Accelerated sample treatment for screening of banned doping substances by GC-MS : ultrasonication versus microwave energy / M. Galesio, M. Mazzarino, X. de la Torre, F. Botrè, J.L. Capelo. - (Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 399 (2011) 2 (January); p. 865-875)

• PMID: 21049269
• DOI: 10.1007/s00216-010-4319-y

Abstract

A comparison between ultrasonication and microwave irradiation as tools to achieve a rapid sample treatment for the analysis of banned doping substances in human urine by means of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) was performed. The following variables were studied and optimised: (i) time of treatment, (ii) temperature, (iii) microwave power and (iv) ultrasonic amplitude. The results were evaluated and compared with those achieved by the routine method used in the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) accredited Antidoping Laboratory of Rome. Only under the effect of the ultrasonic field was it possible to enhance the enzymatic hydrolysis reaction rate of conjugated compounds. Similar reaction yield to the routine method was achieved after 10 min for most compounds. Under microwave irradiation, denaturation of the enzyme occurs for high microwave power. The use of both ultrasonic or microwave energy to improve the reaction rate of the derivatisation of the target compounds with trimethyliodosilane/methyl-N-trimethylsilyltrifluoroacetamide (TMSI/MSTFA/NH(4)I/2-mercaptoethanol) was also evaluated. To test the use of the two systems in the acceleration of the reaction with TMSI, a pool of 55 banned substances and/or their metabolites were used. After 3 min of ultrasonication, 34 of the 55 compounds had recoveries similar to those obtained with the classic procedure that lasts for 30 min (Student's t test, n = 5), 18 increased to higher silylation yields, and for the compounds 13β,17α-diethyl-3α,17β-dihydroxy-5α-gonane (norboletone metabolite 1), metoprolol and metipranolol the same results were obtained increasing the ultrasonication time to 5 min. Similar results were obtained after 3 min of microwave irradiation at 1,200 W. In this case, 30 of the 55 compounds had recoveries similar to the classic procedure (Student's t test, n = 5) whilst 18 had higher silylation yields. For the compounds 3α-hydroxy-1α-methyl-5α-androstan-17-one (mesterolone metabolite 1), 17α-ethyl-5β-estrane-3α,17β,21-triol (norethandrolone metabolite 1), epioxandrolone, 4-chloro-6β,17β-dihydroxy-17α-methyl-1,4-androstadien-3-one (chlormetandienone metabolite 1), carphedon, esmolol and bambuterol the same results were obtained after 5 min under microwave irradiation.

Related cases:
CAS 2007/A/1396 WADA & UCI vs Alejandro Valverde & RFEC
May 31, 2010
CAS 2007/O/1381 RFEC & Alejandro Valverde vs UCI
September 26, 2007
CAS 2009/A/1879 Alejandro Valverde vs CONI, WADA & UCI
March 16, 2010
Swiss Federal Court 4A_386_2010 Alejandro Valverde vs WADA, UCI & RFEC
January 3, 2011
Swiss Federal Court 4A_420_2010 Alejandro Valverde vs WADA, UCI & RFEC
January 3, 2011
Swiss Federal Court 4A_644_2009 Alejandro Valverde vs CONI, WADA & UCI
April 13, 2010

On 11 May 2009 Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI), the Italian National Olympic Committee, decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Alejandro Valverde for committing an anti-doping rule violation.
The Athlete appealed the CONI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and on 16 March 2010 the Panel decided in this case (CAS 2009/A/1879) to uphold the CONI decision of 11 May 2009.
On 29 October 2009 the Athlete requested the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) to challenge the CAS arbitrator Ulrich Haas. On 23 November 2009 ICAS decided to dismiss the Athlete’s request.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the ICAS decision of 29 October 2009 op with the Swiss Federal Court.
On 13 April 2010 the Swiss Federal Court concluded it has no jurisdiction and therefore decided to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal.

On 28 April 2010 the Athlete appealed again with the Swiss Federal Court. The Athlete requested the Court to dismiss the CAS decision of 16 March 2010 and to challenge the CAS arbitrator Ulrich Haas.
The Athlete argued that his rights for a fair trial were violated by CAS.
The Swiss Federal Court concludes on 29 October 2010 that there are no grounds to challenge the arbitrator Ulrich Haas and dismiss the Athlete’s arguments about the violation of his rights.

On 17 September 2010 the FILA Sport Judge imposed a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Serbian Athlete Radomir Petkovic after is sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methandienone.
Hereafter WADA appealed the FILA decision of 17 September 2010 with the FILA Appeal Commission.

The Athlete stated that he suffered from a headache and his mother was at fault due she gave him his father’s medication instead of a supplement to treat his headache which she kept together at one place.

The Appeal Commission concludes that the Athlete acted negligently and rejects his statement.
Therefore the FILA Appeal Commission decides to set aside the decision of the FILA Sport Judge and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 29 May 2010.

Related case:
FIBA 2011 FIBA vs Yamene Jave Coleman
February 9, 2011

In September 2010 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player Yamene Jave Coleman after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide.
The Player filed a statement with evidence in his defence and was heard for the ANAD Hearing Commission. The Player stated he used medication for hypertension. He submitted medical documentation from doctors in Romania and the USA in support of his statement and submitted a request for a retroactive TUE for hydrochlorothiazide.
On 27 October 2010 the ANAD Hearing Commission decided, based on the “retroactive TUE granted” and the Player’s medical condition, to eliminate the provisional suspension and to sanction the Player with a reprimand.

Hereafter the Player was notified by FIBA in February 2011 and heard for the FIBA Disciplinary Panel.

CAS 2009/A/1817 WADA & FIFA v. Cyprus Football Association (CFA), Carlos Marques, Leonel Medeiros, Edward Eranosian, Angelos Efthymiou, Yiannis Sfakianakis, Dmytro Mykhailenko, Samir Bengeloun, Bernardo Vasconcelos & CAS 2009/A/1844 FIFA v. Cyprus Football Association and Edward Eranosian

CAS 2009/A/1817 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Cyprus Football Association (CFA), C. Marques, L. Medeiros, E. Eranosian, A. Efthymiou, Y. Sfakianakis, D. Mykhailenko, S. Bengeloun, B. Vasconcelos and CAS 2009/A/1844 FIFA v. CFA and E. Eranosian

Football
Doping (oxymesterone)
General reference to CAS in the Statutes of the International Federation and CAS jurisdiction
De novo review and limit of the Panel’s review to the evidence adduced in the arbitration
No direct applicability of the WADA Code
Principle of non-retroactivity and application of the lex mitior principle in anti-doping rule violations
Assistance of the text and the interpretative notes included in the WADC for the interpretation of the FIFA provisions
Interpretation of “substantial assistance” in light of the FIFA Cooperation Rule
Significant negligence and administration of mislabelled food supplements
Revision of the sanction imposed by a disciplinary body by CAS and principle of proportionality
Conditions for the application of Article 65.4 of the FIFA DC

1. A coach of a team, registered with a National Federation (NF), is deemed to have agreed, by his act of registering, to abide by the statutes and regulations (including the anti-doping regulations) of the NF. In addition, being subject to the statutes and regulations of the NF, he is also bound by the rules of the International Federation (IF). As a result, the rules set in the statutes of the IF are binding for the coach and, to the extent they provide for an appeal to the CAS, they constitute a general reference and the basis for the jurisdiction of a CAS panel to hear an appeal against a decision of a body of the NF.

2. According to Article R57 of the CAS Code, the Panel has full power to review the facts and the law of the case. The hearing before the Panel constitutes a hearing de novo, i.e. a rehearing of the merits of the case. The Panel’s scope of review is not limited to consideration of the evidence that was adduced before the body that issued the challenged decision, but can extend to all evidence produced before the Panel. However, the arbitral nature of the CAS proceedings limits the Panel’s power of review to the evidence adduced in the arbitration, to be evaluated on the basis of the relevant evidentiary rules. The Panel, therefore, is bound to issue an award only on the basis of the evidence that has been brought before it: the failure of a party to submit evidence available to it in support of its case can only be considered in light of the rules on the burden of proof and cannot prevent the Panel from issuing an award.

3. The fact that FIFA is a signatory to the WADC does not mean that the WADC applies between FIFA and its affiliates. As made clear by the Introduction to the WADC, in order to be applied, the provisions of the WADC require implementation in the rules of the relevant organization. Indeed, the WADC can be used to help with interpretation, where the content of the FIFA rules is equivalent to the WADC: however, it is not possible to have recourse to the WADC to alter or amend the FIFA provisions where their content is not equivalent to the WADC.

4. In doping-related issues, the principle of non-retroactivity is mitigated by the application of the “lex mitior” principle: the new provisions must also apply to events which have occurred before they came into force if they lead to a more favourable result for the athlete. Except in cases where the penalty pronounced is entirely executed, the penalty imposed is, depending on the case, either expunged or replaced by the penalty provided by the new provisions.

5. The FIFA provisions, to the extent they make reference to the concepts of “No Fault or Negligence” or of “No Significant Fault or Negligence”, correspond to the rules contained in the WADC. As a result, the understanding and interpretation of the FIFA rules can be informed in such respect by the text and the interpretative notes included in the WADC.

6. The FIFA Cooperation Rule does not require that “substantial assistance” be provided in the discovery or establishment of an anti-doping rule violation; it simply requires that “help” be given which leads to the exposure or proof of a doping offence. If “help” appears as having the same meaning as “assistance” and “exposure” can be equated to “discovery”, it is clear that the WADC requires a condition (that the assistance be “substantial”) not contemplated by the FIFA DC. Therefore, for the purposes of the application of the FIFA Cooperation Rule, contrary to what other panels had to do while applying the WADC or rules of sport federations exactly corresponding to the WADC provisions, it is not necessary to consider whether the assistance provided by the relevant subject was “substantial” or not. The Panel has simply to verify whether “help” was provided which led to the exposure of the doping offence by another person.

7. An athlete who blindly accepted the pills administered by his coach, without refusing nor asking questions or making any enquiry, and without conducting further investigations with a doctor or another reliable specialist is considered as having acted with significant negligence. The risks associated with contamination of products or mislabelled food supplements should henceforth be well known among athletes.

8. Under CAS jurisprudence the measure of the sanction imposed by a disciplinary body in the exercise of the discretion allowed by the relevant rules can be reviewed only when the sanction is evidently and grossly disproportionate to the offence.

9. Under Article 65.4 of the FIFA DC, it is necessary that the help is given leading to the exposure or proof of the doping offence by another person. The fact that a coach admitted his doping offence, provided for testing the pills he had distributed, apologized for his actions and explained all the elements surrounding them, or that he withdrew an action brought before national courts against the NF does not trigger the application of the FIFA Cooperation Rule, since there is a simple confession of his actions and not provision of help leading to the exposure or proof of the doping offence by another person.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decides on 26 October 2010 that:

1.) The appeals filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency and by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association against the decision issued on 2 April 2009 by the Judicial Committee of the Cyprus Football Association concerning Mr Edward Eranosian are upheld.
2.) Mr Edward Eranosian is declared ineligible for a period of four years, commencing on 2 April 2009.
3.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision issued on 24 April 2009 by the Judicial Committee of the Cyprus Football Association concerning Mr Carlos Marques and Mr Leonel Medeiros is dismissed.
4.) The decision issued on 24 April 2009 by the Judicial Committee of the Cyprus Football Association concerning Mr Carlos Marques and Mr Leonel Medeiros is confirmed.
5.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency against Mr Angelos Efthymiou, Mr Yiannis Sfakianakis, Mr Dmytro Mykhailenko, Mr Samir Bengeloun and Mr Bernardo Vasconcelos is dismissed.
6.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) already paid by the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, to be retained by the CAS.
7.) Mr Edward Eranosian is ordered to pay CHF 10,000 (ten thousand Swiss Francs) to the World Anti-Doping Agency as a contribution towards the legal and other costs incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
8.) The World Anti-Doping Agency is ordered to pay CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) to each of the Cyprus Football Association, Mr Carlos Marques, Mr Leonel Medeiros, Mr Angelos Efthymiou, Mr Yiannis Sfakianakis, Mr Dmytro Mykhailenko, Mr Samir Bengeloun and Mr Bernardo Vasconcelos as a contribution towards the legal and other costs incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
9.) The Fédération Internationale de Football Association shall bear its own legal and other costs.
10.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Doping and supplementation : the attitudes of talented young athletes / A.J. Bloodworth, A. Petróczi, R. Bailey, G. Pearce, M.J. McNamee. - (Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 22 (2012) 2 (April); p. 293-301)

• PMID: 20973831
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01239.x

Abstract

There is evidence of a small but significant proportion of adolescents engaging in doping practices. Young athletes face very specific pressures to achieve results as they strive for a career at an elite level. This study used an anonymized questionnaire to survey 403 (12-21 years old) talented young athletes' attitudes toward performance-enhancing substances and supplements. Two-thirds of the sample comprised males. Athletes were generally against the use of doping substances to enhance sporting performance. Within this generally unfavorable view, males tended to express a more permissive attitude toward performance-enhancing methods than females. Those convinced of the necessity of supplementation for sporting success were also more likely to express permissive attitudes. When asked whether they would take a "magic" drug that, while undetectable, would significantly enhance performance, the overwhelming majority of athletes said "no," but many thought others would take the substance. Interestingly, there was a significant association between the projected use of the hypothetical drug by competitors and the individual respondent's willingness to take the hypothetically "magic" substance. The study offers an insight into young athletes' attitudes toward specific forms of performance enhancement, and the strength of their beliefs in the face of a tempting hypothetical scenario.

Schendt dopingbestrijding mensenrechten? / Gerke Berenschot. - Maastricht University, 2010 [master thesis]

One of the issues in this thesis is the question if Anti-Doping organisations should pay compensation to persons who were wrongfully accused for a doping violation. With a thorough equation of the legal issues and the applicability of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The author concludes that a well-balanced anti-doping ruling, which secures the rights of the athlete, can lead towards more comprehension of the anti-doping organisations and lesser distrust.

The Dutch Archery Association (Nederlandse Handboog Bond, NHB) has reported an anti doping rule violation against this person after he tested positive for the prohibited substance
11-nor-∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9carboxylic acid (a metabolite of cannabis).
NHB notified the person of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension. Person filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Committee. Person stated he had smoked a joint one week prior to the anti-doping test because of stress and had no intention to enhance his performance. His statement was supported by witnesses.
The committee accepts person’s statement and, with exceptional circumstances, decides to reprimand person with ineligibility for the provisional suspension.

The Dutch Roller Sports & Bandy Federation (NRBB) has reported against this person a violating the Anti-Doping Rules of the ISR during roller hockey seniors league in The Netherlands. In the A portion of the urine sample of the person concerned the prohibited substance carboxy-THC (metabolite of cannabis) was detected in a concentration (ca.76 ng / ml) above the threshold level of 15 ng / ml. Person has filed a defence and the case was treated orally.
Cannabis is a specified substance that is prohibited in-competition. If certain conditions are met, the penalty can be reduced. Person has stated during a hearing that in the weekend prior to the game he had smoked cannabis at a party. He did this for fun and not for a performance-enhancing effect. Person in question stated he never intended to have had the use of cannabis influence his sports performance. He was also not aware that cannabis is on the list of banned substance. He stated that he never was provided with any information on the subject. The mother of the person concerned confirms that her son has stopped using cannabis. The NRBB states that no active information about anti doping is distributed and confirms that cannabis in this sport has no effect on athletic performance.
The Disciplinary Commission sees no reason to doubt the statement of the NRBB and the person concerned. The Disciplinary Commission takes in to consideration the young age of the athlete and the fact that it is a first offense. This results in the following sanctions: a warning, accompanied by a reprimand. Also, a third of the costs of this case are at the expense of individual charged.

Eigen Kracht in het centrum (Dutch title).

This is the promotion video of the True Strength campaign of the Dopingautoriteit. It explains why it is important to do doping prevention in gyms. In the Netherlands more than 8% of the gym users use doping substances, mostly for cosmetic reasons. In the video 3 gym users and the gym owner explain why they choose for True Strength. Some of the materials of the campaign are also shown.

This video is part of the True Strength (Eigen Kracht) campaign of the Dopingautoriteit. A campaign that warns gym users and bodybuilders for the health risks of doping use and offers healthy and effective alternatives (training, recovery, nutrition, nutritional supplements, mental techniques).