC in a manner which is consistent with Swiss law, as the law with which the WADC must comply. Construing the WADC in that way means that the WADC is not subject to the vagaries of myriad systems of law throughout the world, but is capable of a uniform and consistent construction wherever it is applied. Any other construction would negate, or, at the very least, seriously weaken, the purpose and objective of the WADA and its signatories.

2. Any concentration of etilefrine found as the prohibited substance in an athlete’s urine will be reported as an adverse analytical finding and be subject to sanctions. The concentration of the prohibited substance may be evidence, however, as to how the substance entered the athlete’s body and may also provide an indication as to whether or not it was intended to enhance performance. Therefore, it also has relevance to the issue of fault and negligence, as a high concentration could indicate the presence of intent or a substantial degree of negligence.

3. Athletes must be aware at all time that they must drink from clean glasses, especially in the last minutes before a major competition. It is also essential for an athlete’s entourage to be as aware as an athlete of the necessity of taking the utmost caution as to what an athlete eats and drinks.

4. For the purpose of imposing a sanction for a second offence, the WADC does not distinguish between more significant and less significant breaches. In a case in which the two offences have been found to have been committed with “No Significant Fault or Negligence”, an eight year sanction is not just and proportionate, especially if, due to the particular circumstances of the case, this sanction is indistinguishable from a lifetime ban. Therefore, in such a case, a panel must be allowed to impose a lesser period of ineligibility.

5. In all but the very rare case, the WADC imposes a regime that provides a just and proportionate sanction, and one in which, by giving the athlete the opportunity to prove either “No Fault or Negligence” or “No Significant Fault or Negligence”, the particular circumstances of an individual case can be properly taken into account. However, in the very rare case in which the WADC does not provide a just and proportionate sanction, there is a gap or lacuna which is to be filled by a panel, not exercising a discretion, but applying the overarching principle of justice and proportionality on which all systems of law, and the WADC itself, are based.

6. The WADC contains some flexibility to enable a panel to satisfy the general legal principle of proportionality. However, the scope of flexibility is clearly defined and is deliberately limited so as to avoid situations where a wide range of factors and circumstances, including those completely at odds with the very purpose of a uniformly and consistently applied anti-doping framework are taken into account. The period of ineligibility may be reduced or eliminated only i) in the case of exceptional circumstances, and ii) in the case of Specified Substances.

On 21 December 2005 the Tribunal of the International Tennis Federation (ITF) decided to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Argentine tennis player Mariano Puerta for his second anti-doping rule violation after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Etilefrine in a low concentration.

In first instance the ITF Tribunal accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. Nevertheless in accordance with the WADA Code the ITF Tribunal was unable to impose a reduced sanction.

Hereafter in February 2006 the Athlete appealed the ITF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete claimed that the Etilefrine entered his system as a result of his inadvertent and unknowing ingestion of the liquid residue of his wife’s Effortil medication when he re-used his glass in the cafeteria just before the start of the final match. Additionally, he asserted that neither the ITF nor the ITF Tribunal was able to propose an “evidenced alternative explanation” for the inadvertent ingestion of the substance.

In the Panel’s view, the circumstances which arise in the present case differ notably from any previous CAS case. The Panel deems that the Athlete did not ingest or use a medicine consciously not knowing that the product at hand could contain prohibited substances. Accidentally the medicine used by his wife happened to enter his body.

In such rare circumstances, the Panel considers the 8 years period of Ineligibility as disproportionate. A 2 year period of ineligibility appears to the Panel to be the only just and proportionate sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 12 July 2006 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Mariano Puerta is partially upheld.

2.) The decision of the International Tennis Federation Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal dated 21 December 2005 is partially annulled.

3.) All results achieved by Mr Mariano Puerta in both the singles and doubles competitions must be disqualified in respect of the French Open, and in consequence, the prize money (half the prize money awarded to the doubles pair, in the case of the doubles competition) and ranking points obtained by Mr Mariano Puerta must be forfeited.

4.) All individual results of Mr Mariano Puerta in all competitions subsequent to the French Open must be disqualified and all prize money and ranking points in respect of those competitions must be forfeited.

5.) Mr Mariano Puerta shall be declared ineligible for competition for two years starting from 5 June 2005.

6.) (…).

Report from a joint workshop hosted by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society.

100% Dope Free: Carl Verheijen / Dopingautoriteit (Anti-doping Authority Netherlands) ; NOC*NSF (Netherlands Olympic Committee * Netherlands Sports Confederation)

Sprinter and 100% Dope Free ambassador Churandy Martina is a True Winner. In this video he makes a statement against doping.

The video is part of the 100% Dope Free campaign, an initiative set up to strengthen the anti-doping mentality of Dutch elite and talented athletes. The campaign is a combined initiative of the Dopingautoriteit and the NOC*NSF Athletes' Commission.

Dose-dependent effects of testosterone on regional adipose tissue distribution in healthy young men / Linda J. Woodhouse, Nidhi Gupta, Meenakshi Bhasin, Atam B. Singh, Robert Ross, Jeffrey Phillips, Shalender Bhasin. - (Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 89 (2004) 2 (1 February); p. 718-726)

• PMID: 14764787
• DOI: 10.1210/jc.2003-031492

Abstract

Testosterone supplementation reduces total body adipose tissue (AT), but we do not know whether the effects are uniformly distributed throughout the body or are region specific, or whether they are dose related. We determined the effects of graded doses of testosterone on regional AT distribution in 54 healthy men (18-35 yr) in a 20-wk, randomized, double-blind study of combined treatment with GnRH agonist plus one of five doses (25, 50, 125, 300, or 600 mg/wk) of testosterone enanthate (TE). Total body, appendicular, and trunk AT and lean body mass were measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, and sc, intermuscular, and intraabdominal AT of the thigh and abdomen were measured by magnetic resonance imaging. Treatment regimens resulted in serum nadir testosterone concentrations ranging from subphysiological to supraphysiological levels. Dose-dependent changes in AT mass were negatively correlated with TE dose at all sites and were equally distributed between the trunk and appendices. The lowest dose was associated with gains in sc, intermuscular, and intraabdominal AT, with the greatest percent increase occurring in the sc stores. At the three highest TE doses, thigh intermuscular AT volume was significantly reduced, with a greater percent loss in intermuscular than sc depots, whereas intraabdominal AT stores remained unchanged. In conclusion, changes in testosterone concentrations in young men are associated with dose-dependent and region-specific changes in AT and lean body mass in the appendices and trunk. Lowering testosterone concentrations below baseline increases sc and deep AT stores in the appendices and abdomen, with a greater percent increase in sc depots. Conversely, elevating testosterone concentrations above baseline induces a greater loss of AT from the smaller, deeper intermuscular stores of the thigh.

Ghandourah S, Hofer MJ, Kießling A, El-Zayat B, Schofer, DM.
J Med Case Rep. 2012 Aug 20;6(1):248.

Abstract

Introduction
Synthol is a site enhancement oil used by bodybuilders to boost the cosmetic appearance of muscles. Here, we describe the case of a patient with severe side effects following repeated intramuscular injections of synthol in his right biceps muscle.

Case presentation
A 29-year-old Middle Eastern male bodybuilder, following intramuscular injections of synthol five years ago, presented with painful pressure in his right upper arm. On presentation to our clinic, his muscle appeared disfigured. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed scattered cystic fatty lesions in the muscle. The affected part was surgically removed and histopathology showed inflammatory changes with fibrosis and a so-called Swiss cheese pattern.

Conclusion
Synthol injections that are used for the short-term enhancement of muscle appearance by bodybuilders bear the danger of long-term painful muscle fibrosis and disfigurement.

Onzeker over doping? (Dutch title)

This leaflet gives some basic information on doping and doping issues like: what is doping, what substances are prohibited, why do people cheat, why is there such a fuss made about doping? THe leaflet is made for adolescent athletes.

Sporter medicatie? (Dutch title)

This leaflet explains what athletes should do if they take medication, if the medication contains substances which are on the doping list and how a TUE can be requested. The leaflet is made by the Flemish government.