In February 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Akshata Basavant Kamati after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone, Metandienone and Stanozolol.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Panel finds that the presence of prohibited substances have been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel considers that the Athlete merely denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Panel decides on 16 August 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 February 2023.

In February 2022 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Radha Chaudhary after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clomifene.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered, yet not accepted by the Athlete. She filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She asserted that she underwent medical treatment for her condition and had used medication prescribed by her doctor.

INADA rejected the validity of the medical treatment the Athlete underwent. It contended that she had committed an anti-doping rule violation and failed to mention on the Doping Control Form her medication.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel determines that she acted negligently with her medication, nor had applied for a TUE

In view of the evidence the Panel deems that the Athlete's diagnosis and treatment of her condition was inadequate. Further the Panel considers that she failed to mention her medication on the Doping Control Form and not had accepted the provisional suspension.

Therefore the Panel decides on 7 July 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

Related case:

ADAPI 2023_27 Ajay Kumar vs INADA
September 4, 2023

In February 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the volleyball player Ajay Kumar after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He alleged with evidence that he had received medical treatments in hospitals for his condition and had used prescribed medication that probably contained the prohibited substance.

INADA contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that the violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substance whereas had acted negligently.

The Panel 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.

In view of the evidence Panel deems that the Athlete's medical information and prescribed medication did not identify the source of the prohibited substance, nor that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the Panel decided on 5 July 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 22 Februar 2023.

Related case:

ADDPI 2023_05 INADA vs Ajay Kumar
July 5, 2023

On 5 July 2023 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the volleyball player Ajay Kumar after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI). The Athlete requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained with evidence that he had received medical treatments in hospitals for his condition and had used prescribed medication that probably contained the prohibited substance.

INADA contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that the violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substance whereas had acted negligently.

The Appeal Panel 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.

In view of the evidence Panel deems that the Athlete's medical information and prescribed medication could not identify the source of the prohibited substance, nor that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the Appeal Panel decides on 4 September 2023 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision. The 4 year period of ineligibility shall start on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 22 February 2023.

On 20 January 2023 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the minor Athlete Chandra Shekhar (16) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Drostonalone.

Hereafter the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI). He requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He asserted that as a minor under the Rules he must be considered as a protected person.

He argued that he had a humble background, came from a small village, was not tested before and had never received anti-doping education. He alleged that sabotage at the Junior National Camp had caused the postive test result.

INADA dismissed the Athlete's assertions and contended that he failed to demonstrate with any evidence that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. He also cannot claim ignorance because he was an active sportsperson and sufficiently aware about anti-doping and prohibited substances.

The Appeal Panel acknowledged that the minor Athlete is a Protected Person under the Rules. Nevertheless there are no grounds for a reduced sanction in this matter as he failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that the violation was not intentional.

Furthermore the Panel determines that the Athlete as a minor was aware of anti-doping and prohibited substances. Considering his conduct the Panel finds that he had not been ignorant, rather had acted negligently.

Therefore on 23 August 2023 the Appeal Panel dismisses the Athlete's appeal and upholds the Appeal Decision of 19 January 2023. The 4 year period of ineligibility shall start on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 July.

In July 2022 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bowling Athlete Soumen Benerjee after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Eplerenone.

Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained with evidence that the substance was used as prescribed medication for his high blood pressure.

The Athlete asserted that he was unaware that his medication contained a prohibited substance, nor that he had to apply for a TUE. He argued that was never tested before and that he had mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form.

The Panel 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 Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence regarding the prescribed medication he had used.

Therefore the Panel decides on 11 July 2023 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

In July 2022 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Parathlete Aneesh Kumar Surendran Pillai after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide.

Following notification the Parathlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Parathlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained with evidence that he underwent treatment for his high blood pressure and other conditions and that he had used prescribed medication.

He asserted that he was unaware that the prescribed medication was prohibited. He had informed his doctor that he was an international athlete and he had mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form.

The Panel 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 Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence regarding the prescribed medication.

Therefore the Panel decides on 04 July 2023 to impose a 1 year period of inelgibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

Overview of regulation of dietary supplements in the USA and issues of adulteration with phenethylamines (PEAs) / Rahul S. Pawar, Erich Grundel

• Drug Testing and Analysis 9 (2017) 3 (March), p. 500-517
• Special Issue: Addressing the challenges in forensic drug chemistry
• PMID: 27259162
• DOI: 10.1002/dta.1980

Abstract

The multi-billion dollar dietary supplement industry is global in reach. The industry has been criticized for problems related to poor quality control, safety, misbranding, and adulteration. In this review, we describe how the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates dietary supplements within the framework of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), which amended the FD&C Act, gave the FDA the authority to promulgate Good Manufacturing Practices for dietary supplements and required that manufacturers provide the FDA information supporting a conclusion that the ingredients are reasonably expected to be safe if the dietary ingredients were not marketed in the USA before 15 October 1994. Recent amendments to the FD&C Act require that serious dietary-supplement-related adverse events be reported to the FDA and provide the agency with mandatory recall authority. We discuss the presence of naturally occurring (e.g. Ephedra, Citrus aurantium, Acacia) and synthetic (e.g. β-methylphenethylamines, methylsynephrine, α-ethyl-phenethylamine) biologically active phenethylamines (PEAs) in dietary supplements and of PEA drugs (e.g. clenbuterol, fenfluramine, sibutramine, lorcaserin) in weight-loss products. Regulatory actions against manufacturers of products labelled as dietary supplements that contain the aliphatic amines 1,3-dimethylamine and 1,3-dimethylbutylamine, and PEAs such as β-methylphenethylamine, aegeline, and Dendrobium illustrate the FDA's use of its authority under the FD&C Act to promote dietary supplement safety.

Analysis of octopamine in human doping control samples / Mario Thevis, Anja Koch, Gerd Sigmund, Andreas Thomas, Wilhelm Schänzer

• Biomedical Chromatography 26 (2012) 5, p. 610-615
• PMID: 21932383
• DOI: 10.1002/bmc.1705

Abstract

The biogenic amine octopamine [4-(2-amino-1-hydroxyethyl)phenol] is prohibited in sports owing to its stimulating and performance-enhancing properties. Adverse analytical findings in athletes' doping control samples commonly result from surreptitious applications; however, the occurrence of octopamine in nutritional supplements and in selected invertebrates as well as the assumption that its N-methylated analog synephrine [4-(1-hydroxyethyl-2-methylamino)phenol, not banned by anti-doping authorities but currently monitored in prevalence studies) might be converted in-vivo into octopamine have necessitated a study to investigate the elimination of synephrine and octopamine present in over-the-counter products. Urine samples collected after administration of nutritional supplements containing octopamine and/or synephrine as well as urine samples collected after therapeutic application of octopamine- or synephrine-containing drugs were analyzed using a validated solid-phase extraction-based procedure employing a weak cation exchange resin and liquid chromatographic/tandem mass spectrometric detection with electrospray ionization and multiple reaction monitoring. In the case of therapeutic octopamine application, the urinary concentration of the target compound increased from baseline levels below the lower limit of detection to 142 µg/mL, while urine samples collected after synephrine as well as dietary supplement administration did not yield any evidence for elevated renal excretion of octopamine.

In August 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Agness Jeruto Barsosio after an AIU Expert Panel concluded unanimously in April 2023 in their Joint Expert Opinion that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that she 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 10 July 2013 until 30 November 2022 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP). 

After notification the Athlete submitted an explanation with documentation for the abnormal values in his ABP. However after consideration the Expert Panel rejected the Athlete’s explanations in their 2nd Joint Expert Opinion in July 2023.

Thereupon the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The AIU deems that the anomalies in the Athlete's ABP were caused by a prohibited substance or a prohibited method and that she failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

The AIU determines that there are aggravating circumstances present in this case and that she had breached the provisional suspension because of her participation into a marathon in August 2023. Further the AIU considers that the Athlete gave an early admission and acceptance of sanction.

Therefore the AIU decides on 11 February 2022 to impose a 5 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.