Jay R. Hoffman and Nicholas A. Ratamess
The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ, USA
Received: 10 February 2006 / Accepted: 09 March 2006 / Published (online): 01 June 2006

For the past 50 years anabolic steroids have been at the forefront of the controversy surrounding performance enhancing drugs. For almost half of this time no attempt was made by sports governing
bodies to control its use, and only recently have all of the major sports governing bodies in North America agreed to ban from competition and punish athletes who test positive for anabolic steroids. These punitive measures were developed with the primary concern for promotion of fair play and eliminating potential
health risks associated with androgenic-anabolic steroids. Yet, controversy exists whether these testing programs deter anabolic steroid use. Although the scope of this paper does not focus on the effectiveness of testing, or the issue of fair play, it is of interest to understand why many athletes underestimate the health
risks associated from these drugs. What creates further curiosity is the seemingly well-publicized health hazards that the medical community has depicted concerning anabolic steroid abuse. Is there something that the athletes know, or are they simply naïve regarding the dangers? The focus of this review is to
provide a brief history of anabolic steroid use in North America, the prevalence of its use in both athletic and recreational populations and its efficacy. Primary discussion will focus on health issues associated with anabolic steroid use with an examination of the contrasting views held between the medical community and the athletes that are using these ergogenic drugs. Existing data suggest that in certain circumstances the medical risk associated with anabolic steroid use may have been somewhat exaggerated,
possibly to dissuade use in athletes.

http://www.jssm.org

CAS 2008/A/1545 Andrea Anderson, LaTasha Colander Clark, Jearl Miles-Clark, Torri Edwards, Chryste Gaines, Monique Hennagan, Passion Richardson v/ IOC

Ms Andrea Anderson, Ms LaTasha Colander Clark, Ms Jearl Miles-Clark, Ms Torri Edwards, Ms Chryste Gaines, Ms Monique Hennagan and Ms Passion Richardson are all track and field athletes from the United States of America. The Athletes participated in the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000 as members
of the U.S. Olympic team sent by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC).

The issue to be solved in this case is whether, under the applicable rules in force at the time of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the results obtained by the US track and field
teams in the women’s 4×100m and 4×400m relay events should be annulled and the medals withdrawn from those teams because one team member – Ms Marion Jones –
has been subsequently disqualified due to an admitted anti-doping rule violation.

Following investigations the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported in 2003 that the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO) was involved in a conspiracy for the purpose of the distribution and use of doping substances and techniques. These substances 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. Thereupon multiple athlete's were charged and convicted for the use of various performance-enhancing drugs.

Consequently on 10 April 2008 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to disqualify the USOC women relay teams and their results obtained at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games because of their use of prohibited substances provided by BALCO.

Hereafter in April 2008 the Athlete appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athletes requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to reverse the disqualifcation of their results obtained at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.

The Athletes argue that the IOC violated their rights to due process, fundamental fairness and natural justice through proceedings conducted in violation of the Olympic Charter.

In particular, according to the Athletes, the IOC knowingly and repeatedly disregarded the Olympic Charter and violated their right to be heard in the following ways:

• a) the IOC consistently refused to acquaint the Athletes with the charges and evidence against them;
• b) the Athletes were not granted any meaningful opportunity to tender a defence, in writing or in person;
• c) the IOC Disciplinary Commission and Executive Board were composed of individuals who had prejudged the matter, as demonstrated by some public statements;
• d) the Executive Board never adopted a valid decision.

Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that at the time of the Sydney Olympic Games there was no express IOC rule or IAAF rule that clearly allowed the IOC to annul the relay team results if one team member was found to have committed a doping offence.

As a result, the Panel is unanimously of the opinion that, on the basis of the IOC and IAAF rules applicable at the time of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the Appealed Decision taken by the IOC Executive Board on 10 April 2008 is incorrect and must be set aside. The Panel reaches this conclusion with all due respect to the IOC Executive Board and its fundamental role under the Olympic Charter.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 Juy 2010:

1.) The appeal filed by the Appellants Ms Andrea Anderson, Ms LaTasha Colander Clark, Ms Jearl Miles-Clark, Ms Torri Edwards, Ms Chryste Gaines, Ms Monique Hennagan and Ms Passion Richardson on 30 April 2008 is upheld.

2.) The Decision of the IOC Executive Board dated 10 April 2008 is hereby set aside.

3.) On the basis of the IOC and IAAF Rules in force and applicable at the time of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the United States’ teams that competed in the women’s 4×100m and 4×400m athletics relay events at those Games shall not be disqualified; the medals and diplomas awarded to the above noted Appellants in those events shall not be returned to the IOC.

4.) All other requests, motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

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

6.) The IOC shall pay a global amount of CHF 10’000.- to the above noted Appellants as contribution towards their expenses incurred in this arbitration.

CAS 2009/A/1545 Andrea Anderson, LaTasha Colander Clark, Jearl Miles-Clark, Torri Edwards, Chryste Gaines, Monique Hennagan, Passion Richardson v/ IOC - Partial Award

Ms Andrea Anderson, Ms LaTasha Colander Clark, Ms Jearl Miles-Clark, Ms Torri Edwards, Ms Chryste Gaines, Ms Monique Hennagan and Ms Passion Richardson are all track and field athletes from the United States of America. The Athletes participated in the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000 as members
of the U.S. Olympic team sent by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC).

Following investigations the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported in 2003 that the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO) was involved in a conspiracy for the purpose of the distribution and use of doping substances and techniques. These substances 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. Thereupon multiple athlete's were charged and convicted for the use of various performance-enhancing drugs.

Consequently on 10 April 2008 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to disqualify the USOC women relay teams and their results obtained at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games because of their use of prohibited substances provided by BALCO.

Hereafter in April 2008 the Athlete appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

This partial award concerned solely the IOC 3-year rule challenged by the Athletes. The Athletes asserted that this 3-year rule provided for in Rule 25.2.2.4 of the 2000 Olympic Charter prohibited the IOC from challenging their results at the
Sydney Olympics after 1 October 2003. Therefore, the Athletes request that the Appealed Decision be annulled.

The Panel assessed and addressed the following issues:

• Which version of the Olympic Charter is applicable to the present case?
• Does the three-year rule impose a limitation only to challenges brought by third parties or also to the power of the IOC to change its own decisions?
• Does the three-year rule only apply to decisions taken by the IOC?
• Under the relevant rules, was a decision reached in the context of the 2000 Olympic Games with regard to the distribution of medals to the Athletes?

The Panel determines that it is undisputed that on 30 September 2000 the Athletes received their relay medals from the IOC on the basis of and in compliance with the ranking provided by the lAAF and published by the SOCOG.

The Panel concludes that the IOC took no decision in the sense of Rule 25.2.2.4 of the 2000 Olympic Charter and Rule 6.4 of the 2008 Olympic Charter. As a consequence, the three-year rule did not preclude the IOC from taking the decision to withdraw from the Athletes the medals awarded for the
4x100 and 4x400 relay races of the Sydney Olympic Games of 2000.

The Panel thus deems that, as the Athletes' preliminary objection based on three-year rule has failed, the present case must proceed on the merits.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 18 December 2009:

1.) Rule 25.2.2.4 of the Olympic Charter in effect in 2000 did not preclude the IOC from taking a decision concerning the medals awarded for the women's 4x100 and 4x400 athletics relay races of the Sydney Olympic Gatnes of 2000.

2.) The exception submitted by Ms Andrea Anderson, Ms LaTasha Colander Clark, Ms Jearl Miles-Clark, Ms Tori Edwards, Ms Chryste Gaines, Ms Monique Hennagan and
Ms Passion Richardson on the basis of Rule 25.2.2.4 of the Olympic Charter in effect in 2000 and of Rule 6.4 of the Olympic Charter in effect in 2008 is dismissed.

3.) The CAS retains jurisdiction to adjudicate on the merits the appeal submitted by Ms LaTasha Colander Clark, Ms Jearl Miles-Clark, Ms Torri Edwards, Ms Chryste Gaines, Ms Monique Hennagan and Ms Passion Richardson against the decision of
the IOC Executive Board of 10 April 2008.

4.) All further decisions are reserved for the subsequent stages of the present appeal arbitration proceedings.

5.) The costs connected with the present partial award shall be determined in the final award.

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

Baseball player and 100% Dope Free ambassador Vince Rooi 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.

Dona Schneider, Joyce Morris
Joumal of Athletic Training Volume 28 * Number 2 * 1993
Urban Studies and Community Health at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, in New Brunswick, NJ 08903

We surveyed varsity athletes at a Big East university to assess
attitudes toward a mandatory drug education and testing program and examined whether there were differences in drug-related attitudes and behaviors based on gender or varsity sport.

We found no statistically significant differences in personal drug use behaviors based on gender or team affiliation. Attitudes about drug use and knowledge of a teammate using drugs did show significant differences based on varsity sport. Tennis players were most likely to agree that drug use by college athletes is socially acceptable. Lacrosse players were most likely to know of at least one teammate using drugs. Overall, attitudes towards the mandatory drug education and testing program were ambivalent. About half of our responding athletes believed drug testing was necessary and discouraged drug use. Only 17% believed that the program was an invasion of privacy.

Robert D. Kersey, PhD, ATC, CSCS
San Jose State University in San Jose, CA 95192-0054.
Journal of Athletic Training - Volume 31 * Number 3 * September 1996

Objective: To determine the incidence of anabolicandrogenic
steroid use among a sample of community college
student-athletes; also, to compare various aspects of users and
nonusers, as well as to describe usage patterns.

Design and Setting: A survey following random stratified
cluster sampling techniques was administered to 10 California
community colleges.

Subjects: A group of 1,185 male and female studentathletes.
Measurements: An anonymous 27-item, valid, and reliable
questionnaire was administered surveying anabolic-androgenic
steroid use and usage patterns.

Results: Of all student-athletes sampled, 3.3% were anabolic-
androgenic steroid users. Gender-specific incidence rates
were 4.2% for males and 1.2% for females. Anabolicandrogenic
steroid users tended to be older males, usually intheir second year of college. The users were more often
minorities. Users believed that they were knowledgeable about
anabolic-androgenic steroids, and that the rates of usage were
higher than reported. Their sources of steroid information were
often lifting partners and fellow athletes. Use of these drugs
was most often in cycles (mean of 6.7 weeks) and was
frequently done using multiple anabolic-androgenic steroids at
a time. The average number of cycles completed was 2.9. A
wide variety of steroids were used by the student-athletes, of
which most were obtained from illegal sources.

Conclusions: Anabolic-androgenic steroid use among California
community college student-athletes were similar to other
previous research studies involving high school and university
student-athletes.

Key Words: anabolic steroid(s), athlete, ergogenic aid(s)

Choong K, Lakshman KM, Bhasin S. The physiological and pharmacological basis for the ergogenic effects of androgens in elite sports. Asian J Androl. 2008 May;10(3):351-63.

Klanttevredenheidsonderzoek Doping Infolijn : een enquête onder bellers en e-mailers plus trends van 2000-2007 / A. Palsma. - Capelle aan den IJssel : Dopingautoriteit, 2008

In 2000, a telephone information line for questions concerning doping was started: the Doping Informatielijn, abbreviated as DIL. In the first place this telephone service was intended for athletes in gyms, but in the course of the time other target groups within the sport were more and more reached. Since 2006 also the question and answers and context data of e-mailers have been registered. Because the DIL is ISO certified substantive appointments have been fixed about the quality of the settlement of guarantees for the information requests, the recording of the context data of the users of the telephone information line and mailers and intervision of question and answers by the DIL-operators. One of the quality requirements is that the information seekers appreciate the DIL with a report figure of at least seven (on a scale of ten). Until now it had never been examined if this quality requirement was obtained. Therefore a customer satisfaction investigation has been conducted in the period of 1 August 2007 up to and including 1 February 2008 under all information seekers (by phone and e-mail) who have approached the DIL during this period. The recent developments over the period of 2000 up to and including 2007 were also examined. It was also investigated if and which data are available of other doping information lines. The DIL is telephonically contactable on working days from 13.00 till 16.00 by phone 0900-200 1000 or by mail: dopingvragen@dopingautoriteit.nl.

For the customer satisfaction research under users of the telephone line and e-mailers, questionnaires have been placed on internet which could be filled in online. 222 of the 305 users of the telephone line were asked to participate and 65 have eventually filled in the questionnaire. Also 222 of 278 e-mailers have been asked to participate in the study and 68 persons have filled in the questionnaire. The recent developments have been examined using the statistic data of the previous years which have been stored in the access files of the automated recording system. Comparison of data of the participants to the customer satisfaction research with those of mailers and users of the telephone line over the year 2007 learns that the customer satisfactory research is representative for the information seekers which used the e-mail and the telephone service of the DIL.

The users of the telephone line are very satisfied and give an average report figure of 8.1 (spacing 6 - 10). However, 22% of the users of the telephone line noticed that extension of the visiting hours is needed. The users of the telephone line noticed that the mail service must be mentioned more prominent at the websites. The mailers are also very satisfied concerning the DIL and give to an average mark of 8.2 (spacing 7.5 - 10). However, 9% of them find the answer unclear.

From the recent developments it becomes clear that the number of female information seekers increases. The most questions are asked by people in the age categories of 21 up to 25 years, followed by 16 up to 20 years, 26 up to 30 years and 31 to 35 years. Parents do ask more often questions at the DIL, what can explain the increase of the number of information seekers in the age category of 41 up to 50 years. At other information lines it is also noticed that the number of mailers seems to increase.

The age of the users of the Anti-Doping Hotline in Sweden is lower than that of the information seekers of the DIL. As well as in the Netherlands the use of anabolic steroids here too is the most important conversation topic.

Information seekers of the DIL can also contact employees direct outside the opening hours of the DIL telephone and by mail. These question and answers generally are not registered. As a result of this research it is inventoried or and how the quality assurance of the questions which are settled outside the DIL can be realised. Extending opening hours of the DIL runs up against practical objections. For this reason the e-mail service is promoted more, so that information seekers know more about this possibility to get their question answered rapidly. Answering the e-mails will be improved by establishing a guide for this. Current quality is further maintained.