Implementation of the biological passport : the experience of the International Cycling Union / Mario Zorzoli, Francesca Rossi. - (Drug Testing and Analysis 2 (2010) 11-12 (November); p. 542-547). - Special Issue: 28th Cologne Workshop: Advances in Sports Drug Testing

• PMID: 21204287
• DOI: 10.1002/dta.173

Abstract

The concept of the biological passport is to evaluate, on an individual and longitudinal basis, the effects of doping substances and prohibited methods--blood doping and gene doping--on the body. Indirect biological markers can be measured and used to establish an individual's biological profile, when variations in an athlete's profile are found to be incompatible with physiological or medical conditions; a disciplinary procedure may be launched on the presumption that a prohibited substance or method has been used. As such, an athlete with a biological passport is his or her own reference. The International Cycling Union (UCI) launched the biological passport programme in January 2008 in cooperation with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The UCI programme includes more than 850 athletes. These athletes are subject to urinary and blood anti-doping tests both in- and out-of-competition several times a year. Almost 20 000 samples were collected in 2008 and 2009. In this article, the real-time process from sample collection to the opening of a disciplinary procedure is described. The establishment of this large-scale programme is discussed; the modalities which have to be applied and the difficulties encountered are presented. As for the results, some examples of normal and abnormal profiles are illustrated and indirect deterrent advantages of the programme are shown. Suggestions to improve the efficacy of the fight against doping through the implementation of the biological passport are discussed.

Validation of a GC/MS method for the detection
of two quinolinone-derived selective androgen receptor
modulators in doping control analysis / E. Gerace, A. Salomone, F. Fasano, Régis Afonso Costa, D. Boschi, A. Di Stilo, Marco Vincenti. - (Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry (2011) 400; p. 137–144)

• PMID: 21165606
• DOI: 10.1007/s00216-010-4569-8

Abstract

Selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) represent an emerging class of drugs likely to be abused in sport. For clinical applications, these substances provide a promising alternative to testosterone-replacement therapies and their advantages include oral bioavailability, androgen receptor specificity, tissue selectivity, and the absence of steroid-related side effects. Although not yet commercially available, since January 2008 SARMs have been included on the prohibited list issued yearly by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), so control laboratories need to update their procedures to detect either the parent drugs or their metabolites. Within this context, two quinolinone SARM models were synthesized and automatically characterized to update the existing routine screening procedures. The conditions for the new target analytes are compatible with the existing laboratory protocols used for both in-competition and out-of-competition controls and can be included in them. Validation parameters according to ISO 17025 and WADA guidelines were successfully determined. For analytical determinations, spiked urine samples were hydrolyzed and extracted at pH 9.6 with 10 mL of tert-butyl methyl ether. Then, the analytes were subsequently converted into trimethylsilyl derivatives and detected by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The absence of interferents, together with excellent repeatability of both retention times and the relative abundances of diagnostic ions, allowed proper identification of all SARM analytes. The analytes' quantification was linear up to 500 ng/mL and precision criteria were satisfied (coefficient of variation less than 25% at 10 ng/mL). The limits of detection were 1 ng/mL for both SARMs, whereas recovery values were between 95.5 and 99.3%. The validated method can be efficiently used for urine screening of the 2-quinolinone-derived SARMs tested.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M85 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on May 11, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of erythropoietin. Erythropoietin is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent was injected intramuscular with the prohibited substance by his doctor, for 15 days, because of a severe accident he had in November 2009. He had used the prohibited substance to regain his level in sport.

Decision
1. The sanction is a three years period of ineligibility in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFC, as decided by the disciplinary committee of the FFC, on July 13, 2010, however the extension to other relevant French sport federations is rejected.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Triathlon Federation (Fédération Française de Triathlon, FFTri) charges respondent M83 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a triathlon on April 18, 2010, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent admits the use of cannabis, but denies wanting to enhance his sport performance. The use of the cannabis was related to personal problems he faced towards his future as professional in sport.

Decision
1. The sanction of three months ineligibility in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFTri, dated August 24, 2010, as decided by the disciplinary committee of the FFTri will be extended to other relevant French sport federations.
2. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Triathlon Federation (Fédération Française de Triathlon, FFTri) charges respondent M82 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a triathlon on April 18, 2010, a sample was taken for doping control purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisolone and prednisone. These are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and are regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent used medication which contained the prohibited substances to treat swollen lips and throat. He has a medical prescription for this and reports of pneumology and allergy testing.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision (six months period of ineligibility) of August 24, 2010, of the disciplinary committee of the FFTri will be modified.
3. The present decision will start on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M81 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a contest on March 20, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of a metabolite of nandrolone. Nandrolone is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent didn't provide any explanation about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized or authorized by French sport federations.
2. All the results obtained at March 20, 2010, will be cancelled. Medals, points and prizes will be withdrawn.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M80 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on March 28, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of nandrolone. Nandrolone is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent didn't provide any explanation about how the prohibited substance had entered his body. The concentration of the prohibited substance measured was very high.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three years in which the respondent can't take part of competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFC, as pronounced by the decision dated July 13, 2010, by the disciplinary committee of the FFC, but extended to all relevant French sport federations.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

In August 2010 the Irish Sports Council (ISC) has reported an Anti-Doping Rule Violation against the Athlete IS-1522 (the Athlete) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

The Athlete testified at the hearing. He confirmed that he had consumed cannabis in a social context on different occasions in advance of, but unconnected with, his sporting activities. He also admitted that he had used cannabis since the date of his testing.

On 16 December 2010 the Panel decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 1 March 2011.

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after he refused to provide a sample for doping control.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete gave evidence under oath. He admitted to having been notified of the sample collection test, as well as being accompanied by a chaperone when watching the main bout of the evening as he was not ready to provide his urine sample. He conceded that he left the venue without providing the sample and explained that he had been put under pressure by his brother-in-law to leave with him as this was his form of transport home.

The Athlete’s evidence focussed on the fact that he is illiterate, uneducated and does not understand English. There was no evidence suggesting otherwise. He pointed out that although he had signed the Doping Control Form he does not read or write English and he did not fully understand or appreciate the seriousness of the implications of not providing the sample. He conceded however that the DCO had communicated verbally in Xhosa that he was required to provide the sample.

The panel considers that while no compelling justification for the failure to submit to the sample collection existed there nevertheless exists factors which detracted from the degree of fault or negligence on the part of the Athlete. The test relating to fault or negligence should be flexible enough to accommodate very real factors such as the illiteracy and lack of education of the Athlete. These factors did impact upon the Athletes ability to fully understand the significance and seriousness of his actions. The Committee notes that it is perhaps worth consideration by SAIDS for the future that in circumstances where an athlete clearly does not read, write or understand English that an informal script be read out to such athlete by the DCO in his home language.

The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the hearing. The period of the interim suspension of six weeks would be credited against this sanction.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping organization (UKAD) charges Denis Catana (respondent) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The prohibited substance Metenolone was found to be present in a sample taking for Doping Control purposes from the Respondent and provided by him on 20 August 2010. The Respondent didn't sent in a written defence and was unrepresented at the hearing.

History
Respondent took various supplements as was common for weightlifters which he had sourced in various ways and from various sources. He bought some at specialist shops and had purchased some supplements in Moldova. In addition he had purchased supplements in gyms where he had been training. He had not asked for advice from his team doctor or coaches in relation to the supplements that he had been taking. the Alezon Gel which he took for a leg injury was a veterinary product for use with horses. He had the Alezon Gel massaged into his leg on 20 August 2010. He had not disclosed that he had used this gel or the other supplements prior to taking the doping test. He claimed that he thought he only had to disclose pills or the like that he had taken. The Respondent contested that the presence of Metenolone in his system must have been caused by it being present, without his knowledge, in one or more of the supplements taken by him since he had not intentionally consumed Metenolone and he could think of no other mechanism for it having entered his system.

Considerations UKAD
The athlete has not proven the source of the prohibited substance Metenolone. Without no significant fault or negligence or aggravating circumstances the period of ineligibility should be 2 years.

Decision
The tribunal determins:
1. in contravention of Article 2.2 of the Anti-Doping Rules there was present in a Bodily Sample given by the Respondent on 20 August 2010, Metenolone which is a Prohibited Substance falling within s1.1(a) (Anabolic Androgenic Steroids - Exogenous) on WADA's 2010 List of Prohibited Substances;
2 in respect that there was not, at the time the sample was taken, present a therapeutic use exemption granted to the respondent in accordance with Article 3 of the Anti-Doping Rules, an Anti-Doping Rule Violation was committed by the respondent;
3. the respondent has failed to establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system for the purposes of Articles 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 of the Anti-Doping Rules;
4. in any event, the Respondent has failed to establish that he bore No Fault or Negligence and/or that he bore no significant fault or negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation committed by him; and, accordingly,
5. in respect of the Anti-Doping Rule Violation committed, the Respondent is ineligible for a period of two years from 21 September 2010 until 20 September 2012 (both dates inclusive) with all the consequences provided for in Article 10.10.1 of the Anti-Doping Rules.

Costs
No application was made by either party in relation to costs and no order as to costs is made.

Appeal
The parties can appeal within 21 day after the receipt of a copy of this decision.