2000 List of Prohibited Classes of Substances and Prohibited Methods / IOC Medical Commission. – International Olympic Committee (IOC), 2000

SUBSTITUTES APPENDIX A OF THE OMAC OLYMPIC MOVEMENT ANTI-DOPING CODE APPENDIX A

PROHIBITED CLASSES OF SUBSTANCES AND PROHIBITED METHODS

15th February 2000

I. PROHIBITED CLASSES OF SUBSTANCES
A. Stimulants
B. Narcotics
C. Anabolic Agents
D. Diuretics
E. Peptide hormones, mimetics and analogues

II. PROHIBITED METHODS

III. CLASSES OF DRUGS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS
A. Alcohol
B. Cannabinoids
C. Local anaesthetics
D. Glucocorticosteroids
E. Beta-blockers

Summary of urinary concentrations above which IOC accredited laboratories must report findings for specific substances

IV. OUT-OF-COMPETITION TESTING

LIST OF EXAMPLES OF PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES

Source: Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

• CAS 1999/A/234 David Meca-Medina vs FINA
• CAS 1999/A/235 Igor Majcen vs FINA
• TAS 1999/A/234 David Meca-Medina v/ FINA
• TAS 1990/A/235 Igor Majcen v/ FINA

Related case:
CAS 2000/A/270 David Meca-Medina & Igor Majcen vs FINA
May 1, 2001

On 8 August 1999 the FINA Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Spanish swimmer David Meca-Medina and the Slovenian swimmer Igor Majcen after their A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Hereafter in August 1999 both Athletes appealed the FINA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athletes argued that there were departures of the standards for testing and laboratories; the substance in question was not prohibited; the positive tests were caused by the ingestion of pork offal; and the imposed sanction was too severe.

The Panel rejects the arguments that it was not their urine which was analysed and finds that the duration of the transport to the laborary had no effect on the validity of the test. The Panel holds that the chain of custody including the documentation was complete and satisfactory.

Further the Panel finds that the Athletes failed to establish that any alleged departure from the procedure could lead to genuine doubt on the reliability of any finding. They also failed to demonstrate that the positive tests was the result of the ingestion of meat injected with Nandrolone.

The Panel establishes that the substances in question were prohibited as part of the “related substances” before they were expressly included in the newer lists of anabolic androgenic steroids.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 February 2000 with respect to David Meca-Medina:

1.) The appeal is rejected as far as it is filed on behalf of David Meca-Medina.
2.) The suspension of David Meca-Medina is confirmed for a duration of 4 years from August 20, 1999 under deduction of 77 days of provisional suspension (May 14, 1999 to July 30, 1999).
3.) All results achieved by David Meca-Medina between January 31, 1999 and August 19, 1999 shall be cancelled.
4.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500,- which shall be kept by the CAS (art. R65.2 of the Code)
5.) David Meca-Medina is ordered to pay an amount of CHF 4’000,- (together with interest at 5% from the date of the decision) to Respondent FINA as a contribution towards its legal fees and expenses (art. R65.3 of the Code).

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 February 2000 with respect to Igor Majcen:

1.) The appeal is rejected as far as it is filed on behalf of Igor Majcen.
2.) The suspension of Igor Majcen is confirmed for a duration of 4 years from August 20, 1999 under deduction of 77 days of provisional suspension (May 14, 1999 to July 30, 1999).
3.) All results achieved by David Meca-Medina between January 31, 1999 and August 19, 1999 shall be cancelled.
4.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500,- which shall be kept by the CAS (art. R65.2 of the Code)
5.) Igor Majcen is ordered to pay an amount of CHF 4’000,- (together with interest at 5% from the date of the decision) to Respondent FINA as a contribution towards its legal fees and expenses (art. R65.3 of the Code).

Evaluation of testosterone/epitestosterone ratio influential factors as determined in doping analysis / D.H. van de Kerkhof, D. de Boer, J.H. Thijssen, R.A. Maes. - (Journal of Analytical Toxicology 24 (2000) 2 (March); p. 102-115)

• PMID: 10732948
• DOI: 10.1093/jat/24.2.102

Abstract

The ratio of the concentration of testosterone glucuronide to the concentration of epitestosterone glucuronide (T/E ratio) as determined in urine is the most frequently used method to prove testosterone abuse by athletes. A T/E ratio higher than 6 has been considered as proof of abuse in the past; however, cases of naturally occurring higher T/E ratios have been described. Since the introduction of the T/E ratio in doping analysis, the parameters that may or may not influence the T/E ratio, possibly leading to false-positive results, have been debated. To achieve more insight on the influencing circumstances, an overview is given to obtain an objective view on the merits of the urinary T/E ratio. Relevant analytical aspects of the T/E ratio, potential parameters of endogenous and exogenous origins, as well as some alternative methods to determine testosterone abuse, such as the urinary testosterone/luteinizing hormone ratio, gas chromatography-combustion-isotope-ratio mass spectrometry, hair analysis, and high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, are discussed.

2000 List of Prohibited Classes of Substances and Prohibited Methods / IOC Medical Commission. – International Olympic Committee (IOC), 2000

SUBSTITUTES APPENDIX A OF THE OMAC 1999 OLYMPIC MOVEMENT ANTI-DOPING CODE APPENDIX A

PROHIBITED CLASSES OF SUBSTANCES AND PROHIBITED METHODS

1st April 2000

I. PROHIBITED CLASSES OF SUBSTANCES
A. Stimulants
B. Narcotics
C. Anabolic Agents
D. Diuretics
E. Peptide hormones, mimetics and analogues

II. PROHIBITED METHODS

III. CLASSES OF DRUGS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS
A. Alcohol
B. Cannabinoids
C. Local anaesthetics
D. Glucocorticosteroids
E. Beta-blockers

Summary of urinary concentrations above which IOC accredited laboratories must report findings for specific substances

IV. OUT-OF-COMPETITION TESTING

LIST OF EXAMPLES OF PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES

Source: Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

Denksport & Doping : een verkennend onderzoek naar farmacologische stoffen die de prestatie bij denksporten kunnen verbeteren [2000] / Olivier de Hon, F. Hartgens. – Capelle aan den IJssel : Nederlands Centrum voor Dopingvraagstukken (NeCeDo), 2000

Mind sports and doping : an investigation of pharmacological substances that may enhance performance in mind sports [2000) / Olivier de Hon, F. Hartgens. – Capelle aan den IJssel : Netherlands Centre for Doping Affairs (NeCeDo), 2000

SAMENVATTING:

Als consequentie van de ratificatie van de Anti-dopingconventie in 1995 is de Nederlandse overheid de sportbonden meer en meer gaan veq,lichten tot het voeren van een actief anti-dopingbeleid De minimale eis is het beschikbaar hebben van een anti-dopingreglement De denksporten zijn vooralsnog vrijgesteld van deze verplichting wegens onduidelijkheid omtrent de relevantie ervan, Mede gezien het verzoek van een aantal Nederlandse denksportbonden heeft het ministerie van Vollrngezondheid, Welzijn en Sport (VWS) het Nederlands Centrum voor Dopingvraagstukken (NeCeDo) gevraagd onderzoek te doen naar de mogelijkheden om met behulp van farmacologische stoffen de prestatie bij denksporten te verbeteren Het gaat hierbij om de sporten schaken, dammen, bridge en go.

Conclusies:
• De prestatiebepalende factoren bij denksporten verschillen dusdanig van die van fysieke sporten dat voor beide soorten sporten een aparte anti-dopingregelgeving gewenst is.
• Binnen de denksportwereld bestaat de indruk dat het gebruil, van farmacologische stoffen met als doel de prestatie te verbeteren slechts zeer sporadisch plaatsvindt
• Het is te verwachten dat de denksportprestatie verbeterd kan worden met behulp van farmacologische
stoffen. Het te verwachten effect is echter klein
• Een aantal van de mogelijk prestatieverbeterende stoffen kan bij gebruik schadelijk voor de
gezondheid zijn en valt daarmee onder de definitie "doping"
• Het is aan te bevelen dat denksportorganisaties overgaan tot het formeel verbieden van het gebruik van doping en reglementen dienen op te opstellen die sancties mogelijk maken bij gebrnik van binnen de denksport verboden stoffen
• Indien overgegaan wordt tot een verbod op het gebrnil, van doping, is het aan te bevelen een specifieke lijst van te verbieden stoffen op te stellen en niet de huidige IOC-lijst in zijn geheel over te nemen.
• Het is van belang om de nationale en internationale dopingreglementering voor denksporters goed op elkaar af te stemmen. Nederland kan hierbij een actieve rol spelen, waarbij dit onderzoek een basisdocument kan vormen.

SUMMARY

Mind sports and doping : an investigation of pharmacological substances that may enhance performance in mind sports [2000] / Olivier de Hon, F. Hartgens. – Capelle aan den IJssel : Netherlands Centre for Doping Affairs (NeCeDo), 2000

As a result of the ratification of the Anti-Doping Convention in 1995, the Dutch government has increasingly compelled the national sports federations to pursue an active anti-doping policy. As a minimum, these federations must have anti-doping regulations. However, mind sports (chess, draughts, bridge, and Go) have provisionally been exempted from this ruling because there are doubts about the relevance of this policy to these sports. In response to a request from the Dutch federations of various mind sports, the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport has asked the Netherlands Centre for Doping Affairs to investigate whether pharmacological substances can be used to enhance performance in mind sports.

Conclusions:
• The factors that determine performance are substantially different between mind sports and physical sports, and this justifies separate anti-doping regulations.
• In the world of mind sports itself, the impression exists that pharmacological substances are used only sporadically to enhance performance.
• It can be expected that performance in mind sports can be enhanced by means of pharmacological substances; however, the expected effect of such substances is minor.
• Some of the possible performance-enhancing substances may be harmful to health, which means that these substances should be considered as doping agents.
• It is recommended that the mind sports federations formally prohibit doping and that these federations draw up regulations that enable sanctions to be imposed when prohibited substances are used in mind sports.
• If the decision is taken to prohibit doping in mind sports, it is recommended that a specific list of prohibited substances be drawn up. The current (IOC) list of prohibited substances should not be used unadapted.
• It is important that national and international anti-doping regulations concerning the mind sports are consistent. This investigation may contribute to the harmonisation of these regulations.

Mind sports and doping : an investigation of pharmacological substances that may enhance performance in mind sports [2000] / Olivier de Hon, F. Hartgens. – Capelle aan den IJssel : Netherlands Centre for Doping Affairs (NeCeDo), 2000

As a result of the ratification of the Anti-Doping Convention in 1995, the Dutch government has increasingly compelled the national sports federations to pursue an active anti-doping policy. As a minimum, these federations must have anti-doping regulations. However, mind sports (chess, draughts, bridge, and Go) have provisionally been exempted from this ruling because there are doubts about the relevance of this policy to these sports. In response to a request from the Dutch federations of various mind sports, the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport has asked the Netherlands Centre for Doping Affairs to investigate whether pharmacological substances can be used to enhance performance in mind sports.

Conclusions:
• The factors that determine performance are substantially different between mind sports and physical sports, and this justifies separate anti-doping regulations.
• In the world of mind sports itself, the impression exists that pharmacological substances are used only sporadically to enhance performance.
• It can be expected that performance in mind sports can be enhanced by means of pharmacological substances; however, the expected effect of such substances is minor.
• Some of the possible performance-enhancing substances may be harmful to health, which means that these substances should be considered as doping agents.
• It is recommended that the mind sports federations formally prohibit doping and that these federations draw up regulations that enable sanctions to be imposed when prohibited substances are used in mind sports.
• If the decision is taken to prohibit doping in mind sports, it is recommended that a specific list of prohibited substances be drawn up. The current (IOC) list of prohibited substances should not be used unadapted.
• It is important that national and international anti-doping regulations concerning the mind sports are consistent. This investigation may contribute to the harmonisation of these regulations.

Recommendation on Doping in Sport / Parliamentary Assembly. - Strasbourg : Council of Europe (CoE), 2000. - (Council of Europe Recommendation (2000) 1464). - Recommendation adopted by the Standing Committee on 17 May 2000)

CAS 2000/A/274 S. / Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA), order of 26 May 2000

Related case:
CAS 2000_A_274 S. vs FINA
October 19, 2000

Conditions for granting a stay of a decision

On 25 March 2000 the FINA Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Italian Athlete S. after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the threshold.

In May 2000 the Athlete S. appealed the FINA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete requested the CAS Panel in this proceedings for the stay of the execution of the FINA decision in order to compete at the European Swimming Championships (in Helsinki between 29 June and 6 July 2000) and to be able to qualify for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.

In this Preliminary Award the CAS Panel finds that a doping offence has been established and that the FINA decision of 25 March 2000 is not contrary to the FINA Doping Control Rules.

Therefore the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division decides on 26 May 2000:

1.) Dismiss the application for provisional measures filed by S. on 4 May 2000.
2.) States that the present order is pronounced without costs.

Resolution on the Fight Against Doping / European Ministers for Sport. - Strasbourg : Council of Europe (CoE), 2000. - (Council of Europe Resolution (2000) 1; Bratislava 30-31 May 2000)

Lasne F, de Ceaurriz J. Recombinant erythropoietin in urine. Nature. 2000 Jun 8;405(6787):635.