Facts
The French Triathlon Federation (Fédération Française de Triathlon, FFTri) charges respondent M41 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on January 9, 2005, a sample was taken for doping tests purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence a metabolite of cocaine. Cocaine is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent was sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of two years by the disciplinary committee of the FFTri. He didn't appear at the hearing and the contra analysis confirmed the findings. The appeal committee of the FFTri confirmed the same sanction.
The panel extends the sanction to all sport federations.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by sport federations.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Fact
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M28 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on July 17, 2011, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of parahydroxyamphetamine, L-Amphetamine, D-Amphetamine and Fenetylline which are prohibitred substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Parahydroxyamphetamine is regarded as a specified substance. L-Amphetamine, D-Amphetamine and Fenetylline are regarded as non-specified substances.

History
The respondent had allready received a decision dated November 29, 2007, for the refusal of a doping test (period of ineligibility 2 months).

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 4 years (second violation) in which the athlete can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the French sport federations.
2. All the results obtained at the cycling event of July 17, 2011, are canceled with all resulting consequences including forfeiture of
medals , points and prizes.
3. The decision will start on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

The Royal Dutch Athletics Association (KNAU) has reported against this person in connection with a third Whereabouts registered error in the last eighteen months concerned. When a member commits three Whereabouts errors within a period of eighteen months, there is a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Person has filed a defence and the case is then treated orally.
Concerned has stated that the DA and / or the Athletics Union of the discovery of the erroneous entry of the whereabouts and the two missed tests not acted carefully and regulations has been exceeded. However, the Disciplinary Committee has not discovered any jurisdiction of the DA or not or not properly comply with the regulations. The defence of person is rejected as being unfounded.
The DA has an erroneous submission of whereabouts information, be awarded. Also, the doping control official twice attempted concerned within the specified one-hour time slot control. Person could not be reached by the official. The defence is concerned at all three times rejected and the Disciplinary Commission considers that insufficient data subject has proved that there is no question of a mistake on his part.
There is a first offense of person. The Disciplinary Committee is a penalty of exclusion for a period of one year is appropriate. The Disciplinary Committee considers it important that the maximum penalty of two years to moderate, now it is an administrative offense concerned and it is established that there is no use of prohibited substances. The case related to these costs are borne by individual charged.

For violating the doping regulations of the ISR, the Dutch Royal Strength Sport Fitness Federation (KNKF) reported against this person. In the A portion of the urine sample of person are prohibited substances 17β-methyl-5β-androst-1-ene-3α, 17α-diol and 17α-methyl-5β-androstane-3α, 17β-diol (metabolites of metandienone) and a testosterone / epitestosterone ratio greater than 4 detected. This result is confirmed by the analysis of the B-portion of the urine sample. The doping is held during the Open Powerlifting Championship North Holland Alkmaar. The case was orally treated with the person appeared in person.
Person relied on the inadmissibility of the KNKF related to exceeding the six-week deadline for reporting the ADRV. The Disciplinary Commission notes, however, that there is no excess of this limit. Person has no further use is made of a defence. During the hearing person said to have been taken by surprise by the doping. Person had just joined the KNKF. In his own words, he was not informed about doping and possible controls. Person states that he purchased the supplements on the Internet. He had no idea that these preparations may contain prohibited substances.
For a first offense of doping, there is a penalty of exclusion for a period of two years. Person has not previously been convicted of a doping offense. The Disciplinary Committee finds that no reasons are given for the reduction / extension of the standard sanction period. Person after suspension has not participated in power lift competitions. This period shall be deducted from the total period of exclusion. Also, 50% of the costs recovered from the person concerned. Not the total cost because the information provided by the KNKF on doping control has left much to be desired.

For violating the doping regulations of the ISR, the Dutch Royal Strength Sport Fitness Federation (KNKF) reported against this person. In the A portion of the urine sample of person are prohibited substances 17β-methyl-5β-androst-1-ene-3α, 17α-diol and 17α-methyl-5β-androstane-3α, 17β-diol (metabolites of metandienone) and a testosterone / epitestosterone ratio greater than 4 detected. This result is confirmed by the analysis of the B-portion of the urine sample. The doping is held during the Open Powerlifting Championship North Holland Alkmaar. The case was orally treated with the person appearing in person.
Person relied on the inadmissibility of the KNKF related to exceeding the six-week deadline for reporting the ADRV. The Disciplinary Commission notes, however, that there is no excess of this limit. Person has no further use is made of a defence. During the hearing person said to have been taken by surprise by the doping. Person had just joined the KNKF. In his own words, he was not informed about doping and possible controls. Person states that he supplements to purchased on the Internet. He had no idea that these preparations may contain prohibited substances.
For a first offense of doping, there is a penalty of exclusion for a period of two years. Person has not previously been convicted of a doping offense. The Disciplinary Committee finds that no reasons are given for the reduction / extension of the standard sanction period. Person after suspension has not participated in power lift competitions. This period shall be deducted from the total period of exclusion. Also, 50% of the costs recovered from the person concerned. Not the total cost because the information provided by the KNKF on doping control has left much to be desired.

The KNKF Appeal committee decides on 22 July 2010 to dismiss the appeal and to uphold the impose a 2 year period of ineligibilty.

Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 2012, 9:28
Paolo Borrione, Marta Rizzo, Federico Quaranta, Emanuela Ciminelli, Federica Fagnani, Attilio Parisi and Fabio Pigozzi

Background: A growing consumption of natural (plant-derived) dietary supplements with ergogenic aims, with particular regard for ecdysteroids, phytoestrogens and vegetal sterols, has been registered over the last years among “recreational” athletes. The present study was carried out in order to evaluate the real knowledge of plant-derived nutritional supplements among physically active people as well as their real consumption. Additional aim was to evaluate the effects of these supplements on the health profile of the users.

Methods: Twenty-three trained subjects who habitually used natural dietary supplements, and 30 matched controls
were analyzed for plasma biochemical markers and hormonal profile.
Results: The laboratory tests revealed the absence of any sign of organ toxicity/damage in both athletes and controls. On the contrary, hormone profiles revealed marked alterations in 15 (65%) out of the 23 of investigated athletes. Specifically, 10 males presented increased plasma levels of progesterone, 15 subjects presented abnormal estrogen levels, including 5 (2 F and 3 M) presenting a “dramatic” increased estrogen values and 2 two males with increased estrogen levels, increased testosterone levels and associated suppression of luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone.

Conclusions: The results of the present study highlighted that the habitual consumption of plant-derived nutritional supplements is frequently associated with significant hormonal alterations both in male and female subjects. Although these biochemical alterations were not associated with signs or symptoms of organ toxicity/
damage at the moment of the study, it cannot be excluded that, in the mid/long-term, these subjects would suffer of health problems secondary to chronic exposure to heavily altered hormonal levels. Further large scale studies are needed to confirm the results of this pilot study as well as to investigate the biological mechanisms at the base of the observed hormonal alterations.

J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2011 September; 2(3): 153–161.
Dalton JT, Barnette KG, Bohl CE, Hancock ML, Rodriguez D, Dodson ST, Morton RA, Steiner MS.

BACKGROUND:

Cachexia, also known as muscle wasting, is a complex metabolic condition characterized by loss of skeletal muscle and a decline in physical function. Muscle wasting is associated with cancer, sarcopenia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, end-stage renal disease, and other chronic conditions and results in significant morbidity and mortality. GTx-024 (enobosarm) is a nonsteroidal selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM) that has tissue-selective anabolic effects in muscle and bone, while sparing other androgenic tissue related to hair growth in women and prostate effects in men. GTx-024 has demonstrated promising pharmacologic effects in preclinical studies and favorable safety and pharmacokinetic profiles in phase I investigation.

METHODS:
A 12-week double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II clinical trial was conducted to evaluate GTx-024 in 120 healthy elderly men (>60 years of age) and postmenopausal women. The primary endpoint was total lean body mass assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, and secondary endpoints included physical function, body weight, insulin resistance, and safety.

RESULTS:
GTx-024 treatment resulted in dose-dependent increases in total lean body mass that were statistically significant (P < 0.001, 3 mg vs. placebo) and clinically meaningful. There were also significant improvements in physical function (P = 0.013, 3 mg vs. placebo) and insulin resistance (P = 0.013, 3 mg vs. placebo). The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSION:
GTx-024 showed a dose-dependent improvement in total lean body mass and physical function and was well tolerated. GTx-024 may be useful in the prevention and/or treatment of muscle wasting associated with cancer and other chronic diseases.

CAS 2005/A/951 Guillermo Cañas v. ATP Tour, revised award of 23 May 2007

Related case:

• ITF 2005 ATP vs Guillermo Cañas
  August 7, 2005
• Swiss Federal Court 4P.172_2006 Guillermo Cañas vs ATP Tour & CAS
  22 March 2007

• Tennis
• Doping (hydrochlorothiazide)
• Burdens and standards of proof
• Duty of utmost caution
• Level of fault or negligence

1. Under the ATP Rules, once it has been established that a Prohibited Substance was present in the player’s specimen, there is a Doping Offense. The burden of proof then shifts to the player to establish by a balance of probability, first how the prohibited substance entered his system, and second that he bears No Fault or Negligence, or in the alternative No Significant Fault or Negligence, for the Doping Offense in order for the two years period of ineligibility to be eliminated or reduced.

2. A player is being clearly negligent when relying blindly on the system set up to take care of him at a Tournament site, assuming that it is foolproof. The player has a duty of utmost caution after visiting the Tournament doctor, when actually ingesting medications. It would be normal for him to rely on the trustworthiness and knowledge of the Tournament doctor if the doctor handed the medications to him, but any professional athlete these days has to be wary when, as in this case, he receives medications which, he knows, have gone through several hands. Thus, the player cannot establish that he bears No Fault or Negligence for the Doping Offense.

3. What is determinative of the level of fault or negligence is not only what the player actually knew or expected but also what he could have suspected.

In March 2005, the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Guillermo Cañas after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide (HCT). After notification the Athlete was heard for the ATP Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete stated that he had no idea how he took the prohibited substance. Arriving at the tournament he suffered from a sore throat and symptoms of a cold or influenza. He went for a prescription at the offices of the ATP physicians and before using he didn't read the label.

The Athlete argued that it is likely that the prescription of the ATP physicians is the source of the contamination, which would mean the ATP is the origin of the contamination. The small amounts of the prohibited substances prove it was not taken to eliminate other doping substances. The urine was insufficiently diluted to have traces of other substances, this is a technical violation of the Anti-Doping

The ATP Tribunal concluded that not has been established how the prohibited substance had entered his body. There is no evidence that the contamination is caused by the medicine he claimed to have used. He also didn’t reseach the ingredients of the medication before using. Therefore the ATP Anti-Doping Tribunal decided on 7 August 2005 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 11 June 2005.

Hereafter in August 2005 the Athlete appealed the ATP decision of 7 August 2005 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Considering the evidence and statements the Panel finds that the Athlete has established that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence in this exceptional case although he acted negligently in ingesting a banned substance.

The majority of the Panel rejected the Athlete’s arguments regarding EU law. Assuming that EU law would be applicable to the present case, as alleged by the Athlete and such application of EU law has not been specifically agreed by the parties, the Panel is of the view that the present decision does not violate EU law.

Thefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 23 May 2007:

1.) The appeal filed by the Athlete Mr Guillermo Cañas on 29 August 2005 is partially upheld.

2.) Mr Guillermo Cañas has committed a Doping Offense during the “Abierto Mexicano de Tenis” held in Acapulco, Mexico on 21 February 2005 and his results from the competition shall be disqualified. Any prize money collected at such Tournament not previously returned to ATP Tour shall be returned to ATP Tour within 7 days of the date of this award.

3.) Mr Cañas shall be ineligible to compete on the ATP Tour for the fifteen months period beginning from 11 June 2005.

4.) To the extent that ATP Tour has collected prize money for competitions in which Appellant competed after the Tournament, those amounts shall be returned to Appellant by ATP Tour within 7 days of the date of this award.

5.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500.- already paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS.

6.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the original CAS decision of 23 May 2006 (CAS 2005/A/951) with the Swiss Federal Court.
On 22 March 2007, the Swiss Federal Court determined that the Appellant’s right to be heard was disregarded by the CAS Panel and on that basis, the Swiss Federal Court annulled the Panel’s award (Swiss Federal Court 4P.172_2006 Guillermo Cañas vs ATP Tour & CAS).

In the light of the judgment of the Swiss Federal Tribunal, the CAS Panel has reviewed the submissions and evidence originally submitted by the parties and hereby issues a new revised award (23 May 2007) in substitution of the award rendered on 23 May 2006.

CAS 2006/A/1032 Sesil Karatancheva v/International Tennis Federation

Related case:

ITF 2006 ITF vs Sesil Karatantcheva
January 11, 2006

On 11 January 2006 the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the minor tennis player Sesil Karatantcheva after her samples - provided in France in May 2005 and in Japan in July 2005 - tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

In first instance the ITF Tribunal rejected the Athlete's defence that the positive test results are on the balance of probabilities the result of endogenous production of Nandrolone by the Athlete consequent on her pregnancy.

Hereafter in January 2006 the Athlete appealed the ITF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested to annul the Appealed Decision and its sanction or alternatively for a reduced sanction.

The Athlete denied that she had committed an anti-doping rule violation and asserted that the elevated levels of 19-norandrosterone were due mainly to her pregnancy condition (physiological criteria) on one hand, and biochemical influence of the regularly taken food supplements, on the other.

Further the Athlete argued that due to a series of procedural deficiencies in the management of the tests by the ITF and its agents, and of failings in the laboratories’ testing procedures which occurred during and between the Paris test and the Tokyo test, the positive findings must be deemed invalid for one or more of the following main reasons.

The ITF contended that contrary to the Athlete's pregnancy defence, the 19-norandrosterone in her samples was not endogenously produced, this being established by  documentary and expert evidence.

Also the ITF dismissed the Athlete's allegations that due to a series of procedural deficiencies in the management of the tests by the ITF and its agents, and of failings in the laboratories’ testing procedures which occurred during and between the Paris test and the Tokyo test, the positive findings must be deemed invalid.

Following weighing the scientific evidence in light of the facts of the case, the Panel considers that the concentrations of 19-norandrosterone found in the Athlete’s Paris sample deviate
from the values of 19-norandrosterone which might be found in a pregnant women in her 10th week of pregnancy, in a range that makes it very unlikely for the concentrations of 19-norandrosterone to be consistent with the normal endogenous production of 19-norandrosterone at that stage of pregnancy.

For such reason, the Panel finds that the Paris test must be deemed constitutive of a doping offence and considers it need not pronounce itself on the subsequent Tokyo test, as in any event the Paris and Tokyo tests have been treated as a single first offence for the purpose of imposing sanctions.

Furthermore the Panel finds there is no room for finding that the Athlete was not negligent or not significantly negligent. Accordingly, it need not further examine whether the Athlete met her burden of proving the exogenous source of 19-norandrosterone found in her system.

Therefore on 3 July 2006 the Court of Arbitration for Sport:

1.) Dismisses the appeal filed by Sesil Karatancheva on 27 January 2006.

2.) (…)

CAS 2004/A/690 D. Hipperdinger v/ATP
CAS 2004/A/690 H. v. Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP)

Related case:

ITF 2004 ATP vs Diego Hipperdinger

• Tennis
• Doping (cocaine)
• Use of a natural product (coca tea and coca leaves) for medical purpose
• Significant negligence
• Sanction

1. According to Rule S1. of Appendix Three of the ATP Rules, cocaine is considered a prohibited substance. When the presence of cocaine and metabolites in the athlete’s body is not disputed, the athlete committed a doping offence in the sense of Rule C.1.a of the ATP Rules, if he did not establish a granted therapeutic use exemption.

2. A professional athlete must be considered to be highly sensitive and alert to issues of doping. The principle of strict liability means that an athlete is responsible for whatever substance is in his body, without having regard to the reasons for such presence and the degree of any respective fault of the athlete. Every athlete must therefore be concerned about substances he or she is ingesting, in particular if this is done for a medicinal purpose. The athlete who did not comply with his duty of care acts negligently and cannot be considered as bearing no fault or negligence in the sense of Rule M.5.a of the ATP Rules or no significant negligence pursuant to Rule M.5.b of the ATP Rules.

3. Under the applicable anti-doping regulations, it is not the duty of the ATP to warn athletes against the use of certain substances. While it is certainly desirable that the ATP and any IF should make every effort to educate athletes about doping, it is principally the sole duty of the individual athlete to ensure that no prohibited substances enter his body. It is therefore irrelevant whether the ATP has warned athletes against the use of natural products. The list of prohibited substances is not intended to include each and every possible ingredient or base product – whether natural or synthetic – to a substance that is prohibited.

On 24 March 2005 the Court of Arbitration for Sport hereby decides:

1.) The Appeal filed by H. is partially allowed.

2.) The Decision of the ATP Anti-Doping Tribunal dated 23 July 2004 is upheld, save points 3 and 4 which are modified as follows: “

3. [Sentence 1 is annulled] The period of ineligibility has commenced on 9 February 2004 and will end on 8 February 2006.

4. [Sentence 1 is annulled] It is ordered that medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money earned since 9 February 2004 be forfeited. [Sentence 3 is upheld].

(…)