Who this guidance is for
This guidance has been commissioned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for use by organisations interested in engaging young athletes in communications around the issue of anti-doping.

How this guidance has been developed
This guidance has been developed following a review of the research literature and interviews with academics, campaign managers, a selection of National and Regional Anti-Doping Organisations, and young athletes themselves. We have attempted to incorporate the perspectives of stakeholders from around the world within this review2. In particular we would like to thank Dr Brian Cugelman and UK Anti-Doping for their detailed feedback on this guidance.

Contents:

• What is social media?
• How do people use social media?
• How can I use social media?
• A 10-step programme for using social media successfully
• Further reading

The main aim of this project is to explore how social media platforms can be harnessed to promote anti-doping behaviour among young people and applied in various localities by anti-doping organisations worldwide.

More specific aims of the research contributing to the development of this guidance were to explore:
- How social media can be used to influence attitudes and behaviours of people toward social issues comparable to doping:

• The pros and cons of social marketing as compared to other approaches;
• When social marketing should be used and when alternatives should be considered;
• Specific methods of communicating online which are particularly successful in aiding behavioural/attitudinal change;
• Guiding principles which underpin successful or innovative social media campaigns.

Reporting and managing elevated testosterone / epitestosterone ratios--novel aspects after five years' experience / Ute Mareck, Hans Geyer, Gregor Fußhöller, Anne Schwenke, Nadine Haenelt, Thomas Piper, Mario Thevis, Wilhelm Schänzer. - (Drug Testing and Analysis 2 (2010) 11-12 (November) ; p. 637-642)

• PMID: 21204295
• DOI: 10.1002/dta.234

Abstract:

The testosterone/epitestosterone (T/E) ratio was implemented as an indirect parameter for the detection of testosterone administration with an empirically established threshold value at T/E = 6. In 2005, the T/E reporting threshold was lowered from six to four.

Between 2005 and 2009, 63 510 doping control urine samples were analyzed in the Cologne laboratory. A total of 1442 specimens (2.3%) showed a T/E > 4; 80 (5.5%) of which were tested positive by means of isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS); and most of which (68) originated from strength sport disciplines.

Specimens of high T/E ratio showed a much higher probability for being confirmed to contain exogenous testosterone using IRMS analysis than samples of low T/E values.

Considering the small number of adverse analytical findings triggered by lowering the T/E reporting threshold (978 urine specimens with T/E ratios between 4 and 6 yielded only 4 (0.4%) positive IRMS findings) and the known limitations of the T/E ratio as discriminating parameter (UGT2B17 polymorphism), the currently mandatory approach shows only marginal overall efficiency.

A more effective tool for the detection of the misuse of testosterone would be the implementation of individual reference ranges. Until athlete steroidal passports are available, it is suggested to exceed the threshold level for T/E from 4 to 6 and perform obligatory IRMS analysis for specimens showing T/E > 6. Further conditions triggering IRMS analysis could be suppressed luteinizing hormone (LH) values in males and disproportionate changes of relevant parameters in individual profiles evidently not resulting from ethanol consumption.

A National Investigation of Psychosocial Factors Facilitating Doping in Body Builders : Final Report For WADA’s Social Science Research Grant Program / Ian D. Boardley. – Birminghan : School of Sport & Exercise Sciences, University of Birmingham, 2010, - 15 p.

Content:

- Summary
- Objectives
- Progress
- Results
- Effect of research on professional development
- Implications for prevention programmes / translation of research into practice
- Partnerships
- Publications
- Semiars
- Further dissemination

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.