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.

WADA The 2022 Monitoring Program

The following substances are placed on the 2022 Monitoring Program*:

1. Anabolic Agents:
   In and Out-of-Competition: Ecdysterone
2. Beta-2 Agonists:
   In and Out-of-Competition: Salmeterol and vilanterol below the Minimum Reporting Level.
3. Stimulants:
   In-Competition only: Bupropion, caffeine, nicotine, phenylephrine,
   phenylpropanolamine, pipradrol and synephrine.
4. Narcotics:
   In-Competition only: Codeine, hydrocodone and tramadol.
   
   

* The World Anti-Doping Code (Article 4.5) states: “WADA, in consultation with Signatories and governments, shall establish a monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect potential patterns of misuse in sport.”

Sport Integrity Australia Annual Report 2020-2021 / Sports Integrity Australia. - Canberra, 2021

Contents:

• Chapter 1 - Ceo Message
• Chapter 2 - Overview
• Chapter 3 - Feature Articles
• Chapter 4 - Key Projects
• Chapter 5 - Advisory Council
• Chapter 6 - Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee
• Chapter 7 - Annual Performance Statement
• Chapter 8 - Management And Accountability
• Chapter 9 - Financial Statements
• Chapter 10 - Appendixes, Abbreviations And Glossary
• Chapter 11 - Indexes

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2021-004 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
  May 6, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-016 Appeal Decision - Swimming
  July 5, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-029 Appeal Decision - Swimming
  December 16, 2021

In August 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the parathlete swimmer after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine) in a low concentration.

The TJD-AD Panel concluded that the violation was not intentional and was the result of a contaminated supplement. By majority the TJD-AD decided on 6 May 2021 to impose a warning on the Parathlete.

Hereafter ABCD appealed and the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decided on 5 July 2021 to refer the case back to the TJD-AD Disciplinary Panel and to annul the parathlete's provisional suspension because of established failures in the Appealed Decision.

When referred back, the TJD-AD Disciplinary Panel agrees that the source of the positive test was a prescribed supplement that became contaminated in a compounding pharmacy.

In view of the evidence and the Parathlete's conduct the Panel is again devided whether to impose a sanction of 4 months or only a warning on the Parathlete.

As a result by majority the TJD-AD decides on 1 October 2021 to impose a warning on the Parathlete.

iNADO Update (2021) 10 (4 October)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

iNADO Community

• Michael Ask steps down as Chair of the iNADO
  Board
• Outcomes of the Executive Committee Meeting: Cannabis and Revised Code Compliance Policy
• Belgium‘s Pharma- & Foodcrime Platform: Information Sharing and Capacity Building
• Sport Integrity Australia new Corporate Plan 2021-2025 & Newsletter
• CHINADA, JADA and KADA sign MOU to continue Tokyo 2020 Clean Sport Legacy

Bulletin Board

• Election of a new Chair of the Governing Board of iNADO on October 12
• Reminder: Berlinger presents newest Generation of Blood Collection Needles
• KADA opens Registrations for International Anti-Doping Seminar
• Webinar Invitation: Good Governance Leadership & Integrity in Sport

Athlete's Voice

• AthletesCAN publish four-year Strategic Plan to promote an Athlete-Centered Sport System

People

• Maira BAKASHEVA (Kazakhstan)
• Franziska Heinrichsmeier
• Janka Deszatnik

Science

• iNADO Project: Overview of 20 Years of Research funded by WADA and PCC

iNADO Partners & Sponsors

• New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-010 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
July 1, 2021

On 1 July 2021 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 40 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Higenamine related to a supplement he had used.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal and requested the Panel for a reduced sanction.

ABCD contended that the Athlete's violation was undisputed, yet asserted that there was no evidence that showed that this violation was committed intentionally.

The Rapporteur of the Appeal Tribunal assessed the Appealed Decision and the Athlete's conduct in this case and established that the Athlete after notification had accepted the test results and admitted the use of a product containing the prohibited substance.

The Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that the Athlete had acted with a degree of Fault or Negligence. This leads to a sanction of 2 years without grounds for a further reduction of the sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal by majority decides on 5 October 2021 to impose a reduced 24 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 January 2021.

Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor Delta Agonist (PPAR- δ) and Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator (SARM) Abuse: Clinical, Analytical and Biological Data in a Case Involving a Poisonous Combination of GW1516 (Cardarine) and MK2866 (Ostarine) / Pascal Kintz, Laurie Gheddar, Camille Paradis, Mickael Chinellato, Alice Ameline, Jean-Sébastien Raul, Magali Oliva-Labadie. - (Toxics 9 (2021) 10 (7 October) 251)

• PMID: 34678947
• PMCID: PMC8538264
• DOI: 10.3390/toxics9100251

Abstract

A 43-year-old male, sport coach, presented him-self at the Emergency unit of a local hospital for epigastric pain, myalgia pain and severe headache. He claimed having used for some days a combination of GW1516 (cardarine), a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor delta agonist (PPAR- δ) and MK2866 (ostarine), a selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM) to gain skeletal muscles. Cytolysis with marked increase of alanine aminotransferase or ALT (up to 922 UI/L) and aspartate aminotransferase or AST (up to 2558 UI/L) and massive rhabdomyolysis with elevated creatine phosphokinase or CPK (up to 86435 UI/L) were the main unusual biochemistry parameters. Using a specific liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry method, cardarine and ostarine tested positive in blood at 403 and 1 ng/mL, respectively. In urine, due to extensive metabolism, the parent GW1516 was not identified, while ostarine was at 88 ng/mL. Finally, both drugs were identified in hair (2 cm in length, brown in colour), at 146 and 1105 pg/mg for cardarine and ostarine, respectively. This clearly demonstrates repetitive abuse over the last 2 months. Asthenia was persistent for 2 weeks and 6 weeks after the admission, the subject fully recovered.

The status quo before the International Standard for Education : Elite adolescent athletes’ perceptions of anti-doping education / Katharina Gatterer, Bernhard Streicher, Andrea Petróczic, Marie Overbye, Wolfgang Schobersberger, Matthias Gumpenberger, Kathrin Weber, Karsten Königstein, Cornelia Blank

• Performance Enhancement & Health 9 (2021) 3-4 (October), 100200
• DOI: 10.1016/j.peh.2021.100200

ABSTRACT

Education is a fundamental pillar of anti-doping. With the International Standard for Education (ISE) coming into effect in 2021, understanding the status quo of anti-doping education is paramount. This study aimed to evaluate young elite athletes’ perceptions of the anti-doping education they receive. A total of 2,232 athletes, participating at any of four Youth Olympic events between 2018 and 2020 (representing 49 sport disciplines and 124 countries) were surveyed using an online questionnaire, including questions about the anti-doping education received, athletes’ views about its usefulness and trust in its content. Additionally, anti-doping education programmes of the countries’ National Anti-Doping Organisations (NADOs) were assessed in terms of scope and extent, and categorised as ‘comprehensive’, ‘selective’, ‘limited’ or ‘information-only’. Perceived usefulness and trust were compared between these groups. Three-quarters (73.3%) of the athletes received anti-doping education, its usefulness and trust were rated as ‘good’ (> 4 out of 5). Based on NADO's anti-doping education, athletes in the ‘information-only’ category had significantly lower values for usefulness and trust, while those in the ‘selective’ category had the highest values. Results confirm the importance of a multifaceted education, recommending the implementation of at least one educational approach above information provision as they were perceived to be more useful and trusted, and could facilitate Code compliance via developing skills as well as knowledge for informed decision making.

In July 2021 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Parathlete Desmond Jackson after his sample tested positive for the prohibited susbstance Prasterone (Dehydroepiandrosterone, DHEA).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Commercial Arbitration Tribual.

Undisputed between the parties is that the violation was not intentional and the result of a DHEA supplement provided by the Athlete's coach, whereas the Athlete was unaware that it contained a prohibited substance. Both parties also agree that there are grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The Parathlete (21) stated that he worked with his coach since 2015, he had received anti-doping education and was tested before without issues. He trusted his coach and he had delegated to him the responsibility of checking his supplements before using. The coach had told the Athlete's mother that the DHEA pills he provided were safe and for muscle recovery.

Based on the circumstances the Athlete asserted that he had acted with only a light degree of fault. USADA contended that the Athlete had acted with a considerable degree of fault since he relied only on the assurances of his coach that any supplement he receive was safe.

Considering the parties arguments and submissions the Sole Arbitrator did not accept the argument of delegation of responsibility in determining the Athlete's degree of fault and thus the length of the period of ineligibility. The Arbitrator also finds that there are no grounds for a reduction based on substantial assistance.

When considering objective as subjective factors and arguments in favor and against the Athlete the Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete's fault falls at the lowest end of the "considerable" category of fault.

Therefore the AAA Panel decides on 8 October 2021 to impose a 20 month period of ineligibility on the Parathlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 8 July 2021.