iNADO Update #2021-12

7 Dec 2021

iNADO Update (2021) 12 (7 December)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)



Contents:

iNADO Community

  • iNADO Acknowledges the Approval of Further Governance Reforms by the WADA Foundation
    Board
  • AMADA Annual Report
  • iNADO Live Chat - Gobi Nair
  • Antidoping Switzerland Foundation to become the Swiss Sport Integrity Foundation in 2022
  • World Rugby's "Keep Rugby Clean" Campaign
  • Sport Integrity Australia – Victories and Challenges after 18 Months of Creation

Bulletin Board

  • INADO Intervention at the Foundation Board Meeting of Paris
  • INADO Live Member Only Teleconference:
    "Challenges and Opportunities for INADO in 2022" with Nick Paterson
  • iNADO Webinar: Delivering Education with the support of your country sport system with NADA Austria and
    Slovak Anti-Doping Agency
  • Update on iNADO Workshop 2022: New Possibilities to Use Anti-Doping Capacity

Athlete's Voice

  • Establishment of the Athlete Committee in Drug Free Sport New Zealand

People

  • Pavel Christian Balaj steps down

Science

  • Study confirms Presence of Undeclared Prohibited Substances in Nutrition Supplements

Practical Development in Anti-Doping

  • Social Sciences Researchers Propose a Doping Prevention Research Agenda 

Feature of the Month

  • iNADO Live Chat Celebration
  • Visit to the Doping Authority Netherlands & Anti Doping Denmark

iNADO Partners & Sponsors

  • New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

World Athletics 2021 WA vs Abeba-Tekulu Gebremeskel

6 Dec 2021

In February 2021 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Ethiopian Athlete Abeba-Tekulu Gebremeskel after an AIU Expert Panel concluded unanimously in October 2020 in their Joint Expert Opinion that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping. 

This conclusion of the AIU Expert Panel was based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 30 November 2019 until 21 July 2020 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP). 

After notification the Athlete submitted an expert report to explain the values in her ABP. However after consideration the Expert Panel rejected the Athlete’s explanations in their 2nd Joint Expert Opinion in February 2021. A provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal. 

The AIU contended that the Athlete's ABP profile showed that the Athlete had committed and anti-doping rule violation, in particular to the extreme abnormality in Sample 1.

Supported by her expert witness the Athlete denied the violation and asserted that the abnormal values in her ABP were due to another reason than blood doping and that the use of prohibited substance or of a prohibited method was hightly unlikely. The Athlete's expert's report provided these explanations:

  • increased HGB caused by decreased plasma volume;
  • technical errors in the laboratory; and
  • other pathologies.

During the hearing the Athlete did not file any new explanations for the abnormalities in her ABP profile.

Based on the evidence the Panel finds that none of the Athlete's explanations could have caused the abnormal values detected in Sample 1. Also the value of HGB in Sample 1 was so high that in a normal evironment it would have been considered as a situation of emergency where immediate medical intervention would have been required.

The Panel concludes that the abnormalities observed in the Athlete's ABP fall within the scope of a doping scenario, thus, the Panel deems that the AIU succeeded in establishing, to the Panel's comfortable satisfaction, that the abnormal values of the ABP were caused by the use of a prohibited subsance or a prohibited method by the Athlete.

Therefore the Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 6 December 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 22 February 2021.

World Rugby 2021 WR vs Luxora Suarez Suarez

1 Dec 2021

In September 2021 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Colombian ruby player after her A and B  samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 5-Methylhexan-2-amine (1,4-dimethylpentylamine).

After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, waived her right to be heard, accepted the provisional sanction and the sanction proposed by World Rugby.

World Rugby deems that the violation was not intentional and that there were no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore World Rugby decides on 1 December 2021 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 24 September 2021.

Gene therapy, genetic doping and sport: fundaments and implications for the future

1 Dec 2021

Gene therapy, genetic doping and sport : fundaments
and implications for the future / Guilherme Giannini Artioli, Rosário Dominguez Crespo Hirata, Antonio Herbert Lancha Junior

  • Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte 13 (2007) 5; p. 349-354
  • DOI: 10.1590/s1517-86922007000500013


Abstract

Optimal performance has been constantly sought for in high level competitive sport. To achieve this goal, many athletes use illicit drugs and methods, which could have important side effects. Gene therapy is a very recent therapeutic modality, whose results have shown to be efficient in the treatment of severe diseases so far. The basis of gene therapy is a vectorial transfer of genetic materials to target-cells in order to supply the products of an abnormal gene in the patient's genome. Recently, the potential for misuse of gene therapy among athletes has called attention of scientists and sports regulating organs. The transfer of genes that could improve athletic performance, a method prohibited by COI in 2003, was named gene doping. The most important candidate genes for gene doping are the ones which codify for the following proteins: GH, IGH-1, miostatin blockers, VEGF, endorfins and enkefalins, eritropoetin, leptin and PPAR-delta. Once inserted in the athlete genome, the gene would be expressed and produce an endogenous product capable of improving performance. Thus, current doping detection methods are not sensitive enough to detect gene doping, which in turn could stimulate its use among athletes. Moreover, gene therapy still presents known application problems, such as inflammatory response and lack of control of gene activation. It is probable that such problems would be even more important in healthy individuals, since there would be excessive product of the transferred gene. Moreover, other unknown risks specific for each gene are present. Therefore, debate on gene doping should be carried on in the academic as well as sports field, in order to study prevention, control and detection measures of gene doping, avoiding hence, future problems regarding the misuse of this promising therapy.

ST 2021_07 DFSNZ vs Athlete

1 Dec 2021

In March 2021 New Zealand Customs intercepted a parcel containing Ibutamoren capsules adressed to the Athlete and informed the New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority (Medsafe) about this shipment. Medsafe contacted the Athlete and Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ). In July 2021 anti-doping rule violations were reported against the Athlete for the use and possession of the prohibited substance.

After notification the amateur Athlete admitted the purchase and use of the substance in March 2021 to assist him with his gym training. After interception of the first parcel a replacement product was delivered and used a few day before he was informed by Medsafe about the prohibited substance.

Meanwhile in March 2021 the Athlete also became a registered football player for his local club and so subjected to the Sports Anti-Doping Rules (SADR). The Athlete stated that he was unaware the product was prohibited, or that he was subject to the anti-doping regime due to his weekend recreational football.

DFSNZ accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the product was used not in the context of sport or anti-doping. Further DFSNZ regarded that he is a recreational athlete, participating in football for fun at a low level of competition. He had not received any anti-doping education or information about the SADR, he is relatively young, and acted with a low degree of fault or negligence.

In October 2021 DFSNZ and the Athlete reached an  agreement for a jount memorandum with an appropriate sanction for 13 months. However by Minute the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand deemed that this 13 month period of ineligibility is not fair or proportionate on the facts of this case.

The Tribunal previously had expressed concern about the lack of jurisdiction within the anti-doping code to differentiate sanctions between different levels of athlete, when lower-level athletes faced the same sanctions as elite competitors who receive doping education and support.

The Tribunal found the effects of the new 2021 Code which introduced a new category of athlete and provided a more flexible sanctioning regime for recreational athletes had not been reflected by the proposed sanction.

Considering these circumstances the Tribunal did not approve the proposed sanction of 13 months and decides on 1 December 2021 to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the amateur Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 August 2021.

World Athletics 2021 WA vs Blessing Okagbare

30 Nov 2021

In July and in August 2021 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics was informed that the samples of the Nigerian Athlete Blessing Okagbare - provided in June and July 2021 - tested positive for the prohibited substances Recombinant Erythropoietin (rhEPO) and Human Growth Hormone (hGH).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered in July 2021 and the Athlete filed a statement in her defence. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and provided several possible explanations for the presence of hGH in her samples, neither for the presence of rhEPO.

After the AIU had opened a wider investigation and a Demand was issued to provide relevant information in the Athlete's possession, she ultimately refused to provide her mobile telephone to the AIU as required under the Demand.

Consequently in September 2021 the AIU reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for the presence and use of rhEPO and hGH. In addition the Athlete was charged by the AIU for her refusal to comply immediately with the Demand.

Nevertheless the Athlete upheld her refusal to provide her mobile telephone to the AIU and the case was referred to the WA Disciplinary Tribunal.

The AIU contended that the presence of hGH and rhEPO had been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that she had committed multiple anti-doping rule violations including grounds for aggravating circumstances. Further the AIU contended that the Athlete had failed to comply with the Demand and failed to cooperate with its investigation.

In addition the AIU filed evidende provided by the FBI regarding the case against Mr Eric Lira involved in the distribution of prohibited substances to two athletes. The FBI had scanned the Athlete's mobile telephone in August 2021 and incriminating text and voice messages send to Mr Lira showed clearly the Athlete's purchase of hGH and rhEPO and her evasion and tampering of sample collection in June 2021 resulting in a confirmed Missed Test.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and stated that she had a compelling justification for her refusal to provide her mobile telephone to the AIU. She claimed that the FBI evidence was inadmissible and alleged that the AIU had leaked information and breached her privacy. Further she asserted, supported by an expert witness, that there had been several departures of the ISTI and ISL that would invalidate the hGH and rhEPO testing results.

The Panel assessed the Athlete's testing results and concludes that the Athlete had not established any departures from the ISTI and ISL that could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Findings for hGH and rhEPO. Accordingly the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete has committed the anti-doping rule violations for presence and use of hGH and rhEPO.

Contrary to the Athlete's assertions the Panel is comfortably satisfied that none of the matters raised by the Athlete justify her refusal to comply with the Demand and to cooperate with the AIU's investigation.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete intentionally had committed the anti-doping rule violations and is comfortably satisfied that has been established that the Athlete in the USA had purchased and received prohibited substances from Mr Lira. The Panel finds that the filed FBI evidence is admissible and reliable and notes that their conlusions in this case are not dependent or bases upon this FBI evidence, yet this evidence significantly corroborate the Panel's conclusions.

Because of the Athlete's conduct the Panel deems that aggravating circumstances are justified for the imposition of a more severe sanction. In addition the seriousness of the Athlete's non-compliance with the Demand warrants the imposition of a proportional sanction in this matter.

Consequently the WA Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 30 November:

  • to impose a 5 year period of ineligibility for the presence and use of hGH and rhEPO;
  • to impose a consecutive 5 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for her failure to comply with the Demand and to cooperate with AIU investigation; and
  • therefore a total 10 year period of ineligibility is imposed on the Athlete, starting on the 31 July 2021.

SARMs: een nieuw gezondheidsprobleem in fitness en bodybuilding

29 Nov 2021

SARMs : een nieuw gezondheidsprobleem in fitness en
bodybuilding / Willem Koert, Mariël Zwaagstra, Patricia Nagtegaal, Leendert van der Kooij, Koen Terlouw, Erik Duiven

  • TSG - Tijdschrift voor gezondheidswetenschappen 99 (2021); p. 161-164


Samenvatting

In het Nederlandse fitness- en sportschoolmilieu wint een nieuwe groep dopingmiddelen snel aan populariteit. In het jargon van de sporters in dit circuit heten ze SARMs, een afkorting voor Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators. SARMs zijn experimentele middelen die spiergroei en vetverlies moeten bewerkstelligen, die nog in de ontwikkelingsfase zijn, nog niet zijn goedgekeurd voor gebruik door artsen, maar al wel vrijelijk verkrijgbaar zijn via webwinkels. SARMs zijn verboden in de sport en staan op de dopinglijst. De farmabedrijven die deze stoffen hebben ontwikkeld, hebben in een aantal gevallen hun trials stopgezet nadat er zorgwekkende bijwerkingen aan het licht kwamen. Desondanks bieden wereldwijd honderden webwinkels deze experimentele middelen aan, en vertellen diverse ‘experts’ op sociale media dat SARMs volstrekt veilig zijn. De verkrijgbaarheid van deze middelen geeft aanleiding tot zorg.


Abstract

In the Dutch fitness and bodybuilding scene, a new group of doping substances is rapidly gaining popularity. In the lingo of the athletes in this circuit, they are called SARMs, short for Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators. SARMs are experimental drugs to achieve muscle growth and fat loss, which are still in the development phase, have not yet been approved for medical use, but are already freely available in web shops. In a number of cases, the pharmaceutical companies that developed these substances have stopped their trials after worrying side effects came to light. Nevertheless, hundreds of online stores worldwide offer these experimental drugs. In addition, various ‘experts’ on social media claim SARMs are completely safe. The availability of these resources is a cause for concern.

World Athletics 2021 WA vs Halima Hachlaf

29 Nov 2021

In April 2021 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) for World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Moroccan Athlete Halima Hachlaf after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Methylprednisolone.

Previously in January 2014 a sanction of 4 years was imposed on the Athlete due to an anti-doping rule violation.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in her defence. The Athlete submitted with medical evidence that in January 2021 she had received medcial treatment and that Depo-medrol was adminstered through intramuscular injection.

Between April and September 2021 the AIU conducted an investigation into the Athlete's explanation and supporting information. Thereupon the Athlete failed to respond to the AIU communications.

Because the Athlete failed to respond within the deadline under the Rules follows that the Athlete is deemed to have admitted the violation, to have waived her right for a hearing and to have accepted the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The AIU considers the Athlete's degree of fault in this case and that this is her second anti-doping rule violation. Therefore the AIU decides on 29 November 2021 to impose a 6 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 9 April 2021.

KADA Annual Report 2020 (South Korea)

25 Nov 2021

KADA Annual Report 2020 / Korea Anti-Doping Agency (KADA). - Seoul : KADA, 2021

CCES Annual Report 2020-2021 (Canada)

25 Nov 2021

Annual report 2020-2021 / Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES). - Ottawa : CCES, 2021

Contents:

  • Our Message to You
  • Governance and Leadership
  • Activate
  • Advocate
  • Protect
  • Doping Control Statistics
  • Financial Report
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