In January 2021 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian MMA Athlete Geraldo de Freitas Júnior after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Androsterone, Etiocholanolone, Testosterone and its Adiols.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete file a statement in his defence and he was heard for the UFC Arbitration Panel. Analysis of the Athlete's 3 supplement products in the Rio Lab revealed no prohibited substances.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and supported by expert witnesses he disputed the reliability and validity of the Rio Lab and the test results because of established inconsistencies. Further the Athlete alleged that his use of prescribed Prednisolone and not Testosterone had caused the positive test results whereas he had no physical changes associated with the alleged use of anabolic steroids.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that there is sufficient evidence that the presence of prohibiteds substances has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Considering the evidence and testimonies in this case the Sole Arbitrator deems that:

• The Athlete's claim regarding sample contamination in the Rio Lab is rejected as it is not only speculative, but highly improbable.
• The fact that the accreditation of the Rio Lab had been temporarily suspended in 2016 does not mean that the sample analysis conducted in January and February 2021 was incorrect or flawed.
• Errors in the initial documentation package does not mean that there had been a departure of the ISL.
• The suggestion that the use of a heater in the Rio Lab may have caused the Adverse Analytica Finding is speculation, unsupported by any evidence.
• The testimony of USADA's expert witness is accepted that the Athlete's use of Prednisolone could not have caused the positive test result for presence of Testosterone while such erroneous result would not be possible.
• Because of the confirmed presence of a prohibited anabolic agent in the Athlete's sample is the claim of absence of observable performance enhancing benefits not relevant.

Therefore the UFC Arbitration Panel decides on 8 October 2021 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 January 2021.

Mr Kevin Moats (58) is an age group athlete, in the 55 year old to 59 year old category, who participated in the sport of Ironman triathlon. The Athlete used regularly medically prescribed Testosterone under medical supervision to treat andropause and hypothyroidism since 2005.

In April 2012 the World Triathlon Corporation (WTC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the substance Testosterone without a valid TUE. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the AAA Panel for WTC Doping Disputes.

WTC contended that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation whereas he failed to apply for a TUE in advance for such use.

The Athlete admitted the violation and explained that he had a valid medical condition and used the prescribed Testosterone 7 days before the out-of-competition test. He had not mentioned the prescribed Testosterone on the Doping Control Form as it only requested disclosure of substances used within the 3 days prior to sample collection.

The Athlete argued that the WTC's own rules did not require for athletes like him to obtain a TUE based on the chart on the WTC's TUE website saying that no TUE in advance was required for Age Group athletes. He acknowledged that he did not consult the WTC ADR nor contacted WTC, USA Triathlon, or USADA to ascertain whether he had to apply for a TUE.

The Panel finds that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and acted with at least some degree of fault and negligence in failing to obtain a TUE. The Panel regards the Athlete's testimony both credible and persuasive and considers that he had admitted the violation and demonstrated with medical evidence how the substance entered his system.

The Panel establishes that there was substantial evidence of possibly contradictory, or at best ambiguous, instruction by the WTC on whether a TUE was required in advance of an event for an age group athlete who had received no anti-doping education under a relatively new anti-doping regime applicable to WTC event.

The Panel concludes that there are grounds for no significant fault or negligence because the Athlete reasonably interpreted the website to indicate that WTC rules did not require him to obtain a TUE for WTC events.

Therefore the AAA Panel for WTC Doping Disputes decides on 10 October 2012 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 30 January 2012.

AMADA Annual Report 2020 (Azerbaijan) / Azerbaijan National Anti-Doping Agency (AMADA). - Baku : AMADA, 2021

Determination of ghrelin and desacyl ghrelin in human plasma and urine by means of LC-MS/MS for doping controls / Andreas Thomas, Sophia Krombholz, Carina Wolf, Mario Thevis. - (Drug Testing and Analysis (2021) 11 October)

• PMID: 34633773
• DOI: 10.1002/dta.3176

Abstract

The hunger hormone ghrelin (G) is classified as prohibited substance in professional sport by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), due to its known growth hormone releasing properties. The endogenous bioactive peptide consists of 28 amino acids with a caprylic acid attached to serine at position 3. Within this study it was aimed to develop methods to determine G and desacyl ghrelin (DAG) in plasma and urine by means of LC-MS/MS. Two strategies were applied with a bottom-up approach for plasma and top-down analyses for urine. Both sample preparation procedures were based on solid-phase extraction for enrichment and sample clean-up. Method validation showed good results for plasma and urine with limits of detection (LODs) for G and DAG between 30 and 50 pg/mL, recoveries between 45-50 %, and imprecisions (intra- and inter-day) between 3 - 24 %. Plasma analysis was also valid for quantification with accuracies determined with ~100 % for G and ~106 % for DAG. The minimum required performance level for doping control laboratories is set to 2 ng/mL in urine, and the herein established method yielded acceptable results even at 5 % of this level. As proof-of-concept, plasma levels (G and DAG) of healthy volunteers were determined and ranged between 30 and 100 pg/mL for G and 100 - 1200 pg/mL for DAG. In contrast to earlier reported studies using ligand binding assays for urinary G and DAG, in this mass spectrometry-based study no endogenous urinary G and DAG were found, although the LODs should enable this.

In May 2021 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the wrestler Mahdi Namdari after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Stanozolol. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted a provisional suspension and filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and explained that he suffered from a knee injury and that he had accepted pills from a gym member in orde to recover. He asserted that he has never been prescribed with Stanozolol and with limited English he did not understand the risk.

The parties in this case reached an agreement and filed a joint memorandum in relation to the sanction for approval into a decision of the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand. The Tribunal considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission for the imposition of a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 11 October 2021 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 May 2021.

In December 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Androsterone, 5β-androstane-3α,17β-diol, Clostebol, Etiocholanolone and Testosterone. In addition an anti-doping rule violation was reported against the Athlete's doctor as Athlete Support Personnel for the administration of the prohibited substances.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete and his doctor filed statements in their defence and they were heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and he explained with medical evidence that he suffered from a  condition. He and his doctor stated that for the treatment of hypogonadism these prescribed substances were used.

ABCD contended that only Testosterone is the proper medication as treatment for hypogoonadism. Yet there is no justification for the use of the other substances found in the Athlete's sample.

The Rapporteur finds that the presence of prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Rapporteur deems that the Athlete had committed the violation intentionally and considers that the Athlete had failed to apply for a TUE, nor had mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form. In addition the doctor testified that he had only had administered Eposteron and Anastrozole, not the other substances.

Further the Rapporteur disputed the doctor's conduct as a specialist in sports medication because he had acted negligently through the administration of prohibited substances. 

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 14 October 2021:

• to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 December 2020; and
• to impose a 30 year period of ineligibility on the doctor, starting on the date of the Decision.

Sensitive detection of testosterone and testosterone prohormone administrations based on urinary concentrations and carbon isotope ratios of androsterone and etiocholanolone / Thomas Piper, Nadine Haenelt, Gregor Fusshöller, Hans Geyer, Mario Thevis

• Drug Testing and Analysis 13 (2021) 11-12 (November-December), p. 1835-1851
• Special Issue: The 39th Manfred Donike workshop on doping analysis
• PMID: 34648228
• DOI: 10.1002/dta.3168

Abstract

The testing strategy for the detection of testosterone (T) or T-prohormones is based on the longitudinal evaluation of urinary steroid concentrations accompanied by subsequent isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS)-based confirmation of samples showing atypical concentrations or concentration ratios. In recent years, the IRMS methodology focussed more and more on T itself and on the metabolites of T, 5α- and 5β-androstanediol. These target analytes showed the best sensitivity and retrospectivity, but their use has occasionally been challenging due to their comparably low urinary concentrations. Conversely, the carbon isotope ratios (CIR) of the main urinary metabolites of T, androsterone (A) and etiocholanolone (EITO), can readily be measured even from low urine volumes; those however, commonly offer a lower sensitivity and shorter retrospectivity in uncovering T misuse. Within this study, the CIRs of A and ETIO were combined with their urinary concentrations, resulting in a single parameter referred to as 'difference from weighted mean' (DWM). Both glucuronidated and sulfated steroids were investigated, encompassing a reference population (n = 110), longitudinal studies on three individuals, influence of ethanol in two individuals, and re-analysis of several administration studies including T, dihydrotestosterone, androstenedione, epiandrosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone, and T-gel. Especially DWM calculated for the sulfoconjugated steroids significantly prolonged the detection time of steroid hormone administrations when individual reference ranges were applied. Administration studies employing T encompassing CIR common for Europe (-23.8‰ and -24.4‰) were investigated and, even though for a significantly shorter time period and less pronounced, DWM could demonstrate the exogenous source of T metabolites.

Keywords: doping; endogenous carbon isotope ratios; isotope ratio mass spectrometry; steroid concentrations; testosterone.

Androstenedione (a Natural Steroid and a Drug Supplement) : A Comprehensive Review of Its Consumption, Metabolism, Health Effects, and Toxicity with Sex Differences / Marwa T. Badawy, Mansour Sobeh, Jianbo Xiao, Mohamed A. Farag. - (Molecules 26 (2021) 20 (14 October) 6210; p. 1-16)

• PMID: 34684800
• PMCID: PMC8539210
• DOI: 10.3390/molecules26206210

Abstract

Androstenedione is a steroidal hormone produced in male and female gonads, as well as in the adrenal glands, and it is known for its key role in the production of estrogen and testosterone. Androstenedione is also sold as an oral supplement, that is being utilized to increase testosterone levels. Simply known as "andro" by athletes, it is commonly touted as a natural alternative to anabolic steroids. By boosting testosterone levels, it is thought to be an enhancer for athletic performance, build body muscles, reduce fats, increase energy, maintain healthy RBCs, and increase sexual performance. Nevertheless, several of these effects are not yet scientifically proven. Though commonly used as a supplement for body building, it is listed among performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) which is banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency, as well as the International Olympic Committee. This review focuses on the action mechanism behind androstenedione's health effects, and further side effects including clinical features, populations at risk, pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and toxicokinetics. A review of androstenedione regulation in drug doping is also presented.

The forensic response after an adverse analytical finding (doping) involving a selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM) in human athlete / Pascal Kintz. - (Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 207 (2022) January: 114433)

• PMID: 34715583
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2021.114433

Abstract

Selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) are a class of drugs presenting identical anabolic properties to anabolic steroids in addition to marked reduced androgenic effects. These drugs have emerged in the doping area within the early 2000's. Ligandrol, ostarine, RAD-140 and andarine are the most popular agents belonging to this class. According to the world anti-doping agency (WADA) prohibited list, SARMs are prohibited at all times (i.e. in and out-of-competition) and are listed under the section S1.2 (other anabolic agents). The compilation of the WADA testing figures reports from 2015 to 2019 has indicated a regular increase of adverse analytical findings (AAF) due to SARMs, particularly with ostarine and ligandrol. The implementation of highly sensitive chromatographic anti-doping analyses has induced high-profile challenges of anti-doping rules violations as athletes have claimed in numerous occasions that contamination was the reason for their AAF. Since the early 2000's, it has been accepted by the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) in Lausanne (Switzerland) that, under some specific circumstances, unusual explanations can be provided to the Panel to explain an AAF. This was the open door for forensic investigations, as it is done in criminal Courts. A forensic approach can include testing for SARMs in food, drinks, but mostly in dietary supplements. As most anti-doping rules violations are only known several weeks after urine collection, this biological matrix is seldom use for further tests, despite the fact that most SARMs can be detected for several weeks in urine. Luckily, hair or nail testing can be a complement to document the claim of the athlete but of course, it cannot be considered as an alternative to urinalysis. This is because a negative hair or nail result cannot exclude the use of the detected drug and cannot overrule the urine result. To date, all methods for SARMs identification in various matrices involve liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry or high-resolution mass spectrometry. The aim of this paper is to review the scientific literature on the analytical possibilities of testing SARMs in dietary supplements, urine and hair or nail clippings after an AAF to document the claims of an athlete or his/her legal team.

Summary of Operation Hercules / Intelligence and Investigations (I&I) Department. -- Montreal : WADA, 2021

The World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA’s) independent Intelligence and Investigations (I&I) Department has published its summary report following an investigation into allegations that the National Anti-Doping Organization of Ukraine (NADC) engaged in practices that contravened the International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI).

WADA I&I’s investigation, known as ‘Operation Hercules’, was launched in 2019, and has uncovered evidence to suggest that since 2012 NADC has conducted unjustified advance-notice sample collections, arranging to test athletes – including groups of athletes – by appointment at the NADC offices. The ISTI states that, save in exceptional and justifiable circumstances, sample collection must take place with no advance warning to the athlete – a fundamental feature of an effective, unpredictable testing program.

‘Operation Hercules’ has compelling evidence to suggest that in 2021, NADC knowingly reported at least six in-competition samples as out-of-competition samples, in contravention of various articles of the World Anti-Doping Code and the ISTI. The Doping Control Forms (DCFs) for the six misreported samples confirm they were collected in competition but, in each instance, the DCFs listed the sample as being collected “out-of-competition”.

WADA I&I commissioned a re-analysis of these six samples through the in-competition laboratory analysis menu, which includes more prohibited substances than the out-of-competition analysis menu. All sample results were returned negative (i.e. without a prohibited substance).

“‘Operation Hercules’ has raised serious questions about the integrity of NADC’s testing practices, and the competence of some staff. Moreover, the apparent longevity and brazenness of these practices suggests significant organizational failings within NADC.”

Due to the gravity of the allegations and the risk posed by any continuation of the alleged non-compliance by NADC, ‘Operation Hercules’ provided all pertinent information from its investigation to the relevant entities prior to the finalization of this report. This included the relevant departments of WADA, namely, the Compliance, Rules and Standards Department and the Testing Department, for their immediate action. A compliance process has been initiated regarding NADC, under the provisions of the International Standard for Code Compliance by Signatories.

‘Operation Hercules’ also investigated allegations that a doping and protection scheme existed within the Ukrainian Athletics Federation (FLAU) but found no evidence to support this charge. However, potential evidence of erythropoietin (EPO) trafficking was identified against an individual from within FLAU. The individual in question has denied the allegation and ‘Operation Hercules’ has reported this matter to the Athletics Integrity Unit for its consideration.