Harnessing the global expertise in drug use and drug prevention in physical activity settings: results from the Anabolic Steroid Prevention Survey Anders Schmidt Vinther

19 Dec 2021

Harnessing the global expertise in drug use and drug prevention in physical activity settings: results from the Anabolic Steroid Prevention Survey / Anders Schmidt Vinther

  • Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy
  • DOI: 10.1080/09687637.2021.2010658


Abstract

Recent decades have seen increased efforts internationally to prevent the use of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) and other image and performance-enhancing drugs (IPEDs) in gyms and fitness environments. Yet, very little is known about effective prevention strategies. This study aimed to identify key risk factors for AAS use and assess the relevance of these risk factors as targets of intervention. Seventy four (n = 74) IPED experts participated in the Anabolic Steroid Prevention Survey (response rate: 62.4%). A total of 18 psychosocial and two behavioral risk factors identified in a literature review were rated by participants along two dimensions: importance and preventability. The results show that most IPED experts (91%) believe that preventing AAS use in gyms is important to public health, and that AAS use can be prevented to a certain degree (91%), but not eliminated altogether (85%). Based on participants’ assessment, six risk factors were categorised as very promising (e.g. the descriptive norm and poor knowledge on AAS alternatives), 10 as promising (e.g. body dissatisfaction and drive for muscularity), and four as unpromising but worthy of consideration (e.g. AAS-using peers and perceived benefits of AAS use). To effectively prevent AAS use in gyms, interventions should attempt to reduce these risk factors.

RUSADA Annual Report 2020 (Russia)

17 Dec 2021

Annual Report 2020 / Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA). - Moscow : Российское антидопинговое агентство (РУСАДА), 2021

FEI 2020 FEI vs Mohamed Talaat

17 Dec 2021

In February 2020 the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Egyptian rider Mohamed Talaat after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold (608 ng/mL). After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the FEI Tribunal.

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied any intentional use of the substance. He argued that Cannabis does not enhance sports performance and he disputed the delays in the proceedings. Officials had checked the accommodation in Morocco to provide a safe environment and to avoid any contamination.

He claimed the he was exposed to Cannabis during his visit to the shisha bar in his hotel in Morocco and that the substance deliberately was added to his shisha without his knowledge, in order to influence the performance in the competition and/or cause his Team's elimination. Because of this sabotage scenario the Athlete's team had hired a Moroccan lawyer to file a criminal complaint with the Moroccan authorities for further investigation.

FEI contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system and without grounds for a reduced sanction. FEI rejected the Athlete's sabotage scenario due to he did not provide any corroborating evidence.

The Tribunal finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Tribunal holds that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substance.

The Tribunal concludes that the Athlete's explanation, that unknowing exposure to Cannabis during his residence in Morocco through sabotage had caused the positive test, is merely speculative as no corroborating evidence was ever produced during the proceedings.

Considering the Athlete's conduct the Tribunal deems that through his visit to the shisha bar he did not exercise utmost cauton to avoid the ingestion of any prohibited substances. Finally the Tribunal agrees that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the FEI Tribunal decides on 17 December 2021 to impose a fine and a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting backdated on 17 June 2021.

FEI 2020 FEI vs Bassem Mohammed

17 Dec 2021

In January 2020 the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Qatari rider Bassem Mohammed after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold (2955 ng/mL). After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the FEI Tribunal.

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied any intentional use of the substance. The Athlete argued that Cannabis does not enhance sports performance and he disputed the delays in proceedings. Officials had checked the accommodation in Morocco to provide a safe environment and to avoid any contamination.

He claimed that he and his fellow athletes were exposed to Cannabis during their daily visits to the shisha bar in their hotel in Morocco and that the substance deliberately was added to his shisha without his knowledge, in order to influence their performance in the competition and/or cause the Team's elimination. Because of this sabotage scenario the Athlete's team had hired a Moroccan lawyer to file a criminal complaint with the Moroccan authorities for further investigation.

FEI contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system and without grounds for a reduced sanction. FEI rejected the Athlete's sabotage scenario due to he failed to provide any corroborating evidence.

The Tribunal finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Tribunal holds that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substance.

The Tribunal concludes that the Athlete's explanation, that unknowing exposure to Cannabis during his residence in Morocco through sabotage had caused the positive test, is merely speculative as no corroborating evidence was ever produced during the proceedings.

Considering the Athlete's conduct the Tribunal deems that through his visits to the shisha bar he did not exercise utmost cauton to avoid the ingestion of any prohibited substances. Finally the Tribunal agrees that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the FEI Tribunal decides on 17 December 2021 to impose a fine and a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting backdated on 17 June 2021.

FEI 2020 FEI vs Sheik Ali Al Thani

17 Dec 2021

In January 2020 the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Qatari rider after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold (404 ng/mL). After notification the FEI Tribunal settled the case based on the written submissions of the Parties.

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied any intentional use of the substance. He claimed the he and his fellow athletes were exposed to Cannabis during their daily visits to the shisha bar in their hotel in Morocco.

The Athlete submitted that the substance deliberately was added to his shisha without his knowledge, in order to influence their performance in the competition and/or cause the Team's elimination. Because of this sabotage scenario the Athlete's team had hired a Moroccan lawyer to file a criminal complaint with the Moroccan authorities for further investigation.

FEI contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system and without grounds for a reduced sanction. FEI rejected the Athlete's sabotage scenario due to he failed to provide any corroborating evidence and hereafter had not responded to any of the communcations from FEI.

The Tribunal finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Tribunal holds that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substance.

The Tribunal concludes that the Athlete's explanation, that unknowing exposure to Cannabis during his residence in Morocco through sabotage had caused the positive test, is merely speculative as no corroborating evidence was ever produced during the proceedings.

Considering the Athlete's conduct the Tribunal deems that through his visits to the shisha bar he did not exercise utmost cauton to avoid the ingestion of any prohibited substances. Finally the Tribunal acknowledged that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the FEI Tribunal decides on 17 December 2021 to impose a fine and a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting backdated on 17 June 2021.

ITF 2021 ITF vs Matilde Paoletti

17 Dec 2021

In August 2021 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian tennis player Matilde Paoletti (18) after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Clostebol in a low concentration.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspenson and the sanction proposed by the ITF.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the subsance and at first she could not explain how the substance had entered her system. After investigations the Athlete produced witness statements and expert reports in her defence that established the source of the prohibited substance.

The Athlete asserted that the positive test results must have been caused by inadvertent transdermal absorption of Clostebol through prolonged close contact with the family dog. Without the Athlete's knowledge the dog's dermatitis had been treated by her mother at the relevant time with Veterabol, a veterinary medication in spray form that contains Clostebol.

After the ITF had received further specifical factual and scientific evidence from the Athlete it accepts that she had established that the it is more likely than not that the presence of Clostebol was due to inadvertent transdermal absorption of Clostebol at the relevant time following physical contact with her family dog, which was, unknown to the Athlete, being treated with Veterabol spray containing Clostebol.

Further the Montreal Lab confirmed that the repeated treatment with Clostebol administered by spray to the Athlete's dog on the dates and in the quantities asserted by the Athlete could explain the positive test result.

Based on the evidence the ITF concludes on 17 December 2021 that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete acted with No Fault or Negligence. Therefore the Athlete's provisional suspension is lifted with immediate effect and she will not serve any period of ineligibility for her anti-doping rule violation.

TJD-AD 2021-029 Appeal Decision - Swimming

16 Dec 2021

Related cases:

TJD-AD 2021-004 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
May 6, 2021

TJD-AD 2021-016 Appeal Decision - Swimming
July 5, 2021

TJD-AD 2021-021 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
October 1, 2021

Previously on 6 May 2021 in First Instance the TJD-AD had decided by majority for the imposition of a warning on the Parathlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Ostarine related to a contaminated supplement.

However the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed this decison. Thereupon the TJDJ-AD Appeal Tribunal established that the Appealed Decision of 6 May 2021 was accomplished erroneously and decided by majority on 5 July 2021 to refer the case back to the TJD-AD Disciplinary Tribunal.

When referred back in First Instance and by majority the TJD-AD decided on 1 October 2021 to impose a warning on the Parathlete. Here the Disciplinary Panel accepted that the source of the prohibited substance was a prescribed supplement that became contaminated in a compounding pharmacy.

Again the ABCD appealed the Parathlete's case and the TJD-AD Decision of 1 October 2021 with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal.

ABCD contended that in the matter of the contaminated  supplements the Athlete had acted with a higher level of negligence and thus requested the Appeal Panel for the imposition of a sanction of 12 months instead of a warning.

The Rapporteur finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Parathlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Rapporteur agrees that the Parathlete had not demonstrated that he had acted with a low degree of Negligence with his supplements as an experienced Athlete that allows the imposition of only warning.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal decides by majority on 16 December 2021 to impose a reduced 4 month period of ineligibility on the Parathlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 21 February 2020.

TJD-AD 2021-028 Appeal Decision - Boxing

16 Dec 2021

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-016 Disciplinary Decision - Boxing
September 14, 2021

On 14 September 2021 the TJD-AD decided to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the boxer after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine) in a low concentration. In First Instance the TJD-AD concluded that the violation was not intentional and was the result of a contaminated supplement.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Athority (ABCD) appealed with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested to annul the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 4 years.

ABCD and the prosecutor did not accept that contamination had caused the positive test result and contended that the Athlete had acted intentionally in view of the Athlete's conduct with his supplements.

The Appeal Panel has serious doubts whether the compounding pharmacy in question had acted with utmost care considering the amount of prohibited substances it compounded and the high risk of supplement contamination. The Panel concludes that the Athlete had demonstrated how the substance had entered his system and that the violation was not intentional.

Further the Panel holds that the Athlete was tested before without issues and that he had sought to find a reputable compound pharmacy for his supplements whereas he had acted with some degree of fault or negligence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal decides on 16 December 2021 to uphold the Appealed Decision of 14 September 2021 for the imposition of a 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e on 22 January 2021.

WADA - Guidance for testing during COVID-19 pandemic

14 Dec 2021

Guidance for testing during COVID-19 pandemic / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2021


The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has published the  updated “Guidance for Testing during COVID-19 Pandemic” for Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs). This updated Guidance is a revision of the previous Guidance document issued by WADA to ADOs on 25 November 2020 and the result of a thorough review by WADA’s Strategic Testing Expert Group, with additional input from a group of National Anti-Doping Organizations.

The Guidance reflects the latest scientific knowledge on the evolving pandemic.  It outlines how ADOs can continue to best operate their doping control programs in line with globally recommended health and hygiene procedures to protect the health and safety of athletes and sample collection personnel; and, the International Standard for Testing and Investigations. It also includes further guidance on the vaccination of sample collection personnel following the introduction of vaccination programs in many countries of the world; as well as, what the anti-doping community has learnt over the past 12 months during the pandemic.

WADA continues to assist ADOs in supporting and monitoring their anti-doping program implementation and will continue to publish updates, if needed, as the situation evolves.

Should ADOs have any questions or comments regarding the revised Guidance, we encourage them to contact WADA’s Testing Department at testing@wada-ama.org.

Anti-Doping Poland Annual Report 2020

10 Dec 2021

Anti-Doping Poland Annual Report 2020 / Polska Agencja Antydopigowa (POLADA). - Warszawa : POLADA, 2021

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin