WADA The 2017 Monitoring Program - Results

13 Jun 2018

Results of the WADA monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the 2017 Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport. These substances are: In Competition Monitoring: - Mitragynine - Tramadol - Codeine In and Out of Competition Monitoring: - Telmisartan - Glucocorticoids - Beta-2 Agonists

show » details »
Type:
pdf

Doping and trade : investigation into nature and extend of doping trade and development of indicators [2002]

1 Mar 2002

Doping en handel : onderzoek naar aard en omvang van dopinghandel en ontwikkeling van indicatoren / F. Oldersman, J. Snippe, B. Bieleman. - i.o.v. het Wetenschappelijk Onerzoek- en Documentatiecentrum, Ministerie van Justitie (WODC). - Groningen : Intraval, 2002. - ISBN 9072337999 Doping and trade : investigation into nature and extend of doping trade and development of indicators / F. Oldersman, J. Snippe, B. Bieleman. - Research and Documentation Centre of the Dutch Ministry of Justice (WODC). - Groningen : Intraval, 2002. - ISBN 9072337999. - With English summary Summary: In commission of the Research and Documentation Centre of the Dutch Ministry of Justice INTRAVAL - bureau for social-scientific research and consultancy - has carried out a research into the trafficking in doping agents. The objective of this study is to render insight into what is presently known about the nature and extent of the illegal trafficking in doping agents in the Netherlands. Furthermore, specific indicators to be used in evaluating the effects of the alteration of the law concerning illegal traffic in doping need to be explored. Sixty-one interviews with key informants and specialists of various agencies have been conducted. Firstly, the report elaborates upon the nature and extent of traffic in doping. Anabolic-androgenic steroids seem to be the most popular. According to the respondents doping trafficking mainly consists of traffic in counterfeit and unregistered substances. Secondly, indicators against which the developments in the doping trade and the effects of the 2001 alteration of the law can be measured are discussed. An inventory of sources is also given. At this moment the information from available sources is too fragmentary and insufficient to render clear and lucid insight in these indicators. Further systematic research, consisting of analyses of files and interviews in arrondisements and with users, is needed. Finally, the most important findings of this study are summarized and possible indicators are explored. The current research concerns a quick-scan of an area in which much obscurity still exists and into which not much systematic research has been done so far. It proves to bo impossible to draw conclusions about the nature and extent of traffic in doping from systematic registrations or well-supported assessments. Adequate registrations are not available and sufficient knowledge to assess the extent of the trade is lacking. This study shows that at the moment good indicators are practically absent, whereas reliability, validity and exhaustiveness of potential indicators are limited. Due to the limited amount and quality of registered data further use of available qualitative information from files and interviews with those involved is recommended in order to get better insight in the doping trade. Samenvatting: Om de dopinghandel beter te kunnen bestrijden, is in mei 2001 een wetswijziging van kracht geworden, waarbij de illegale handel in geneesmiddelen voor dopingdoeleinden is ondergebracht in de Wet op de economische delicten (WED). Het onbevoegd produceren en het onbevoegd afleveren van geneesmiddelen is sindsdien, evenals het bereiden, het verkopen, het afleveren, het invoeren, het verhandelen of het ter aflevering in voorraad houden van ongeregistreerde geneesmiddelen, een economisch delict. De wetswijziging heeft het effectiever tegengaan van de illegale productie van en handel in geneesmiddelen als oogmerk, en daarmee ook een effectievere aanpak van de productie van en handel in dopinggeduide middelen. Voor de evaluatie van de wetswijziging dient op korte termijn inzicht te worden verkregen in de aard en omvang van de illegale handel in dopingmiddelen (quick scan). Daarnaast dient te worden nagegaan welke gegevens beschikbaar zijn voor het ontwikkelen van indicatoren om de effecten van de wetswijziging te evalueren. Inhoud: Hoofdstuk 1 Inleiding 1.1 Doping en handel 1.2 Onderzoeksvragen 1.3 Onderzoeksopzet 1.4 Indeling rapport Hoofdstuk 2 Aard en omvang 2.1 Inleiding 2.2 Dopingmiddelen 2.3 Substantie- of merkvervalsing 2.4 Contactlegging 2.5 Handelslijnen en handelaren 2.6 Omvang dopinghandel 2.7 Ontwikkelingen 2.8 Resumé Hoofdstuk 3 Indicatoren 3.1 Informatiebehoefte 3.2 Beschikbare informatie 3.3 Informatiedekking en kwaliteit 3.4 Alternatieven Hoofdstuk 4 Samenvatting en conclusies 4.1 Aard en omvang dopinghandel 4.2 Indicatoren gevolgen wetswijziging 4.3 Alternatieve indicatoren Geraadpleegde literatuur Bijlage 1 Lijst van verboden farmacologische groepen van stoffen en verboden methoden ("De Dopinglijst") Bijlage 2 Respondenten Bijlage 3 Nieuwsgroepen Internet

show » details »
Type:
pdf

Handel in doping : een verkennend ondezoek naar de handel in dopinggeduide middelen in Nederland [1998]

1 Jan 1998

Handel in doping : een verkennend ondezoek naar de handel in dopinggeduide middelen in Nederland / A.W.A. Koert, R. van Kleij. - i.o.v. het Nederlands Centrum voor Dopingvraagstukken (NeCeDo). - Nieuwegein, Arko Uitgeverij, 1998. - ISBN 9072047435 Doping Trade : a pilot study into the trade in doping substances in the Netherlands / A.W.A. Koert, R. van Kleij. - Netherlands Centre for Doping Affairs (NeCeDo). - Nieuwegein, Arko Publisher, 1998. - ISBN 9072047435 Naar aanleiding van met name de gesprekken met respondenten afkomstig uit de cosmetische sport, wordt geconcludeerd dat de situatie met betrekking tot het gebruik van dopinggeduide middelen om drie redenen zorgwekkend genoemd moet worden. Allereerst blijkt het gebruik ervan zich in de loop der jaren te hebben uitgebreid naar groepen die voorheen niet hun toevlucht tot deze middelen namen. De tweede reden is gelegen in feit dat er sneller dan vroeger naar dopinggeduide middelen gegrepen wordt, er hogere doseringen worden gebruikt evenals riskantere middelen. In dit verband wordt door de betreffende respondenten gesproken over een 'pilmentaliteit'. De derde reden tot zorg is de toename van het aantal vervalsingen op de markt voor dopinggeduide middelen, en de daarmee gepaard gaande afname van de kwaliteit. Dezelfde conclusie dient getrokken te worden naar aanleiding van wat bekend is geworden omtrent de handel in deze middelen. Hier kan geconcludeerd worden, dat er sprake is van een uitgebreid nationaal en internationaal netwerk dat zich bezighoudt met de handel in en de productie van dopinggeduide middelen. In dit netwerk doen zich nieuwe risicovolle ontwikkelingen voor. Daarmee wordt enerzijds gedoeld op de mate waarin het netwerk zich vervlecht met andere criminele netwerken en de daarmee gepaard gaande verschijnselen (bedreigingen, intimidaties, afrekeningen). Daarnaast daalt, zoals al gezegd, hierdoor de kwaliteit van de verhandelde producten op de zwarte markt. Inhoud: 1.) Doping in historisch perspectief 2.) Probleemstelling 3.) Methode van onderzoek - 1. Inleiding - 2. Het verkrijgen van het onderzoeksmateriaal 4.) Dopinggeduide middelen - 1. Inleiding - 2. Anabole androgene steroïden - 3. Middelen om de bijwerkingen van anabole steroïden te onderdrukken - 4. Afslankmiddelen - 5. Middelen, die de werking van anabole steroïden versterken - 6. Overige middelen - 7. Samenvatting 5.) Gebruikers - 1. Inleiding - 2. Gebruik in de topsport versus gebruik in het sportschoolcircuit - 4. Indeling van dopinggebruikers in het sportschoolcircuit - 3. Hoe worden cosmetische sportrs gebruikters? - 5. Tendensen in het gebruik - 6. Conclusie en samenvatting 6.) Dopinghandelaren - 1. Inleiding - 2. Indeling van dopinghandelaren - 3. Bronnen 85 - 4. Economische aspecten van de dopinghandel - 5. Handel in dopinggeduide middelen via Internet - 6. Samenvatting van het hoofdstuk 7.) Conclusies 8.) Aanbevelingen

show » details »
Type:
pdf

iNADO Quarterly Report 1_2018

15 Jun 2018

iNADO Quarterly Report 1/2018 / Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2018 (See attached pdf-file for more information) This communication goes to iNADO’s 67 Members. iNADO is happy to answer any questions on your Institute’s activities. Please send your questions to info@inado.org _________________________________________________ Contents: - New Members - New iNADO Partnerschips - NADO Finances - Terminated and suspended Membership - iNADO Attendance at Anti-Doping Conferences/Meeting - iNADO Annual Gneral Meeting & Workshop - NADOs Visited - iNADO Webinars - iNADO Board Meetings - iNADO Public Statements - iNADO Updates - iNADO Member Communications - Added documents on iNADO Website - Other iNADO Projects and Activities

show » details »
Type:
pdf

UKAD 2018 UKAD vs Harry Reardon

15 May 2018

In December 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Harry Reardon after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone) and Drostanolone. After notification and after a provisional suspension was ordered the Athlete gave a promp admission to UKAD, requested to be heard and argued that he was not signed to a club at the time of the Out-of-Competition test. Hereafter the Athlete failed to respond to any of the communications from UKAD and the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP), neither did he attend the hearing. The Panel establishes that when the Athlete provided a sample on 30 November 2017 he was still under contract to his rugby club and therefore subject to doping control under the RFL Rules. Also during a period of 12 months following the end of his contract the Athlete is still subject to the RFL Rules including the UK Anti-Doping Rules. The Panel notes that the Athlete initially gave a prompt admission but failed to file any evidence in his defence as to reduce the sanction. Without the Athlete’s response the NADP concludes that the Athlete committed the anti-doping rule violation and decides on 15 May 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 30 November 2017.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

FEI 2017 FEI vs Jennie Brannigan

25 May 2018

In December 2017 the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American rider Jennie Brannigan after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Amphetamine and Methylphenidate. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted a provisional suspension, waived her right to be heard and filed a statement in her defence. The Athlete explained that she had used prescribed medication as treatment for her ADHD and depression and that she mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form. She had minimal experience with anti-doping and she was not tested before. The Athlete’s request for a Retroactive TUE was denied, her application for a prospective TUE was approved in March 2018. In May 2018 the parties in this case reached an agreement for approval into a decision of the FEI Tribunal. The parties agree that the Athlete established No Significant Fault or Negligence, that the violation was not intentional and that a 1 year period of ineligibility is imposed on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 18 November 2017. Further a CHF 1,500 fine is imposed on the Athlete with disqualification of her results. The Athlete agrees to support the FEI in its ant-doping campaign and to actively engage in Athlete education around human anti-doping. On 25 May 2018 the FEI Tribunal decides to ratify the Agreement between the FEI and the Athlete with the consent of the Parties.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

FEI 2017 FEI vs Hanna Burnett

25 May 2018

In December 2017 the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American rider Hanna Burnett (21) after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Amphetamine. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted a provisional suspension, waived her right to be heard and filed a statement in her defence. The Athlete explained that she had used prescribed medication as treatment for her ADHD. Her request for a Retroactive TUE was denied, her application for a prospective TUE was approved in April 2018. In May 2018 the parties in this case reached an agreement for approval into a decision of the FEI Tribunal. The parties agree that the Athlete established No Significant Fault or Negligence, that the violation was not intentional and that a 1 year period of ineligibility is imposed on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 18 November 2017. Further a CHF 1,500 fine is imposed on the Athlete with disqualification of her results. The Athlete agrees to support the FEI in its ant-doping campaing and to actively engage in Athlete education around human anti-doping. On 25 May 2018 the FEI Tribunal decides to ratify the Agreement between the FEI and the Athlete with the consent of the Parties.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

FEI 2017 FEI vs Alyssa Philips

25 May 2018

In December 2017 the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American rider Alyssa Philips (21) after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Amphetamine and Canrenone. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted a provisional suspension, waived her right to be heard and filed a statement in her defence. The Athlete explained that she had used prescribed medication as treatment for her ADHD and that she mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form. As an amateur rider she had previously not received anti-doping education and she was not tested before. The Athlete’s request for a Retroactive TUE was denied in January 2018, her application for a prospective TUE was approved in February 2018. In May 2018 the parties in this case reached an agreement for approval into a decision of the FEI Tribunal. The parties agree that the Athlete established No Significant Fault or Negligence, that the violation was not intentional and that a 1 year period of ineligibility is imposed on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 18 November 2017. Further a CHF 1,500 fine is imposed on the Athlete with disqualification of her results. The Athlete agrees to support the FEI in its anti-doping campaing and to actively engage in Athlete education around human anti-doping. On 25 May 2018 the FEI Tribunal decides to ratify the Agreement between the FEI and the Athlete with the consent of the Parties.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2017_A_5038 Yassine Bensghir vs FRMA & IAAF

29 May 2017

TAS 2017/A/5038 Yassine Bensghir c. Fédération Royale Marocaine d'Athlêtisme (FRMA) & Association Internationale des Fédérations d' Athlétisme (IAAF) In April 2017 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Morroccan Athlete Yassine Bensghir after an IAAF expert panel concluded unanimously in February 2016 in their Joint Expert Opinion that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping. This conclusion of the IAAF expert panel is based on assessement of blood samples, collected in the period from 4 June 2014 until 25 August 2015 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP). The Athlete was heard on 14 June 2016 for the Disciplinary Commission of the Royal Moroccan Athletics Federation (FRMA) and a 4 year period of ineligibility was imposed starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 April 2016. This decision was notified to the Athlete on 28 June 2016. In his submissions to the FRMA, the IAAF and WADA the Athlete objected against this decision on the basis that it was breaching the IAAF Rules and had to be annulled when appealed with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Here the Athlete argued that departures and irregulaties occurred with his ABP. However in February 2017 the IAAF observed that in spite of his submissions the Athlete still had not filed an appeal with CAS which was done ultimately in March 2017. The CAS Panel established that the notification and receipt of the FRMA reasoned decision was valid under the Rules and that the Athlete had become acquainted with the full FRMA decision on 30 June 2016. While the Athlete was aware of the reasoned decision the Panel concludes that he failed timely to file his appeal with CAS within 45 days after receipt of this decision. Instead he filed his appeal with CAS 8 months later after receipt of the decision. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 May 2017 that the Athlete’s appeal was inadmissible and the procedure deleted from the CAS roll.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

WADA International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information (ISPPPI) 2018

1 Jun 2018

Protection of Privacy and Personal Information : World Anti-Doping Code International Standard / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2018. - (International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information (ISPPPI) effective on 1 June 2018) __________________________________________________ The World Anti-Doping Code International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information (ISPPPI) is a mandatory International Standard developed as part of the World Anti-Doping Program. The International Standard for Protection of Privacy and Personal Information was first adopted 9 May 2009 and came into effect 1 June 2009. The enclosed ISPPPI incorporates revisions to the ISPPPI and was approved by the WADA Executive Committee on 16 May 2018. It will come into effect on 1 June 2018. Below is a short summary of the main amendments contained in the revised ISPPPI: - In Article 3.2, the definitions for “Security Breach” and “Sensitive Personal Information” were revised to align with the definitions in the GDPR. - Revisions in Article 4 aim to ensure that Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) keep accurate records of their processing activities and are able to demonstrate their compliance with the ISPPPI. - Revisions in Article 6 clarify the different legal bases on which personal data can be processed. - Revisions in Article 7 aim to ensure that athletes are provided with all relevant information, including with whom their personal information is being shared, for how long and for what purpose, as well as who they can contact in the event they have a complaint or question regarding their information. - Revisions in Article 9 specify how ADOs can maintain the security of the personal information in their possession, including maintaining records of security breaches and applying suitable contractual controls to third-party agents. - Revisions in Article 11 clarify the rights of any individual concerning his or her personal information.

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