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.

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

Analytical possibilities for the detection of stanozolol and its metabolites

24 Sep 2002

Analytical possibilities for the detection of stanozolol and its metabolites / S. Poelmans, K. De Wasch, H.F. De Brabander, M. Van De Wiele, D. Courtheyn, L.A. van Ginkel, S.S. Sterk, Ph. Delahaut, M. Dubois, R. Schilt, M. Nielen, J. Vercammen, S. Impens, R. Stephany, T. Hamoir, G. Pottie, C. Van Poucke, C. Van Peteghem. - (Analytica Chimica Acta 473 (2002) 1-2 (25 November); p. 39-47)

  • DOI: 10.1016/S0003-2670(02)00672-4


Abstract

In sports doping, as well in man as in horseracing, stanozolol (Stan) was abused and became the subject of metabolism research. Also in veterinary practice, stanozolol became an important misused anabolic steroid.

Like most other anabolic steroids, stanozolol has poor gas chromatographic behavior. It is difficult to detect in urine, because of low urinary excretion and renal clearance. This is due to the rapid metabolization, leading to low concentration levels of the parent compound found in urine. Therefore, most research studies have focused on the detection of its urinary metabolites.

For the identification of the metabolites, different methods of extraction and detection are described in the literature. These are reviewed in this article. Most authors use a hydrolysis to free the phase II metabolites. Extraction procedures vary from solid-phase extraction (SPE), liquid–liquid (L–L) extraction to immunoaffinity chromatography (IAC). For the final detection, the use of gas chromatography (GC)–mass spectrometry (MS) can be compared with liquid chromatography (LC)–MSn. Different metabolites are identified depending on the administration of stanozolol in the animal experiment (oral or intramuscular). Analyses for these analytes in other matrices are also briefly discussed.

Analysis of anabolic steroids using GC/MS with selected ion monitoring

1 Mar 1990

Analysis of anabolic steroids using GC/MS with selected ion monitoring / Bong Chul Chung, Hea-Young P. Choo, Tae Wook Kim, Khee Dong Eom, Oh Seung Kwon, Jawon Suh, Jongsoon Yang, Jongsei Park. - (Journal of Analytical Toxicology 14 (1990) 2 (March-April); p. 91-95)

  • PMID: 2325383
  • DOI: 10.1093/jat/14.2.91


Abstract

This study describes the use of gas chromatography/mass spectrometry with selected ion monitoring to screen 18 anabolic steroids banned by the International Olympic Committee. These anabolic steroids are analyzed in two fractions depending on their excretion pattern: nonconjugated (free) or conjugated fraction. The wet procedure of extracting steroids from urine consists of an initial isolation of lipophilic compounds on a column packed with Amberlite XAD-2 resin, followed by enzymatic hydrolysis with beta-glucuronidase from Escherichia coli. After extraction, the hydrolyzed steroids are derivatized to the corresponding trimethylsilyl ethers. The derivatized steroids are analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry with selected ion monitoring of their characteristic ions. It takes 12 and 26 min to run GC/MS and edit the raw data for nonconjugated and conjugated fractions respectively.

The pharmaceuticalisation of 'healthy' ageing: Testosterone enhancement for longevity

12 Feb 2021

The pharmaceuticalisation of 'healthy' ageing : Testosterone enhancement for longevity / Matthew Dunn, Kyle J.D. Mulrooney, Cynthia Forlini, Katinka van de Ven, Mair Underwood. - (International Journal of Drug Policy (2021) 103159 (12 February))

  • PMID: 33583680
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103159


Abstract

The United Nations estimates that the world's population will reach 8.5 billion by 2030, and the populations of most countries are expected to grow older. This is case for many developed countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, and member states of the European Union. Older cohorts will comprise a larger proportion of overall populations, driven in part by our increases in life expectancy. An ageing population poses challenges for governments; notably, older people tend to have multiple, chronic health conditions which can place a burden of health budgets. At the same time, we are witnessing a shift in how we respond to the health needs of our populations, with global drug policy acknowledging that some substances are contributing to increased morbidity and mortality (e.g. opioids) while others may have beneficial therapeutic effects (e.g. psylocibin, cannabis). There is general agreement that as men age their levels of testosterone decrease, and there is some evidence to suggest that there have been population-level declines in testosterone which are not associated with age. Anecdotally, testosterone is accessed by men seeking to self-medicate in the belief that they are experiencing low testosterone levels. There has also been a rise in anti-ageing clinics in the United States, providing access to testosterone replacement therapy (TRT). The non-medical use of testosterone can result in a number of adverse health events, including complications from the use of black market or underground products. Placing testosterone under a new prescribing regime may address some of these concerns, but is society ready for this change, and if so, what would this regime look like? This paper will explore the issue of how society responds to enhancement for longevity, or how we increasingly use pharmaceuticals to address and prevent illness, with a specific focus on testosterone and testosterone deficiency.

Detection of anabolic steroids in head hair

20 Aug 1998

Detection of anabolic steroids in head hair / Xin-Sheng Deng, Akira Kurosu, Derrick J. Pounder. - (Journal of forensic sciences 44 (1999) 2 (March); p. 343-346)

  • PMID: 10097359
  • DOI: 10.1520/JFS14460J


Abstract

We developed a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry method for detection and quantitation of anabolic steroids in head hair. Following alkaline digestion and solid-phase extraction, the MO-TMS derivatives gave a specific fragmentation pattern with EI ionization. For stanozolol, the TMS-HFBA derivative showed several diagnostic ions. For androstanolone, mestanolone (methylandrostanolone), and oxymetholone two chromatographic peaks for cis and trans isomers of derivatives were seen. Recoveries were 35 to 45% for androstanolone, oxymetholone, chlorotestosterone-acetate, dehydromethyltestosterone, dehydrotestosterone, fluoxymesterone, mestanolone, methyltestosterone, and nandrolone; 52% for mesterolone, trenbolone; 65% for bolasterone; 24% for methenolone and 17% for stanozolol. Limits of detection were 0.002 to 0.05 ng/mg and of quantitation were 0.02 to 0.1 ng/mg. Seven white male steroid abusers provided head hair samples (10 to 63 mg) and urine. In the hair samples, methyltestosterone was detected in two (confirmed in urine); nandrolone in two (also confirmed in urine); dehydromethyltestosterone in four (but not found in urine); and clenbuterol in one (but not in urine). Oxymethalone was found in urine in one, but not in the hair. One abuser had high levels of testosterone: 0.15 ng/mg hair, and 1190 ng/mL urine. We conclude that head hair analysis has considerable potential for the detection and monitoring of steroid abuse.

The moral disengagement in doping scale

13 Feb 2016

The moral disengagement in doping scale / Maria Kavussanu, Antonis Hatzigeorgiadis, Anne-Marie Elbe, Christopher Ring. - (Psychology of Sport and Exercise 24 (2016) May; p. 188-198)

  • DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.02.003


Abstract

Statement of problem

The use of banned substances to enhance performance occurs in sport. Therefore, developing valid and reliable instruments that can predict likelihood to use banned substances is important.

Method

We conducted three studies. In Study 1, football players (N = 506) and athletes from a variety of team sports (N = 398) completed the Moral Disengagement in Doping Scale (MDDS). In Study 2, team sport athletes (N = 232) completed the MDDS and questionnaires measuring moral disengagement in sport, doping attitudes, moral identity, antisocial sport behavior, situational doping temptation, and task and ego goal orientations. A week later, a subsample (n = 102) completed the MDDS and indicated their likelihood to use a banned substance in a hypothetical situation. In Study 3, athletes (N = 201) from a variety of individual sports completed the MDDS and indicated their likelihood to use a banned substance in a hypothetical situation.

Results

The results of Study 1 showed that a one-factor model fitted the data well, and the scale had measurement invariance across males and females. In Study 2, we provided evidence for convergent, concurrent, discriminant, and predictive validity, as well as test-rest reliability, of the scale. In Study 3, doping moral disengagement was positively related with reported likelihood and temptation to use a banned substance. The scale exhibited very good internal consistency across the three studies.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the MDDS can be used to measure moral disengagement in doping in team and individual sports.

Annual banned-substance review: analytical approaches in human sports drug testing - [2019-2020]

12 Nov 2020

Annual banned-substance review: analytical approaches in human sports drug testing / Mario Thevis, Tiia Kuuranne, Hans Geyer. - (Drug Testing and Analysis 13 (2021) 1 (January); p. 8-35)

  • PMID: 31724288
  • DOI: 10.1002/dta.2969


Contents:

  • Inroduction
  • Anabolic Agent
    • Anabolic-androgenic steroids
    • Initial testing procedures: Comprehensive screening, metabolism studies
    • Steroid profiling in urine and serum
    • Confirmatory testing procedures – IRMS
    • Other anabolic agents
  • Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, Related Substances, and Mimetics
    • Erythropoietin-receptor agonists and hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) activating agents
    • Growth hormone, its fragments and releasing factors, chorionic gonadotrophin and luteinizing hormone (LH)
  • β2‐Agonists
  • Hormone and Metabolic Modulators
  • Diuretics and other Masking Agents, Stimulants
  • Corticoids and cannabinoids
  • Manipulation of blood and blood components
  • Gene Doping
  • Conclusion


Abstract

Analytical chemistry‐based research in sports drug testing has been a dynamic endeavor for several decades, with technology‐driven innovations continuously contributing to significant improvements in various regards including analytical sensitivity, comprehensiveness of target analytes, differentiation of natural/endogenous substances from structurally identical but synthetically derived compounds, assessment of alternative matrices for doping control purposes, and so forth. The resulting breadth of tools being investigated and developed by anti‐doping researchers has allowed to substantially improve anti‐doping programs and data interpretation in general. Additionally, these outcomes have been an extremely valuable pledge for routine doping controls during the unprecedented global health crisis that severely affected established sports drug testing strategies. In this edition of the annual banned‐substance review, literature on recent developments in anti‐doping published between October 2019 and September 2020 is summarized and discussed, particularly focusing on human doping controls and potential applications of new testing strategies to substances and methods of doping specified the World Anti‐Doping Agency's 2020 Prohibited List.

CAS 2019_ADD_4 IOC vs Supatchanin Khamhaeng

18 Oct 2019

CAS 2019/ADD/4 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Supatchanin Khamhaeng

Weightlifting
Doping (etiocholanolone)
Jurisdiction of the CAS Anti-Doping Division
Applicable law under the CAS ADD Rules

1. According to Article A2 paragraph 1 of the ADD Rules, CAS ADD shall be the first-instance authority to conduct proceedings and issue decisions when an alleged anti-doping rule violation has been filed with it and for imposition of any sanctions resulting from a finding that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. CAS ADD has jurisdiction to rule as a first-instance authority on behalf of any sports entity which has formally delegated its powers to CAS ADD to conduct anti-doping proceedings and impose applicable sanctions.

2. Under Article A20 of the ADD Rules, CAS ADD panels shall decide a dispute in accordance primarily with the World Anti-Doping Code and with the applicable Anti-Doping Rules or with the laws of a particular jurisdiction chosen by agreement of the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, according to Swiss law.


Ms Supatchanin Khamhaeng is a Thai Athlete competing in the Girls +63 kg Weightlifting event at the Buenos Aires 2018 Yourth Olympic Games.

In June 2019 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IOC, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Etiocholanolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

Hereafter in August 2019 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) requested for Arbitration with the Anti-Doping Division (ADD) of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as first-instance authority. The Sole Arbitrator renders a decision without a hearing based on the Parties' written submissions.

The Athlete signed an ITA Form in which she admitted the violation, waived her right for a hearing, accepted the test result and the sanction proposed by the IOC.

The Thai Amateur Wrestling Association (TAWA) submitted test results for prohibited substances of a number of Weightlifting Athletes competing in the 2017-2018 season and an investigation report into how the prohibited substance entered the Athlete's system.

The IOC contended that the presence of the prohibited substances had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator deems that there is sufficient proof that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. The absence of any explantion from the Athlete strengthens the interference of intentional us of doping substances.

Therefore The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 18 October 2019 that:

  1. The request for arbitration filed by the International Olympic Committee on 29 August 2019 against Supatchanin Kamhaeng is upheld.
  2. Supatchanin Kamhaeng committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with the International Olympic Committee’s Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the 2018 Youth Olympics.
  3. The results obtained by Supatchanin Kamhaeng at the 2018 Youth Olympics are disqualified. She is ordered to return her gold medal and, if applicable, forfeit any diplomas, points and prizes.
  4. (…).
  5. (…).
  6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2019_ADD_3 IOC vs Stanislau Tsivonchyk

14 Aug 2019

CAS 2019/ADD/3 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Stanislau Tsivonchyk

Athletics (pole vault)
Doping (dehydrochlormethyltestosterone)
Jurisdiction of the CAS Anti-Doping Division
Applicable law under the Arbitration Rules of the ADD

1. According to Article A2 paragraph 1 of the Arbitration Rules of the ADD (ADD Rules), the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (ADD) shall be the first-instance authority to conduct proceedings and issue decisions when an alleged anti-doping rule violation has been filed with it and for imposition of any sanctions resulting from a finding that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The ADD has jurisdiction to rule as a first-instance authority on behalf of any sports entity which has formally delegated its powers to the ADD to conduct anti-doping proceedings and impose applicable sanctions.

2. Under Article A20 of the ADD Rules, ADD panels shall decide a dispute primarily in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) and with the applicable Anti-Doping Rules or with the laws of a particular jurisdiction chosen by agreement of the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, according to Swiss law.



Mr Stanislau Tsivonchyk is a Belarussian Athlete competing in the Men’s Pole Vault event at the London 2012 Olympic Games. 

In 2018, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012. 

In December 2018 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IOC, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

Hereafter in June 2019 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) requested for Arbitration with the Anti-Doping Division (ADD) of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as first-instance authority. The Sole Arbitrator renders a decision without a hearing based on the Parties' written submissions.

The Athlete did not accept the test results and thereafter failed to file a statement in his defence nor responded to any of the communications.

The IOC contended that the presence of the prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator deems that there is sufficient proof that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that he failed to offer another explantion for the presence of the prohibited substances in his samples.

Therefore The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 14 August 2019 that:

  1. The request for arbitration filed by the International Olympic Committee on 4 April 2019 against Mr. Stanislau Tsivonchyk is upheld.
  2. Mr. Stanislau Tsivonchyk committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with the International Olympic Committee’s Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXX Olympiad, London 2012.
  3. The results obtained by Mr. Stanislau Tsivonchyk at the XXX Olympiad, London 2012 are disqualified with all resulting consequences including, if applicable, forfeiture of any medal, diploma, points and prizes.
  4. (…)
  5. (…)
  6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2019_ADD_2 IOC vs Ruslan Nurudinov

21 May 2019

CAS 2019/ADD/2 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Ruslan Nurudinov

Weightlifting
Doping (dehydrochlormethyltestosterone)
Jurisdiction of the CAS Anti-Doping Division (ADD)
Applicable law under the Arbitration Rules of the ADD (ADD Rules)

1. According to Article A2 paragraph 1 of the ADD Rules, the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (ADD) shall be the first-instance authority to conduct proceedings and issue decisions when an alleged anti-doping rule violation has been filed with it and for imposition of any sanctions resulting from a finding that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The ADD has jurisdiction to rule as a first-instance authority on behalf of any sports entity which has formally delegated its powers to CAS ADD to conduct anti-doping proceedings and impose applicable sanctions.

2. Under Article A20 of the Arbitration Rules of the ADD (ADD Rules), ADD panels shall decide a dispute primarily in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) and with the applicable Anti-Doping Rules or with the laws of a particular jurisdiction chosen by agreement of the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, according to Swiss law.



Mr Ruslan Nurudinov is an Uzbek Athlete competing in the Men’s 105 kg Weightlifting event at the London 2012 Olympic Games. 

In 2018, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012. 

In December 2018 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IOC, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2012 sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

Hereafter in April 2019 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) requested for Arbitration with the Anti-Doping Division (ADD) of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as first-instance authority. The Sole Arbitrator renders a decision without a hearing based on the Parties' written submissions.

The Athlete signed the Athlete's Rights Form whereby he accepted the test result, declined the opening and testing of his B Sample and declinded the need for the laboratory documentation packages for the Samples.

The IOC contended that the presence of the prohibited substances had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator deems that there is sufficient proof that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that he failed to offer another explantion for the presence of the prohibited substance in his sample.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 May 2019 that:

  1. The request for arbitration filed by the International Olympic Committee on 4 April 2019 against Mr. Ruslan Nurudinov is upheld.
  2. Mr. Ruslan Nurudinov committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with the International Olympic Committee’s Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXX Olympiad, London 2012.
  3. The results obtained by Mr. Ruslan Nurudinov at the XXX Olympiad, London 2012 are disqualified with all resulting consequences including, if applicable, forfeiture of any medal, points and prizes.
  4. (…)
  5. (…)
  6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2019_ADD_1 IOC vs Mikalai Novikau

20 May 2019

CAS 2019/ADD/1 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Mikalai Novikau

Weightlifting
Doping (oral turinabol & stanozolol)
Violation of the anti-doping rule
Sanction

1. Sufficient proof of an anti-doping violation (ADRV) under article 2.1.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) is established by the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its metabolites belonging to Class S1.1a of the WADA 2019 Prohibited List in the A sample where the analysis of the athlete’s B Sample confirms the presence the Prohibited Substance or its metabolites found in the athlete’s A Sample. The establishment of the ADRV is confirmed by the fact that the metabolites found in the sample are substances specifically used for doping purposes for the purpose of article 2.2 of WADC and the athlete offered no other explanation for their presence in the sample. Thus, the athlete committed an ADRV under both WADC article 2.1 (presence) and article 2.2 (use).

2. Under article 7.1 of the IOC ADR, a violation in individual sports in connection with doping control automatically leads to disqualification of the athlete’s results in the competition in question, with all other consequences related thereto as applicable including forfeiture of any medals, points and/or prizes.



Mr Mikalai Novikau is a Belarussian Athlete competing in the Men’s 85 kg Weightlifting event at the London 2012 Olympic Games. 

In 2018, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012. 

In December 2018 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IOC, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol) and Stanozolol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

Hereafter in March 2019 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) requested for Arbitration with the Anti-Doping Division (ADD) of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as first-instance authority. The Sole Arbitrator renders a decision without a hearing based on the Parties' written submissions.

In his submission the Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted the test results and waived his right for a hearing. Further he denied the use of any prohibited substance and/or method.

The IOC contended that the presence of the prohibited substances had been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator deems that there is sufficient proof that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that he failed to offer another explantion for the presence of the prohibited substances in his samples.

Therefore The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 May 2019 that:

  1. The request for arbitration filed by the International Olympic Committee on 26 March 2019 against Mr. Mikalai Novikau is upheld.
  2. Mr. Mikalai Novikau committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with the International Olympic Committee’s Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXX Olympiad, London 2012.
  3. The results obtained by Mr. Mikalai Novikau at the XXX Olympiad, London 2012 are disqualified with all resulting consequences including, if applicable, forfeiture of any medal, points and prizes.
  4. (…).
  5. (…).
  6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin