Time Trial Performance Is Sensitive to Low-Volume Autologous Blood Transfusion / Jacob Bejder, Andreas Breenfeldt Andersen, Sara Amalie Solheim, Mikkel Gybel-Brask, Niels H. Secher, Pär I. Johansson, Nikolai Baastrup Nordsborg. - (Medicine and science in sports and exercise (2018) 6 november).
- PMID: 30407276.
- DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001837

PURPOSE:
This study tested the hypothesis that autologous blood transfusion (ABT) of ~50% of the red blood cells (RBCs) from a standard 450 ml phlebotomy would increase mean power in a cycling time trial. Additionally, the study investigated whether further ABT of RBCs obtained from another 450 ml phlebotomy would increase repeated cycling sprint ability.

METHODS:
In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover design (3-month wash-out), nine highly trained male subjects donated two 450 ml blood bags each (BT-trial) or were sham phlebotomized (PLA-trial). Four weeks later, a 650 kcal time trial (n=7) was performed three days before and 2 h after receiving either ~50% (135 ml) of the RBCs or a sham transfusion. On the following day, transfusion of RBCs (235 ml) from the second donation or sham transfusion was completed. A 4×30 s all-out cycling sprint interspersed by 4 min of recovery was performed six days before and three days after the second ABT (n=9).

RESULTS:
The mean power was increased in time trials from before to after transfusion (P<0.05) in BT (213±35 vs. 223±38 W; mean±SD) but not in PLA (223±42 vs. 224±46 W). In contrast, the mean power output across the four 30 s sprint bouts remained similar in BT (639±35 vs. 644±26 W) and PLA (638±43 vs. 639±25 W).

CONCLUSION:
ABT of only ~135 ml of RBCs is sufficient to increase mean power in a 650 kcal cycling time trial by ~5% in highly trained men. In contrast, a combined high-volume transfusion of ~135 and ~235 ml of RBCs does not alter 4×30 s all-out cycling performance interspersed with 4 min of recovery.

Tissue selectivity and potential clinical applications of trenbolone (17beta-hydroxyestra-4,9,11-trien-3-one) : A potent anabolic steroid with reduced androgenic and estrogenic activity / Joshua F. Yarrow, Sean C. McCoy, Stephen E. Borst. - (Steroids 75 (2010) 6 (June); p. 377-389)

• PMID: 20138077
• DOI: 10.1016/j.steroids.2010.01.019

Abstract

Recently, the development of selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) has been suggested as a means of combating the deleterious catabolic effects of hypogonadism, especially in skeletal muscle and bone, without inducing the undesirable androgenic effects (e.g., prostate enlargement and polycythemia) associated with testosterone administration. 17beta-Hydroxyestra-4,9,11-trien-3-one (trenbolone; 17beta-TBOH), a synthetic analog of testosterone, may be capable of inducing SARM-like effects as it binds to androgen receptors (ARs) with approximately three times the affinity of testosterone and has been shown to augment skeletal muscle mass and bone growth and reduce adiposity in a variety of mammalian species. In addition to its direct actions through ARs, 17beta-TBOH may also exert anabolic effects by altering the action of endogenous growth factors or inhibiting the action of glucocorticoids. Compared to testosterone, 17beta-TBOH appears to induce less growth in androgen-sensitive organs which highly express the 5alpha reductase enzyme (e.g., prostate tissue and accessory sex organs). The reduced androgenic effects result from the fact that 17beta-TBOH is metabolized to less potent androgens in vivo; while testosterone undergoes tissue-specific biotransformation to more potent steroids, dihydrotestosterone and 17beta-estradiol, via the 5alpha-reductase and aromatase enzymes, respectively. Thus the metabolism of 17beta-TBOH provides a basis for future research evaluating its safety and efficacy as a means of combating muscle and bone wasting conditions, obesity, and/or androgen insensitivity syndromes in humans, similar to that of other SARMs which are currently in development.

In June 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Canoeist after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Isometheptene. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and attended the hearing of the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She explained with evidence that she had used prescribed Neosaldine for her headache whereas she mentioned this medication on the Doping Control Form.

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

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and that there are grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence. The Rapporteur considers that the Athlete demonstrated how the substance had entered her system and mentioned this medication on the Doping Control.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 30 August 2017 by majority to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 6 May 2017.

In May 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Canoeist after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Isometheptene. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and attended the hearing of the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She explained with evidence that she had used prescribed Neosaldine for her headache. She was unaware that this product contained a prohibited substance whereas she mentioned this product on the Doping Control Form.

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

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and that there are grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence. The Rapporteur considers that the Athlete demonstrated how the substance had entered her system and mentioned this medication on the Doping Control.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 30 August 2017 to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 23 April 2017.

In August 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Canoe Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the cas was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the prohibtied substance and believed that a contaminated supplement was the source of the positive test. She explained that she had health and overweight problems and had used several supplements.

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

The Rapporeur deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate the source of the positive test, nor that her supplements in question were contaminated. Further the Rapporteur considers that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 12 October 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 14 May 2017.

In May 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the basketball player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA treshold.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

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

The Rapporteur deems that the Athlete had admitted the violation and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction. Further the Rapporteur is troubled about the substantial delays between the sample collection in February 2017 and shipping of the samples to the Los Angeles Lab in April 2017. He assigned ABCD to investigate this matter and take measures.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 6 October 2017 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 21 February 2017.

The Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Canoeist after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She explained that Lasix was used as treatment for her condition. She mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form whereas she was registered as Athlete with her Federation only 1 week before the competition.

Listed on the Doping Control Form was also the prohibited substance Isometheptene. Yet, the found concentration in the Athlete's sample was below the threshold.

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

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and that there are grouns for no Significant Fault or Negligence. Further the Rapporteur considers that the Athlete was registered as new Athlete for only 1 week and had mentioned her medication on the Doping Control.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 6 October 2017 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 7 May 2017.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2017-013 Disciplinary Decision - Automobile
  November 28, 2017
• TJD-AD 2018-046 Appeal Decision - Automobile
  May 9, 2018
  
  

In August 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the automobile Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dexamphetamine (d-amphetamine, dextroamphetamine).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. In the preliminary hearings the Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use. He explained with evidence that the substance was used as treatment for his Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) for 2 years.

When the Athlete was tested in May 2017 he had also applied for a TUE and pending approval of this TUE application the Athlete requested TJD-AD to lift the provisional suspension. Thereupon in September 2017 the Athlete's TUE application was granted by ABCD and the TJD-AD accepted the Athlete's request to lift the provisional suspension.

Accordingly the TJD-AD Panel decides on 5 October 2017 by majority to lift the provisional suspension imposed on the Athlete.

In January 2016 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the archery Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Anastrozole. Following notification the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

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

The Rapporteur deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that he underwent medical treatment for his condition. Further the Rapporteur considers that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides by majority on 31 October 2017 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 1 November 2015.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2017-008 Disciplinary Decision - Automobile
  October 5, 2017
• TJD-AD 2018-046 Appeal Decision - Automobile
  May 9, 2018

In August 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dexamphetamine (d-amphetamine, dextroamphetamine). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

In the preliminary hearings the Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use. He explained with evidence that the substance was used as treatment for his Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

The Athlete had also applied for a retroactive TUE which was approved in September 2017. Following the TUE approval the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) granted on 5 October 2017 the Athlete's request to lift the provisional suspension.

In this case ABCD and TJD-AD had deliberations whether Dexamphetamine was listed as specified substance or not and whether the approval of the Athlete's retroactive TUE was valid or not.

After assessment of the case the Rapporteur deems that approval of the Athlete's TUE was valid, that his violation was not intentional and that the Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides by majority on 28 November 2017 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision. The time the Athlete already has served during the provisional suspension shall be deducted.