On 21 July 2015 the French Cycling Federation (FCC) Appeal Panel decided to  impose a reduced 3 month period of ineligibility on the cyclist for his evasion, refusal or failure to submit to sample collection. 

The Doping Control Officers reported that the selected Athlete failed to appear for sample collection at a competition in April 2015.

Hereafter the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reopened the case against the Athlete. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard.

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied that he acted intentionally and requested for a reduced sanction. He asserted that he was unaware that he had been selected for sample collection, nor was he notified.

The Athlete argued that he was present at the finish line and that he also had not received a telephone call. The next day he provided a sample which tested negative for banned substances.

The AFLD deems that the Athlete's violation was not intentional. Further the AFLD considers that he acted with a degree of  fault and negligence and that he was tested the next day. Moreover the AFLD establishes that at the competition no chapperonnes were available, neither the telephone number to contact the Athlete.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 7 January 2016 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

On 24 June 2015 the French Cycling Federation (FCC) Appeal Panel decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the cyclist after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Triamcinolone acetonide.

Hereafter the case was reopened by the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD). Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and failed to attend the hearing.

The AFLD finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

The AFLD determines that the Athlete had mentioned his medication on th Doping Control Form and that his application for a TUE was denied in March 2015. The AFLD deems that the Athlete failed to explain how he obtained this medication, nor did he provide a medical justification for the use of this medication.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 7 January 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligiblity on the Athlete.

On 26 June 2015 the French Federation for Kick Boxing, Muay Thai and Associated Disciplines (FFKMDA) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the muay thai Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA).

Hereafter the case was reopened by the AFLD. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard.

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use and requested for a reduced sanction. He explained that he had used tablets recreationally 2 weeks before the sample collection.

The AFLD considers that the Athlete had used prohibited and illegal substances without a medical justification. Further the AFLD deems that the concentration found in his sample was not consistent with his alleged use 2 weeks before the Doping Control.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 7 January 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 March 2015.

In November 2015 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the triathlon Athlete for his evasion, refusal or failure to submit to sample collection. 

Doping Control Officers reported that at the competition in September 2014 he had been selected to provide both a blood and an urine sample. The Athlete indeed signed the notification form and provided a blood sample. Yet, before he provided an urine sample he already had left the Doping Control Station. 

The Athlete denied that he had acted intentionally and requested for a reduced sanction. He believed that he had not committed any fault.

He explained that after he had provided a blood sample he assumed that he could leave. He was unaware that he also was selected to provide an urine sample.

The Athlete argued that his blood sample tested negative and he claimed that there had been several irregularities that would invalidate the Doping Control.

In view of the evidence the AFLD determines that the Athlete had left the Doping Control Station after he had provided a blood sample. Therupon he failed to respond to the telephone calls and the messages submitted to him.

Further the AFLD considers that the Athlete had been sanctioned in July 2010 for 4 years after he tested positive for multiple prohibited substances. Moreover the AFLD had established that the Athlete had breached ineligibility through his participation into two competitions in August 2012.

Finally the AFLD dismissed the Athlete's assertions that the alleged irregularities would invalidate the Doping Control.  

Therefore the AFLD decides on 7 January 2016 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In October 2015 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for his evasion, refusal or failure to submit to sample collection. 

Doping Control Officers reported that at 2 competitions in October 2014 and in February 2015 the Athlete refused to sign the Notification Forms. He failed to submit to sample collection and instead he left the Doping Control Station although he was duly warned about the consequences. 

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied that he had attempted to conceal the use of prohibited substances. He expressed his regrets and requested for a reduced sanction.

He explained that on the first occassion he had to catch his train home. On the second occasion he did not understand the requested procedure and he was intimidated by the presence of a police officer.

The AFLD determined that the Athlete had admitted the violation and had had failed to submit to sample collection after notification. Further the AFLD finds that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the AFLD decides on 7 January 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the notification.

Annual banned-substance review: analytical approaches in human sports drug testing / Mario Thevis, Tiia Kuuranne, Hans Geyer

• Drug Testing and Analysis 16 (2024) 1 (January), p. 5-29
• PMID: 37985429
• DOI: 10.1002/dta.3602

Contents:

• Introduction
• Anabolic Agent
  • Anabolic-androgenic steroids (AASs)
  • Initial testing procedures (ITPs)—
    Comprehensive screening and metabolism studies
  • Other anabolic agents
  • Steroid profiling in urine and blood
  • Confirmatory testing procedures—Isotope
    ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS)
• Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, Related Substances, and Mimetics
  • EPO-receptor agonists (ERAs) and hypoxiainducible
    factor (HIF) activating agents
  • Peptide hormones and their releasing factors,
    growth factors, and growth factor modulators

• Β2-Agonists, Hormone, And Metabolic Modulators

  • β2-Agonists
  • Hormone and metabolic modulators
• Diuretics And Masking Agents,
• Stimulants And Narcotics
• Glucocorticoids, Cannabinoids, And Beta-Blockers
• Manipulation Of Blood And Blood Components
• Gene Doping
• Conclusion And Perspectives

Abstract

In this 16th edition of the annual banned-substance review on analytical approaches in human sports drug testing, literature on recent developments in this particular section of global anti-doping efforts that was published between October 2022 and September 2023 is summarized and discussed. Most recent additions to the continuously growing portfolio of doping control analytical approaches and investigations into analytical challenges in the context of adverse analytical findings are presented, taking into account existing as well as emerging challenges in anti-doping, with specific focus on substances and methods of doping recognized in the World Anti-Doping Agency's 2023 Prohibited List. As in previous years, focus is put particularly on new or enhanced analytical options in human doping controls, appreciating the exigence and core mission of anti-doping and, equally, the conflict arising from the opposingly trending extent of the athlete's exposome and the sensitivity of instruments nowadays commonly available in anti-doping laboratories.

iNADO Update (2024) 01/02 (5 February)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

Building a Supportive Community

• Overview of Member Needs
• Recent Basecamp discussions

Improving Practice Everywhere

• Annual General Assembly (AGA) Registration Invitation (Only iNADO Members) 
• 2024 iNADO Annual Workshop Registration Invitation
• Summary Bird & Bird  webinar 
• Annual banned substance Review 2022/2023 by the Cologne Laboratory

Speaking Up For NADOs & RADO Globally

• New Head of AMADA and EGY-NADO
• iNADO Board Elections for the Term 2024 - 2027
• Resignation of iNADO CEO 
• Overview of NADO staff members in WADA working groups and committees
• EPO report & false negatives
  Guiding Principles
• New Signatories and Invitation to sign the Guiding Principles 

iNADO Sponsors & Partners

Operation Refuge : An Examination of Doping Among Minors / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2024

Contents:

• Foreword
• Introduction
• Background
• Stories of Impact
• The ADO Perspective
• Testing and Results Management Data
• Intelligence Reporting
• Research Overview
• WADA Initiatives
• Conclusions
• Recommendations

‘Operation Refuge’ reports in detail about the deep trauma and isolation child athletes experience following a positive test and doping sanction. Undertaken by WADA’s Intelligence and Investigations Department, the report shines a light on the immense challenges faced by minors, their families and the anti-doping community when a child tests positive for a prohibited substance or method. The report delivers a number of conclusions and identifies important areas for improvement on this issue. 

In early 2021, WADA’s Confidential Information Unit (CIU) observed an increase in confidential reporting of doping activity amongst minors, including pre-teen athletes. While the lack of detail in many of these reports prevented substantive enforcement action, WADA followed up every case and launched investigations where appropriate. 

WADA was concerned by the nature and volume of reporting, leading to the commencement of ‘Operation Refuge’. It examined the doping activities of minors with a view to identifying any patterns of offending, any deficiencies in governance, and any possible strategies on how better to address the issue of doping amongst minors. 

A key aspect of ‘Operation Refuge’ was the firsthand accounts obtained from not only minors who had committed doping violations, but also their family and support networks. Although these experiences were shared with WADA on condition of anonymity, such was the impact of these accounts that permission was obtained from some to share their stories in the report. 

From the firsthand accounts that were obtained, six key themes emerged, namely: 

• Trauma; 
• Isolation; 
• Impact; 
• Pressure; 
• Ignorance, and; 
• Abandonment 

The report details information obtained from human intelligence (e.g., interviews, informants), data analysis, external academic study, open-source research, and the anti-doping community. 

In October 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete James Gikunga Karanja after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone Nandrolone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Thereupon the Athlete failed to respond to the communications and the AIU established that he had violated the provisional suspension through his participation into a competition in November 2023.

The AIU concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Because he did not respond within the set deadline the AIU determines that he was deemed to have admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing and accepted the consequences.

Therefore the AIU decides on 25 January 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

In October 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Ugandan Athlete Prisca Chesang after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

Following notification the Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and could not explain how the substance had entered her system. Further she objected to accept a provisional suspension.

Nevertheless in December 2023 the provisional suspension was ordered and thereupon in Januari 2024 the Athlete's legal representatives informed the AIU that they had withdrawn from representing the Athlete. Hereafter the Athlete failed to respond to the AIU communications.

The AIU concludes that the Athlete failed to prove that the violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substance. Because she did not respond within the set deadline the AIU determines in January 2024 that she was deemed to have admitted the violation, waived her right for a hearing and accepted the consequences.

Therefore the AIU decides on 23 January 2024 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 December 2023.