Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission Annual Report 2017/2018 / Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO). - Kingston : JADCO, 2018

Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission 2016–2017 Annual Report / Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO). - Kingston : JADCO, 2017

Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission 2015–2016 Annual Report / Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO). - Kingston : JADCO, 2016

Overview of Scientific Research funded by the World Anti-Doping Agency and Partnership for Clean Competition in the last 20 years : Scientific Research Report / Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2021

Contents:

1. Introduction
2. Evolution of Scientific Research on Doping
3. Funded Research Projects per Region and Country
4. Funded Research Projects per Research Area

• 4.1 Funded Research on Analytical Methods for the Detection of Prohibited Substances/ Methods
• 4.2 Funded Research on the Effect of Substances and Methods on Physical Performance
• 4.3 Funded Research on Social Sciences

5. Organizations that have conducted research projects funded by WADA and PCC
6. Conclusions

In this report and in this short video, we present you the results of a project we conducted to get an overview of social and scientific research on anti-doping in the last 20 years, focusing mainly on research projects funded by two of the major funding organizations: the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Partnership Competition Partnership (PCC), amounting each to over $83 million and $29 million in the last 20 years.

The report highlights how research evolved in terms of topics researched, the progressive increase of fundings and finally shed some light on trends: which countries and types of organizations concentrate most of the fundings, what are the new topics researchers focus on. The project also puts in perspective the trends observed with the funding organizations’ strategies, the current involvement of NADOs in Scientific and Social Sciences Research.

Anabolic-androgenic steroids and dietary supplements among resistance trained individuals in western cities of Saudi Arabia / Ameen Mosleh Almohammadi, Anas Mohammed Edriss, Turki Talal Enani. - (BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation 13 (2021) 1 (28 September); p. 1-7)

• PMID: 34583769
• PMCID: PMC8480089
• DOI: 10.1186/s13102-021-00345-6

Abstract

Background: Anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) contain testosterone-like androgens and are used as supplements to improve performance, therapeutic measures, appearance, and muscular development.

Purpose: This study aimed to estimate using anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) and good and bad practices about dietary supplements among resistance-trained individuals. It further sought to determine the use of common drugs and supplements containing anabolic steroids among resistance-trained individuals (who work out at the sports centre) and assess users' knowledge about its side effects.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted at the sports centres of the western cities of Saudi Arabia. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from 120 male resistance-trained individuals.

Results: The majority of the participants (80%) reported that they had not used any hormonal bodybuilding supplement last year, while 20% said they had used such hormonal supplements. Approximately half (52.5%) of participants reported that they always used dietary supplements. A total of 44.2% of participants possessed inadequate knowledge of these products. The main reason behind the use of hormones and supplements was to increase muscle mass.

Conclusions: A minority of resistance-trained individuals in the studied population frequently misused AAS. However, the results cannot be generalised to the whole of Saudi Arabia. AAS consumption can be reduced by enhancing the level of awareness and knowledge of potential adverse health outcomes.

An exploration of doping-related perceptions and knowledge of disabled elite athletes in the UK and Austria / Kathrin Weber, Laurie B. Patterson, Cornelia Blank. - (Psychology of Sport and Exercise 58 (2022) 102061)

• DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.102061

Abstract

Introduction

Compared to anti-doping research in Olympic sport, the issue of doping is under-researched and poorly understood in Paralympic sport. However, with the growth of the Paralympic Games and the increased number of disabled elite athletes, the number of doping controls and doping cases has also increased. Therefore, there is a need to address the dearth of evidence in disabled sport contexts and develop an understanding of disabled elite athletes' perceptions, reasons and knowledge related to doping to ensure appropriate policy and programmes are implemented.

Method

Sixteen disabled elite athletes from Austria (n = 9) and the UK (n = 7) participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using inductive reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019a).

Findings

Four themes were generated during the analysis. The first showed that athletes perceive doping to be a well-known and wide-spread issue in Paralympic sport. The second theme illustrated that disabled elite athletes are exposed to extreme pressure (e.g., to earn money), which they state poses a risk for using prohibited methods and/or substances. Thirdly, athletes suggested that there are several ways to cheat if someone would like to find ‘loopholes’ (e.g., misuse of Therapeutic Use Exemptions) in the current anti-doping system, which they reported only works partially. Lastly, although it is not officially named as an anti-doping rule violation, athletes proposed cheating on classification as a form of doping – and the greatest threat to the integrity of disabled sport.

Conclusions

For the first time, the current study shows that doping in the context of disabled elite sport likely stems from only a few main factors; a perception of pressure and faults in the anti-doping system. To address these risks, prize money could be distributed more broadly, the TUE process and classification system should be more closely scrutinised, and targeted anti-doping education that addresses the main risk factors in disabled elite sport should be provided for all athletes and their support team worldwide.

KeywordsParalympicsDopingAnti-Doping systemReasonsEducationThematic analysis

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-013 Disciplinary Decision - Football
August 16, 2021

On 16 August 2021 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose an 8 month period of ineligibility on the football player after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Hydrochlorothiazide and Sibutramine related to a product he had used.

In First Instance the TJD-AD Rapporteur had considered the circumstances and the Athlete's conduct in this case. He established that the label of the Athlete's product in question did not list the prohibited substances although the Athlete had failed to demonstrate sufficiently that this product in question was the source of these substances.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested the Panel for a more sever sanction on the Athlete.

The Rapporteur of the Appeal Tribunal assessed the conduct of the Athlete and the alleged precedent of the Appealed Decision. He concludes that under the Rules there are no grounds for mitigating circumstances that justifies the sanction of 8 months, nor grounds to address the precedents in the Appealed Decision.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal decides on 30 September that the ABCD Appeal is partially admissible and to impose a 24 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Previously the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the football player after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaïne in a low concentration.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority appelad the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested the Panel for the imposition of a 3 year period of inelibibility on the Athlete.

ABCD contended that the Athlete had denied the violation and failed to establish how the substance entered his system due to his lack of cooperation. Accordingly he failed to demonstrate that the use of Cocaïne occurred out-of-competition, nor in a context unrelated to sports performance.

In view of the evidence in this case the Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete's use of Cocaïne was not intentional and unrelated to sports performance, whereas the concentration found in the Athlete's sample was below the WADA threshold.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal decides on 30 September 2021 to uphold the imposed sanction of 3 months on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e on 2 March 2021.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-026 Appeal Decision - Cycling
November 8, 2021

In December 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Androsterone, Clomifene, Recombinant Erythropoietin (rhEPO), Exemestane and Etiocholanolon.

Also ABCD reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete's doctor for the administration of prohibited substances.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered against the Athlete. Ultimately the Athlete accepted ABCD's proposal for a sanction of 3 years. He admitted the use of the substances and claimed that they were prescribed and administered by his doctor in order to recover after he had contracted COVID-19.

The Athlete's doctor - an Endocrinologist with the nomenclature of Sports Doctor - confirmed the administration to the Athlete of EPO in order to recover from COVID-19, and Clomifene as treatment for the Athlete's low Testosterone levels. The doctor claimed that he was unaware that the Athlete was subjected to Doping Control.

ABCD contended that there was no medical justification for prescribing these substances as treatment for the Athlete's conditions, nor was a TUE application filed for the use of these substances.

The Rapporteur regards that the Athlete had admitted the violation and had accepted the sanction proposed by ABCD.
In view of the evidence the Rapporteur finds that the doctor was responsible for prescribing prohibited substances that caused the Athlete's anti-doping rule violation.

Further the Reporteur disputed the doctor's conduct in this case. However he concludes that there was insufficient evidence that these substances were prescribed in a context related to sports performance.

Accordingly the Rapporteur deems that the doctor had not committed an anti-doping rule violation. Nevertheless he Rapporteur is troubled that the doctor applied the nomenclature of sports doctor.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 30 September 2021 to ratify the accepted sanction and to impose a 3 year period of inelibility on the Athlete. Further the TJD-AD decided not to sanction the doctor. Yet the TJD-AD notified the Conselho Federal de Medicina (CFM) about the doctor's wrongful nomenclature of sports doctor.

Prohibited List January 2022 : The World Anti-Doping Code International Standard / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2021

The Prohibited List is a mandatory International Standard as part of the World Anti-Doping Program.
The List is updated annually following an extensive consultation process facilitated by WADA. The effective date of the List is 1 January 2022.