Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid and Ephedrine Use Among Sportsmen

26 Mar 2004

Sporcular arasında anabolik androjenik steroid ve efedrin kullanımı =  Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid and Ephedrine Use Among Sportsmen / Erdal Vardar, Cem Kurt, S. Arzu Vardar. - (Bağımlılık Dergisi = Journal of Dependence (2004) 5; p. 20-25)

  • English abstract


Abstract

Objective: Anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) and ephedrine are used to enhance athletic performance or physical appearance among sportsmen. The use of these drugs can produce serious adverse medical and psychiatric effects. The primary purpose of the present study was to determine the rate of AAS and ephedrine containing drug use in sportsmen; and secondarily, to identify the socio-demographic features, dependence and abuse characteristics in AAS and ephedrine users.

Methods: In the city of Edirne, two-hundred forty-two sportsmen at Trakya University Sport Academy and sportsmen attending private gymnasiums were included in the study. Subjects completed a self report questionnaire for socio-demographic features, drug abuse and dependence characteristics. DSM-IV research criteria of drug abuse and dependence were used to identify the characteristics of AAS and ephedrine users over the preceding [year].

Results: The results showed that 27 (11%) of the sportsmen had used AAS and ephedrine within the last 1 [year]. Of the 27 drug users, 6 of them were female and 6 of them were still using drugs at the time of the interview. One third of the users of AAS and drugs containing ephedrine met at least one DSM-IV research criteria for dependence and abuse. AAS and ephedrine use were more prevalent in wrestlers and body builders compared to other sportsmen. Withdrawal was the most frequently reported symptom and this symptom was characterized mainly by the presence of depressive moods. 77% of the drug users reported that they had begun to use these drugs at the behest of their trainers.

Conclusion: AAS and ephedrine containing drugs use was shown to have become widespread among sportsmen in the city of Edirne. The use of these drugs may induce abuse and dependence problems among the sportsmen.

Undeclared furosemide in food supplements

23 Jul 2019

Undeclared furosemide in food supplements / Stanislava Ivanova, Kalin Ivanov. - (Biomedical Research 30 (2019) 5; p. 733-737)

  • Doi: 10.35841/biomedicalresearch.30-19-314

Abstract

Recent studies claim that dietary supplements could contain pharmaco-active ingredients or undeclared drug substances with a potential health risk. Most often these products are contaminated with anabolic steroids, ephedrine, sibutramine, diuretics and others. The intake of a contaminated dietary supplement could lead to serious health consequences (the pharmacological effect of the substances, side effects, drug interactions and many others) or other negative consequences like failure of a doping test (for professional athletes). We have performed HPLC screening for furosemide. Measurements were performed at 228 nm at a flow rate 0,8 ml/min. The mobile phase was composed of methanol and water in a ratio 80: 20 (v/v). The pH of the mobile phase was 3,3 adjusted with Phosphorous acid. Chromatographic column - Microsorb-MV 100-5 C18 150 × 4.6 mm. We have analysed 30 food supplements in the category”prostate health”. We have found undeclared furosemide in 10% of the samples.

CAS 2019_A_6587 BWF vs Kate Foo Kune

15 Dec 2020

CAS 2019/A/6587 Badminton World Federation v. Kate Jessica Foo Kune

In 2017 the Badminton World Federation (BWF) launched an investigation against the official of the Mauritius Badminton Association (MBA) Mr. Raj Gaya and established that he had diverted funds intended for the MBA into his personal bank account.

Consequently the BWF Ethics Hearing Panel decided on 21 November 2018 to impose a fine and a lifetime ban from performing any function in badminton. In this ethics case the Mauritian badminton player Kate Jessica Foo Kune and another key withness assisted the BWF in their investigation and testified against Mr. Gaya. 

In June 2019 the BWF reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Kate Foo Kune after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 1-androstenedione. On 21 October 2019 the BWF Doping Hearing Panel deemed that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation but decided not to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete due to no fault or negligence.

Here the Doping Hearing Panel determined that the Athlete more likely than not had demonstrated that she had consumed water that was deliberately spiked with the prohibited substance and victim of malicious sabotage by the MBA. 

Hereafter in November 2019 the BWF appealed the decision of its Doping Hearing Panel with the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The BWF requested the Panel to set aside the Decision of 21 October 2019 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. 

The BWF accepted that the Athlete’s violation was not intentional but contended that she failed to establish the origin of the prohibited substance. She didn’t demonstrate on the balance of probabilities how the prohibited substance had entered her system nor how an ill-intentioned individual could have deliberately spiked her food or drink with this prohibited substance. 

The BWF argued that it is willing to accept any new evidence, and that it is open to re-evaluate its position regarding such new evidence, that would allow the Athlete to demonstrate that sabotage took place, or any other mitigating circmumstances. 

The Athlete explained why an accidental contamination of her supplements or her food and water consumed during the Championships in Nigeria was not possible. Instead she submitted that the positive test resulted by way of the malicious sabotage by the MBA or Mr. Gaya, or an associate of either. In particular, she asserted that her team backpack had been left out-of-sight several times during the Championships in Nigeria and that the most likely explanation for the positive test is that her water was intentionally spiked without her knowing during this period. 

The Panel regards that the Parties in this case did not dispute that the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation was unintentional. It also finds that it is not absolutely necessary for the Athlete to show the origin of the prohibited substance to establish absence of intent.

Nevertheless the Panel deems that the Athlete didn’t provide sufficient evidence that supports her assertion while the scientific analysis of an independent expert witness underminded the allegation of sabotage.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to establish on a balance of probabilities how the prohibited substance entered her system. Consequently andy plea of no (significant) fault or negligence must be rejected. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 December 2020 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the Badminton World Federation against the decision rendered by the BWF Doping Hearing Panel on 21 October 2019, is upheld.

2.) The decision issued by the Badminton World Federation Doping Hearing Panel on 21 October 2019, is partially set aside.

  • Ms. Kate Jessica Foo Kune has violated Article 2.1 of the BWF Anti-Doping Regulations and committed an anti-doping rule violation.
  • Ms. Kate Jessica Foo Kune is suspended for two (2) years as from the date of this decision in accordance with Article 10.1 of the BWF Anti-Doping Regulations, with credit given for any period of ineligibility already served.
  • The results obtained by Ms. Foo Kune during the All African Championships on 28 April 2019 shall automatically be disqualified, pursuant to Article 9 of the BWF Anti-Doping Regulations.

3.) The present arbitration procedure shall be free of charge, except for the CAS Court Office Fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss francs), which has already been paid by the Badminton World Federation and is retained by the CAS.

4.) Each party shall bear its own legal and other costs.

5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

ST 2020_05 DFSNZ vs Sean Winters

18 Dec 2020

In September 2020 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter Sean Winters after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Hebtaminol and Octodrine. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted a provisional suspension and filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete suggested that the products Redcon1 Total Wars and Wizard Nutrition Fireblast Ultra he had used might have contained Octodrine. He had determined, as confirmed by the manufacturers, that previous versions of their products contained Octodrine while this substance was listed on both products named as aminoisoteptaine and Juglans Regia. The current versions of the products do not contain Octodrine anymore.

The Athlete asserted he was tested before without issues. He had researched the ingredients of his supplements at the relevant time before using and neither of these supplements had the prohibited subsances listed. DFSNZ accepted the Athlete's evidence and deemed that the violation was not intentional.

The parties in this case reached an agreement and filed a joint memorandum in relation to the sanction for approval into a decision of the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand. The Tribunal considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission, that the violation was not intentional and that No Significant Fault or Negligence had been established.

Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 18 December 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 19 July 2020.

UKAD 2020 Adam Carr vs UKAD - Appeal

3 Dec 2020

On 30 July 2020 the National Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the rugby player Adam Carr after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. Here the Panel deemed that the young amateur rugby player was not a cheat but manifestly disregarded the risk of ingesting the product Clenox (Clenbuterol) without conducting any research before using.

Hereafter in July 2020 the Athlete appealed the Decision of 30 July 2020 with the National Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal.

The Athlete argued that already had been established that he had not used the prohibited substance deliberately, that his anti-doping knowledge as an amateur was almost non-existend while there are no grounds to conclude that he manifestly disregarded a significant risk.

The Appeal Panel did not accept the Athlete's arguments and considers that he failed to mention Clenox on the Doping Control Form and ignored the negative side effect of this product as a result of using 2-3 tablets daily since September 2019.

The Athlete acknowleded that he stopped using this product at the time he had received message about the possibility of him turning professional. Further his personal trainer testified that he only had recommended fat burning supplements, not the product Clenox.

The Appeal Panel agrees with the conclusion of the Tribunal  in First Instance that even if the Athlete did not know for sure whether or not the anti-doping regime applied to amateur players he must have known that there was a signifiant risk that it did.

Therefore the Appeal Tribunal decides on 3 December 2020 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Decision of 30 July 2020 on the National Anti-Doping Panel.

UKAD 2020 UKAD vs Adam Carr

30 Jul 2020

Related case:

UKAD 2020 Adam Carr vs UKAD - Appeal
December 3, 2020

In February 2020 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the young amateur rugby player Adam Carr after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that unrelated to rugby training he had privat gym sessions and that he had used a fat burner Clenox (Clenbuterol) recommended by his personal trainer and provided by a friend.

He had not been provided with anti-doping education and failed to research the product. He denied that he stopped using the product because rugby training was due to start in January 2020.

The Athlete's personal trainer testified that he only had recommended fat burner supplements and his friend confirmed that he had provided the product. He was unaware that the product was illegal nor that had he used it himself.

The Panel finds that under the Rules the Athlete's conduct was intentional although he had no intention to cheat and that he was unaware that using the the product would lead to an anti-doping rule violation.

The Panel considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission and that he had received no anti-doping education. The Panel establishes that he failed to mention the product Clenox on the Doping Control Form, he ignored the side effects of the product and manifestly disregarded the risk of ingesting it.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 30 July 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 9 December 2019.

UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Darren Eales

11 Nov 2020

Related case:

UKAD 2015 SRU vs Darren Eales
June 19, 2015

In July 2019 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Darren Eales after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

Previously in June 2015 a 2 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete after he tested positive for multiple prohibited substances.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel. Serious health problems effected the Athlete's ability to participate in the proceedings resulting in extentions and postponements of the hearings. Ultimately the Panel decided to press on and to settled the case based on the written submissions of the parties.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission and denied the intentional use of Stanozolol. He claimed that the positive test was the result of a contaminated supplement he had used.

UKAD contended that the Athlete had committed a second anti-doping rule violation and had failed to provide any submissions and/or evidence to substantiate his claims relating to a lack of intention and the consumption of a contaminated product.

The Panel establishes that after delays in the proceedings the Athlete failed to produce any evidence that demonstrates that the prohibited substance was in a contaminated product, that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. Further the Panel considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission and that this was his second anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 11 November 2020 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 23 February 2019.

UFC 2019 Chi Lewis-Parry vs USADA

4 Dec 2020

In November 2019 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the English MMA Athlete Chi Lewis-Parry after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Boldenone, Drostanolone, Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone and Stanozolol. In March 2020 USADA reported a second doping rule violation against the Athlete for Tampering with aggravating circumstances.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the UFC Arbitration Panel.

In this case there were delays in the proceedings attributed to the Athlete. He filed complaints against USADA; he requested for extentions; he failed timely to submit his supplements for testing; he requested again for a continuance of the hearing due to COVID-19.

Analysis of the Athlete's supplement USN Muscle Fuel in the London Lab in July 2020 showed no prohibited substances. However analysis of another container of USN Muscle Fuel in the London Lab in October 2020 revealed the presence of Stanozolol in an extreme high concentration.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and accepted the presence of these substances in his samples claiming that his use of a contaminated supplement had caused the positve test.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that USADA's charges for Presence and Tampering holds and that the Athlete's charges against USADA appeared to be mere allegations of positive misstatement.

The Sole Arbitrator establishes that there are indeed aggravating circumstances in this case due to the Athlete's conduct and because of the inconsistencies in the statements and evidence the he provided:

  • he was granted several extensions;
  • he failed fimely to submit his supplements for testing to the London Lab;
  • very late he submitted a second container to the London Lab in September 2020 two weeks before the scheduled hearing.
  • he failed to explain the circumstances regarding the second container he had found and submitted for testing;
  • the second container appeared to be manufactured after he was already tested positive;
  • there wasn't any evidence that he he had purchased this  container;
  • only manual manipulation could explain the extreme high concentraton of Stanozolol found in this second container;
  • his negative COVID-19 tests in September 2020 appeared to be conducted before he claimed that he had contracted COVID-19.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that it is clear that the Athlete had provided false evidence and attempted to obstruct the Arbitration. Accordingly a proportionate and approprate sanction is justified due to these aggravating circumstances.

Therefore the Sole Arbitrator of the UFC Arbitration Panel decides on 4 December 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 1 November 2019.

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Marina Arzamasova

27 Nov 2020

In August 2019 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Belarussian Athlete Marina Arzamasova after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance LGD-4033 (ligandrol).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and asserted with evidence that the positive test was the result of contaminated supplements she had used.

Analysis of her supplements in the Minsk Lab revealed the presence of LGD-4033 in 3 samples out of 6 samples of nutritional supplements. In addition the Lausanne Lab confirmed that LGD-4033 was found in the 3 bottles of the supplement she claimed she had had used in the months prior to the sample collection.

The AIU requested the Panel to impose a 4 year period of ineligibiltiy and contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, neither how the prohibited substance had entered her system or the source of the positive test. The AIU deemed that the Athlete provided no evidence she had purchased the ingested contaminated supplement Epic Labs BCAA.

In addition the AIU argued that the Athlete failed to mention this supplement on the Doping Control Form even though she meticulously listed a number of other medication and suppements on this Form. Also the concentrations of LGD-4033 found in her samples were not consistent with the claimed daily use of the contaminated supplement.

Considering the circumstances and evidence in the case the Panel concludes that Athlete failed to establish on a balance of probabilities not only te existence and intake of a contaminated supplement, but also the causal link between the ingestion of such supplement and the positive test results.

The Panel was not persuaded that the Athlete indeed used the contaminated supplement and, even if that was the case, that the positive test could haven been caused by the ingestion of this contaminated supplement. She failed to mention the supplements on her Doping Control Form nor provided evidence of purchase of these supplements.

Further the Panel agrees that the concentration levels of LGD-4033 found in the Athlete's samples were not consistent with a contamination scenario. Finally the Panel considers that there were substantial delays in the hearing process not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the Panel decides on 27 November 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting backdated on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 29 July 2019.

World Athletics 2019 WA vs Bralon Taplin

23 Dec 2020

On 18 May 2020 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decided to uphold the sanction of 4 years (CAS 2019/A/6612) imposed on the Grenadian sprinter Bralon Taplin by the Caribbean RADO for evading sample collection in April 2019.

In March 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) for World Athletetics reported a new anti-doping rule violatin against the Athlete for his Whereabouts filing failures and 3 missed tests within a 12 month period. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and the AIU requested for a hearing.

In his submission to the AIU the Athlete explained the circumstances in which the 3 Missed Tests had occurred. After a preliminary meeting and several extensions the Athlete in December 2020 admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing and accepted the proposed sanction by the AIU.

Regarding the 3rd missed Test in November 2019 the AIU considered the unprecedented nature of the circumstances that occurred and holds that the Athlete could reasonably have been distracted from his whereabouts responsibilities on 25 November 2019 justifying a reduction in his period of ineligibility.

Therefore the AIU decides on 23 december 2020 to impose an additional 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his second anti-doping rule violation starting on the date the current imposed 4 year period of ineligibility will end, i.e. on 29 September 2023.

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