Prohibited List January 2022 : The World Anti-Doping Code International Standard / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2021
The Prohibited List is a mandatory International Standard as part of the World Anti-Doping Program.
The List is updated annually following an extensive consultation process facilitated by WADA. The effective date of the List is 1 January 2022.
Meldonium residues in milk : A possible scenario for inadvertent doping in sports? / Sven Guddat, Christian Görgens, Tim Sobolevsky, Mario Thevis. - (Drug Testing and Analysis (2021) 26 August)
Abstract
Lately, the veterinary drug Emidonol® has been discussed as a possible scenario for inadvertent doping in sports. Emidonol® is approved for use in livestock breeding, exhibiting antihypoxic and weak sedative effects. The veterinary drug rapidly dissociates into meldonium, a substance prohibited in sports, and is excreted largely in its unchanged form into urine. To investigate if residues of meldonium in edible produce may result in adverse analytical findings in sports drug testing, a pilot study was conducted with three volunteers consuming a single dose of 100 ml meldonium-spiked milk at a concentration of 500 ng/ml (Study 1), and multiple doses of 100 ml of meldonium-spiked milk (500 ng/ml) on five consecutive days (Study 2). In the single dose study, urinary meldonium concentrations peaked between 2 and 6 h post-administration with maximum values of 7.5 ng/ml, whereas maximum meldonium concentrations of 18.6 ng/ml were determined after multiple doses 4 h post-administration. All samples were analyzed using an established and validated protocol based on HILIC-HRMS/MS.
In September 2016 NADO Flanders reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Georgian boxer after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Mildronaat (Meldonium).
After notification the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission and a Decision was rendered in absentia of the Athlete.
The Disciplinary Commission finds that the presence of the prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Commission deems that the Athlete intentionally had used the substance since he failed to demonstrate how the substance had entered his system.
Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 6 December 2016 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the Decision.
Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne partially by the Athlete.
2019 Anti-Doping Testing Figures / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2020
Contents:
Report Highlights
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has published its 2019 Testing Figures Report (2019 Report), which summarizes the results of all the samples WADA-accredited Laboratories analyzed and reported in WADA’s Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS) in 2019.
This is the fifth set of global testing figures under the version of the World Anti-Doping Code (Code) that came into effect in January 2015. The 2019 Report – which includes an Executive Summary and sub-reports by Laboratory, Sport, Testing Authority and Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) Blood Analysis – includes in- and out-of-competition urine samples; blood and ABP blood data; and, the resulting AAFs and Atypical Findings (ATFs).
Complete Overview of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods from the IOC Lists (1968-2003) & WADA Prohibited Lists (2004- ) / ed. M.C. Tuk, Olivier de Hon. - Doping Authority Netherlands (Dopingautoriteit); Anti-Doping Knowledge Center (ADKC), 2021
Analytical progresses of the World Anti-Doping Agency Olympic laboratories : a 2016 update from London to Rio / Ioanna Athanasiadou, Sven Voss, Emmanouil Lyris, Amina Aljaber, Mohammed Alsayrafi, Costas Georgakopoulos. - (Bioanalysis 8 (2016) 21 (November); p. 2265-2279)
Abstract
The 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the biggest event in human sports, was held in Rio de Janeiro with more than 10,500 athletes from 206 countries over the world competing for the highest of sports honors, an Olympic medal. With the hope that the Olympic ideal accompanies all aspects of the XXXI Olympiad, WADA accredited antidoping laboratories use the spearhead of analytical technology as a powerful tool in the fight against doping. This review summarizes the main analytical developments applied in antidoping testing methodology combined with the main amendments on the WADA regulations regarding analytical testing starting from the 2012 London Olympics until the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro.
In March 2020 Sport Ireland has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Gaelic football player IS-7130 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium.
After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing and accepted the sanction proposed by Sport Ireland.
Therefore Sport Ireland decides on 8 April 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete IS-7130 starting on the date of the sample collection.
CAS 2019/A/6587 Badminton World Federation v. Kate Jessica Foo Kune
In 2017 the Badminton World Federation (BWF) launched an investigation against the official of the Mauritius Badminton Association (MBA) Mr. Raj Gaya and established that he had diverted funds intended for the MBA into his personal bank account.
Consequently the BWF Ethics Hearing Panel decided on 21 November 2018 to impose a fine and a lifetime ban from performing any function in badminton. In this ethics case the Mauritian badminton player Kate Jessica Foo Kune and another key withness assisted the BWF in their investigation and testified against Mr. Gaya.
In June 2019 the BWF reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Kate Foo Kune after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 1-androstenedione. On 21 October 2019 the BWF Doping Hearing Panel deemed that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation but decided not to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete due to no fault or negligence.
Here the Doping Hearing Panel determined that the Athlete more likely than not had demonstrated that she had consumed water that was deliberately spiked with the prohibited substance and victim of malicious sabotage by the MBA.
Hereafter in November 2019 the BWF appealed the decision of its Doping Hearing Panel with the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The BWF requested the Panel to set aside the Decision of 21 October 2019 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
The BWF accepted that the Athlete’s violation was not intentional but contended that she failed to establish the origin of the prohibited substance. She didn’t demonstrate on the balance of probabilities how the prohibited substance had entered her system nor how an ill-intentioned individual could have deliberately spiked her food or drink with this prohibited substance.
The BWF argued that it is willing to accept any new evidence, and that it is open to re-evaluate its position regarding such new evidence, that would allow the Athlete to demonstrate that sabotage took place, or any other mitigating circmumstances.
The Athlete explained why an accidental contamination of her supplements or her food and water consumed during the Championships in Nigeria was not possible. Instead she submitted that the positive test resulted by way of the malicious sabotage by the MBA or Mr. Gaya, or an associate of either. In particular, she asserted that her team backpack had been left out-of-sight several times during the Championships in Nigeria and that the most likely explanation for the positive test is that her water was intentionally spiked without her knowing during this period.
The Panel regards that the Parties in this case did not dispute that the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation was unintentional. It also finds that it is not absolutely necessary for the Athlete to show the origin of the prohibited substance to establish absence of intent.
Nevertheless the Panel deems that the Athlete didn’t provide sufficient evidence that supports her assertion while the scientific analysis of an independent expert witness underminded the allegation of sabotage.
The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to establish on a balance of probabilities how the prohibited substance entered her system. Consequently andy plea of no (significant) fault or negligence must be rejected.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 December 2020 that:
1.) The appeal filed by the Badminton World Federation against the decision rendered by the BWF Doping Hearing Panel on 21 October 2019, is upheld.
2.) The decision issued by the Badminton World Federation Doping Hearing Panel on 21 October 2019, is partially set aside.
3.) The present arbitration procedure shall be free of charge, except for the CAS Court Office Fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss francs), which has already been paid by the Badminton World Federation and is retained by the CAS.
4.) Each party shall bear its own legal and other costs.
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
