Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport annual report 2013-2014 / Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport

Contents

• Our Message to You
• Highlights of the Year
• CCES Board of Directors
• Activate
• Advocate
• Protect
• Independent Auditors’ Report

Results of the WADA monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the 2014 Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport. These substances are:
In-Competiion monitoring:
- Pseudoephedrine
- Bupropion
- Caffeine
- Tramadol
- Hydrocodone
- Nicotine

Out-of-Competition monitoring:
- Glucocorticosteroids

Results of the WADA monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the 2013 Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport. These substances are:
In-Competiion monitoring:
- Pseudoephedrine
- Bupropion
- Caffeine
- Tramadol
- Hydrocodone
- Nicotine

Out-of-Competition monitoring:
- Glucocorticosteroids

Facts
On 6 July 2011 the Royal Dutch Baseball and Softball Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Baseball en Softball Bond, KNBSB) charged the athlete for a violation of the Anti-Doping rules. After a match in 2011 a sample was collected for doping control purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of formoterol.

History
The respondent had mentioned the use of medication on the doping control form. Although there was no dispensation for the use of this medication the panel considers that it wasn't used to enhance sport performance.

Decision
The sanction is a reprimand.

Prevalence of doping use in elite sports: a review of numbers and methods / O. de Hon, H. Kuipers, M. van Bottenburg. - (
Sports Medicine 45 (2014) 1 (29 aug) p. 57-69)

• PMID: 25169441
• DOI: 10.1007/s40279-014-0247-x

The prevalence of doping in elite sports is relevant for all those involved in sports, particularly for evaluating anti-doping policy measures. Remarkably, few scientific articles have addressed this subject so far, and the last review dates back to 1997. As a consequence, the true prevalence of doping in elite sports is unknown. Even though it is virtually impossible to uncover the exact prevalence of a prohibited activity such as doping, various methods are available to uncover parts of this particular problem, which enables the circumvention (to a certain degree) of the issues of truthfulness, definition problems and the limits of pharmacological evidence. This review outlines the various methods that exist and presents the scarce data available in this area. It is concluded that a combination of questionnaires using the Randomised Response Technique and models of biological parameters is able to provide the statistical possibilities to reveal accurate estimates of this often undisclosed practice. Data gathered in this way yield an estimation of 14–39 % of current adult elite athletes who intentionally used doping.
These period prevalences have been found in specific subgroups of elite athletes, and the available data suggest that the prevalence of doping is considerably different between sub-groups with varying types of sport, levels and nationalities. The above-mentioned figure of 14–39 % is likely to be a more accurate reflection of the prevalence of intentional doping in elite sports than that provided by doping control test results (estimate of doping: 1–2 % annually) or questionnaire-based research (estimations between 1 and 70 % depending on sport, level and exact definitions of intent and doping). In the future, analytical science may play a more important role in this topic if it may become feasible to detect very low concentrations of prohibited substances in sewage systems downstream of major sporting events. However, it is clear that current doping control test results show a distinct underestimation of true doping prevalence. It does not seem feasible to distil better estimates of the prevalence of doping based on performance indicators or ego documents because of the various existing effects that influence athletic performance. Such information can only be used as extra information to augment the accuracy of prevalence rates that have been found by using other techniques. True doping prevalence studies have been scarce in elite sports so far. With the correct application of the available scientific methods, preferably using harmonised definitions of the terms ‘doping’ and ‘elite sports’, more information on this topic may be gathered in a relatively short time. This would assist antidoping professionals in the future in order to evaluate the effects of possible anti-doping measures, and better antidoping policies would serve athletes who compete without doping. The existing anti-doping measures seriously impact the lives of elite athletes and their immediate entourage, which imposes a moral burden to evaluate these measures in the best possible way.

On 25 January 2013 the Major League Baseball (MLB) received copies of letters from the Miami News Times to various MLB Clubs advising that an article was being prepared asserting that a Player or Players on those teams were involved in the use op Performing Enhancing Substances (PES). On 29 January 2013 the newspaper published the story identifying Anthony Bosch and his Biogenesis practice as having supplied PES to several Major League Players. MLB Player Alex Rodriguez (A-Rod) was mentioned prominently as one of the PES users. The publication of this article captured national attention and set the stage for a public battle between MLB and Rodruquez over the veracity and consequences of those allegations.

On June 3, 2013, MLB and Antony Bosch entered into a mutual cooperation agreement. Bosch promised to proffer truthful information to MLB and testify if necessary regarding any Major League Player or individuals acting on their behalf regarding the acquisition, possession, or use by them of any PES. In exchange, MLB promised to dismiss Bosch and his brother from MLB's civil suit, to not seek testimony or discovery from Bosch family members, and to inform law enforcement agencies of his cooperation.

MLB convened an investigatory interview with Rodriguez on 12 July 2013. At that session, Rodriguez declined to answer any questions about his involvement, if any, with Bosch or Biogenesis on Fifth Amendment grounds. There were no positive tests conducted under the JDA for Rodriguez during the period of October 2010 and August 2013.

Based on the evidence and statements the MLB reported on 5 August 2013 several anti-doping rule violations against the Player Alex Rodriques for the attempted cover-up, possession and use of the prohibited substances: testosterone, human growth hormone (hGH) and IGF-1 (Insulin-like Growth Factor-1). Therefore the MLB suspended the Player for 211 regular-season games, starting on 8 August 2013.
The MLB suspended a total of 13 Mayor League Players in 2013 for violations of the JDA in connection with the Biogenesis baseball scandal. The Player Alex Rodriques appealed the MLB suspension of 5 August 2011 with the MLB Arbitration Panel. He filed documents, arguments and statements in his defence and was heard for the Panel.

Before the Panel, MLB contends that Rodriguez was disciplined for just cause. MLB maintains Rodriguez committed multiple violations of the JDA over the course of three seasons by the continuous use and possession of a variety of PES. MLB asserts the multiple efforts by Rodriguez to obstruct MLB's investigation of his violations of the JDA violated the Basic Agreement. MLB argues adverse inferences be drawn from Rodriguez's failure to testify under oath in this proceeding or present other witnesses to refute the evidence of his misconduct. MLB contends the penalty in this case is appropriate and justified in light of the scope and gravity of the misconduct by Rodriguez, and that the settlements reached with other Players involved in Biogenesis cannot be considered by agreement of the bargaining parties as previously ruled upon by this Panel. Accordingly, MLB urges the grievance be denied.

The Player Alex Rodriguez contends MLB has failed to meet its burden of proving the alleged misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. Rodriguez argues MLB did not show he possessed and used PES and that the testimony by Bosch, his evidence, and digital evidence are inherently unreliable, must be stricken, and can be afforded no weight. Rodriguez contends that science establish he did not use PES. Rodriguez also asserts MLB failed to establish he obstructed MLB's investigation of Biogenesis and Bosch. Rodriguez further maintains that all of the evidence presented by MLB is irrevocably tainted by investigatory misconduct and coercion of witnesses, including Bosch. Finally, Rodriguez claims the suspension is wholly inappropriate when compared to those given other Players with alleged ties to Biogenesis and Bosch. Thus, Rodriguez asks the suspension not be upheld.

The MLB Arbitration Panel concluded, based on the entire record from the arbitration, that MLB has demonstrated with clear and convincing evidence there is just cause to suspend Rodriguez for the 2014 season and 2014 postseason for having violated the JDA by the use and/or possession of testosterone, IGF-1, and hGH over the course of three years, and for the two attempts to obstruct MLB's investigation, which violated Article XII(B) of the Basic Agreement. While this length of suspension may be unprecedented for a MLB Player, so is the misconduct he committed. The suspension imposed by MLB as modified herein is hereby sustained.
Due to Rodriguez was allowed to play during the appeal process, this effectively reduced the suspension from 211 to 162 games - the entirety of the 2014 regular-season schedule. He also shall lose 162 days of pay for the 2014 season.

On 11 January the Major League Baseball Arbitration Panel decided that the Player's grievance is sustained in part and denied in part. The Panel ruled that MLB has just cause to suspend Alexander Rodriguez for the 2014 season and 2014 postseason.

Hereafter the Player challenged the decision in federal court. However on 7 February 2014 Rodriguez announced that he was dropping his lawsuit and accepting his suspension for the 2014 season.

Facts
The French Baseball and Softball Federation (Fédération Française de Baseball et Softball, FFBS) charges respondent M60 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on May 11, 2008, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisone and prednisolone which are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list, they are regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent explains that he had used medication to prevent an allergic reaction or asthma attack. He has medical documentation to prove his allergy for cat and dog hair.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision (one month period of ineligibility) of August 9, 2008, by the disciplinary committee of the FFBS should be modified.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Anabolic–androgenic steroid dependence? : Insights from animals and humans / Ruth I. Wood. – (Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 29 (2008) 29 (October); p. 490-506)

• doi: 10.1016/j.yfrne.2007.12.002

Content:
1.) Breakfast of champions: recent history and prevalence of AAS use
2.) What me worry? Risks and side effects of steroid use
3.) Just say no: AAS reinforcement and dependence in humans
4.) Betcha can’t take just one: stacks and supplements
5.) Gym rats: AAS reinforcement and dependence in animals
5.1.) A few provisos, a couple of quid pro quos
5.2.) Not your father’s drugs: sex differences and effects of circulating androgens
6.) Can’t beat the real thing: reinforcing effects of AAS vs testosterone and its metabolites
7.) This is your brain on steroids: central targets of AAS action
7.1.) Dopamine
7.2.) GABA
7.3.) Serotonin
7.4.) Opioids
8.) The bottom line: what have we learned?

Anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) are drugs of abuse. They are taken in large quantities by athletes and others to increase performance, with negative health consequences. As a result, in 1991 testosterone and related AAS were declared controlled substances. However, the relative abuse and dependence liability of AAS have not been fully characterized. In humans, it is difficult to separate the direct psychoactive effects of AAS from reinforcement due to their systemic anabolic effects. However, using conditioned place preference and self-administration, studies in animals have demonstrated that AAS are reinforcing in a context where athletic performance is irrelevant. Furthermore, AAS share brain sites of action and neurotransmitter systems in common with other drugs of abuse. In particular, recent evidence links AAS with opioids. In humans, AAS abuse is associated with prescription opioid use. In animals, AAS overdose produces symptoms resembling opioid overdose, and AAS modify the activity of the endogenous opioid system.