swflyers25
2-09-06, 4:19 PM
Bob McKenzie
2/9/2006 3:25:06 PM
A Canadian-born NHL player who was on Canada's preliminary 81-man Olympic eligibility list but who is not on the final Olympic team 23-man roster or three-man taxi squad has tested positive for a prohibited substance, TSN has learned.
But unlike the Bryan Berard situation – the American-born NHLer who last month received a two-year international hockey ban as a result of a positive test for an anabolic steroid – this case involving a Canadian-born player has yet to fully work its way through the procedural system and, in fact, the unidentified player in question has yet to have his appeal heard by an arbitrator.
Which is to suggest it's still an open file and, at this point, the final outcome of this case remains in doubt.
And, sources tell TSN, the prohibited substance that resulted in this positive test, which was reportedly carried out in November or December as part of pre-Olympic testing, was not an anabolic steroid but a “masking agent” for steroids that is commonly found in hair restoration drugs, with brand names such as Rogaine and Propecia.
Still, it's a designated World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited substance that has resulted in disciplinary action against other athletes. In fact, a former Olympic bobsledding teammate of Prince Albert II of Monaco was suspended Wednesday for a positive test for a hair restoration drug banned because of its steroid-masking properties. Monaco's anti-doping committee suspended Sebastien Gattuso for six months after he tested positive in October for “finasteride.” But it's also entirely possible an athlete could be using these products for purposes other than performance enhancement, or the masking of performance enhancing substances.
This type of issue is front and centre at the Olympics in Turin today.
U.S. skeleton racer Zach Lund of Salt Lake City, a potential gold medal favorite, was in an arbitration hearing today to determine his Olympic eligibility because of a failed test that turned up the same “masking agent” that is associated with hair loss products. Lund said the positive test was because he was taking the product for hair loss. A ruling on his eligibility for the Olympics is expected by the end of the week.
Sources in Turin tell TSN an arbitrator has been named to hear the Canadian-born NHLer's appeal, but that no date has yet to be scheduled for that hearing, which will be heard by the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada. The arbitrator will hear the case and rule either in favor of the player or against him. If the ruling is favorable to the player, no announcement is forthcoming. If, however, the arbitrator's decision goes against the player's appeal, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport will make the player's name public and announce the appropriate sanctions, which at worst includes a two-year ban on international hockey. None of the various governing bodies who preside over the broad spectrum of athlete testing and doping control are permitted to identify any player or athlete until such time the appeal process is completed and only if the athlete's appeal is rejected.
If the Berard case is any indication, even if the Canadian player were to be sanctioned internationally, it would have no impact on his NHL status as the NHL has decided pre-Olympic testing conducted prior to the Jan. 15, 2006, institution of the league's drug-testing program is not recognized as a violation of the league program.
To fully understand where this specific situation is at, one must have some understanding of the rules and procedure for the testing of Olympic athletes.
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) is the designated body in this country that carries out Olympic drug testing on behalf of the International Olympic Committee.
Once Hockey Canada named its 81-man Olympic eligibility list in the fall, any player on that list was eligible to be randomly tested by the CCES.
The CCES is entitled to collect a sample in the six months leading up to the Olympics. For players who were named to the final Olympic team roster, every one of them is tested prior to the Olympics. As for pre-Olympic testing, the sample is sent to an approved laboratory in Montreal, where the sample is analyzed for prohibited substances on the WADA list.
If a positive test occurs, termed an "adverse analytic finding (AAF)," the CCES swings into action. It contacts the player to inform him of the AAF, it contacts the governing body for the sport – in this case it's Hockey Canada – and the CCES immediately conducts an initial in-house review. The athlete is given an opportunity to explain himself and the CCES reviews all forms and information supplied at the time of testing.
One of the key elements of the testing protocol is a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) form, which gives the athlete an opportunity prior to testing to list all drugs, medications and supplements that the athlete uses as part of treating medical or health issues. If the positive test, or AAF, is as a result of something on the TUE form, it allows the CCES to instantly see what may have caused the positive test. The CCES has an in-house tribunal which assesses these situations and has the power to either dismiss the positive test or proceed with discipline, depending upon what's listed on the TUE.
If, however, there is no TUE filed or the prohibited substance in question is not related to any items on the TUE, then the CCES moves to the next stage, which is to formally assert a violation and propose a penalty, which more often than not is a two-year ban from international competition, although it varies depending upon the severity of the violation.
At that point, the athlete has two options. Either waive the right to an appeal and accept the punishment or contest the CCES ruling by requesting an appeal.
If the appeal is requested, it is submitted to the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC), which appoints an independent arbitrator to hear the case. The athlete, as well as the athlete's governing body (in this case Hockey Canada), get standing in the appeal as does the CCES. The appeal is heard and the arbitrator must make a final and binding ruling within 20 days of the hearing.
If the athlete's appeal is ruled on favorably by the SDRCC arbitrator, the matter is closed and the athlete's name is never revealed. If, however, the arbitrator rules against the athlete's appeal, the CCES formally and publicly announces the violation and the sanctions.
There is one final avenue of appeal for the athlete and that is to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland.
As for this specific case involving the Canadian-born NHL player, sources say he's currently waiting for a hearing with the SDRCC arbitrator. Sources suggest the player in question has been using a hair restoration drug for many years and it's not being used as a “masking agent” for steroid use, and that is precisely the issue the arbitrator must rule on.
TSN (http://tsn.ca/news_story.asp?ID=154224&hubName=main)
2/9/2006 3:25:06 PM
A Canadian-born NHL player who was on Canada's preliminary 81-man Olympic eligibility list but who is not on the final Olympic team 23-man roster or three-man taxi squad has tested positive for a prohibited substance, TSN has learned.
But unlike the Bryan Berard situation – the American-born NHLer who last month received a two-year international hockey ban as a result of a positive test for an anabolic steroid – this case involving a Canadian-born player has yet to fully work its way through the procedural system and, in fact, the unidentified player in question has yet to have his appeal heard by an arbitrator.
Which is to suggest it's still an open file and, at this point, the final outcome of this case remains in doubt.
And, sources tell TSN, the prohibited substance that resulted in this positive test, which was reportedly carried out in November or December as part of pre-Olympic testing, was not an anabolic steroid but a “masking agent” for steroids that is commonly found in hair restoration drugs, with brand names such as Rogaine and Propecia.
Still, it's a designated World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited substance that has resulted in disciplinary action against other athletes. In fact, a former Olympic bobsledding teammate of Prince Albert II of Monaco was suspended Wednesday for a positive test for a hair restoration drug banned because of its steroid-masking properties. Monaco's anti-doping committee suspended Sebastien Gattuso for six months after he tested positive in October for “finasteride.” But it's also entirely possible an athlete could be using these products for purposes other than performance enhancement, or the masking of performance enhancing substances.
This type of issue is front and centre at the Olympics in Turin today.
U.S. skeleton racer Zach Lund of Salt Lake City, a potential gold medal favorite, was in an arbitration hearing today to determine his Olympic eligibility because of a failed test that turned up the same “masking agent” that is associated with hair loss products. Lund said the positive test was because he was taking the product for hair loss. A ruling on his eligibility for the Olympics is expected by the end of the week.
Sources in Turin tell TSN an arbitrator has been named to hear the Canadian-born NHLer's appeal, but that no date has yet to be scheduled for that hearing, which will be heard by the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada. The arbitrator will hear the case and rule either in favor of the player or against him. If the ruling is favorable to the player, no announcement is forthcoming. If, however, the arbitrator's decision goes against the player's appeal, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport will make the player's name public and announce the appropriate sanctions, which at worst includes a two-year ban on international hockey. None of the various governing bodies who preside over the broad spectrum of athlete testing and doping control are permitted to identify any player or athlete until such time the appeal process is completed and only if the athlete's appeal is rejected.
If the Berard case is any indication, even if the Canadian player were to be sanctioned internationally, it would have no impact on his NHL status as the NHL has decided pre-Olympic testing conducted prior to the Jan. 15, 2006, institution of the league's drug-testing program is not recognized as a violation of the league program.
To fully understand where this specific situation is at, one must have some understanding of the rules and procedure for the testing of Olympic athletes.
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) is the designated body in this country that carries out Olympic drug testing on behalf of the International Olympic Committee.
Once Hockey Canada named its 81-man Olympic eligibility list in the fall, any player on that list was eligible to be randomly tested by the CCES.
The CCES is entitled to collect a sample in the six months leading up to the Olympics. For players who were named to the final Olympic team roster, every one of them is tested prior to the Olympics. As for pre-Olympic testing, the sample is sent to an approved laboratory in Montreal, where the sample is analyzed for prohibited substances on the WADA list.
If a positive test occurs, termed an "adverse analytic finding (AAF)," the CCES swings into action. It contacts the player to inform him of the AAF, it contacts the governing body for the sport – in this case it's Hockey Canada – and the CCES immediately conducts an initial in-house review. The athlete is given an opportunity to explain himself and the CCES reviews all forms and information supplied at the time of testing.
One of the key elements of the testing protocol is a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) form, which gives the athlete an opportunity prior to testing to list all drugs, medications and supplements that the athlete uses as part of treating medical or health issues. If the positive test, or AAF, is as a result of something on the TUE form, it allows the CCES to instantly see what may have caused the positive test. The CCES has an in-house tribunal which assesses these situations and has the power to either dismiss the positive test or proceed with discipline, depending upon what's listed on the TUE.
If, however, there is no TUE filed or the prohibited substance in question is not related to any items on the TUE, then the CCES moves to the next stage, which is to formally assert a violation and propose a penalty, which more often than not is a two-year ban from international competition, although it varies depending upon the severity of the violation.
At that point, the athlete has two options. Either waive the right to an appeal and accept the punishment or contest the CCES ruling by requesting an appeal.
If the appeal is requested, it is submitted to the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC), which appoints an independent arbitrator to hear the case. The athlete, as well as the athlete's governing body (in this case Hockey Canada), get standing in the appeal as does the CCES. The appeal is heard and the arbitrator must make a final and binding ruling within 20 days of the hearing.
If the athlete's appeal is ruled on favorably by the SDRCC arbitrator, the matter is closed and the athlete's name is never revealed. If, however, the arbitrator rules against the athlete's appeal, the CCES formally and publicly announces the violation and the sanctions.
There is one final avenue of appeal for the athlete and that is to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland.
As for this specific case involving the Canadian-born NHL player, sources say he's currently waiting for a hearing with the SDRCC arbitrator. Sources suggest the player in question has been using a hair restoration drug for many years and it's not being used as a “masking agent” for steroid use, and that is precisely the issue the arbitrator must rule on.
TSN (http://tsn.ca/news_story.asp?ID=154224&hubName=main)