Preliminary data on the potential for unintentional antidoping rule violations by permitted cannabidiol (CBD) use / Ute Mareck, Gregor Fusshöller, Hans Geyer, Marilyn A. Huestis, Anja B. Scheiff, Mario Thevis. - (Drug Testing and Analysis 13 (2021) 3 (March); p. 539-549)

• PMID: 33125823
• DOI: 10.1002/dta.2959

Abstract

According to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) regulations, cannabinoids use is prohibited in competition except for cannabidiol (CBD) use. For an adverse analytical finding (AAF) in doping control, cannabinoid misuse is based on identification of the pharmacologically inactive metabolite 11-nor-delta-9-carboxy-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid (carboxy-THC) in urine at a concentration greater than 180 ng/ml. All other (minor) cannabinoids are reported as AAF when identified, except for CBD that has been explicitly excluded from the class of cannabinoids on WADA's Prohibited List since 2018. However, due to the fact that CBD isolated from cannabis plants may contain additional minor cannabinoids, the permissible use of CBD can lead to unintentional violations of antidoping regulations. An assay for the detection of 16 cannabinoids in human urine was established. The sample preparation consisted of enzymatic hydrolysis of glucuronide conjugates, liquid-liquid extraction, trimethylsilylation, and analysis by gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS). Spot urine samples from CBD users, as well as specimens obtained from CBD administration studies conducted with 15 commercially available CBD products, were analyzed, and assay characteristics such as selectivity, reproducibility of detection at the minimum required performance level, limit of detection, and limit of identification were determined. An ethical committee approved controlled single dose commercially available CBD products administration study was conducted to identify 16 cannabinoids in urine samples collected after ingestion or application of the CBD products as well as their presence in spot urine samples of habitual CBD users. Variable patterns of cannabinoids or their metabolites were observed in the urine samples, especially when full spectrum CBD products were consumed. The presence of minor cannabinoids or their metabolites in an athlete's in-competition urine sample represents a substantial risk of an antidoping rule violation.

The Ethics of Human Enhancement in Sport / Andy Miah. - (Handbook of Research on Technoethics. - 2009, Volume 1, Chapter 5, p. 69-84)

• ISBN13: 9781605660226|
• ISBN10: 1605660221|
• EISBN13: 9781605660233
• DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-022-6.ch005

Abstract

This chapter outlines a technoethics for sport by addressing the relationship between sport ethics and bioethics. The purpose of this chapter is to establish the conditions in which a technoethics of sport should be approached, taking into account the varieties and forms of technology in sport. It also provides an historical overview to ethics and policy making on sport technologies and contextualises the development of this work within the broader medical ethical sphere. It undertakes a conceptualisation of sport technology by drawing from the World Anti-Doping Code, which specifies three conditions that determine whether any given technology is considered to be a form of doping. In so doing, it scrutinizes the ‘spirit of sport’, the central mechanism within sport policy that articulates a technoethics of sport. The chapter discusses a range of sport technology examples, focusing on recent cases of hypoxic training and gene doping.

Consequences of Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Abuse in Males; Sexual and Reproductive Perspective / Giovanni Corona, Giulia Rastrelli, Sara Marchiani, Sandra Filippi, Annamaria Morelli, Erica Sarchielli, Alessandra Sforza, Linda Vignozzi, Mario Maggi. - (World Journal of Men's Health 39 (2021) e28 (1 June); p. 1-14) 

• PMID: 34169679
• DOI: 10.5534/wjmh.210021

Abstract

The real epidemiology and the possible consequences of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) use still represent a very tricky task due to the difficulties in the quantification and detection of these drugs. Chronic use of AAS, frequently combined with other illicit substances, can induce tremendous negative effects on the reproductive system, but it is also associated with an increased overall and cardiovascular mortality risk. In the present review we summarize and discuss the available evidence regarding the negative impact of AAS on the male reproductive system, providing practical suggestions to manage these problems. For this purpose a meta-analysis evaluating the effects of AAS abusers vs. controls on several hormonal, reproductive and metabolic parameters was performed. In addition, in order to overcome possible limitations related to the combined use of different AAS preparations, we also retrospectively re-analyzed data on animal models treated with supraphysiological dosage of testosterone (T), performed in our laboratory. Available data clearly indicated that AAS negatively affect endogenous T production. In addition, increased T and estradiol circulating levels were also observed according to the type of preparations used. The latter leads to an impairment of sperm production and to the development of side effects such as acne, hair loss and gynecomastia. Furthermore, a worse metabolic profile, characterized by reduced high density lipoprotein and increased low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels along with an increased risk of hypertension has been also detected. Finally sexual dysfunctions, often observed upon doping, represent one the most probable unfavorable effects of AAS abuse.

Mephentermine Misuse: An Impending Crisis among Sportspersons / Akansha Bhardwaj, Jagriti Yadav, Sidharth Arya, Rajiv Gupta. - (Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2021) 14 June; p. 1-3)

• PMID: 34126873
• DOI: 10.1080/02791072.2021.1936701

Abstract

Mephentermine is a sympathomimetic amine, frequently used as a vasopressor. It is structurally comparable to amphetamines, and World Anti-Doping Agency has prohibited its use as a performance-enhancing drug. However, its illegal consumption by several sportspersons and those appearing for physical endurance tests is a growing concern for health-care professionals. We present a case of misuse of intravenous mephentermine by a young male who abruptly increased its amount a few days prior to the sports competition and developed acute psychosis. The case report highlights the need for strict regulations for procuring methamphetamine and effective treatment strategies for managing its misuse.

Comprehensive Isotope Ratio Metabolomics : Gas chromatography Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry of urinary metabolites and exhaled breath / Laura Rodas Sánchez, Pablo Rodríguez González, J. Ignacio García Alonso. - (Analytica Chimica Acta 1170 (2021) 25 July; 338606)

• PMID: 34090584
• DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2021.338606

Abstract

We have developed an analytical procedure to measure the carbon isotopic composition of multiple compounds even when there is a partial overlap in the chromatographic profiles and applied this procedure to measure the carbon isotopic composition of different metabolites in human urine and exhaled breath. Method development and validation was performed with CRM IAEA-600 caffeine after calibration of the reference CO2 gas using a mixture of certified undecane, pentadecane and eicosane δ(13C) standards. The alternative data treatment procedure included the correction of time-lag between Faraday cup amplifiers (44 ms at mass 45 and -160 ms at mass 46), the calculation and correction of chromatographic isotope effects on each peak (isotope shifts) and the calculation of the isotope ratio for each compound using the linear regression slope procedure with data only at the top of the chromatographic peak. In that way, partial chromatographic overlap between different metabolites can be tolerated (resolution equal or higher than 1). The reproducibility (SD) of the carbon isotope composition of 93 metabolites in human urine (n = 8) from one volunteer was typically better than 0.5 δ(13C) (range 0.1-2.0 δ(13C), median 0.4 δ(13C)). The method was applied to follow the carbon isotope composition of different metabolites in human urine and exhaled breath after the oral administration of 100 mg of universally labelled 13C-glucose to another human volunteer. It was demonstrated that isotopically labelled compounds could be detected in both samples even 2 h after administration. So, the developed methodology can be applied to multiple types of samples containing a large number of partially overlapping analytes including environmental applications, anti-doping control or metabolomics studies, including the use of enriched isotope tracers.

Related case:

SAIDS 2020_10 SAIDS vs Thapelo Phora
June 18, 2021

On 18 June 2021 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decided to impose a reduced 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete Thapelo Phora after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

Analysis of the Athlete's sealed and unsealed supplement containers in two accredited laboratories revealed contradictory results as in some batches contamination was detected, yet not in some other containers. As a result two experts of SAIDS reported that the posibility of contamination could not be excluded.

In first instance the Panel accepted that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that he established on the balance of probabilities how the prohibited substance had entered his system.

Hereafter the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) appealed the Decision of 18 June 2021 with the Anti-Doping Appeal Board of South Africa. SAIDS requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a more severe sanction on the Athlete.

SAIDS contended that contamination of the Athlete's supplement was not proven on a balance of probabilities. It disputed the credibility of the Athlete and his witness statements and contended that he acted without utmost caution. 

Further SAIDS contended that in first instance the conclusions reached by the two experts and the Tribunal were erroneous regarding proving the source of the prohibited substance and the imposed sanction.

Considering the circumstances and evidence in this case the Appeal Panel concludes that the Athlete has established on a balance of probabilities that the contaminated supplement he used was the source of Stanozolol in his samples. Also there are no grounds to dismiss the Athlete's testimony as having been false, because after it was supported by objective facts.

Finally the Appeal Panel deems that the Athlete bears No Significant Fault or negligence, that his objective degree of fault is still to be light and that the imposed sanction is appropriate.

Therefore the Anti-Doping Appeal Board decides on 1 July 2021 to dismiss SAIDS' Appeal, to uphold the Appealed Decision of 18 June 2021 and to confirm the imposed sanction of 8 months.

Related case:

SAIDS 2020-10 SAIDS vs Thapelo Phora - Appeal
July 1, 2021

In May 2020 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Thapelo Phora after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

The Athlete was tested after SAIDS had received a tipp-off  about his alleged doping conduct. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and he assumed that the supplements he had used were contaminated and the source of the prohibited substance. The Athlete argued that he was tested before without issues and that he mentioned his supplements on the Doping Control Form and that he had checked his supplements before using.

Analysis of the Athlete's sealed and unsealed supplement containers in two accredited laboratories revealed contradictory results as in some batches contamination was detected, yet not in some other containers. As a result two experts of SAIDS reported that the posibility of contamination could not be excluded.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Considering the evidence in this case the Panel accepts that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that the Athlete established on the balance of probabilities how the prohibited substance entered his system.

Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 18 June 2021 to impose a reduced 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The sanction starts on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 21 May 2020, whereas the Athlete is accredited for the time already served.

In November 2019 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Lynette Burger after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

Initially the Athlete denied the intentional use, yet later she admitted the presence of the substances. She asserted that the substances were administered without her knowledge whilst she received medical treatment as a result of an accident in September 2018. She believed that these substances improved her mental wellness.

The Panel did not accept the Athlete's explanation because it does not explain the presence of the prohibited substances more than a year after the accident. Also it regards that doctors don't administer any drug into a patient without their concent. Further the Panel holds that the Athlete could not say exactly when the alleged accident took place and at any time as an professional experienced Athlete she failed to apply for a TUE.

Finally the Panel concludes that the Athlete acted with significant fault and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Panel decides on 24 March 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 November 2019.

In August 2019 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Aphiwe Odwa Dyantyi after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Metandienone and LGD-4033 (ligandrol).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the substances and explained how the substances entered his system. The Athlete's friend Yawa testified that he had purchased online the products Liquid Ligandrol and Liquid Myostine YK11 in June 2019 and mixed into a Vaso Pump pre-drink for his own consumption, yet by mistake it was consumed by the Athlete.

Both SAIDS and the Athlete tried to find the source of the prohibited substances. After the unwillingness of the online supplier they could only obtain Ligandrol and Myostine YK11 capsules, not liquid Myostine YK11. Analysis of the products in the Salt Lake City Lab confirmed the presence of Metandienone and LGD 4033. Nevertheless SAIDS did not accept the explanations provided by the Athlete and Yawa as to to presence of the prohibited substances.

The Panel considerend the testimony of Jawa and finds him a dishones and misleading witness due to the many inconsistencies and contradictions in his statements.

As a result the Panel deems that the source of the prohibited substances has not been established and that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 6 December 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 August 2019.

• SAIDS 2019_18 SAIDS vs Mahlatse Chiliboy Ralepelle
  June 25, 2020
• SARU 2011 SARU vs Mahlatse Chiliboy Ralepelle & Bjorn Basson
  January 27, 2011
• World Rugby 2014 WR vs Mahlatse Chiliboy Ralepelle
  June 16, 2015
  
  

on 25 June 2020 the SAIDS Disciplinary Panel decided to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his second anti-doping rule violation after he tested positive for the prohibited subsance Zeranol. Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the SAIDS Appeal Committee.

The Athlete argued that the Appealed Decision and findings of the Panel was erroneous and disproportional. He asserted that during the Doping Control departures occurred of the relevant Standards and Regulations whereas the report of the Doping Control Officer (DCO) was untrue.

SAIDS contended that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's A and B samples and accordingly the he had committed a second anti-doping rule violation. The Athlete failed to demonstrate with any evidence that the alleged departures would or could have caused the positive test result. Also he failed to prove that the violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substance.

Considering the evidence in this case the Appeal Committee finds that the Athlete failed to prove on a balance of probability that there was a departure of the ISTI. Whilst there may have been a departure from the ISTI, such a departure could not have caused the positive test results.

Further the Athlete failed to demonstrate on a balance of probability that there was a partial sample. The alleged omission by the DCO on the chain of custody can't be viewed as a breach, neither as a departure that would invalidate the entire doping control process.

Finally the Appeal Committee concludes that the Athlete failed to establish the origin of the prohibited substance nor that the violation was intentional. Accordingly the Appeal Committee deems that the Athlete's violation was intentional and that he had committed a second anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore on 9 November 2020 the SAIDS Appeal Committee decides to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision and the imposed sanction of 8 years.