History of doping and doping control / Rudhard Klaus Müller

• PMID: 20020358
• DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-79088-4_1
• Print ISBN 978-3-540-79087-7
• Online ISBN 978-3-540-79088-4
• Published in:

Doping in Sports: Biochemical Principles, Effects and Analysis. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology, 2010, vol 195, p. 1-23

Abstract

Although attempts to enhance athletic performance are probably much older, the word “doping” was first mentioned in 1889 in an English dictionary. It described originally a mixed remedy containing opium, which was used to “dope” horses. “Dope” was a spirit prepared from the residues of grapes, which Zulu warriors used as a “stimulant” at fights and religious procedures and which also reportedly was called “doop” in Afrikaans or Dutch. Later, the meaning of “dope” was extended in a broader sense to other beverages with stimulating properties. The expression was introduced into English Turf Sport about 1900 for illegal drugging of racehorses.

Content:

• 1 The Expression “Doping”
• 2 Early Attempts of Doping
• 3 Doping and its Emerging Prohibition
  
  • 3.1 Stimulants
  • 3.2 Anabolic Agents
  • 3.3 Fatalities with Presumptive Correlation to Doping
• 4 Development of General Anti-Doping Regulations
• 5 Doping Analysis and Accreditation of Anti-Doping Laboratories
• 6 Doping and the Cold War
• 7 Developments from the 1990s Onward
• Appendix 1 Historical Definitions of Doping
  References

In July 2009 the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against:
- the Athlete Troy Gauntlett, after his sample tested positive for the prohibited susbstance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine); and
- the Athlete Jaeson Magnus after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.

In spite of JADCO’s request for an adjournment the Athlete’s wanted to be heard for the Jamaica Anti-Doping (JAD) Disciplinary Panel.
The Athlete Troy Gauntlett admitted he used a supplement Animal Pak before the competition and stated that didn’t know it contained a prohibited substance. He also mentioned the supplement on the Doping Control Form.
The Athlete Jaeson Magnus admitted he smoked marijuana shortly before the competition.

The JAD Disciplinary Panel decides on 16 September 2009 to impose a reprimand on both Athlete’s and imposed on the Athlete Troy Gauntlett a 3 month period of ineligibility, starting on the date of the decision.

Related case:
ISR 2009 KNKF Decision Appeal Committee 2009016 B
November 24, 2009

The Royal Netherlands Power Sport and Fitness Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Krachtsport en Fitnessfederatie, KNKF) has reported an anti doping rule violation against this person after person’s A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances 17β-hydroxymethyl-17α-methyl-18-norandrost-1,4,13-trien-3-one (a metabolite of metandienone); stanozolol and 4β-hydroxystanozolol (a metabolite of stanozolol); and testosterone/epitestosterone larger then 4. After notification person did not request a hearing nor filled a statement in his defence.
The Disciplinary concluded KNKF failed to file the report of the anti-doping rule violation within the time limit. Neither did the Anti-doping Authority thereafter.
The Disciplinary Committee decided therefore to dismiss this case.

The Royal Netherlands Power Sport and Fitness Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Krachtsport en Fitnessfederatie, KNKF) reports a violation of the Anti-doping Code (ADC), during a doping test on September 15, 2009, a metandienone metabolite was detected which is a prohibited substance. The substance was also detected in the B-sample.
The defendant didn't send a written defence, by the rules of the ADC there's no need for an oral hearing and the case will be submitted in writing.

The disciplinary commission concludes that the KNFK failed to send the report within the time period of 6 weeks. The Anti-Doping Authority failed to notify the KNKF that the period of 6 weeks has passed, also the period to make an appeal has passed.
The disciplinary commission sees the 6 weeks period for filing a report as an important guarantee for the athlete for not being to long in uncertainty about the consequenses of his positive test, the period is compelling, not a point of order.

The disciplinary commission decision is that the report is inadmissible. An appeal can be made within 21 days.

JADCO 2009 JADCO vs Yohan Blake, Marvin Anderson, Allodin Fothergill & Lansford Spence
August 9, 2009

Related case:

JADCO 2009 JADCO vs Yohan Blake, Marvin Anderson, Allodin Fothergill & Lansford Spence
August 9, 2009

On 9 August 2009 the JADCO Disciplinary Panel decided to dismiss the charges against the 4 Jamaican athletes after they tested positive for the substance 4-Merhyl-2-hexanamine. Here the Panel deemed that the substance 4-Merhyl-2-hexanamine was not biologically similar to the prohibited substance Tuaminoheptane and that there was no evidence that 4-Merhyl-2-hexanamine was mentioned on the WADA 2009 Prohibited List.

Hereafter the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) appealed the decision of 9 August 2009 with the Jamaica Anti-Doping Appeals Tribunal. In this appeal both parties filed an agreed memorandum.

In this memorandum the Athletes accepted the test results showing the presence of 4-Merhyl-2-hexanamine in their samples. This substance was not mentioned on the 2009 WADA Prohibited List although WADA deemed that 4-Merhyl-2-hexanamine has a similar chemical structure or similar biological effects to the prohibited substance Tuaminoheptane, which indeed was included on the Prohibited List.
JADCO accepted that the Athletes established that the violations were not intentional, that they did conduct a proper supplement research before using this product and didn’t act negligently. JADCO acknowledged that the Athletes were misled by the product information on the website of the manufacturer.

The Appeal Panel considers the findings in the agreed memorandum, that the substance in question was not mentioned on the WADA 2009 Prohibited List and that the Athletes had researched their supplements before using.

Therefore the Jamaica Anti-Doping Appeals Tribunal decides on 14 September 2009 to impose a reprimand and a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athletes.

Hereafter in 2010 the substance 4-Merhyl-2-hexanamine was included on the WADA Prohibited List as Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY 2008-09 ANNUAL REPORT
© Commonwealth of Australia
ISSN 1833-8976

TABLE OF contents
Letter of transmittal iii
Guide to this report iv
Overview 1
Message from the Chair 2
About us 7
Snapshot of ASADA 7
Highlights from 2008–09 14
Outlook for 2009–10 15
Report on performance 17
Outcome 1 19
Output 1.1 – Deterrence Program 21
Deterrence 22
Output 1.2 – Detection Program 30
Detection 31
Output 1.3 – Enforcement Program 37
Enforcement 38
Management and accountability 41
Corporate governance 42
External scrutiny 49
Management of human resources 51
Financial information 59
Summary of our financial performance 60
Grant programs 60
Asset management 61
Purchasing 61
Engagement of consultants and contractors 62
Financial statements 64
Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee 107

Appendixes 113
Appendix A: Doping control statistics 1998–99 to 2008–09 114
Appendix B: Publicly announced anti-doping rule violations 2008–09 115
Appendix C: International anti-doping and doping control 118
Appendix D: Powers of the Minister to give directions to ASADA 119
Appendix E: ASADA’s functions, powers and delegations 120
Appendix F: Staffing statistics at 30 June 2009 122
Appendix G: Occupational health and safety 125
Appendix H: Advertising and market research 126
Appendix I: Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance 127
Appendix J: Freedom of information 128
Appendix K: Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee – functions 131
Appendix L: Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee – Therapeutic Use
Exemptions granted 132
Appendix M: ASADA Resource Statement 2008–09 135
Abbreviations and glossary 137
Indexes 143
Tables
Table 1: ASADA member details at 30 June 2009 11
Table 2: ASADA members’ attendance at ADRV Committee meetings 2008–09 13
Table 3: Resources for Outcome 1 19
Table 4: Output Group 1.1 – Deterrence Program 21
Table 5: Education activities during 2008–09 23
Table 6: ASADA Hotline calls 25
Table 7: Output Group 1.2 – Detection Program 30
Table 8: Doping control facts and figures 2008–09 32
Table 9: Tests conducted by ASADA in 2008–09 33
Table 10: Output Group 1.3 – Enforcement Program 37
Table 11: Expenditure on new and existing consultancy contracts 2008–09 62
Table 12: Consultancy services let during 2008–09 of $10,000 or more 62
Table 13: ASDMAC members 109
Table 14: ASDMAC budget 2008–09 111
Table 15: Doping control statistics 114
Table 16: Publicly announced anti-doping rule violations 115
Table 17: Entries on Register of Findings 2007–08 where the outcome was to be advised 117
Table 18: Government-to-government arrangements 118
Table 19: Full-time and part-time staff at 30 June 2009 122
Table 20: Staff by classification groups and location at 30 June 2009 122
Table 21: SES staff at 30 June 2009 122
Table 22: Staff in equal employment opportunity groups at 30 June 2009 123
Table 23: Salary ranges of employees 123
Table 24: Number of staff on collective agreement, Section 24(1) Determinations or AWAs 123
Table 25: Agency performance payments 2007–08, paid in 2008–09 124
Table 26: Advertising and market research 126
Table 27: ASADA freedom of information statistics 130
Table 28: Therapeutic Use Exemption applications 2008–09 132
Table 29: Substances approved for therapeutic use 134
Table 30: ASADA Resource Statement 135
Figures
Figure 1: Organisational structure at 30 June 2009 9
Figure 2: Australia’s anti-doping framework 10
Figure 3: ASADA’s outcome and output structure 2008–09 18
Figure 4: Number of athletes recording anti-doping rule violations 39

Facts
The Football Association (FA) charges Patrick Kenny (Player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. A sample for doping control, taken on 11 May 2009, tested positive on the substance ephedrine which is a specified substance on the doping list.

History
The player used medication "Do Do Chestese" for chesty cough the night before the game, this medicine contains the ephedrine. The player was aware of the doping rules but didn't pay much attention to it.

Decision
1. The player committed a doping offence, namely the presence in his urine sample of ephedrine at a concentration of greater than 10ug/mL Thereby he is guilty of misconduct.
2. That Mr Kenny's use of ephedrine was not intended to enhance sporting performance,
3. The appropriate penalty imposed for this doping offence is a period of suspension from ail football and football activities for a period of nine months.
4. The suspension is to be effective (i.e. commence) from the date the FA suspended the player, namely 22nd July 2009,
5. Mr Kenny will be subject to 'target testing' for a period of two years with immediate effect.

Costs
The hearing fee is to be retained by the FA and the player is ordered to pay costs of the hearing.

Related cases:

- Dutch District Court 2009 Athlete 2009005 vs KNSB and Dopingautoriteit
June 9, 2009
- Dutch District Court 2010 Athlete 2009005 vs KNSB
September 30, 2009
- KNSB 2009 KNSB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 TU2
October 15, 2009
- KNSB 2009 KNSB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 TU3
December 2, 2009
- KNSB 2010 KNSB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009005 T
March 12, 2010
- KNSB 2010 KNSB Preliminary Decision Appeal Committee 2009005 TU4
July 6, 2010
- KNSB 2010 KNSB Decision Appeal Committee 2009005 B
November 26, 2010
- CAS 2010/A/2311 Stichting Anti-Doping Autoriteit Nederland (NADO) & the Koninklijke Nederlandsche Schaatsenrijders Bond (KNSB) vs W.
August 22, 2011

In February 2009 the Royal Netherlands Skating Association (KNSB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance norandrosterone (Nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered by the KNSB.

In this 1# preliminary case proceeding the Athlete disputed the validity of the sample collection and the validity of the test results.
Therefore the KNSB Disciplinary Committee decides on 8 September 2009 to appoint an independent expert and orders the Dopingautoriteit to provide additional information about the laboratory procedures and protocols.

Full Case History:

Between 2009 and 2011 a number of proceedings and appeals followed in the dispute between the Athlete, the KNSB and Dopingautoriteit about the anti-doping violation and the Athlete seeking annulment of the disciplinary proceedings and sanctions.

- On 9 June 2009 the Dutch District Court dismissed the Athlete’s objections about the validity of the sample collection and violation of his rights.
- On 8 September 2009 the KNSB ruled in the 1# Preliminary Decision about the validity of the sample collection and the validity of the test results for which a independent expert is appointed and the Dopingautoreit is ordered to provide additional information about the laboratory procedures and protocols.
- On 30 September 2009 the Dutch District Court dismissed the Athlete’s request to lift the provisional suspension.
- On 15 October 2010 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee ruled in the 2# Preliminary Decision about the possibility for lifting the provisional suspension for which a new hearing is ordered.
- On 2 December 2009 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee ruled in the 3# Preliminary Decision that the imposed provisional suspension will expire in February 2010 when the KNSB has not rendered a final decision against the Athlete.
- On 12 March 2010 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee dismissed the Athlete’s arguments about the validity of the test results and decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete and 1 year probationary period until November 2011.
- On 6 July 2010 the KNSB Appeal Committee ruled in the 4# Preliminary Decision that under the Rules the costs for an expert investigation shall be borne by the KNSB.
- On 26 November 2010 the KNSB Appeal Committee decides to annul the KNSB Disciplinary Committee decision of 12 March 2010 because of the KNSB’s refusal to provide additional documentation to verify the validity of the laboratory testing method as violation of the Athlete’s right of defence.

Hereafter the Dopingautoriteit and the KNSB appealed the decision the KNSB Appeal Committee of 26 November 2010 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete’s samples tested positive for the prohibited substance norandrosterone (Nandrolone) and that no departure from the ISL occurred in this case. Therefore the CAS Panel upholds the decision of the 12 March 2010 of the KNSB Disciplinary Committee and decides to set aside the decision of the KNSB Appeal Committee of 26 November 2010.

Facts
The Rugby Football League (RFL) charges Amdrew Brocklehurst (player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The player provided an urine sample during an in-competition doping test on 28 June 2009. The examination of that sample showed the presence of ephedrine and benzoylecgonine (a metabolite of cocaine). Both are Prohibited Substances. This matter was determined on the documents without an oral hearing.

History
The operations manager of the RFL, explained by e-mail that the player had used cocaine socially but he has no idea how the ephedrine got into his system.

Considerations tribunal
The player didn't contest the charge, which entitles the tribunal to impose a period of two years of ineligibility.

Decision
1. A doping offence contrary to article 3.2.1 of the of the Anti-Doping Rules of the Rugby Football League has been established;
2. Mr Brocklehurst shall have imposed on him a period of ineligibility of 2 years, commencing on 21 July 2009 and expiring at midnight on 20 July 2011.

Appeal
An appeal can be made 21 days after receiving the decision.

Related case:
ANAD Comitet Sancțiune 2006_12 ANAD vs Sebastian Mirel Varga
October 9, 2006

In June 2009 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Sebastian Mirel Varga after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance metandienone.

The ANAD Hearing Commission considers that the Athlete committed a second anti-doping rule violation and that he failed to attend the hearing of the Commission.

Therefore on 3 September 2009 the ANAD Hearing Commission decides to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.