Gerhard P. Baumann
Endocrine Reviews, April 2012, vol. 33, iss. 2: pp. 155–186

GH is believed to be widely employed in sports as a performance-enhancing substance. It's use in athletic competition is banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency, and athletes are required to submit to testing for GH exposure. Detection of GH doping is challenging for several reasons including identity/similarity of exogenous to endogenous GH, short half-life, complex and fluctuating secretory dynamics of GH, and a very low urinary excretion rate. The detection test currently in use (GH isoform test) exploits the difference between recombinant GH (pure 22K-GH) and the heterogeneous nature of endogenous GH (several isoforms). Its main limitation is the short window of opportunity for detection (12–24 h after the last GH dose). A second test to be implemented soon (the biomarker test) is based on stimulation of IGF-I and collagen III synthesis by GH. It has a longer window of opportunity (1–2 wk) but is less specific and presents a variety of technical challenges. GH doping in a larger sense also includes doping with GH secretagogues and IGF-I and its analogs. The scientific evidence for the ergogenicity of GH is weak, a fact that is not widely appreciated in athletic circles or by the general public. Also insufficiently appreciated is the risk of serious health consequences associated with high-dose, prolonged GH use. This review discusses the GH biology relevant to GH doping; the virtues and limitations of detection tests in blood, urine, and saliva; secretagogue efficacy; IGF-I doping; and information about the effectiveness of GH as a performance-enhancing agent.

Facts
The International Baseball Federation (IBAF) against Sidney Ponson (Player) for violation of the IBAF Anti-Doping Rules. The prohibited substance, phentermine, was present in the urine sample provided by the Player immediately following the match against the Dominican Republic on, 7 March 2009. He didn't request a B-sample analysis

History
The Player, a pitcher, participated in the 2009 Classic for his national team, the Netherlands. He used the prohibited substance, on prescription from his doctor, to lose weight and admits the doping offence.

Considerations panel
The Player took the phentermine on the advice of a licensed medical physician, not to enhance his performance but to help him lose weight, after seeking and obtaining the physician's assurance that phentermine was not baned by Major League Baseball.

Decision
The Tribunal unanimously rules as follows:
1. The Player has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the IBAF Anti-Doping Rules in that phentermine, a Prohibited Substance, was present in the sample collected from him afer the 2009 World Baseball Classic match between the Netherlands and the Dominican Republic on 7 March 2009.
2. As a consequence:
a. The Player's individual results from the 2009 World Baseball Classic matches in which he played are Disqualified in
accordance with Articles 9.1 and 10.1 of the IBAP Anti-Doping Rules, with any medals, points or prizes that he eared from his participation in those matches to be forfeited.
b. In accordance with Article 10.2 of the IBAP Anti-Doping Rules, the Player is ruled Ineligible for a period of two years.
In accordance with Article 10.10 of the IBAF Anti-Doping Rules, during that period of Ineligibility the Player may not
'participate in any capacity in any Event or activity (other than 94 See paragraph 3.3, above. IBAF v. Ponson, lBAF Anti-Doping Tribunal, lBAF 09-001: Final Award, dated 8 June 2009 authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized or organized by IBAF or any National Federation or a club or other member organization of IBAF or any National Federation, or in Competitions authorized or organized by any professional league or any international or national level Event organization.' This includes Major League Baseball. If the Player does continue to paricipate in
Major League Baseball, then Article 10.10.2 of the IBAP Anti-Doping Rules will apply to push back the commencement date of the period of Ineligibility imposed in this Award to the date of his last MLB match.
c. In accordance with Article 10.9.2 of the IBAP Anti-Doping Rules, the two-year period of Ineligibility shall be deemed to
have commenced on 7 March 2009 and therefore shall end at midnight on 6 March 2011.

Costs
Each of the parties shall bear its own costs of these proceedings.

Appeal
The following persons may appeal against this Pinal A ward to the Cour of Arbitration for Sport in Lausane, Switzerland: the Player, the IBAP, WADA, and any other Anti-Doping Organization under whose rules a sanction could have been imposed. The IBAP is directed to disseminate a copy of this Final Award to each such person without delay. Article 13.6 provides that any such appeal must be filed with the CAS within 21 days from the date of receipt of the decision.

Publication
The IBAP reports this decision publicly within 20 days of the date of this decision. To ensure that baseball players are properly informed about the natue and extent of their responsibilities under the IBAP Anti-Doping Rules, the entirety of this decision should be published on the IBAP's official website.

Facts
The International Baseball Federation (IBAF) Anti-Doping Tribunal convened to hear and determine the disciplinar proceedings brought by the International Baseball Federation (the 'IBAF') against
Agustin Murilo (Player) for violation of the IBAF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). In his sample collected from him on 12 March 2009 the presence of Clenbuterol was detected, also the requested B-sample analysis tested positive on Clenbuterol. The charged is handled without a hearing.

History
The player thinks some supplements he uses were contaminated or his medication for flu was contaminated.

Considerations of the panel
The player was unable to give any proof about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

Decision
The Tribunal rules as follows:
1.1 The Player has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the IBAF ADR in that Clenbuterol, a Prohibited Substance, was present in the sample collected from him after the 2009 World Baseball Classic match between Mexico and Cuba on 12 March 2009.
1.2 As a consequence:
a. The Player's individual results from the 2009 World Baseball Classic matches in which he played are Disqualified in
accordance with Aricles 9.1 and 10.1 of the IBAF ADR, with any medals, points and prizes that he eared from his participation in those matches to be forfeited.
b. In accordance with Article 10.2 of the IBAF ADR, the Player is ruled Ineligible for a period of two years. Further to article 10.10 of the IBAF ADR, during that period of Ineligibility the Player may not 'participate in any capacity in any Event or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized or organized by IBAF or any National Federation or a club or other member organization of IBAF or any National Federation, or in Competitions authorized or organized by any professional league or any international or national level Event organization. ' This includes Major and Minor League Baseball. If the Player does continue to paricipate in Major or Minor League Baseball, then Aricle 10.10.2 of the IBAP ADR will apply to push back the commencement date of the period of Ineligibility imposed in this Award to the date of his last MLB or MiLB match.
c. In accordance with Aricle 10.9 ofthe IBAF ADR, the two-year period of Ineligibility shall commence as of the date of this Final Award and shall therefore end at midnght on 25 July 2011.

Facts
The International Baseball Federation (IBAF) charges Roger
Luque (Player) for violation of the 2009 IBAF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). The Player was required to give an urine sample on 19 September 2009 as part of an in-competition test. His sample tested positive for Stanozolol and 4-OH-Stanozolol (a metabolite of Stanozolol).

History
Due to a car accident the player had treatment in a hospital. He claims the medication administered contained the prohibited substance medical purposes only and under the health personnel’s supervision. He didn't use the prohibited substance to improve athletic performance. In response to IBAF's request he delivers a more detailed medical record.

Considerations panel
The athlete stays responsible for substances in his body. However considering the urgency of his hospitalization a retrospective TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) could lift the standard period of ineligibility of 2 years.

Decision
The Tribunal rules as follows:
7.1.1 The Player has committed an anti-doping rule violation under IBAF ADR Article 2.1, in that a Prohibited Substance (Stanozolol) was found to be present in the urine sample collected from him on 19 September 2009.
7.1.2 As a consequence:
a. The individual results obtained by the Player in the 2009 BWC are disqualified in accordance with IBAF ADR Article 10.1, with any individual medals, points and prizes that he earned from his participation in those matches to be forfeited.
b. In accordance with IBAF ADR Articles 10.2 and 10.5.2, the Player is ruled Ineligible for a period of sixteen months. In accordance with IBAF ADR Article 10.9, the period of Ineligibility will be deemed to have commenced as of 19 September 2009 and therefore will end at midnight on 18 January 2011.
c. Further to IBAF ADR Article 10.10, during that period of Ineligibility the Player may not “participate in any capacity in any Event or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized or organized by IBAF or any National Federation or a club or other member organization of IBAF or any National Federation, or in Competitions authorized or organized by any professional IBAF v. Luque, IBAF Anti-Doping Tribunal, IBAF 10-001: Final Award, 13 December 2010 18 league or any international or national level Event
organization.”
7.3 In accordance with IBAF ADR Article 14.4, the IBAF is to report this decision publicly within 20 days of the date of this decision. To ensure that baseball players are properly informed about the nature and extent of their responsibilities under the IBAF ADR, the IBAF is directed to publish this decision in its entirety on the IBAF’s official website.

Appeal
In accordance with IBAF ADR Articles 8.2.8 and 13.2, each of the following persons may appeal against this Final Award to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland: the Player, the IBAF, WADA, and any other Anti-Doping Organization under whose rules a sanction could have been imposed. The IBAF is directed to disseminate a copy of this Final Award to
each such person without delay. IBAF ADR Article 13.6 provides that any such appeal must be filed with the CAS within 21 days from the date of receipt of the decision.

Facts
The Internacional Baseball Federation (IBAF) charges Geovany Soto (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. His provided sample for doping control on March 17 2009 tested positive on cannabis metabolites. Cannabinoids are included on the 2009 Prohibited List in category S8, as substances In-Competition.

History
The Player is a 30 year-old professional baseball player from Puerto Rico who has played professional baseball for over ten years. He admits his doping offence.

Considerations panel
By admitting the panel concentrates on the period of ineligibility.

Decision
1. The Player has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the IBAF Anti-Doping Rules in that cannabis metabolites, a Prohibited Substance, was present in the sample collected from him after the 2009 Classic match between Puerto Rico and the United States on March 17, 2009.

2a. The Player’s individual results from the matches he played in the 2009 Classic are Disqualified in accordance with Articles 9.1 and 10.1 of the IBAF Anti-Doping Rules, with any medals, points or prizes that he earned from his participation in those matches to be forfeited.

2b. In accordance with Article 10.2 of the IBAF Anti-Doping Rules, the Player is ruled Ineligible for a period of two years. In accordance with Article 10.10 of the IBAF Anti-Doping Rules, during that period of Ineligibility the Player may not “participate in any capacity in any Event or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized or organized by IBAF or any National Federation or a club or other member organization of IBAF or any National Federation, or in Competitions authorized or organized by any professional league or any international or national level Event organization.” This includes Major League Baseball. If the Player does continue to participate in Major League Baseball, then Article 10.10.2 of the IBAF Anti-Doping Rules will apply to push back the commencement date of the period of Ineligibility imposed in this Award to the date of his last Major League Baseball match.

2c. In accordance with Article 10.9.2 of the IBAF Anti-Doping Rules, the two-year period of Ineligibility shall be deemed to have commenced on June 10, 2009 and therefore shall end at midnight on June 10, 2011.

2d. In accordance with Article 14.4 of the IBAF Anti-Doping Rules, the IBAF is to report this decision publicly within 20 days of the date of this decision. To ensure that baseball players are properly informed about the nature and extent of their responsibilities under the IBAF Anti-Doping Rules, the entirety of this decision should be published on the IBAF’s official website.

Costs
There is no provision in the IBAF Anti-Doping Rules conferring on this Tribunal the power to award a party its costs of proceedings taken under these rules. Therefore, as set out at paragraph 15 of the Standing Directions for cases referred to the IBAF Anti-Doping Panel in connection with the World Baseball Classic 2009, each of the parties shall bear its own costs of these proceedings.

Appeal
In accordance with Article 8.2.8 and Article 13.2 of the IBAF Anti-Doping Rules, each of the following persons may appeal against this final award to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland: the Player, the IBAF, WADA and any other Anti-Doping Organization under whose rules a sanction could have been imposed. The IBAF is directed to disseminate a copy of this Final Award to each such person without delay. Article 13.6 provides that any such appeal must be filed with the CAS within 21 days from the date of receipt of the decision.
In accordance with Article 14.4 of the IBAF Anti-Doping Rules, the IBAF is to report this decision publicly within 20 days of the date of this decision. To ensure that baseball players are properly informed about the nature and extent of their responsibilities under the IBAF Anti-Doping Rules, the entirety of this decision should be published on the IBAF’s official website.

The World Confederation of Billiard Sports (WCBS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Acebutolol.
Respondent had no Therapeutic Use Exemption. He was notified of the doping violation, accepted a provisional suspension and did not request analysis of the B sample.
Respondent stated he used the substance as medicine prescribed by his personal physician for the purpose of medical treatment, and without the intention to enhance sport performances.

The WCBS Doping Hearing Panel decides a four month period of ineligibility, beginning May 13, 2010. Additional the Panel decides the automatic disqualification of all competitive results obtained from March 27 to May 13, 2010, including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes.

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

Lutte contre le dopage : avoir une longueur d'avance : Synthesis / Commission d'enquête sur l'efficacité de la lutte contre le dopage. - M. Jean-François Humbert (Président); M. Jean-Jacques Lozach (Rapporteur). - Paris : Sénat, 2013. – 8 p. : ill., fig. graf. -
Rapport n° 782 (2012-2013)
Rapport remis à Monsieur le Président du Sénat le 17 juillet 2013
Enregistré à la Présidence du Sénat le 17 juillet 2013
Dépôt publié au Journal Officiel – Édition des Lois et Décrets du 18 juillet 2013

La commission d'enquête a fait le constat que la France conservait une politique antidopage de qualité mais rencontrait néanmoins des difficultés réelles, expliquant pourquoi la lutte a encore souvent un temps de retard sur le dopage :
- les pouvoirs publics n'ont pas une bonne connaissance statistique, ni des pratiques dopantes, ni des trafics qui y sont liés;
- en matière de prévention, notre politique est à la fois trop peu dynamique et mal ciblée. Le ministère des sports, en charge de la prévention, n'a pas su dégager des lignes directrices pertinentes ou des outils efficaces;
- le dispositif de contrôle est plutôt solide, notamment en termes de quantité, mais il mériterait de gagner en qualité et en originalité;
- le laboratoire d'analyse français est toujours reconnu au niveau international. Néanmoins ses efforts en matière de recherche sont clairement insuffisants par rapport à d'autres laboratoires, notamment européens;
- la politique de sanction mériterait quant à elle d'être clarifiée. Le partage des compétences actuelles entre les fédérations et l'AFLD nuit clairement à l'uniformisation des sanctions, mais surtout à leur diversité;
- en matière de lutte contre les trafics, la France bute notamment sur une définition restrictive du sportif et sur une certaine complexité de nos dispositifs juridiques;
- enfin, les instances en charge de la lutte contre le dopage peinent fortement à travailler ensemble. Pour avoir une longueur d'avance sur le dopage, la commission d'enquête a fait 60 propositions.
Ces propositions peuvent être analysées ou commentées de manière isolée, mais elles sont construites dans un cadre cohérent de redynamisation de notre politique antidopage sur la base de sept piliers : une meilleure connaissance du dopage, une politique de prévention à rebâtir, un ciblage renforcé des contrôles, une optimisation des analyses, un panel de sanctions plus étoffé, une pénalisation des trafics plus fine, et surtout une coordination beaucoup plus organisée entre autorités antidopage et services de police et de gendarmerie.

Composition de la commission: M. Jean-François Humbert, président ; M. Jean-Jacques Lozach, rapporteur ; M. Alain Dufaut, Mme Chantal Jouanno, MM. Michel Le Scouarnec, Stéphane Mazars, Alain Néri, Jean-Vincent Placé, vice-présidents ; M. Dominique Bailly, Mme Marie-Thérèse Bruguière, MM. Jean-Claude Carle, Jean-Pierre Chauveau, Jacques Chiron, Vincent Delahaye, Mme Frédérique Espagnac, M. Ronan Kerdraon, Mme Danielle Michel, MM. François Pillet, Bernard Saugey, Michel Savin, Jean-Marc Todeschini.