Bigger than Big. The evolution of bodybuilding? Kristian Claas, Rekel Productions, 2016. Documentary commissioned by the Anti-Doping Authority the Netherlands (Dopingautoriteit). Dutch documentary with English subtitles. Groter dan groot. De evolutie van bodybuilding? Kristian Claas, Rekel Producties, 2016. Documentaire gemaakt in opdracht van de Dopingautoriteit. Nederlands gesproken documentaire met Engelse ondertiteling. _________________________________________________ Groter dan groot. De evolutie van bodybuilding? (Bigger than Big. The evolution of bodybuilding?') is a Dutch documentary about the future of bodybuilding. Insiders discuss the future of the sport. Bodybuilding is no longer about strength, health and aesthetics. 'Bigger than Big' is made by True Strength – Eigen Kracht in Dutch - the program of the Anti-Doping Authority the Netherlands for the fitness industry and wants to inform athletes about the risks of using anabolic steroids and other prohibited substances. It also advocates clean sports and educates athletes about healthy and efficient ways to achieve their goals.
Welcome to Doping.nl, the
Anti-Doping Knowledge Center.
This site has been established to host information about doping in the broadest sense of the word, and about doping prevention.
The Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands (the Dutch Doping Authority for short) established this site and maintains it. The Doping Authority was founded in 1989 and it is one of the oldest NADOs in the world. Doping.nl was developed with financial support from the Dutch Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sport.
This website was established because of the importance that the Doping Authority and the Ministry attach to the dissemination of information relevant to doping prevention. Disclosing and supplying relevant information is one of the cornerstones in the fight against doping in sport. However, in practice, a significant amount of information is still not available, or only available to a limited group of users. We therefore decided to bring together all the relevant information in a single site: Doping.nl.
The Doping Authority aims to supply as much information through this website as possible on an ongoing basis. The information will be varied but will focus primarily on: WADA documents like the World Anti-Doping Code, the International Standards like the Prohibited List, Doping Regulations, scientific articles and abstracts, decisions by disciplinary bodies (mainly CAS decisions).As well as making documents available, the Doping Authority aims to supply searchable documents when possible, and to add relevant keywords to ensure easy access.
In the future, Doping.nl will also become a digital archive containing older information that is no longer available elsewhere.
This site has been designed for use by anti-doping professionals such as National Anti-Doping Organisations and International Federations but also for students, journalists and other people interested in the subject.
Recently added documents More »
iNADO Update (2016) 73 (19 September) Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO) _________________________________________________ Help Your IOC Members Improve Anti-Doping: iNADO urges all NADOs and RADOs to contact their country’s IOC Members before the end of the September with constructive proposals for anti-doping reform. IOC President Thomas Bach has this weekend asked International Olympic Committee Members to provide their views to the IOC on how anti-doping can be improved. Proposals for improvement will be discussed at the “IOC Summit” on October 8, 2016. Please let iNADO know of your efforts to provide this support to your IOC Members so we can reinforce them through international advocacy.
CAS 2001/A/330 R. / Fédération Internationale des Sociétés d’Aviron (FISA) Olympic Games Doping (nandrolone) Validity of a life ban for a first doping offence 1. The life ban sanction imposed was based upon valid provisions of the FISA Rules. Those provisions were well-known and predictable to all rowers, and had provided for the possibility of a life ban for a first doping offence for more than 12 years. In addition, the Appellant (rower) had signed the “rower commitment”, which clearly confirmed that doping violations in the sport of rowing were punishable with a life ban for a first offence. In the circumstances, therefore, the CAS has no hesitation in finding that the sanction contained in FISA’s Rules satisfied what might be called the “predictability test”. 2. Although the CAS undoubtedly has the authority to correct any penalty as it sees fit, it would hesitate for a long time before over-ruling a decision by an International Federation, unless it thought that the Federation’s decision was disproportionate to the offence. While it is clear that many International Federations have decided that a two year suspension is appropriate for a first doping offence, it is equally clear that other International Federations, such as FISA, have chosen to impose higher minimum sanctions as a demonstration of their determination and commitment to the eradication of doping in their sport. 3. As a matter of principle, a life ban can be considered both justifiable and proportionate in doping cases. That is so even if the ban is imposed for a first offence. _________________________________________________ R. (The Athlete) is a Latvian Athlete competing in the rowing regatta at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. In September 2000 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance nandrolone. On 23 September 2000 the IOC decided to disqualify the Athlete and excluded him from the Olympic Games. On 14 May 2001 the Fédération Internationale des Sociétés d’Aviron (FISA), the World Rowing Executive Committee decided to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Hereafter the Athlete appealed the FISA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete stated that he was planning to finish his sports career after the Sydney Olympic Games, but that he wanted to support the development of rowing in Latvia. He said that it would be an advantage to those who were organising rowing regattas in Latvia to have him present, and participating in the regatta. The Panel noticed that the Athlete R. has had a number of opportunities at hearings before the FISA Commission of Enquiry, the FISA Executive Committee and the Panel to adduce evidence to demonstrate his lack of culpability, but has failed to avail himself of any of those opportunities. In particular, he failed to produce any evidence to the Panel which might have persuaded the Panel that the sentence imposed was disproportionate. The Panel is of the view that the Athlete willingly and foolishly exposed himself to a serious risk by taking such a cocktail of food supplements and other substances as is shown by the evidence that he did take. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides on 23 November 2001 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal.
Ms. Ekaterina Gnidenko is a Russian Athlete competing in the Cycling Track Keirin Event and the Track Sprint Event at the London 2012 Olympic Games. In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected before and during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012. In May 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2012 A and B samples (collected in Belarus in July 2012) tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormthyltestosterone (turinabol). After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission. The Athlete alleges that she never used intentionally any prohibited substances and/or methods and always strictly followed her doctor’s recommendations. Supported by an expert witness the Athlete disputed the irregulatities with the opening and splitting of her samples and the competence and capability of the laboratory. The Commission dismissed the arguments of the Athlete and her expert witness and finds that the analytical method and results of the laboratory are valid and concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping violation with the intention to enhance her sport performance. The Commission notes that the presence of metabolites of this particular substance has been established in a remarkably high number of cases, which resulted from the re-analysis of the samples collected in Beijing 2008 and London 2012. This constitutes an indication that this substance has been in widespread use by athletes. Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 5 September that the Athlete Ekaterina Gnidenko: 1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXX Olympiad, London 2012 (presence and/or use, of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen), 2.) is disqualified from the events in which she participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games London 2012, namely, the Cycling Track Keirin Event in which she ranked 8th and the Cycling Track Sprint Event in which she ranked 18th, and 3.) has the diploma obtained in the Cycling Track Keirin Event withdrawn and is ordered to return same. 4.) The UCI is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence. 5.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision. 6.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the diploma awarded in connection with the Cycling Track Keirin Event to the Athlete. 7.) This decision enters into force immediately.