FIM 2016 FIM vs Anastasiy Nifontova - Settlement

13 Mar 2919

In November 2016 the International Motorcycling Federation (FIM) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian rider Anastasiy Nifontova after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

The Athlete demonstrated with medical evidence that the violation was not intentional because she underwent treatment for her health problems and had used prescribed medication which she mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

FIM accepts that the violation was not intentional due to the prescribed medication for a legitimate medical condition but deems that there are no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The parties in this case reached a settlement agreement and accordingly on 13 March 2019 a 2 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 November 2016.

The World Anti-Doping Agency: Guardian of Elite Sport's Credibility

1 Jan 2021

The World Anti-Doping Agency : Guardian of Elite Sport's Credibility / Maarten van Bottenburg, Arnout Geeraert, Olivier de Hon

Published in: Guardians of Public Value : How Public Organisations Become and Remain Institutions / Arjen Boin (ed), et al. - Springer, 2020. - Chapter 8; p. 185-210

  • ISBN: 978-3-030-51700-7
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-51701-4
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-51701-4


Contents:

  • Introduction
  • A Moral Crisis in Elite Sport
  • A Global Public–Private Body
  • Establishing Performance and Reputation
  • Mission Mystique in a Challenging Environment
    • Mission
    • Passion and Commitment
    • Transparency, Autonomy and Renewal
  • An Institutional Crisis
  • Challenges to Institutional Resilience
  • WADA’s Experience in Perspective
  • Questions for Discussion

iNADO Update #2020-12

7 Dec 2020

iNADO Update (2020) 12 (7 December)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)


Contents:

iNADO Community 

  • The Independence of ADOs and the Case of the Athletics Integrity Unit
  • UKAD launches Protect Your Sport to increase Intelligence Reports
  • Sri Lanka Anti-Doping Agency announces three new Developments in the Fight for clean Sport
  • Drug Free Sport New Zealand hold its second Annual Symposium
  • Caribbean Regional Anti-Doping Organisation marks its 15th Anniversary
  • WADA postpones their 2021 Annual Symposium - iNADO Workshop 2021 online
  • EuropeActive hosted the 4th FORUM for Anti-Doping in Recreational Sport

iNADO Bulletin Board 

  • iNADO's Annual General Meeting 2020
  • New iNADO Live Chat Episode Available
  • iNADO Webinar - IT-Security
  • Clean Sport Insight Forum invites you to register
  • European Commission Study on Anabolic Steroids in EU Sport seeks Interviews with NADOs

People 

  • President of ADCH steps down and hands over the Mantel to another former Elite Athlete

Athletes Voice 

  • Olympic Medalist, Sharon Jewell, on what Athletes can bring to Sport Integrity Roles

Science

  • DBS Presentation at iNADOs virtual Workshop

Practical Developments in Anti-Doping

  • Erasmus Project “Keep Football Clean” can call it a Wrap
  • iNADO Webinar: “An Introduction to program Evaluation for Anti-Doping Professionals” by S. Backhouse & L. Patterson

Feature of the Month by UK Anti-Doping

  • Sports Integrity Australia 
  • New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

NADO Flanders 2019 Disciplinary Council 20196671 - Appeal

1 Dec 2020

Related case:

NADO Flanders 2019 Disciplinary Commission 20196671
June 25, 2019

On 25 June 2019 the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after a search in the Athlete’s residence revealed the presence of the prohibited substances Boldenone, Clomifene, Letrozole, Testosterone and Trenbolone. 

Hereafter in July 2019 the Athlete appealed the Decision of 25 June 2019 with the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Council.

The Athlete had admitted the use and possession of the substances and disputed the grounds for imposing a fine and a sanction claiming he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence.

He stated that he was unaware that the substances were prohibited in Belgium and that he only had purchased 'legal anabolic steroids'. They were free and available on the internet while there wasn't any disclaimer that the substances were illegal in Belgium.

The Disciplinary Council holds that under the Anti-Doping Rules in Flanders anabolic steroids are explicitly prohibited and reason for the Athlete to act with utmost caution regarding unsubstantiated 'legal anabolic steroids' offered on a website.

The Council establish that the Athlete made at least 13 purchases between 2014 and 2015 for a total of 6.179,65 euro and that he recklessly and repeatedly had used these substances. It concludes that he clearly acted intentionally and with Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Council decides on 13 September 2019 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Decision of the Disciplinary Commission of 25 June 2019.

Fees and expenses for this Council shall be borne partially by the Athlete.

The methyl-5 alpha-dihydrotestosterones mesterolone and drostanolone; gas chromatographic/mass spectrometric characterization of the urinary metabolites

1 Dec 2020

The methyl-5 alpha-dihydrotestosterones mesterolone and drostanolone; gas chromatographic/mass spectrometric characterization of the urinary metabolites / Douwe de Boer, E.G. de Jong, R.A. Maes, J.M. van Rossum. - (Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 42 (1992) 3-4 (May); p. 411-419)

  • PMID: 1606052
  • DOI: 10.1016/0960-0760(92)90146-a


Abstract

Before including the detection of the methyl-5 alpha-dihydrotestosterones mesterolone (1 alpha-methyl-17 beta-hydroxy-5 alpha-androstan-3-one) and drostanolone (2 alpha-methyl-17 beta-hydroxy-5 alpha-androstan-3-one) in doping control procedures, their urinary metabolites were characterized by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Several metabolites were found after enzymatic hydrolysis and conversion of the respective metabolites to their trimethylsilyl-enol-trimethylsilyl ether derivatives. The major metabolites of mesterolone and drostanolone were identified as 1 alpha-methyl-androsterone and 2 alpha-methyl-androsterone, respectively. The parent compounds and the intermediate 3 alpha,17 beta-dihydroxysteroid metabolites were detected as well. The reduction into the corresponding 3 beta-hydroxysteroids was a minor metabolic pathway. All metabolites were found to be conjugated to glucuronic acid.

IOC 2019 IOC vs Roxana Cocos

23 Nov 2020

Ms Roxana Cocos is a Romanian Athlete competing in the Women’s 69 kg Weightlifting event at the London 2012 Olympic Games. 

In 2018, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012. 

In December 2019 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IOC, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Metenolone and Stanozolol. After notification the Athlete failed to submit any explanation at any stage to the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

The IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that the presence of the prohibited substances in the Athlete’s samples had been established and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

The Commission holds that the substances found in the Athlete's samples correspond to substances which have very commonly been used for the purposes of doping. The use of these substances are clearly consistent with and indicative of the intentional use of Prohibited Substances specifically ingested to deliberately improve performance. 

Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 23 November 2020 that the Athlete Roxana Cocos:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXX Olympiad in London in 2012 (presence, and/or use, of Prohibited Substances or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen);

2.) is disqualified from the event in which she participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games London 2012, namely the Women’s 69 kg Weightlifting event, in which she ranked 2nd and for which she was awarded the silver medal;

3.) has the silver medal, diploma and pin obtained in the Women’s 69 kg Weightlifting event withdrawn and is ordered to return the same.

4.) The IWF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.

5.) The Romanian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.

6.) The Romanian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the silver medal, diploma and pin awarded in connection with the Women’s 69 kg Weightlifting event to the Athlete.

7.)The decision enters into force immediately.

IOC 2019 IOC vs Gabriel Sincraian

23 Nov 2020

Related case:

CAS OG_AD_2016_10 IOC vs Gabriel Sincraian
December 8, 2016

Mr Gabriel Sincraian is a Romanian Athlete competing in the Men’s 85 kg Weightlifting event at the London 2012 Olympic Games. 

In 2018, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012. 

In December 2019 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IOC, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Metenolone and Stanozolol. After notification the Athlete failed to submit any explanation at any stage to the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

The IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that the presence of the prohibited substances in the Athlete’s samples had been established and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

The Commission holds that the substances found in the Athlete's samples correspond to substances which have very commonly been used for the purposes of doping. The use of these substances are clearly consistent with and indicative of the intentional use of Prohibited Substances specifically ingested to deliberately improve performance. 

Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 23 November 2020 that the Athlete Gabriel Sincraian:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXX Olympiad in London in 2012 (presence, and/or use, of Prohibited Substances or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen);

2.) is disqualified from the event in which he participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games London 2012, namely the Men’s 85 kg Weightlifting event, in which his result was that he did not finish the event.

3.) The IWF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.

4.) The Romanian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.

5.) The decision enters into force immediately.

IOC 2019 IOC vs Razvan Martin

23 Nov 2020

Mr Razvan Martin is a Romanian Athlete competing in the Men’s 69 kg Weightlifting event at the London 2012 Olympic Games. 

In 2018, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012. 

In December 2019 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IOC, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone, Metenolone and Stanozolol. After notification the Athlete failed to submit any explanation at any stage to the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

The IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that the presence of the prohibited substances in the Athlete’s samples had been established and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

The Commission holds that the substances found in the Athlete's samples correspond to substances which have very commonly been used for the purposes of doping. The use of these substances are clearly consistent with and indicative of the intentional use of Prohibited Substances specifically ingested to deliberately improve performance. 

Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 23 November 2020 that the Athlete Razvan Martin:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXX Olympiad in London in 2012 (presence, and/or use, of Prohibited Substances or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen);

2.) is disqualified from the event in which he participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games London 2012, namely the Men’s 69 kg Weightlifting event, in which he ranked 3rd and for which he was awarded the bronze medal;

3.) has the bronze medal, diploma and pin obtained in the Men’s 69 kg Weightlifting event withdrawn and is ordered to return the same.

4.)The IWF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.

5.) The Romanian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.

6.) The Romanian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the bronze medal, diploma and pin awarded in connection with the Men’s 69 kg Weightlifting event to the Athlete.

7.) The decision enters into force immediately.

Androgenic anabolic steroid-induced liver injury: two case reports assessed for causality by the updated Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) score and a comprehensive review of the literature

19 Nov 2020

Androgenic anabolic steroid-induced liver injury: two case reports assessed for causality by the updated Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) score and a comprehensive review of the literature / Robin Daniel Abeles, Matthew Foxton, Shahid Khan, Robert Goldin, Belinda Smith, Mark R. Thursz, Suman Verma. - (BMJ Open Gastroenterology 7 (2020) 1 (19 November); p. 1-6)

  • PMID: 33214235
  • PMCID: PMC7678230
  • DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2020-000549


Abstract

Background: Anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) usage is widespread and increasing. AAS drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is recognised but its clinical course and management is poorly described. We report 2 cases of AAS DILI with associated renal dysfunction, managed successfully with oral corticosteroids.

Methods: A comprehensive review identified 50 further cases to characterise the clinical and biochemical course. Causality grading was calculated using the updated Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) score. Data are presented as median values.

Results: The most common AAS taken was methyldrostanolone. Patients commonly present with jaundice and pruritus but may exhibit other constitutional symptoms. Patients presented 56 days after starting, and bilirubin peaked 28 days after stopping, AAS. Causality assessment was 'unlikely' in 1 (2%), 'possible' in 31 (60%) and 'probable' in 20 (38%). Peak values were: bilirubin 705 μmol/L, alanine transaminase 125 U/L, aspartate transaminase 71 U/L, alkaline phosphatase 262 U/L, gamma-glutamyl transferase 52 U/L, international normalised ratio 1.1. Liver biopsies showed 'bland' canalicular cholestasis. 43% of patients developed kidney injury (peak creatinine 225 μmol/L). Therapies included antipruritics, ursodeoxycholic acid and corticosteroids. No patients died or required liver transplantation.

Conclusions: Physicians are likely to encounter AAS DILI. Causality assessment using the updated RUCAM should be performed but defining indications and proving efficacy for therapies remains challenging.

Cathinonen in webshops: vrij verkrijgbare experimentele harddrugs

18 Nov 2020

Cathinonen in webshops : vrij verkrijgbare experimentele harddrugs = Cathinones in web shops : Freely available experimental hard drugs / Michiel Olijhoek, Willem Koert, Edwin van den Worm. - (TSG - Tijdschrift voor gezondheidswetenschappen (2020) 18 November; p. 1-6)

  • Abstract in English
  • DOI: 10.1007/s12508-020-00287-3


Samenvatting

Webwinkels die zich richten op Nederlandse consumenten van recreatieve drugs, verkopen een snelgroeiend assortiment van synthetische drugs die door hun experimentele karakter op dit moment legaal kunnen worden verkocht. In een verkennend onderzoek, dat zich beperkte tot de onder de stimulantia vallende cathinonen, werden in deze winkels 26 cathinonen aangetroffen. Van geen van deze middelen is de toxiciteit goed onderzocht. Een trendanalyse van de cathinonen die onlangs in dit circuit zijn gelanceerd doet vrezen dat de bedenkers van deze middelen, in hun streven om nieuwe drugs te produceren die de regelgeving ontwijken, waarschijnlijk onbedoeld steeds verslavender drugs op de markt brengen.

Abstract

Web shops targeting Dutch consumers of recreational drugs sell a fast-growing range of synthetic drugs which can currently be legally sold due to their experimental nature. In an exploratory study, limited to the cathinones – a group of drugs with stimulant biological effects – 26 cathinones were found in these stores. The toxicity of none of these agents has been properly studied. A trend analysis of the cathinones recently launched in this circuit suggested that the inventors of these drugs, in their quest to manufacture new drugs that avoid regulation, may introduce substances with an increasingly addictive potential.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin