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.

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.

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 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 »

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 »

UKAD 2016 2016 UKAD vs Adrian Canaveral

In October and in November 2016 the UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported two anti-doping rule violations against the weightlifter Adrian Canaveral after his samples, provided in September and in October 2016, tested positive for the prohibited substances: 19-norandrosterone, Clomiphene, Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine), Stanozolol and Tamoxifen. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete gave a prompt admission to UKAD for the violations and without a hearing he accepted a 4 year period of ineligibility. Because the Athlete’s second violation was committed before he received notice about the first violation UKAD considers the two anti-doping rule violations as a single first anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the Rules. Therefore UKAD decides on 27 June 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the second sample collection, i.e. on 9 October 2016.

show » details »

AAA 2017 No. 01 16 0005 1367 USADA vs Goa Johnson

In September 2016 the the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance modafinil. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard before the Commercial Arbitration Tribunal of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). USADA contended that the Athlete failed to prove that the violation was non intentional because to the Athlete used the medication Nuvigil (modafinil) without a prescription; the medication was provided by her coach; she didn’t apply for a TUE and neither did she mention it on the doping control form. The Athlete stated that the violation was non intentional and explained that due to the long and irregular hours she worked and the heat in Arizona required her to train late at night. She struggled with sleep issues and used Nuvigil, provided by her coach, to help keep her alert for late night training sessions. Before using the medication she consulted a doctor who agreed that Nuvigil could help her and she researched the medication on the DRO website which confirmed that the medication was not prohibited out-of-competition. She used the medication between March and July 2016 and showed with evidence that she was tested out-of-competition during that time without incident. In this case the parties' experts agree that the half-life of modafinil is 12-15 hours and that the peak plasma concentration is two to four hours after ingestion. After considering all of the submissions of the parties and evidence presented, the Panel concludes the Athelete has established by a balance of probability that she took Nuvigil 150mg tablets obtained from her coach out-of-competition knowing that Nuvigil was only prohibited in-competition. The Panel finds that USADA has failed to carry its burden of proving that the Athlete engaged in conduct which she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or that she knew that there was a significant risk that her conduct might result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk. Considering the Athlete’s subjective element of fault and the mitigating subjective factors the Panel concludes that the Athlete’s conduct falls in the higher level of fault category. Due to several months delay not attributed to the Athlete the Panel finds it appropriate to start the period of ineligibility on the date of the sample collection. Therefore the the AAA Commercial Arbitration Tribunal decides on 30 June 2017: 1.) Respondent has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the Code and the UCI Rules. 2.) The following sanction shall be imposed on the Respondent: a.) A twenty one (21) month period of ineligibility commencing August I 0. 2016, including her ineligibility from participating in and having access to the training facilities of the United States Olympic Committee Training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC including, but not limited to, grants, awards or employment pursuant to the USOC Anti-Doping Policies only during the period of ineligibility. b.) Respondent's results from August 10, 2016 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes pursuant to Atticle 9 of the Code. 3.) The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs associated with this arbitration. 4.) The Administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association and the compensation and expenses of the Arbitrators shall be borne entirely by USADA and the USOC. 5.) This Award is in full settlement of all of the claims and counterclaims submitted to this Arbitration. All claims not expressly granted herein are denied. 6.) (…)

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