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 »

JADCO 2015 JADCO vs Andre Russell

In October 2015 the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cricket player Andre Russell for 3 Whereabouts filing failures within a 12 month period. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Jamaica Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel. The Athlete stated that he had not received information from JADCO about whereabouts and the use of the ADAMS system and neither had the cricket organsations conducted workshops or training sessions in this matter. He was assisted by updating his whereabouts information and due to his hectic cricket schedule he had delegated the filing of his whereabouts to his agent. The Panel finds that the Athlete acted without intention to avoid being available for testing and that there was clearly some intervention and willingness to do something to have the situation rectified, though unsuccessfully to the critical moment. The Panel concludes that the evidence establish the Athlete’s 3 Whereabouts filing failures as anti-doping violation and decides on 31 January 2017 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

show » details »

JADCO 2014 JADCO vs Odean Brown

In April 2015 the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cricket player Odean Brown for 2 missed tests and a filing failure of his Whereabouts within a 12 month period. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Jamaica Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel. The Athlete explained that he previously had resided at two other addresses before he moved to his current address as reason for the first missed test. Regarding the second missed test he stated that he already had left home for training before the arrival of the Doping Control Officer (DCO). His Whereabouts filing failure was in part caused to losing access to his email for two months and in that period when he and his team travelled overseas they often didn’t have precise details where they would stay. Also the Athlete asserted that the DCO didn’t follow the ISTI guidelines due to he failed to contact the Athlete before the window for testing had closed. The Panel finds that the DCOs were not required to contact the Athlete when he was not located at home and concludes that the evidence in this case supported the reported violations. The Panel considers the Athlete’s explanations unsatisfactory as to the “wrong” address that was registrated in ADAMS. Considering the Athlete’s degree of fault the Jamaica Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 24 November 2015.

show » details »

ICC 2011 ICC vs Yasir Shah

In December 2015 the International Cricket Council (ICC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Pakistan cricket player Yasir Shah after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Chlorthalidone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. The Athlete gave a prompt admission and stated that the violation occurred without intention to enhance his sport performance or to mask the use of any other prohibited substance. He explained that both he and his wife suffered from high blood pressure and used different prescribed medication. In the morning before the match he was struck by hight blood pressure and by mistake under urgent and stressful circumstance he used his wife medication that contains Atenolol and Chlortalidone. The Athlete produced relevant medical information and showed the similarities to the blister packs containing the medications for him and his wife. Also he mentioned his medical condition and the use of his wife medication on the Doping Control Form. The ICC accepts the Athlete’s explanation how the substance entered his system under extreme and unique circumstances and concludes that he not intentionally acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. Therefore the ICC decides on 7 February 2016 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 December 2016.

show » details »

PCB 2006 Shoaib Akhtar & Muhammad Asif vs PCB - Appeal

Related case: CAS 2006/A/1190 WADA vs Pakistan Cricket Board & Shoaib Akhtar & Muhammed Asif June 28, 2006 In October 2006 the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cricket players Shoaib Akhtar and Muhammed Asif after their samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosteron (Nandrolone). On 1 November 2006 the PCB Anti-Doping Commission decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Akhtar and a 1 year period on the Athlete Asif. Hereafter in November 2006 both Athlete’s appealed the PCB decision with the PCB Anti-Doping Appeals Committee. Akhtar’s arguments in his defence was as follows: (i) that his high protein intake and rigorous workout schedule over the years had caused endogenous production of 19-Norandrosterone in his system well over the prescribed limit of 2 ng/ml; (ii) that the nutritional supplements taken by him - including Blaze Xtreme, Nitron 5, Size On, T-Bomb II, Promax 50 and Viper - were not banned items; (iii) that contamination in the aforesaid supplements taken by him could have been the reason for the elevated level of 19-Norandrosterone; and (iv) that he was never warned by the PCB about the PCB Regulations. Asif’s defence to the charge of doping was more circumscribed. He pleaded: (i) that he had not knowingly taken any medicine or substance which could explain the test result; (ii) that he had started using supplements, including Promax, when he was in the U.K. three years ago; (iii) that he honestly did not know the effects of the supplements he was taking; and (iv) that when recently the team physiotherapist Mr. Darryn Lipson advised him to discontinue the use of supplements, he immediately stopped ingesting them. The Appeals Committee accepts the Athlete's arguments and rules that the Athletes had “successfully established that they held an honest and reasonable belief that the supplement ingested by them did not contain any prohibited substances”, and the Athletes had therefore “met the test of ‘exceptional circumstances’ as laid down under clause 4.5 of the PCB Anti Doping Regulations.” Therefore the PCB Anti-Doping Appeals Committee decides on 5 december 2006 to set aside the decision of 1 November 2006 and to annul the imposed sanction. Hereafter in December 2006 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appeals the decision of the PCB Appeals Committee with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). However the CAS rules on 28 June 2007 that the WADA appeal is inadmissible due to CAS has no jurisdiction to rule under the PCB and ICC Rules.

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