LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:

OpenAIRE is about to release its new face with lots of new content and services.
During September, you may notice downtime in services, while some functionalities (e.g. user registration, login, validation, claiming) will be temporarily disabled.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please stay tuned!
For further information please contact helpdesk[at]openaire.eu

fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
David R. Mottram (2005)
Publisher: University of Uludag
Journal: Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: GV557-1198.995, Research Article, Sports, Book Reviews, Sports medicine, RC1200-1245, Book Review, Commentary

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: human activities, humanities, education
This new edition includes fresh information regarding drugs use and abuse in sport and the updated worldwide anti-doping laws, and changes to the prohibited and therapeutic use exemption lists. The objectives of the book are to review/discuss the latest information on drugs in sport by considering i) actions of drugs and hormones, ii) medication and nutritional supplements in sport, iii) the latest doping control regulations of the WADA, iv) the use of banned therapeutic drugs in sport, v) an assessment of the prevalence of drug taking in sport. FEATURES A common, uniform strategy and evidence-based approach to organizing and interpreting the literature is used in all chapters. This textbook is composed of twelve parts with sub-sections in all of them. The topics of the parts are: i) An introduction to drugs and their use in sport, ii) Drug use and abuse in sport, iii) Central nervous system stimulants, iv) WADA regulations in relation to drugs used in the treatment of respiratory tract disorders, v) Androgenic anabolic steroids, vi) Peptide and glycoprotein hormones and sport, vii) Blood boosting and sport, viii) Drug treatment of inflammation in sports injuries, ix) Alcohol, anti-anxiety drugs and sport, x) Creatine, xi) Doping control and sport, xii) Prevalence of drug misuse in sport. Each specific chapter has been systematically developed from the data available in prospective, retrospective, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. The tables and figures are numerous, helpful and very useful. AUDIENCE The book provides a very useful resource for students on sports related courses, coaches and trainers, researchers, nutritionists, exercise physiologists, pharmacologists, healthcare professionals in the fields of sports medicine and those involved in the management and administration side of sport. The readers are going to discover that this is an excellent reference book. Extensively revised new edition of this book is also a first-rate resource for undergraduates and researchers in sports science. ASSESSMENT This book is almost a compulsory reading for anyone interested in drug in sport, performance in sport, drug treatment in sport injuries, actions of drugs, nutritional supplements in sport, doping control and rules, social/political viewpoint of drug usage, sports medicine and for those wishing to run comprehensive research in this and relevant areas. The fact that the contributors are leading international researchers in this field makes this book more welcome.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 4 http://www.wada-ama.org/en/About-WADA/History/A-Brief-History-of-Anti-Doping/
    • 5 http://www.wada-ama.org/en/About-WADA/History/A-Brief-History-of-Anti-Doping/
    • 6 http://www.wada-ama.org/en/About-WADA/History/A-Brief-History-of-Anti-Doping/
    • 7 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/brendangallagher/2316933/Tom-Simpson-haunts-Tour-40-years-on.html
    • 8 http://www.wada-ama.org/en/About-WADA/History/A-Brief-History-of-Anti-Doping/
    • 9 http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/features/doping-for-gold/the-state-sponsored-doping-program/52/; http://www.la84foundation.org/ SportsLibrary/ISOR/ISOR2004t.pdf
    • 10 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/07/98/tour_de_france/134842.stm; http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/ 988530.stm (Festina timeline)
    • 11 International Olympic Committee
    • 12 http://www.wada-ama.org/en/About-WADA/History/A-Brief-History-of-Anti-Doping/
    • 13 http://www.wada-ama.org/en/About-WADA/History/WADA-History/
    • 14 Matched funding stood at only 16% in 2003 but had risen to 100% by 2008 see http://www.wada-ama.org/en/About-WADA/ History/WADA-History/
    • 15 Fahey J. President of WADA at http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/News_Center/Speeches_Presentations/2012/2012-02-07- WADA-Media-Symposium-President-Speech.pdf; Lausanne, Feb 7th 2012
    • 16 The system which requires athletes to submit their location for one hour each day up to three months in advance.
    • 17 The term athlete will be used throughout this paper to refer to a sports participant.
    • 18 Their role is aided by the fact that it is a condition of inclusion in the Olympic Games that any sport is compliant with the Code.
    • 19 Korda v ITF Ltd (t/a the International Tennis Federation) The Times 4 February 1999
    • 20 Korda v ITF Ltd (t/a the International Tennis Federation) The Times 4 February 1999 at p8 of unrecorded transcript
    • 21 Korda v ITF Ltd (t/a the International Tennis Federation) The Times 4 February 1999 at p7 of unrecorded transcript
    • 22 The World Anti-Doping Code (2009), The World Anti-Doping Agency, Montreal, Canada, Comment to article 2.1.1
    • 23 Gasser v Stinson (1988), QBD, Unreported
    • 24 Gasser v Stinson (1988), QBD, Unreported. Citing with approval arguments put forward by Holt, (then IAAF General Secretary) at p26 unreported transcript
    • 25 This may of course be a laudable policy where the substance is indeed a performance enhancing one but the reasoning is more questionable where the substance ingested inadvertently is not one which will enhance performance, (see Amos, A., & Fridman, S., (2009): “Drugs in sport: the legal issues”, Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics, 12:3, 356-374 p362
    • 26 Arbitration CAS 94/129 USA Shooting & Q./Union Internationale de Tir (UIT), award of 23 May 1995. At paras 15-16
    • 27 Now Lord Coe
    • 28 Coe, S., “We cannot move from strict liability rule”, Daily Telegraph, 25 February 2004
    • 29 For example, Scottish skier, Alain Baxter lost his Olympic bronze medal following a positive test for a banned stimulant at the 2002 Winter Olympics despite the CAS acknowledging that he had made no attempt to cheat whatsoever and that the positive test was the result of inadvertent consumption of the banned substance in a Vicks nasal spray taken to relieve congestion. See http://www.ukad.org.uk/resources/video/alain-baxter; http://tinyurl.com/7mjdclk; last accessed 18th March 2012.
    • 30 The World Anti-Doping Code (2009), The World Anti-Doping Agency, Montreal, Canada article 3.2.1
    • 31 Discussed in more detail later
    • 32 Article 10.5.1 WADC 2009
    • 33 Article 10.5.2 WADC 2009
    • 34 Kicker Vencill v USADA CAS 2003/A/484
    • 35 CAS 2006/A/1067 IRB v Keyter
    • 36 No fault or negligence
    • 37 No significant fault or negligence
    • 38 http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Science-Medicine/Prohibited-List/QA-on-2012-Prohibited-List/# (last accessed 18th March 2012)
    • 39 Article 10.4 WADC 2009
    • 40 These may be where an athlete has interfered with or manipulated their sample but technically have not failed a test or where an athlete has tested with no apparent failure. (See McLaren, R., An Overview of Non-Analytical Positive & Circumstantial Evidence Cases in Sports, 16 Marq. Sports. L. Rev. 193 (2006)
    • 41 This consisted of an attempt to create the world's fastest human being through the provision of a new artificial steroid, (THG). This presented a particular problem as there existed no test to detect this newly created drug and with no test, could come no failure.
    • 42 U.S. Anti-Doping Agency v. Collins, AM. ARBITRATION ASS'N No. 30 190 00658 04 (N. Am. CAS Panel Dec. 10, 2004).
    • 43 The International Amateur Athletic Federation, (IAAF)
    • 44 IAAF 2004 rules 33.2, 38.9 cited in U.S. Anti-Doping Agency v. Collins, AM. ARBITRATION ASS'N No. 30 190 00658 04 (N. Am. CAS Panel Dec. 10, 2004). At para 3.3
    • 45 WADC article 3.1
    • 46 U.S. Anti-Doping Agency v. Collins, AM. ARBITRATION ASS'N No. 30 190 00658 04 (N. Am. CAS Panel Dec. 10, 2004). At para 3.4.
    • 47 World Anti-Doping Agency, WADC 2009 article 3.1
    • 48 The CAS is based in Lausanne in Switzerland and is therefore subject to Swiss Law. The SFT acts as the final Court of Appeal for decisions of the CAS.
    • 49 See Tribunal fédéral [TF] [Federal Tribunal] Feb. 10, 2010, 4A_612/2009 (Switz.), 6.3.2.
    • 50 http://www.utexas.edu/cola/progs/plan2/_files/pdf/worthington/dawer08.pdf (last accessed 25th March 2012)
    • 51 http://www.utexas.edu/cola/progs/plan2/_files/pdf/worthington/dawer08.pdf. At p2, (last accessed 25th March 2012)
    • 52 Straubel M. “Doping Due Process: A Critique of the Doping Control Process in International Sport”, 106 Dick. L. Rev. 523*569
    • 53 Straubel M. “Doping Due Process: A Critique of the Doping Control Process in International Sport”, 106 Dick. L. Rev. 523*569-570
    • 54 See WADA & Interpol cooperation as per http://www.interpol.int/News-and-media/News-media-releases/2009/PR006 (last accessed 29th March 2012) and the memorandum of understanding concerning information gathering signed by United Kingdom Anti-Doping, (UKAD) and The Serious Organised Crime Agency as per http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1955/ pdfs/uksiem_20101955_en.pdf (last accessed 29th March 2012)
    • 55 That of comfortable satisfaction
    • 56 World Anti-Doping Agency, WADC 2009 article 7.5
    • 57 An A sample and a B sample are always taken from an athlete, the urine sample is divided into two different sealed containers, (A & B). An athlete has the right to have both theoretically identical samples tested before a conclusive finding of guilt can be established.
    • 58 World Anti-Doping Agency, WADC 2009 article 7.5.1
    • 59 World Anti-Doping Agency, WADC 2009 article 14.2.1
    • 60 http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/feb/06/alberto-contador-case-chronology; (last accessed 29th March 2012)
    • 61 United States Anti Doping Agency v Gaines CAS 2004/O/649
    • 62 United States Anti Doping Agency v Gaines CAS 2004/O/649 at p13
    • 63 United States Anti Doping Agency v Gaines CAS 2004/O/649 at p15
    • 64 It is beyond the remit of this note to go into detail on the compatibility of anti-doping measures with the HRA. It will therefore only address the principle of strict liability, the foundation of the WADC in this context. For a wide ranging analysis of the compatibility of the WADC with Human Rights see Kaufmann-Kohler, G., Rigozzi, A., and Malinverni, G., “Doping and fundamental rights of athletes: comments in the wake of the adoption of the World Anti-Doping Code”, I.S.L.R. 2003, 3(Aug), 39-67.
    • 65 World Anti-Doping Agency “Fundamental Rationale For The World Anti-Doping Code”, World Anti-Doping Code, 2009, Montreal, Canada.
    • 66 Article 18 specifically refers to Education
    • 67 World Anti-Doping Agency, articles 18.1 & 18.2, World Anti-Doping Code, 2009, Montreal, Canada
    • 68 Arbitration CAS 2005/A/847 Hans Knauss v. FIS, award of 20 July 2005, at para 32
    • 69 CAS 2009/A/2012 Doping Authority Netherlands v/ Mr Nick Zuijkerbuijk at para 77
    • 70 The doctrine of restraint of trade is based on principles of proportionality
    • 71 CAS 2009/A/2012 Doping Authority Netherlands v/ Mr Nick Zuijkerbuijk at para 78
    • 72 http://www.iilj.org/GAL/documents/Lang.pdf
    • 73 Krabbe v IAAF et al, Decision of the LG Munich 17th May 1995, SpuRt, 1995, p161, p167
    • 74 Krabbe v IAAF et al, Decision of the OLG Munich 28th March 1996, SpuRt, 1996, p133, p138
    • 75 Two years for a first offence
    • 76 Kaufmann-Kohler, G., Rigozzi, A., and Malinverni, G., “Doping and fundamental rights of athletes: comments in the wake of the adoption of the World Anti-Doping Code”, I.S.L.R. 2003, 3(Aug), 39-67 *61
    • 77 Quite clearly here sanctions imposed as a result of doping violations do restrict fundamental rights.
    • 78 Claude Rouiller, “Legal Opinion - WADA Code”, October 2005 at p30, located at http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/ World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-Legal_Library/Advisory_and_Legal_Opinions/Article_10_2_WADC_Swiss_Law.pdf
    • 79 Arbitration CAS 2005/A/847 Hans Knauss v. FIS, award of 20 July 2005, paras 29-30
    • 80 CAS 2009/A/2012 Doping Authority Netherlands v/ Mr Nick Zuijkerbuijk at para 77
    • 81 British shot-putter Carl Fletcher was recently banned for a period of 4 years in addition to receiving a prison sentence for trafficking drugs. See http://tinyurl.com/czhz68r last accessed 31st March 2012
    • 82 Kaufmann-Kohler G., Rigozzi A., and Malinverni G., “Legal Opinion on the Conformity of Certain Provisions of the Draft World Anti-Doping Code with Commonly Accepted Principles of International Law”, 26 February 2003
    • 83 S6(1) Human Rights Act 1998
    • 84 S6(3) Human Rights Act 1998
    • 85 Then the Governing Body of Horseracing in the United Kingdom
    • 86 See House of Commons Hansard Debates, May 20, 1998, http://tinyurl.com/6wapjzs, at col. 1020
    • 87 R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club ex parte Aga Khan [1993] 1 WLR 90
    • 88 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200304/jtselect/jtrights/39/39.pdf (last accessed 2nd April 2012)
    • 89 Oliver, D., “Human Rights and the Private Sphere”, UCL Human Rights Review, vol. 1, no. 1, 2008 pp. 8-16
    • 90 International Olympic Committee, “Olympic Charter”, 2011, p10, para 4, Lausanne, Switzerland.
    • 91 Kaufmann-Kohler, G., Rigozzi, A., and Malinverni, G., “Doping and fundamental rights of athletes: comments in the wake of the adoption of the World Anti-Doping Code”, I.S.L.R. 2003, 3(Aug), 39-67*49
    • 92 Article 6(2), ECHR, Right to a fair trial, and specifically the presumption of innocence, which is incorporated into UK law by virtue of section 1 of the HRA 1998
    • 93 Gasser v Stinson (1988), QBD, Unreported
    • 94 For example s5, Road Traffic Act 1998, (in relation to driving with excess alcohol) and s92(5) Trademarks Act 1994, (in relation to possession of counterfeit goods) both create offences of strict liability.
    • 95 Attorney General's Reference No 4 of 2002 (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) Sheldrake (Respondent) v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty's High Court of Justice) (Conjoined Appeals) [2004] U.K.H.L. 43, [2005] 1 A.C. 264
    • 96 Salabiaku v France (1988) 13 EHRR 379
    • 97 Salabiaku v France (1988) 13 EHRR 379 at para 27
    • 98 Salabiaku v France (1988) 13 EHRR 379 at para 28
    • 99 Article 10.4 Elimination or Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances; Article 10.5 Elimination or Reduction of Period of Ineligibility Based on Exceptional Circumstances;
    • 100 Strict liability
    • 101 Article 8 Right to Respect for Private and Family Life ECHR
    • 102 Anti-Doping Administration and Management System, see http://www.ukad.org.uk/athletes/my-adams/; http://tinyurl.com/ctfjvn9 (last accessed 2nd April 2012)
    • 103 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/front_page/7844918.stm (last accessed 2nd April 2012)
    • 104 The BOA are responsible for selecting the British Olympic Team
    • 105 The rule stated that any athlete who had been banned for a period of more than six months for a doping violation was automatically prohibited from the next Olympic Games
    • 106 http://tinyurl.com/6d4hf8o (last accessed 2nd April 2012)
    • 107 On April 30th 2012 the CAS ruled that the BOA By Law was not in compliance with the WADC, stating clearly that the By Law was a doping sanction and not an eligibility criteria: http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/5878/5048/0/Media20 Release20BOA20WADA20final.pdf
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.
Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok