Anti-Doping Bureau of Latvia Annual Report 2020 / Anti-Doping Bureau of Latvia (LAT-NADO). - Riga : LAT-NADO, 2021

Maskeert furosemide dopinggebruik? / David J. Brinkman, Jelle Tichelaar, Michiel A. van Agtmael. - (Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (2021) 25 mei)

Samenvatting:

Onlangs werd de keeper van AFC Ajax, André Onana, voor één jaar geschorst vanwege het gebruik van furosemide. Sporters kunnen dit medicijn gebruiken om prestatiebevorderende middelen te maskeren en om gewicht te verliezen. Hoe werkt furosemide, en is het een effectief dopingmiddel?

Furosemide staat op de dopinglijst van de Wereldantidopingagentschap (WADA), omdat het middel door sporters gebruikt kan worden om prestatiebevorderende middelen in de urine te verbloemen en om gewicht te verliezen. Hoe werkt deze plaspil, en is het een effectief dopingmiddel? Op basis van de farmacologische eigenschappen van furosemide, de beschikbare literatuur en de uiterst gevoelige detectiemethoden concluderen wij dat het maskerende effect van furosemide beperkt is. Furosemide is wel relevant voor sporten met gewichtsklassen, zoals boksen en judo.

Annual Report 2020 / Sport Ireland Anti-Doping. - Dublin : Sport Ireland, 2018

Dopingautoriteit Annual Report 2020 (Netherlands) / Anti-doping Authority Netherlands (Dopingautoriteit). - Capelle aan den IJssel : Dopingautoriteit, 2021

Contents:

Chapter 1 – Education
Chapter 2 – Doping control
Chapter 3 – Intelligence & Investigations
Chapter 4 – Disciplinary Proceedings
Chapter 5 – Legal Affairs
Chapter 6 – Scientific research
Chapter 7 – Knowledge management
Chapter 8 – Therapeutic Use Exemptions
Chapter 9 – International Affairs
Chapter 10 – People & organisation
--------------------------
Annex 1 - Financial overview
Annex 2 - Members of Advisory Board and Committees
Annex 3 - Personnel
Annex 4 - Overview of presentations and scientific publications
Annex 5 - Secondary positions
Annex 6 – Abbreviations
Annex 7 – Result management

In November 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Maroccan Athlete Youssef Sbaai after his samples after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Sole Arbitrator of the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal rendered a decision based on the Parties’ written submissions.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and alleged that he was the victim of sabotage due the water bottle he had used during the competition in question contained EPO.

The AIU contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how EPO had entered his system and requested the Tribunal for the imposition of a sanction of 4 year. The AIU rejected the Athlete’s explanation and contended that the substance EPO only can enter the Athlete’s system through injection and not orally. 

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of the prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete’s sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator holds that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete’s explanation are speculative and based on assumptions while there are no grounds for a reduced sanction. 

Therefore the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 28 May 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 November 2020.

Current Insights into the Steroidal Module of the Athlete Biological Passport / Thomas Piper, Hans Geyer, Nadine Haenelt, Frank Huelsemann, Wilhelm Schaenzer, Mario Thevis. - (International Journal of Sports Medicine (2021) 28 May)

• PMID: 34049412
• DOI: 10.1055/a-1481-8683

Abstract

For decades, the class of anabolic androgenic steroids has represented the most frequently detected doping agents in athletes' urine samples. Roughly 50% of all adverse analytical findings per year can be attributed to anabolic androgenic steroids, of which about 2/3 are synthetic exogenous steroids, where a qualitative analytical approach is sufficient for routine doping controls. For the remaining 1/3 of findings, caused by endogenous steroid-derived analytical test results, a more sophisticated quantitative approach is required, as their sheer presence in urine cannot be directly linked to an illicit administration. Here, the determination of urinary concentrations and concentration ratios proved to be a suitable tool to identify abnormal steroid profiles. Due to the large inter-individual variability of both concentrations and ratios, population-based thresholds demonstrated to be of limited practicability, leading to the introduction of the steroidal module of the Athlete Biological Passport. The passport enabled the generation of athlete-specific individual reference ranges for steroid profile parameters. Besides an increase in sensitivity, several other aspects like sample substitution or numerous confounding factors affecting the steroid profile are addressed by the Athlete Biological Passport-based approach. This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview on current prospects, supporting professionals in sports drug testing and steroid physiology.

In July 2020 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cricket player Anshula Rao after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and could not explain how the substance had entered her system. She argued that the 4 month delay in the Notification prevented her to find the source of the Nandrolone.

The Athlete disputed the irregularities she had established regarding the A sample documentation package, the chain of custody and the sample collection procedure. Further she complained that she could not perform analysis of the B sample because of the costs (€ 1500,-), In additions she could not attend the opening op de B sample in the Ghent Lab whereas there were the COVID-19 restrictions to travel.

The Panel considered the Athletes assertions and concludes that she failed to demonstrate any departure of the ISTI regarding the documentation package, the chain of custody and the sample collection procedure. The Panel also finds that there had been no unreasonable delays in the Ghent Lab before Notification.

The Panel agrees that the intended analysis of the Athlete's B sample was prevented because of the costs and is displeased that INADA has no provisions for financial assistance in this matter.

Finally The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that the she committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel deems that she failed to explain how the substance entered her system and concludes that she had used the substance knowingly and intentionally.

Therefore the Anti-Doping Discipinary Panel of India decides on 31 May 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

Techniques of deceptive communication about doping / Marcel Reinold. - (European Journal for Sport and Society (2021) 31 May)

• DOI: 10.1080/16138171.2021.1930944

Abstract

The decision to dope almost inevitably implies the decision to engage in deceptive communication. We, therefore, analysed six autobiographies of deceiving cyclists and identified six communication techniques which deceivers routinely apply: (1) moralisation without personal criticism, (2) exaggerating the intensity of anti-doping policies, (3) victimisation, (4) playing down the extent of the doping problem, (5) omitting narrative details, and (6) pretending lack of doping-relevant knowledge. These techniques help deceivers to present themselves as compliant with the anti-doping system and appear credible in their commitment against drugs. Furthermore, it helps them to allay suspicion, prevent falsification, and generally manage the flow of destructive information in a way that avoids leakage and detection. Though there is no reliable cue to deceit, knowledge about deceivers’ communication techniques might increase awareness and help to ask critical questions.

Validation of a Psychosocial Intervention on Body Image in Older People : An Experimental Design / Roberto Sánchez-Cabrero, Ana C. León-Mejía, Amaya Arigita-García. - (Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE (2021) 171 (31 May); e62506)

• PMID: 34125089
• DOI: 10.3791/62506

Abstract

For most people, body satisfaction is crucial to develop both a positive self-concept and self-esteem, and therefore, it can influence mental health and well-being. This idea has been tested with younger people, but no studies explore whether body image interventions are useful when people age. This research validates a specific program designed for older people (IMAGINA Specific Body Image Program). This is done by employing a mixed experimental design, with between-subject and within-subject comparisons that focus on body satisfaction before and after experimental treatment, comparing two groups. Using this experimental methodology makes it possible to identify the effect of the intervention in a group of 176 people. The score obtained with the Body Shape Questionnaire (BSQ) was the dependent variable, and the IMAGINA program was the independent one. As for age, gender, relationship status, season, and residence environment, these were controlled variables. There were significant differences in body satisfaction between the two programs, obtaining better results with IMAGINA. The controlled variables had a much less significant effect than the treatment. Therefore, it is possible to improve body satisfaction in older adults through interventions similar to the one presented here.

Related case:

BND 2021 Dopingautoriteit Decision Appeal Commmittee National Doping Regulations 2019011 AB
April 8, 2021

In December 2019 the Royal Dutch Athletics Association (KNAU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Modafinil, without a valid TUE and without a medical prescription.

After notification in October 2019 a provisional suspension was ordered. The Person filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the ISR KNAU Disciplinary Committee.

The Dopingautoriteit contended that the Person had used the substance without a valid TUE and accordingly had committed an anti-doping rule violation. It accepted that the violation was not intentional and that she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The Person admitted the violation and accepted the test results. She explained that she suffered from Narcolepsy using Modafinil as self-treatment. She acknowledged that in 2019 she became aware that the use of the substance in-competition was prohibited. For that reason she stopped using her medication 4 days before the competition in question.

Meanwhile medical examination had diagnosed that the Person suffered from ADHD while her Narcolepsy was misdiagnosed. With a valid prescription for Modafinil from her doctor she applied in November 2020 for a retroactive TUE. On 30 November 2020 the TUE Commission granted the Person a TUE for the use of Modafinil starting on 12 November 2020, yet without retroactive effect.

Hereafter in February 2021 the Person appealed the decision of the TUE Commission with the Appeal Committee National Doping Regulations (BND) which decided on 8 April 2021 to approve the Person's request for a retroactive TUE, starting backdated on the date of the sample collection.

The Dopingautoriteit requested the ISR KNAU Disciplinary Committee in April 2021 to suspend the proceedings pending approval from WADA regarding the Person's retroactive TUE. Further in May 2021 the Dopingautoriteit contended that the Person had received a retroactive TUE for her ADHD despite she had committed an anti-doping rule violation for using the prohibited substance Modafinil as self-treatment for her Narcolepsy.

The Disciplinary Committee finds that there were insufficient grounds to suspend the proceedings pending a response from WADA regarding the retroactive TUE. Further it deems that the Athlete's use of the prohibited substance based on her misdiagnosis for Narcolepsy does not effect the BND's Final Ruling for granting a retroactive TUE for the use of Modafinil.

Therefore the ISR KNAU Disciplinary Committee concludes that under the Rules the charges against the Person are unsubstantiated and decides on 31 May 2021 to acquit the Person.

Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the KNAU and the Person.