Welcome

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.

Initiator
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.

Goals
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.

Activities
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.

Target readers
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.

Register
To use the lightbox option, you need to register.

More information explaining how to use this website can be found under "help".

Recently added documents More »

BWF 2016 BWF vs Rong Schafer

In May 2016 the Badminton World Federation (BWF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance terbutaline. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the BWF Hearing Panel. The Athlete admitted the violation and accepted the test results. She explained that during her stay in New Zealand she used a recommended terbutaline inhaler to improve her breathing prior before she got tested. Also she checked the WADA 2015 prohibited list before using this inhaler. The Panel is convinced that the violation was not intentional and accepts the Athlete’s explanation. The Panel notes that terbutaline is a beta-2 agonist and is not one of the two beta-2 agonists that is explicitly allowed on the WADA 2015 prohibited list. The Panel finds that the Athlete has been careless when studying the Prohibited List and has without doubt acted with negligence. Considering the circumstances in this case the Panel concludes that the Athlete’s degree of negligence is rather severe. Therefore the BWF Hearing Panel decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 24 March 2016.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

BWF 2015 BWF vs Sudsaifon Yodpa

In January 2016 the ASEAN Para Sports Federation (APSF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Thai paralympic Athlete Sudsaifon Yodpa after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance sibutramine. After notification by the Badminton World Federation (BWF) a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the BWF Hearing Panel. The Athlete accepted the test results and stated that she had used a nutritional supplement purchased on the internet as treatment for constipation and believed this supplement was the source of the prohibited substance. However in June 2016 the BWF was informed that analytical results showed that the substance sibutramine was not detected in this supplement. The Hearing Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to establish how the prohibited substance entered her system and that her negligence is rather significant. Therefore the BWF Hearing Panel decides on 6 September 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 7 December 2015.

show » details »
Type:
PDF

BWF 2016 BWF vs Ratchanok Intanon

In July 2016 the Badminton World Federation (BWF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Thai Athlete Ratchanok Intanon after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Triamcinolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete accepted the test results. The Athlete’s medical evidence together with the testimony from an expert witness estabilshed to the satisfaction of the Panel that the substance was administered in May 2016, before the competition as part of on‐going medical treatment of the athlete and that the route of administration of the substance was intra‐tendinous. The Panel concludes that for this mecical treatment no TUE was necessary. Therefore the BWF Hearing Panel decides on 17 July 2016 that the Athlete did not commit an anti-doping rule violation.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

BWF 2016 BWF vs Xiaohan Yu

In July 2015 the International University Sports Federation (FISU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Chinese Athlete Xiaohan Yu after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance sibutramine. After notification by the Badminton World Federation (BWF) a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the BWF Hearing Panel. The Athlete stated that the only possibility for her to get the substance in her system was the Exclusive Pill she took. Also the China Anti-Doping Agency (CHINADA) confirmed that analysis results showed that sibutramine was detected in these pills. The Hearing Panel accepts that the Athlete’s violation was non intentional and that the positive test is without doubt caused by a contaminated natural supplement. The Panel emphasizes that this case is a classic example of the dangers of consuming any product that has not been thoroughly tested by a responsible pharmaceutical institution or medical professional. The Panel concludes that by only not taking the Exclusive Pill could the Athlete avoid being negligent and that her degree of negligence is rather light. Therefore the BWF Hearing Panel decides on 11 February 2016 to impose a 7 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 12 July 2015.

show » details »
Type:
pdf
Category
  • (Medical) Science
  • Doping classes
  • Education
  • History
  • Laboratories
  • Legal
  • Statistics
Publication period
Origin
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Document category
  • Document type
  • Health/Medical
  • IF'S
  • Laboratories/Analysis
  • Legal Terms
  • Organisations
  • Substances
  • Various
  • Version