Rapportage 17 : januari t/m december 2010 ten behoeve van de Algemene vergadering NOC*NSF / M.I. van Dijk, S.J.U. Veen-van der Wielen, S.W.A. van Haarlem. - Arnhem : Audit Commissie Doping, 2011.
- Rapportage t.b.v. de Algemene vergadering NOC*NSF 17 mei 2011.
- Jaarlijkse rapportage aan de Algemene Vergadering van NOC*NSF, de staatssecretaris van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport, het bestuur van de Dopingautoriteit en het bestuur van het Instituut Sport Rechtspraak.

Inhoud:

- Hoofdstuk 1 Inleiding
- Hoofdstuk 2 Werkwijze Auditcommissie Doping
- Hoofdstuk 3 Overzicht dopinggevallen
- Hoofdstuk 4 Conclusies
- Hoofdstuk 5 Aanbevelingen
- Bijlage 1 Lijst met topsportbonden
- Bijlage 2 Lijst van verboden stoffen en methoden

VA Bocci, I Zanardi & V Travagli. Ozone acting on human blood yields a hormetic dose-response relationship. Journal of Translational Medicine 2011, 9:66.

Studies of the pharmacology of 17α-ethynyl-androst-5-ene-3β,7β,17β-triol, a synthetic anti-inflammatory androstene / Clarence N. Ahlem, Michael R. Kennedy, Theodore M. Page, Christopher L. Reading, Steven K. White, John J. McKenzie, Phaedra I. Cole, Dwight R. Stickney, James M. Frincke. - (International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine 4 (2011) 2 (23 April); 119-135)

• PMID: 21686136
• PMCID: PMC3113500

Abstract

17α-Ethynyl-androst-5ene-3β, 7β, 17β-triol (HE3286) is an orally bioavailable analogue of androst-5-ene-3β,7β,17β-triol, a non-glucocorticoid anti-inflammatory metabolite of the adrenal steroid, dehydroepiandrosterone. The pharmacology of HE3286 was characterized in preparation for clinical trials in type 2 diabetes mellitus and other diseases of inflammation. Interactions with nuclear hormone receptors and P450 enzymes were measured in vitro. Drug metabolism was studied preclinically in mice, rats, dogs, and monkeys. Neurological and cardiopulmonary safety and dose-ranging and chronic toxicity studies were conducted in rats and dogs in accordance with FDA guidelines. Pharmacokinetics and metabolites were measured in Phase I clinical trials. HE3286 was differentially metabolized between species. HE3286 and metabolites did not bind or transactivate steroid binding nuclear hormone receptors or inhibit P450 enzymes. There were no adverse effects in safety pharmacology and canine toxicology studies. Although HE3286 did not elicit systemic toxicity in rats, mild estrogenic effects were observed, but without apparent association to hormonal changes. Safety margins were greater than 20-fold in rats and dogs with respect to the most commonly used clinical dose of 10 mg/day. The terminal half-life in humans was 8 hours in males and 5.5 hours in females. HE3286 is the first derivative of the DHEA metabolome to undergo a comprehensive pharmacological and safety evaluation. The results of these investigations have shown that HE3286 has a low potential for toxicity and possesses pharmacological properties generally suitable for use in human medicine. The favorable profile of HE3286 warrants further exploration of this new class of anti-inflammatory agents.

Keywords: HE3286; Toxicology; androstene; metabolism; pharmacokinetics; pharmacology.

Adverse Analyzing : A European Study of Anti Doping Organization Reporting Practices and the Efficacy of Drug Testing Athletes : Executive Summary / Walter Palmer, Simon Taylor, Andrew Wingate. - Nyon : UNI Global Union, 2011

Adverse Analyzing : A European Study of Anti Doping Organization Reporting Practices and the Efficacy of Drug Testing Athletes / Walter Palmer, Simon Taylor, Andrew Wingate. - Nyon : UNI Global Union, 2011

Anti-doping in sport is a multi-million Euro industry employing thousands of people that impacts upon the day-to-day lives of every professional athlete. It relies upon cutting-edge biological, chemical and medical investigations. However there is a paucity of publicly available statistical evidence to support current policies and practices on drug testing programmes for athletes.
The lack of statistical evidence to support an effective, proportional and efficient drug testing regime raises serious questions about WADA’s management of the World Anti-Doping Code.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the World Anti-Doping Agency has little or no evidence about the effectiveness of international drug testing for athletes. This has serious implications for its drug testing policies and procedures; if they are not based on hard statistical evidence then we must question how these policies are being developed and monitored.
WADA is already aware of the lack of statistical evidence on the efficacy of international drug testing yet has done little to address the shortcoming. There are clear and obvious failings in the limited statistics that WADA does publish. These omissions combined with the lack of detail renders them almost meaningless for any detailed analysis of anti-doping statistics. The findings of this report strongly suggest that WADA is in breach of the World Anti- Doping Code with regards to Article 14.4. It is failing to collect and publish comprehensive national anti-doping statistics despite being required to do so by its own Code.

Contents:

Section 1: Factors Limiting Data Collection
1.) Limited Availability of NADO Annual Reports
a.) Table: Availability of NADO Annual Reports
b.) Lack of centralized information on NADO websites
c.) Table: WADA reporting – 2008 vs. 2009
d.) Potential Code Violations
2.) Lack of a standard approach to the listing of sports and sport categories
3.) Ambiguous or general sport categories
4.) Lack of complete reporting
5.) Lack of a standard approach on third party testing
a.) Overview and Comments
b.) Table: Comparison of Report Contents
c.) Summary
d.) Interesting Individual Cases
i.) Germany
ii.) Latvia
iii.) Netherlands
iv.) United Kingdom
6.) Variation of Reporting Practices in Key Areas
a.) Violations
b.) Substances
c.) Positives (Adverse Analytical Findings – AAFs)
d.) Therapeutic Use Exemptions
e.) Missed tests
f.) Reporting failures
Section 2: Analysis of the Available Data
1.) Testing
a.) Total Number of Reported Tests – (Table)
b.) Number of tests in and out-of-competition
2.) Violations
a.) Total number of reported violations
i.) Interesting Individual Cases
1.) Belgium
2.) Germany
3.) Netherlands
4.) Luxembourg
5.) United Kingdom
b.) Sports in Which Violations occurred in 2009
c.) Number of Violations per Sport
d.) Analysis – Number of Violations per Sport
e.) Breakdown of Violations by Sport
f.) Number of violations in and out of competition
g.) Number of violations in and out of competition per sport
h.) Analysis – In and Out-of-Competition
i.) Table: Table – Ratios: Number of tests to number of violations per NADO
j.) Interesting individual cases
3.) Substances
a.) Introduction
b.) Initial Plan
c.) Problems of categorization and substance identification
d.) The amended table
e.) Table description
f.) Table: Violations: Total number of violations per sport categorized by substance
g.) Interesting Individual Cases
h.) “Multiple Violations”
i.) Non-identified substances
j.) General analysis of substances and violations
k.) General analysis of substances and sports
l.) Cannabis
Section 3: Executive Summary

Ms. Kristina Antoniychuk (Respondent) is an Ukrainian tennis player. On 22 February 2010 Respondent competed at the 2010 Abierto Mexicano TELCEL presentado por HSBC in Acapulco, Mexico, where she provided a sample for doping control.

The International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Respondent after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.

Respondent stated she used furosemide to treat a medical condition she has for two years. She presented medical records confirming the diagnosis, and further confirming that in January 2010, when the condition worsened, she was prescribed furosemide by a doctor. Respondent stated she was not aware the medication prescribed to her contained any prohibited substance.
Respondent acknowledged that she did not consult a sports medicine specialist, nor did she ensure that the doctor she consulted understood the strict anti-doping rules to which she is subject.

The Tribunal concluded that 19 years old Respondent was inexperienced in relation to doping matters. The ITF finds a reduction of eight months appropriate in this case.

The International Tennis Federation Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decides that Respondent had committed an anti-doping rule violation and that the following consequences should be imposed:
(a) A fourteen-month period of ineligibility, backdated to commence on 22 February 2010 and therefore ending on 21 April 2011.
(b) Disqualification of her results achieved in 6 tennis competitions, including the forfeiture of the ranking points and prize money awarded.

Related case:
KNKV 2011 KNKV Decision Appeal Committee 2011001 B
May 30, 2011

The Royal Dutch Korfball Association (Koninklijk Nederlands Korfbalverbond, KNKV) has reported an anti doping rule violation against the Person after he refused to cooperate to doping control in January 2011.

The Person was tested in the period prior to 1 January 2001, during in and out-of-competition, at different times and locations.
The Person’s situation changed after 1 January 2011 when he became part op the Registered Testing Pool with the obligation to report his whereabouts and one-hour-timeslot.

Person stated that it was difficult to find relevant information, while the information he received from the KNKV, the Anti-Doping Authority, the DCO and the IKF was insufficient and confusing. As a result the Person assumed that his cooperation was only necessary within the one-hour-timeslot.

The Committee deems that the insufficient information was highly responsible for the Person’s confusion as to his obligations.
The Committee rejects the Person’s assertions regarding his cooperation to anti-doping control and the violation of the privacy legislation.

Because of the exceptional circumstances in this case the KNKV Disciplinary Committee decides on 10 May 2011 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Person.

Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the Person’s korfball club.

Annual Report 2010 / Slovak Anti-Doping Agency (SADA). - Bratislava : Antidopingová Agentúra Slovenskej Republiky (ADA SR), 2011

Recommendation on the use of the Model Guidelines for Core Information/Education Programmes to prevent Doping in Sport / Monitoring Group of the Anti-Doping Convention. - Strasbourg : Council of Europe (CoE), 2011

• Council of Europe Recommendation (2011) 1
• Recommendation & Revised Model Guidelines adopted by the Monitoring Group of the Anti-Doping Convention at its 33rd meeting, Strasbourg, 9 May 2011
• Incorporated in the document:
  • Recommendation on the use of the Model Guidelines for Core Information/Education Programmes to prevent Doping in Sport
  • Revised Model Guidelines for core information/education programs to prevent doping in sport

Related case:
CAS 2011/A/2499 Albert Subirats vs FINA
August 24, 2011

The Féderation Internationale de Natation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against Albert Subirats (the Swimmer) for three whereabouts filing failures within an eighteen-month period.

After notification by FINA the Swimmer filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the FINA Doping Panel.
The Swimmer stated he always sent in time the relevant whereabouts information to his Federation. He showed copies of emails to the Venezuelan Swimming Federation (VSF) as a prove he indeed has sent information with the intention to send whereabouts information through the VSF to FINA. The Swimmer argued he has never been aware of the two filing failures in the past, due to the FINA letters were addressed to the VSF and never forwarded them to him.
Considering the Swimmer had no intention to escape from doping control the FINA Doping Panel decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility starting on 7 May 2011.

Hereafter the Swimmer appealed the FINA Decision to the CAS Panel (CAS 2011/A/2499 Albert Subirats vs FINA) in July 2011.
The CAS Panel concludes that FINA never notified a filing failure communication to the Swimmer. In particular, FINA did not send the letters concerning the filing failures directly to the Swimmer, but only to the VSF, and he did not receive any such communications from the VSF before his third failure. As a consequence, the Swimmer was unaware of all filing failures until the third filing failure occurred and was not in a position to repair on that.

Thus, since it is undisputed that the Swimmer did not receive any failure notice before the third whereabouts filing failure, the existence of a second and a third violation cannot be reproached to the him. For these reasons, no anti-doping rule violation (Whereabouts Filing Failures and/or Missed Tests) exists and, as a consequence, the Swimmer’s Appeal is upheld, the FINA Decision overturned, the second and third filing failure for the fourth quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011 are cancelled and the Swimmer's results reinstated.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel rules:
1.) The Appeal filed by Mr. Albert Subirats is upheld.
2.) The decision rendered on 21 June 2011 by the FINA Doping Panel is overturned.
3.) The second and the third filing failure for the fourth quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011 are cancelled.
4.) Mr. Albert Subirats' results are fully reinstated.