AUSTRALIAN SPORTS DRUG AGENCY 2004-05 ANNUAL REPORT
© Commonwealth of Australia
ISSN 1037-378

Table of contents iv
Figures vi
Acronyms vii
About this report ix
Chairperson’s message 1
Acting Chief Executive report 3
ASDA snapshot: 2004–05 8
Outcome and output structure 9
2004–05 ASDA highlights 10
2005–06 outlook 11
Australia’s anti-doping framework 12
ASDA’s corporate structure 13
Deterrence 16
Drug testing 17
Key projects 23
Education, communication and advocacy services 24
International response 36
Facilitating international consistency 36
Representing Australia internationally 38
Business improvement 46
Effective corporate governance 46
Contracting and purchasing 50
Responding to business opportunities 51
Employing best practice 51
People 56
Developing staff potential 56
Attracting and retaining staff 58
Corporate governance 64
The ASDA Board 64
Audit Committee 67
Senior management staff 67
Management committees 68
Reporting compliance 68
Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee 76
Glossary 80
Appendices 82
Appendix A: ASDA Strategic Plan performance outcomes 2004–05 82
Appendix B: Drug testing statistics 2004–05 83
Appendix C: ASDA drug tests completed - 1989 to 30 June 2005 93
Appendix D: Drug testing statistics 2003–04 — Amendments to 2003–04
Annual Report Appendix B 94
Appendix E: Register of Notifiable Events (RNE) 2004–05 95
Appendix F: List of International Incidences (LII) 97
Appendix G: Entries on RNE and LII from previous years where outcomes were
to be advised 98
Appendix H: International anti-doping arrangements and drug testing agreements 99
Appendix I: Financial statements 101
Appendix J: 2001–05 ASDA Strategic Plan 143
Appendix K: Powers of the Minister under the ASDA Act 144
Appendix L: The objects, functions and powers of the Agency as specified
in the ASDA Act 145
Appendix M: Portfolio Budget Statements performance summary 147
Appendix N: Summary of Portfolio Budget Statements by outcome 148
Appendix O: ASDMAC functions (excerpt from ASDA Regulations 1999) 149
Appendix P: ASDMAC approvals by sport July 1 2004 to 30 June 2005 150
Compliance index 154
Index 155
Figures
Figure 1: ASDA’s outcome and output structure
Figure 2: Australia’s anti-doping framework
Figure 3: ASDA’s corporate structure
Figure 4: Deterrent effect of ASDA’s programs 2000 to 2005
Figure 5: ASDA drug tests completed 1989 to 2005
Figure 6: Register of Notifiable Events trends 1998 to 2005
Figure 7: Distribution of ASDA’s education resources
Figure 8: ASDA’s client engagement
Figure 9: ASDA staff survey satisfaction ratings 1998 to 2004
Figure 10: Gender composition of ASDA permanent staff
Figure 11: ASDA Board details as at 30 June 2005
Figure 12: ASDA Audit Committee details as at 30 June 2005
Figure 13: ASDMAC’s budget 2004–05

The Development and Validation of a Doping Attitudes and Behaviour Scale / S. Guerin, K. Kirby, A.Moran

Athletes’ use of prohibited ergogenic substances for performance enhancement is a form of cheating behaviour which can jeopardise both their health and their careers. Given such importance, it is not surprising that the problem of drug-use in competitive sport has been widely studied. Unfortunately, research in this field has at least three obvious limitations. First, few studies have attempted to explain why athletes are willing to use these substances, given the risks involved (Anshel, 2005). Second, little effort has been made to understand the theoretical mechanisms underlying cheating/doping behaviour in athletes. Finally, there is a paucity of research on elite athletes’ attitudes to, and beliefs about, doping in sport. These oversights are unfortunate because antidoping measures cannot be fully effective unless they are based on solid evidence about why athletes (especially elite performers) engage in drug-taking in the first place. To address these gaps in the literature, the first phase of the present study examines the psychological variables underlying attitudes to drug use in sport.
To date, 375 high performance (HP) athletes have been surveyed on their attitudes to doping, and a number of relevant psychological variables have also been measured. Interesting findings have emerged on the perceived and reported incidence of doping in sport, athletes’ knowledge of doping substances and differences in attitudes between various demographic groups. Statistical results also show some significant relationships emerging between doping attitudes and psychological characteristics, including perfectionist tendencies and motivational variables. This is the first time an empirical investigation has examined such a multitude of relationships, and the results have guided the next stage of the research; a qualitative focus on the views of athletes
who have direct experience of doping.

Phase 2 of the study involved exhaustive searches of media reports, seeking athletes who publicly admitted to engaging in doping practices. Over a 30-month period, this list extended to almost 80 elite athletes who were identified as potential interview candidates for this qualitative phase of the research. Following the compilation of the list, efforts were made to contact these athletes through their national governing bodies, national anti-doping agencies, and journalists with whom they had spoken in the past.
However, this proved much more difficult than originally anticipated for two reasons:
(a) because it was not possible to obtain contact details for high profile athletes and
(b) because those who were contacted were not willing to partake in the research, despite assurances of anonymity and confidentiality. The sample size totals 4 athletes who have
admitted doping offences, but in light of the very limited number of potential participants and the sensitive nature of the research topic, this was a reasonable number from which to extract a thematic analysis. Interesting explorations of both the internal and external sources of influence on athletes’ doping practices emerged, along with more in-depth analysis of the psychological variables which may guide doping decisions.

The final stage of the research, the development and validation of a doping attitudes and behaviour scale (DABS) will be informed by findings from both the aforementioned quantitative and qualitative research studies.

Rapportage Audit Commissie Doping : periode maart 2005 t/m augustus 2005 / C.A. Segaar, S.J.U. Veen-van der Wielen, C. van Bentum. - Arnhem : Audit Commissie Doping, 2005.
- Rapportage t.b.v. de Algemene vergadering NOC*NSF 15 november 2005
- Halfjaarlijkse rapportage aan de Algemene Vergadering van NOC*NSF, het bestuur NOC*NSF, de staatssecretaris van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport en het bestuur van het NeCeDo.

Inhoud:

- Hoofdstuk 1 Inleiding
- Hoofdstuk 2 Gegevens verzameling
- Hoofdstuk 3 Toelichting overzichten
- Hoofdstuk 4 Bevindingen
- Hoofdstuk 5 Conclusies en aanbevelingen
- Bijlagen Rapportage Audit Commissie Doping Olympische bonden
Rapportage Audit Commissie Doping Niet-Olympische bonden
Overzicht verdeling dopingcontroles 2005

CAS 2004/O/645 United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) v. M. & International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF)

• Athletics
• Doping (THG)
• Absence of any adverse analytical finding (“non-analytical positive” case)
• Burden and standard of proof
• Uncontroverted testimony
• Adverse inference
• Admission of the use of a prohibited substance
• Sanction

1. USADA bears the burden of proving, by strong evidence commensurate with the serious claims it makes that the athlete committed the doping offences. It makes little, if indeed any difference, whether a „beyond reasonable doubt‟ or „comfortable satisfaction‟ standard is applied to determine the claims against the athlete.

2. Doping offences can be proved by a variety of means. In the absence of any adverse analytical finding (“non-analytical positive” cases), other types of evidence can be substantiated. Among these is the uncontroverted testimony of a wholly credible witness, which can be sufficient to establish that the athlete has indeed admitted to have used prohibited substances in violation of applicable anti-doping rules.

3. The admission of the use of prohibited substances merits a period of ineligibility under IAAF Rules of two years. The date of commencement of the sanction takes into consideration the numerous delays in the hearing process which are not attributable to the Athlete. The retroactive cancellation of all the athlete results, rankings, awards and winnings as of the date of admission of the use of prohibited substances has to take place.

In June 2004 USADA seeks a four-year sanction of the Athlete Tim Montgomery for participating in a wide-ranging doping conspiracy implemented by the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO). USADA charges that, for a period of several years, the Athlete had used various performance-enhancing drugs provided by BALCO.

Althought Montgomery has never had a single drug test found to be a positive doping violation, the charges made by USADA are based on:

• all of the blood and urine tests he had provided in recent years;
• documents seized by the U.S. government from BALCO that have been delivered to USADA;
• statements made by BALCO officials and other documents.

USADA contended that BALCO was involved in a conspiracy for the purpose of the distribution and use of doping substances and techniques. They were either undetectable or difficult to detect in routine drug testing.

Further BALCO is alleged to have distributed several types of banned doping agents to professional athletes in track and field, baseball and football. Among these agents were tetrahydrogestrinome (THG), otherwise known as “the Clear” by BALCO and its users.

THG is a designer steroid that could not be identified by routine anti-doping testing until 2003, when a track and field coach provided a sample of it to USADA. It is undisputed that the Clear is a prohibited substance under the IAAF Rules.

After deliberations between the parties this case was transferred in July 2004 to the Court of Aribitration for Sport (CAS).

The Panel has no doubt in this case, and is more than comfortably satisfied, that the Athlete committed the doping rule violation in question. It has been presented with strong, indeed uncontroverted, evidence of doping by the Athlete.

The Panel establishes that there is an admission contained in his statements made to W. and to others while in her presence. On this basis, the Tribunal finds that the Athlete Tim is Montgomery guilty of a doping offence.

Therefore on 13 December 2005 the CAS Panel decides that:

1.) Respondent is guilty of the offence of admitting having used a prohibited substance under IAAF Rules 55.2(iii) and 60.1(iii).

2.) The following sanctions shall be imposed on Respondent:

• a) A period of ineligibility under IAAF Rules for two years commencing as of 6 June 2005, including his ineligibility from participating in U.S. Olympic, Pan American or Paralympic Games, trials or qualifying events, being a member of any 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;
• b) The retroactive cancellation of all awards or additions to Respondent's trust fund to which he would have been entitled by virtue of his appearance and/or performance at any athletics meeting occurring between 31 March 2001 and the date of this Award.

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

5.) This Award deals definitively with all charges brought against Respondent by Claimant in this arbitration. All charges not expressly dealt with herein are dismissed.

CAS 2004/O/649 United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) v. G.

• Athletics
• Doping (THG)
• Absence of any adverse analytical finding (“non-analytical positive” case)
• Burden and standard of proof
• Uncontroverted testimony
• Adverse inference
• Admission of the use of a prohibited substance
• Sanction

1. USADA bears the burden of proving, by strong evidence commensurate with the serious claims it makes that the athlete committed the doping offences. It makes little, if indeed any difference, whether a ’beyond reasonable doubt’ or ’comfortable satisfaction’ standard is applied to determine the claims against the athlete.

2. Doping offences can be proved by a variety of means. In the absence of any adverse analytical finding (“non-analytical positive” cases), other types of evidence can be substantiated. Among these is the uncontroverted testimony of a wholly credible witness, which can be sufficient to establish that the athlete has indeed admitted to have used prohibited substances in violation of applicable anti-doping rules.

3. The admission of the use of prohibited substances merits a period of ineligibility under IAAF Rules of two years. The date of commencement of the sanction takes into consideration the numerous delays in the hearing process which are not attributable to the Athlete. The retroactive cancellation of all the athlete results, rankings, awards and winnings as of the date of admission of the use of prohibited substances has to take place.

In June 2004 USADA seeks a four-year sanction of Chryste Gaines for participating in a wideranging doping conspiracy allegedly implemented by the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO).

USADA charges that, for a period of several years, Ms. Gaines used various performance-enhancing drugs provided by BALCO. As noted, Ms. Gaines has never had a single drug test found to be a positive doping violation, but USADA’s charges are based, in part, on all of the urine tests at IOC-accredited and non-IOC-accredited laboratories that she has had in recent years.

USADA also relies, among other things, on documents seized by the U.S. government from BALCO that have been provided to USADA; statements made by BALCO officials; and other documents.

According to USADA, BALCO was involved in a conspiracy the purpose of which was the distribution and use of doping substances and techniques that were either undetectable or difficult to detect in routine drug testing. BALCO is alleged to have distributed several types of banned doping agents to professional athletes in track and field, baseball and football. Among these were tetrahydrogestrinome (THG), otherwise known as “the Clear” by BALCO and its users.

THG is a designer steroid that could not be identified by routine antidoping testing until 2003, when a track and field coach provided a sample of it to USADA. It is undisputed that the Clear is a prohibited substance under the IAAF Rules.

After deliberations between the parties this case was transferred in July 2004 to the Court of Aribitration for Sport (CAS).

The Panel has no doubt in this case, and is more than comfortably satisfied, that Ms Gaines committed a doping offence. It has been presented with strong, indeed uncontroverted, evidence of doping by the Athlete, in the form of an admission contained in her statements made to W. On this basis, the Tribunal finds Respondent guilty of a doping offence.

On 13 December 2015 the Panel unanimously finds and orders as follows:

1.) Respondent is guilty of the offence of admitting having used a prohibited substance under IAAF Rules 55.2(iii) and 60.1(iii).

2.) The following sanctions shall be imposed on Respondent:

• a.) A period of ineligibility under the IAAF Rules for two years commencing as of 6 June 2005, including her ineligibility from participating in U.S. Olympic, Pan American or Paralympic Games, trials or qualifying events, being a member of any 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;
• b.) The retroactive cancellation of all awards or additions to Respondent‟s trust fund to which she would have been entitled by virtue of her appearance and/or performance at any athletics meeting occurring between 30 November 2003 and the date of this Award.

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

5.) This Award deals definitively with all charges brought against Respondent by Claimant in this arbitration. All charges not expressly dealt with herein are dismissed.

An Overview of Non-Analytical Positive & Circumstantial Evidence Cases in Sports / Richard H. McLaren.- (Marquette Sports Law Review 16 (2006) 2 (Spring)

As new technologies for detecting drug violations in sport struggle to keep up with the creation of new doping substances and methods, non-analytical positive cases have become a more prominent tool in the fight against doping. Although doping offenses are most commonly established by direct evidence, where a positive analytical result from an accredited laboratory directly shows that an athlete had a prohibited substance in his or her body, situations will arise where only circumstantial evidence points to the commission of a doping offense. The challenge in such cases will be to prove the use of prohibited substances or techniques without direct evidence.

A circumstantial evidence case can be troublesome because the benefit from the concept of strict liability is eliminated. Strict liability has evolved in the jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and has been adopted in the World Anti-Doping Agency Code (WADA Code). Strict liability means that a doping violation occurs when a banned substance is found in an athlete's body. The conclusion that an infraction occurred is not based upon intent or lack thereof.

Contents:

I. Introduction
II. Types of Non-Analytical Positive Cases
III. Pre WADA Code
A.) Summary of Burden and Standard of Proof Before WADA
B .) Summary of Cases
i. Michelle Smith de Bruin
ii. Mark French
iii. Michelle Collins
C.) Conclusions Regarding Pre-WADA Code Cases
IV. Post-WADA Code Implementation
A.) Summary of Burden and Standard of Proof After WADA Code
Introduction
B.) Post-WADA Non-Analytical Cases
i. Galabin Boevski
ii. Tim Montgomery and Chryste Gaines
C.) Conclusions Regarding Post-WADA Cases
V .Conclusions

Anti-Doping controls and positives : statistical data 2002 / Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI). - Roma : CONI, 2003

by Soek, Jan Willem
Doctoral Thesis
Erasmus University Rotterdam: Erasmus School of Law (ESL)

Athletes who achieve extraordinary feats on the pitch stir up the imagination and enjoy a unique position within society. However, laurels received one day, may be just as quickly snatched back the next if it becomes known that the athlete achieved his or her exceptional performance with the aid of doping. Manipulating the body by the use of substances and methods that unnaturally enhance athletic performance is considered a violation of several fundamental principles related to sport. The arguments by which sports organisations have sought to justify their fight against doping have been discussed in Chapter 1. Doping is considered a health risk, but also a threat to both athlete’s integrity and that of sport as a whole, and consequently, given the position in society occupied by sport, of that of society itself. None of these arguments, however, is entirely convincing. Perhaps this is why many sports organisations have declined to state reasons for their anti-doping policies in their anti-doping regulations. The fight against doping in sport is considered self-evident and the arguments which are advanced in its favour merely serve to illustrate this fact. It was only a relatively short time ago that the systematic fight against doping in sport through legal rules began. As a separate body of disciplinary law besides their regular disciplinary rules the sports organisations established special anti-doping regulations for the prosecution and punishment of doping offences. As opposed to under general disciplinary law where unwritten minimum standards usually apply, the disciplinary law of doping uses detailed material rules which define the act of doping and the way in which it is to be punished. As such, the disciplinary law concerning doping resembles the statutory disciplinary rules that exist for certain professions, but is also comparable to public punitive law. What sets disciplinary doping law apart however is that the material rules do not aim to regulate the actual exercise of a profession, but are based on the ideological aspects which prevail in the environment where an athlete's activities take place. In disciplinary doping law, for example, there are hardly any examples of professional error, but rather of acts which undermine the image and ethics of the sport. This is an aspect which it has in common with criminal law. Disciplinary doping law which mainly aims to regulate the relevant offences and their prosecution and punishment should therefore be organised along the same lines as criminal law and entitle athletes to certain rights to counter the demands of the collective. This is necessary, as in sport the interests of the collective are often valued above those of the individual.