In April 2008 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Daniel Enache after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.
Therefore on 21 May 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.
In February 2008 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Paul Turcitu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.
Therefore on 5 March 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.
In November 2007 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Daniel Ostrovschi after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
Therefore on 22 January 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.
In November 2007 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Marin Aurel Lighean after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances furosemide and metandienone.
Therefore on 22 January 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.
In November 2007 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the AthletePetrişor Adrian Vȃleanu after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.
Therefore on 22 January 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.
In November 2007 the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Marcel Manea after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances furosemide. The Athlete admitted the use of the substance and waived his right to have the B sample analysed.
Therefore on 22 January 2008 the ANAD Sanction Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.
Related case:
CAS 2009_A_1766 Liliana Popescu vs ANAD
October 9, 2009
On 3 October 2008 the Sanction Committee of the Agenţia Naţională Anti-Doping (ANAD), the National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania, decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Liliana Popescu after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Novel Erythropoiesis Stimulating Protein (NESP) also known as Aranesp (Darbepoetin).
The Athlete filed medical documents in her defence claiming that due to an accident in Mai 2008 she was treated in a hospital and medication was administered, including Aranesp (Darbepoetin). De Athlete also argued that she suffered from a chronic anemia since 2000 and produced two medical analyses reports in support.
Hereafter the sport club Olimpic Sport and the Athlete appealed the decision of the ANAD Sanction Committee of 3 October 2008 with the ANAD Appeal Commission.
The Appeal Commission reviewed the statements and filed documents and concludes that the Athlete’s accident in July 2008 was less serious as mentioned; the medical reports did not support the Athlete’s statement that she suffered from a chronic anemia; the Athlete’s medical doctor produced two different statements about her treatment; the Athlete did not mention the medication she used on the Doping Control Form; and she failed to notify her coach and team doctor about the accident and administered medication.
Therefore the ANAD Appeal Commissio dismissed the Appeal of Olimpic Sport (due it was filed too late), dismissed the Athlete’s Appeal and decides to uphold the decision of the ANAD Sanction Committee of 3 October 2008.
Prevalence of blood doping in samples collected from elite track and field athletes /
Pierre-Edouard Sottas, Neil Robinson, Giuseppe Fischetto, Gabriel Dollé, Juan Manuel Alonso, and Martial Saugy.
Clinical Chemistry 57:5 p. 762–769 (2011)
BACKGROUND:
No reliable estimate of the prevalence of doping in elite sports has been published. Since 2001, the international governing body for athletics has implemented a blood-testing program to detect altered hematological profiles in the world's top-level athletes.
METHODS:
A total of 7289 blood samples were collected from 2737 athletes out of and during international athletic competitions. Data were collected in parallel on each sample, including the age, sex, nationality, and birth date of the athlete; testing date; sport; venue; and instrument technology. Period prevalence of blood-doping in samples was estimated by comparing empirical cumulative distribution functions of the abnormal blood profile score computed for subpopulations with stratified reference cumulative distribution functions.
RESULTS:
In addition to an expected difference between endurance and non-endurance athletes, we found nationality to be the major factor of heterogeneity. Estimates of the prevalence of blood doping ranged from 1% to 48% for subpopulations of samples and a mean of 14% for the entire study population. Extreme cases of secondary polycythemia highlighted the health risks associated with blood manipulations.
CONCLUSIONS:
When applied at a population level, in this case the population of samples, hematological data can be used to estimate period prevalence of blood doping in elite sports. We found that the world's top-level athletes are not only heterogeneous in physiological and anthropometric factors but also in their doping behavior, with contrasting attitudes toward doping between countries. When applied at the individual level, the same biomarkers, as formalized in the Athlete Biological Passport paradigm, can be used in analysis of the observed different physiological characteristics and behavioral heterogeneities.
Prevalence of doping use in elite sports: a review of numbers and methods / O. de Hon, H. Kuipers, M. van Bottenburg. - (
Sports Medicine 45 (2014) 1 (29 aug) p. 57-69)
The prevalence of doping in elite sports is relevant for all those involved in sports, particularly for evaluating anti-doping policy measures. Remarkably, few scientific articles have addressed this subject so far, and the last review dates back to 1997. As a consequence, the true prevalence of doping in elite sports is unknown. Even though it is virtually impossible to uncover the exact prevalence of a prohibited activity such as doping, various methods are available to uncover parts of this particular problem, which enables the circumvention (to a certain degree) of the issues of truthfulness, definition problems and the limits of pharmacological evidence. This review outlines the various methods that exist and presents the scarce data available in this area. It is concluded that a combination of questionnaires using the Randomised Response Technique and models of biological parameters is able to provide the statistical possibilities to reveal accurate estimates of this often undisclosed practice. Data gathered in this way yield an estimation of 14–39 % of current adult elite athletes who intentionally used doping.
These period prevalences have been found in specific subgroups of elite athletes, and the available data suggest that the prevalence of doping is considerably different between sub-groups with varying types of sport, levels and nationalities. The above-mentioned figure of 14–39 % is likely to be a more accurate reflection of the prevalence of intentional doping in elite sports than that provided by doping control test results (estimate of doping: 1–2 % annually) or questionnaire-based research (estimations between 1 and 70 % depending on sport, level and exact definitions of intent and doping). In the future, analytical science may play a more important role in this topic if it may become feasible to detect very low concentrations of prohibited substances in sewage systems downstream of major sporting events. However, it is clear that current doping control test results show a distinct underestimation of true doping prevalence. It does not seem feasible to distil better estimates of the prevalence of doping based on performance indicators or ego documents because of the various existing effects that influence athletic performance. Such information can only be used as extra information to augment the accuracy of prevalence rates that have been found by using other techniques. True doping prevalence studies have been scarce in elite sports so far. With the correct application of the available scientific methods, preferably using harmonised definitions of the terms ‘doping’ and ‘elite sports’, more information on this topic may be gathered in a relatively short time. This would assist antidoping professionals in the future in order to evaluate the effects of possible anti-doping measures, and better antidoping policies would serve athletes who compete without doping. The existing anti-doping measures seriously impact the lives of elite athletes and their immediate entourage, which imposes a moral burden to evaluate these measures in the best possible way.
In April 2011 the International Cricket Council has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Sri Lankan cricket player Upul Tharanga after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Prednisolone and Prednisone. Ater notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the ICC Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal.
The Athlete gave a prompt admission, expressed his apology and explained that he suffered from a shoulder injury and was encouraged to be treated by a well known Sri Lankan Ayurvedic doctor who had treated many sportspersons, celebrities and politicians in Sri Lanka.
The Athlete assumed that the medication provided by this doctor were natural herbal cures and not medication containing prohibited substances.
In Sri Lanka an internal enquiry showed that the Ayurvedic doctor was not registered as a medical practitioner in Sri Lanka and not allowed to prescribe prednisolone while Sri Lanka Cricket was happy that the doctor treated its players and encouraged him to do so. Also the Sri Lankan bodies did not question the medication the doctor used to treat patients were free from banned substances.
The Tribuanl accepts the Athlete's explanation how the prohibited substance entered his system without intention to enhance his performance and finds that the doctor had misinform the Athlete that the medication he provided did not contain prohibited substances.
Considering the Athlete's degree of fault and his prompt admission the ICC Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 15 July 2011 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension i.e. on 9 May 2011.
