Effects of Hemopure on maximal oxygen uptake and endurance performance in healthy humans / M.J. Ashenden, Y. O. Schumacher, K. Sharpe, E. Varlet-Marie, M. Audran. - (International Journal of Sports Medicine 28 (2007) 5 (May); p. 381-385)

• PMID: 17024639
• DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-924365

Abstract

Haemoglobin-based oxygen carriers (HBOCs) such as Hemopure are touted as a tenable substitute for red blood cells and therefore potential doping agents, although the mechanisms of oxygen transport of HBOCs are incompletely understood. We investigated whether infusion of Hemopure increased maximal oxygen uptake (V.O 2max) and endurance performance in healthy subjects. Twelve male subjects performed two 4-minute submaximal exercise bouts equivalent to 60 % and 75 % of V.O (2max) on a cycle ergometer, followed by a ramped incremental protocol to elicit V.O (2max). A crossover design tested the effect of infusing either 30 g (6 subjects) or 45 g (6 subjects) of Hemopure versus a placebo. Under our study conditions, Hemopure did not increase V.O (2max) nor endurance performance. However, the infusion of Hemopure caused a decrease in heart rate of approximately 10 bpm (p=0.009) and an average increase in mean ( approximately 7 mmHg) and diastolic blood pressure ( approximately 8 mmHg) (p=0.046) at submaximal and maximal exercise intensities. Infusion of Hemopure did not bestow the same physiological advantages generally associated with infusion of red blood cells. It is conceivable that under exercise conditions, the hypertensive effects of Hemopure counter the performance-enhancing effect of improved blood oxygen carrying capacity.

Facts
The Certificate attests to the presence of Stanozolol metabolites in the Athlete's sample. Stanozolol is a prohibited substance named in the 2006 WADA Prohibited List.

Decision
The Athlete's written explanation, dated and received August 17, 2006, acknowledges his use of the prohibited substance. This early admission by the Athlete is to his credit. In this circumstance, it is fair that the period of ineligibility should commence on August 17, 2006. The period of ineligibility is two years commencing August 17, 2006.

Costs:
No party made any submission regarding costs. Accordingly, each party shall bear its own costs of the hearing.

β2-Agonists at the Olympic Games / Kenneth D. Fitch. - Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology
1-Oct-2006, Volume 31, Issue 2-3, pp 259-268

The different approaches that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) had adopted to β2-agonists and the implications for athletes are reviewed by a former Olympic team physician who later became a member of the Medical Commission of the IOC (IOC-MC). Steadily increasing knowledge of the effects of inhaled β2-agonists on health, is concerned with the fact that oral β2-agonists may be anabolic, and rapid increased use of inhaled β2-agonists by elite athletes has contributed to the changes to the IOC rules. Since 2001, the necessity for athletes to meet IOC criteria (i.e., that they have asthma and/or exercise-induced asthma [EIA]) has resulted in imporved management of athletes. The prevalence of β2-agonist use by athletes mirrors the known prevalence of asthma symptoms in each country, although athletes in endurance events have the highest prevalence. The age-of-onset of asthma/EIA in elite winter athletes may be atypical. Of the 193 athletes at the 2006 Winter Olympics who met the IOC's criteria, only 32.1% had childhood asthma and 48.7% of athletes reported onset at age 20 yr or older. These findings lead to speculation that years of intense endurance training may be a causative factor in bronchial hyper reactivity. The distinction between oral (prohibited in sports) and inhaled salbutamol is possible, but athletes must be warned that excessive use of inhaled salbutamol can lead to urinary concentrations similar to those observed after oral administration. This article provides justification that athletes should provide evidence of asthma or EIA before being permitted to use inhaled β2-agonists.

Results of the WADA monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the 2005 Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport. These substances are:
- Caffeine
- Pseudoephedrine
- Phenylpropanolamine
- Synephrine
- Phenylephrine
- Pipradrol
- Bupropion
- Morphine / Codeine

Facts
The Irish Sports Council (ISC) and the Irish Martial Art Committee (IMAC) alleges the Athlete IS-1516 (the Athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The athlete violated the applicable requirements regarding athlete availability for out-of-competition testing, including an alleged failure to provide “whereabouts” information as required.

History
Due to domestic problems the athlete didn't receive any letters addressed to her. She admits her failures and stopped competing in her sport.

Decision
Considering the circumstances the Panel felt that a period of three months was appropriate. The Athlete had already served a provisional suspension of three months imposed by the IMAC. That provisional suspension expired previously in September 2006. The Panel was satisfied that it would not be appropriate to impose a new sanction on the Athlete.

Facts
The French Ski Federation (Fédération Française de Ski, FFS) charges respondent M62 with a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a ski event on March 25, 2006, the respondent didn't attend the doping control.

History
The respondent denies to be informed about having a doping control. He had left the competition earlier because of stomach problems. He has proof of visiting a physician and a declaration for leaving the competition.

Decision
1. The earlier decision (an acquittal) dated June 26, 2006, of the disciplinary committee of the FFS will not be modified.
2. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Federation of Ice Sports (Fédération Française des Sports de Glace, FFSG) charges respondent M61 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on October 29, 2005, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of ephedrine. Ephedrine is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The disciplinary committee had sanctioned the respondent with a period of ineligibility of six months from which four months conditionally.
Respondent had used medication without mentioning it on the doping control form. Also he didn't explain the reason for his positive test. Because of the fact that the appeal of the respondent wasn't handled within the time limit the sanctions are restricted only to the French federation of ice hockey.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months, from which three months conditionally, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the French Ice Hockey Federation (FFHG).
2. The decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Federation for Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo and Associated Disciplines (Fédération Française de Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo et Disciplines Associées FFJDA) charges respondent M60 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a judo tournament on May 14, 2005, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of furosemide, 19-norandrosterone, 19-noretiocholanolone and testerone. These are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent didn't object against the findings. Also he didn't sent in written statements and didn't attend the hearing.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three years in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFJDA.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
2. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Andrey Garbuzov and Yaroslav Rechnev (the players) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Urine samples provided in the course of a doping control test taken on the 18th of June 2006, during the IRB Nations Cup Tournament played at Lisbon, were found to have contained a prohibited substance namely 11-nor-delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid (Cannabinoids) at concentrations of higher than 15 ng/ml.

History
Both players declare in writing that they were sitting in a bar when a cigarette with marijuana was offered. Both players confirmed by telephone that they did not wish to participate in the hearings. Both players used cannabis in a social setting and that there was no intention on their part to enhance sport performance.

Decision
Allowing for the mitigating factors that have been advanced on behalf of the players in each case the periods of ineligibility will be reduced to four months.

AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY 2005-06 ANNUAL REPORT
© Commonwealth of Australia
ISSN 1833-8976

Table of Contents iv
Figures vi
Acronyms vii
About this report ix
Overview 1
Chair’s message 2
Organisational overview 4
ASDA Snapshot 2005–06 4
Outcome and output structure 5
ASADA Snapshot: 2005–06 6
2005–06 ASADA highlights 9
2006–07 ASADA outlook 9
ASDA’s Organisational Structure 10
ASADA’s Organisational Structure 11
Australia’s Anti-Doping Framework 12
Performance review 13
Performance reports 14
Resources for Outcome 14
Outcome 1 14
Output 1.1 Drug testing program 15
Detection 15
Enforcement 22
Compliance 22
Deterrence 23
Key Projects 23
Output 1.2 Education, communication and advocacy services 26
Education and communication 27
Advocacy 33
Management Accountability 41
Corporate Governance 42
Senior management committees 43
Risk management 46
External scrutiny 49
Management of Human Resources 51
Financials 57
Discretionary grants 58
Asset management 58
Purchasing 59
Consultants 59
Competitive tendering and contracting 60
Compliance requirements 61
Australian Sports Drug Agency 63
Corporate Governance 64
Financial management 66
Contracting and purchasing 67
People 68
Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee 73
Financial Statements 77
Appendices 157
Appendix A: Doping Control statistics 1989 to 30 June 2006 158
Appendix B: Register of Notifiable Events (RNE) 2005–06 159
Appendix C: List of International Incidences (LII) 2005–06 162
Appendix D: Register of Findings (RoF) 2005–06 163
Appendix E: International anti-doping arrangements and Doping Control agreements 164
Appendix F: The functions, powers and delegations of ASADA in accordance with
the ASADA Act 2006 166
Appendix G: Powers of the Minister under the ASADA Act 168
Appendix H: The objects, functions and powers of ASDA as specified in the ASDA Act 169
Appendix I: Powers of the Minister under the ASDA Act 171
Appendix J: ASADA Staffing Statistics as at 30 June 2006 172
Appendix K: ASDA Staffing Statistics as at 13 March 2006 174
Appendix L: Freedom of Information 176
Appendix M: 2001-05 ASDA Strategy Plan 177
Appendix N: ASDMAC Functions (excerpt from ASADA Regulations) 178
Appendix O: ASDMAC Approvals by Sport July 1 2005 to 30 June 2006 179
Glossary 183
Compliance Index 185
Index 188
Figures
Figure 1: ASDA’s outcome and output structure 5
Figure 2: Changes to the outcome and output structure 2006–07 8
Figure 3: ASADA’s outcome and output structure 2006–07 8
Figure 4: ASDA’S organisational structure 10
Figure 5: ASADA’S organisational structure 11
Figure 6: Australia’s anti-doping framework 12
Figure 7: Resources for outcome 14
Figure 8: Output 1.1 performance measures 15
Figure 9: ASADA’s Doping Control statistics for 2005–06 17
Figure 10: Register of Notifiable Events and Register of Findings trends 1998 to 2006 21
Figure 11: Output 1.2 performance measures 26
Figure 12: Distribution of education and communication products and services 30
Figure 13: ASADA Member details as at 30 June 2006 44
Figure 14: Expenditure on new and existing contracts 60
Figure 15: Service provider contracts over $100,000 60
Figure 16: Media advertising agencies 61
Figure 17: ASDA Board details as at 13 March 2006 64
Figure 18: ASDA Audit Commitee details as at 13 March 2006 66
Figure 19: ASDMAC budget 2005–06 76