Detection of modafinil in human urine by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry / Ying Lung Tseng, Victor Uralets, Chien-Tzong Lin, Fan-Hsin Kuo. - (Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 39 (2005) 5 (4 October); p. 1042-1045)

• PMID: 15993026
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2005.04.050

Abstract

The main purpose of this study was to detect and quantify modafinil in human urine by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Urinary samples were collected from three healthy male volunteers following oral administration of a clinical dose (100 mg) of modafinil (Provigil). Urine specimens were extracted with t-butylmethyl ether (TBME) prior to GC-MS analysis. The results demonstrate that the chromatographic characteristics and the mass spectrum of the unchanged parent drug extracted from urine samples were identical to that obtained from the authentic standard. The times for the unchanged modafinil to reach peak concentration in the urine of the three volunteers were at 2 h (6.14 microg/mL), 4 h (9.93 microg/mL) and 8 h (3.58 microg/mL), respectively. Total clearance occurred in approximately 48-72 h with 2-5% eliminated through urine as unchanged modafinil. The present study demonstrates that modafinil is detectable in the absence of hydrolysis and derivatization steps.

In December 2004 Antidoping Norge (Anti-Doping Norway) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete David Morgan after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance ephedrine.
After notification the Athlete’s basketball club in Norway terminated the Athlete’s contract due to the positive test and the Athlete returned to Canada.
In January 2005 the Athlete filed a statement in his defence with Antidoping Norge and admitted he used a supplement and did not know it contained a prohibited substance.
In March 2005 the Athlete requested to be heard for the FIBA Commission. On 5 April 2005 the FIBA Commission concluded that the Athleteacted negligently without intention to enhance his performance and decided to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility, starting on 18 December 2004.

Hereafter in April 2005 WADA appealed the FIBA decision of 5 April 2005 with the FIBA Appeals Commission.
WADA requested the Appeal Commission to set aside the FIBA Commission decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. WADA argued that the Athlete’s sample had a high concentration of the prohibited substance due to his intention to enhance his sport performance and not due to the use of a contaminated food supplement.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the FIBA Commission made a procedural error in this case because they imposed a limited power of review on itself in relation to the Athlete’s statement.
Therefore the Sole Arbitrator of the FIBA Appeals Commission decides to set aside the Decision of 5 April 2005 and to refer the case back to the FIBA Commission to be re-decided.

Facts
The French Equestrian Federation (Fédération Française d'Équitation, FFE) charges respondent M33 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules.
During an event on October 17, 2004, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited.

History
The respondent didn't provide any information about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months, from which one month conditionally, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFE.
2. The present decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Equestrian Federation (Fédération Française d'Équitation, FFE) charges respondent M32 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules.
During an event on October 17, 2004, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited.

History
The respondent admitted the use of cannabis as an occasional user.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months, from which one month conditionally, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFE.
2. The present decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M31 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on December 4, 2004, respondent provided a sample for doping test purposes. Analysis of the samples showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent doesn't provide any explanation for the positive doping test.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months, from which four months conditionally, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by approved French sport federations.
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 of Ice Sports (Fédération Française des Sports de Glace, FFSG) charges respondent M30 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on November 13, 2004, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of ephedrine which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
Respondent had used drops as medication while exercising in Slovakia, this medication is the cause of the positive test. He claims not to have any knowledge about the prohibited substance in the medication.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months, from which two months conditionally, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the (FFSG).
2. The decision will starts after June 1, 2005.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
French Federation of Weightlifting, Fitness, Powerlifting and Bodybuilding (Fédération Française d'Halterophilie, Musculation, Force Athlétique et Culturisme, FFHMFAC) charges respondent M29 for a violation of the Anti-Doping rules. During a match on November 27, respondent didn't attend the doping control.

History
The respondent claims that because his daughter had an asthma attack he couldn't attend the doping control, he had to take her to a doctor; the doctor who had examined her confirms this crisis. However he didn't present a document for his state of denial needed for this matter.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of two years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFHMFAC.
2. The decision starts after June 20, 2005.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Anabolic Steroid Abuse : Physiological and Anaesthetic Considerations / P.C.A. Kam, M. Yarrow. - (Anaesthesia 60 (2005) 7 (16 June); p. 685-692).
- PMID: 15960720.
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2005.04218.x

Abstract

This review summarises the physiological and pharmacological effects of the anabolic steroids used to enhance performance in sports. The anabolic steroids promote muscle growth and protein synthesis. Side-effects of anabolic steroids include cardiomyopathy, atherosclerosis, hypercoagulopathy, hepatic dysfunction, and psychiatric and behavioural disturbances. It is therefore appropriate that the anaesthetist be familiar with the abuse of anabolic steroids, their potential adverse effects, and the peri-operative risk associated with the use of these drugs.

CAS 2004/A/717 Intemational Paralympic Committee v/ Broekman & WADA

In July 2004 the TUE Committee of the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) decided to dismiss the TUE application of the British Parathlete Andrew Brockman.

By contrast on 23 August 2004 the WADA TUE Committee decided to reverse the IPC decision and to grant the Athlete's TUE application for the use of his medication.

Hereafter in September 2004 the IPC appealed the WADA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). IPC requested the Panel to set aside the WADA Decision and to deny the TUE granted to the Parathlete.

IPC argued that a TUE can be denied even in the case the Technical Criteria are satisfied, when the health of the athlete would be seriously impaired by the use of the otherwise prohibited substance and/or by the practice of sport under the effect of the otherwise prohibited substance.

WADA, on the other hand, while agreeing on the importance of the "health factor" for the practice of sport, claimed that the list of the Technical Criteria Is exhaustive, so that an athlete has the right to obtain a TUE if he fulfils them all.

In view of the evidence the Panel determines that the Athlete was suffering from a chronic medical condition, that the otherwise prohibited substance was not specificaliy used for sport, but also in the course of the normal life of the Athlete.

The Panel deems that the administration of the otherwise prohibited substance was medically justified. The Panel finds that no evidence, assessed on the basis of a direct examination of the Athlete, was given that the cessation of the practice of the sport by the Athlete was a reasonable alternative to the administration of the prohibited substance.

As a result, the IPC, by denying the TUE, did not properly apply the Technical Criteria (as set forth by the WADC TUE International Standards and by the IPC Anti-Doping Code). WADA, therefore, was entitled to reverse the IPC Decision
pursuant to Article 6.3 of the IPC Anti-Doping Code.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 8 June 2005:

1.) The Appeal filed by the International Paralympic Committee on 15 September 2004 is dismissed.

2.) The decision adopted by the Therapeutic Exemption Committe of the World Anti-Doping Agency on 23 August 2004 is confirmed.

3.) (...)

4.) (...)

Rapportage Audit Commissie Doping : periode september 2004 t/m februari 2005 / C.A. Segaar, S.J.U. Veen-van der Wielen, C. van Bentum. - Arnhem : Audit Commissie Doping, 2005.
- Rapportage t.b.v. de Algemene vergadering NOC*NSF 7 juni 2005
- Halfjaarlijkse rapportage aan de Algemene Vergadering van NOC*NSF, het bestuur NOC*NSF, de staatssecretaris van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport en het bestuur van het NeCeDo.

Inhoud:

- Leden Audit Commissie
- Jaarlijks 2 rapportages
- Bonden zonder categorie 1 of 2 topsportonderdelen
- Respons
- Uitslagen verrichte controles van september 2004 t/m februari 2005
- Nog openstaande zaken vanuit voorgaande rapportages
- Historisch overzicht, aantal zaken per rapportageperiode
- Openstaande zaken
- Afhandeling positieve uitslagen/weigeringen door sportbonden, al dan niet conform reglement
- Rapportage Audit Commissie Doping 18 mei 2004
- Historisch overzicht, aantal zaken per rapportage periode
- Rapporage Audit Commissie Doping 7 juni 2005