Detection of LGD-4033 and its metabolites in athlete urine samples / Holly D. Cox, Daniel Eichner. - (Drug Testing and Analysis 9 (2017) 1 (January); p. 127-134)

• PMID: 27168428
• DOI: 10.1002/dta.1986

In summary, we have characterized the metabolites of LGD-
4033 identified in four human urine samples and compared
them to that previously identified from in vitro experiments in
human liver microsomes. Unique metabolites characterized in
each laboratory were identified in human urine with some differences.

Third-Party Testing Nutritional Supplement Knowledge, Attitudes, and Use Among an NCAA I Collegiate Student-Athlete Population / Kaila Ann Vento, Floris Cornelis Wardenaar. - (Frontiers in Sports and Active Living (2020) 15 September)

• PMID: 33345104
• PMCID: PMC7739801
• DOI: 10.3389/fspor.2020.00115

Abstract

Dietary supplements, sports foods, and ergogenic supplements are consumed to increase performance, recovery, and health, but risk contamination with illegal substances. Third-party testing programs may assist in regulating the purity and safety of supplements, yet athletes' attitudes and use of such programs are not widely reported. This study examined nutritional supplement knowledge, attitudes, and use, as well as the purchase of third-party tested supplements among university student-athletes (N = 138). Knowledge of nutritional supplements yielded a median and (IQR) score of 25% (17 to 42%). Sixteen percent of student-athletes said they were knowledgeable about supplements and their effects, p < 0.001. All athletes stated they used a dietary supplement or sports food at least once within the last 12 months, and 77% consumed at least one "claimed to be" ergogenic supplement. Sixty-six percent of student-athletes purchased nutritional supplements not provided by the athletic department. Females athletes were more likely to consume a combination of vitamins and single minerals, a larger variety of sports foods, exotic berries, herbs, maca root powder, ribose, ephedra, colostrum, and hydroxy-methyl-buterate (HMB) than males. Over 90% believed it was essential to know if a supplement was third-party tested. However, only 57% stated the supplements bought were third-party tested. No sex differences were found for nutritional supplement knowledge, attitudes, and use of third-party testing programs. Our results indicate a need to improve student-athletes' attitudes toward and knowledge of nutritional supplements, and the initiation of programs to assist in the choosing and consuming of third-party tested supplements.

COVID-19: Athlete Q&A / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2021

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has published a new Question and Answer (Q&A) document for athletes related to anti-doping and COVID-19, which is an update to the last version that the Agency published on 25 May 2020.
 
The Q&A addresses matters such as the following -- reflecting the evolving nature of the pandemic; the changing testing environment; and, the fact that a growing number of Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) have resumed normal testing.

• Testing during COVID-19
• Minimizing the risk of contracting or transmitting the virus
• Filing of whereabouts information
• Validating Therapeutic Use Exemptions
• Maintaining the integrity of the global anti-doping system
• Impact of COVID-19 vaccines
• Confidence in the anti-doping system

The Q&A will continue to be updated to provide the latest information to athletes on how testing programs may evolve by integrating further health precautions to protect both clean sport and the health of athletes and sample collection personnel alike. WADA has also provided extensive guidance to ADOs, to ensure that testing is carried out in a secure manner, while respecting regional public health guidelines. The latest such document is the Agency’s ADO Guidance for Testing during COVID-19 Pandemic of 25 November 2020. Athletes who wish to know more about what specific measures their International Sport Federation (IF) or National Anti-Doping Organization (NADO) are taking in the face of this unprecedented challenge are encouraged to contact them directly.

iNADO Update (2021) 03 (1 March)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

iNADO Community

• Annual Reports 2020
• The World Anti-Doping Agency launches E-Learning Course: ADEL for Tokyo 2020 Paralympics
• The IOC reverses the International Weightlifting Federation Amendment of its Anti-Doping Rules

Bulletin Board

• iNADO Annual General Assembly 2021
• ADOS and RADOs Capability Register: results to come soon!
• Vacancies

Athlete's Voice

• Doping: when it is not the Athlete’s Choice

People

• ”We have a created a too big-to-fail industrial antidoping
  complex, we need more pioneers.” - Matthias Kamber

Science

• Masters in “Doping Studies and Analysis of Anti-Doping Policies” offered by the UNESCO Chair reopens
• French Sociologists reveal Power Relationship between NADOs and WADA

Practical Development in Anti-Doping

• Independent Integrity Units - the Future Model in Sport?
• The World Anti-Doping Agency and Europol sign a Memorandum of Understanding to tackle Doping

Feature of the Month

• Meet Squeaky The Duck

In August 2020 the English Football Association (FA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Nathaniel Mendez-Laing after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard.

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use and explained the use of Cocaine occurred out-of-competition the evening before the sample collection.

The FA Regulatory Commission accepts that the violation was not intentional and occurrred out-of-competition in circumstances unrelated to sport performance. Further the Commission considers the principle of lex mitior for imposing a significant more lenient sanction under the WADA 2021 Code.

Therefore the FA Regulatory Commission decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 14 August 2020. Since the Athlete already has served the provisional suspension the period of ineligibility shall cease immediately.

In July 2020 the English Football Association (FA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor football player (15) for use and possesion of the Growth Hormone Somatropin. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the FA Regulatory Commission.

FA contended that a pen-type dispenser was found in the Athlete's possession and that he used this pen to inject himself with the prohibited substance. Further FA contended that the Athlete's refused to hand over his mobile phone during their investigaton.

FA asserted that the mobile phone would likely reveal damaging evidence about the use of the prohibited substance and the communications between the minor Athlete and his parents. That the Athlete's mobile phone may have been stolen hereafter is irrelavant as it was clear there was no intention to comply with the request.

Considering the evidence in this case the Commission establish that the minor Athlete was in possession of a prohibited substance in a pen which was in his bag and in his own fridge in the room of which he had the sole use. He had no TUE and there was no other acceptable justification for being in possession of it.

The Commission holds that the pen was sufficiently long in his possession for him to have known the pen was there and that he immediately took no action to dispose of it or draw it to the attention of an anti-doping organisation. Also he failed to provide his mobile phone to the FA for their investigation.

The Commission finds that the charge for Use did not stand due to insufficient evidence and it deems that there are grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence since the minor Athlete had not received any anti-doping education. The Commission concludes that the appropriate period of suspension is one of 9 months for Possession and a period of 3 months for his lack to cooperate. Both periods of ineligibility can the Athlete serve concurrently.

Therefore the FA Regulatory Commission decides on 12 January 2021 to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the minor Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 August 2020.

In June 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics has reported 2 anti-doping rule violations against the Kenyan Athlete Nicholas Kiptoo Kosgei after his samples, provided in December 2019 and in February 2020, tested positive for the prohibited substance Prednisone.

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

The Athlete explained that he had used prescribed Prednisone tablets as treatment for his medical condition and also self medicated Prednisone in February 2020. The Athlete acknowledged that he didn't mention to his doctor that he was an athlete, failed to check his medication before using, nor made an application for a TUE.

The AIU finds that the two reported anti-doping rule violation are considered as one single violation. The AIU accepts that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete established ground for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The AIU holds that the Athlete bears a low middle degree level of Fault considering that he is a relative young elite level athlete, not very experienced in anti-doping with lack of anti-doping education.

Therefore the AIU decides on 12 February 2021 to impose a 16 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the second sample collection, i.e. on 2 February 2020.

• Mr Artur Karamyan is an Executive Board Member from the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF)
• Mr Dmitry Shlyaktin is the President of RusAF

In August 2018 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of the IAAF (now: World Athletics) has reported an anti-doping rule violation of Tampering against the high jumper Danil Lysenko after the AIU had opened an investigation against the Athlete regarding his Whereabouts Failures. 

With the assistance of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) the AIU discovered that the Athlete had forged medical documents to the AIU. The AIU also concluded that RusAF officials had been involved in the provision of false explanations and forged documents to the AIU in order to explain whereabouts failures by the Athlete.  

As a result in November 2019 the AIU issued charges against Mr Artum Karamyan, Dmitry Shlyakhtin, RusAF and several other RusAF officials for committing multiple anti-doping rule violations: 

• Tampering or Attempted Tampering
• Complicity
• Refusal or failure to report an Anti-Doping Rule Violation
• Refusal or failure to cooperate with investigations.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Mr Karamyan and Shlyakhtin filed a statement in their defence and they were heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal. 

The AIU contended that both sports offials were involved in the conspiracy to fabricate expanations and documents for the Whereabouts Failures of the Athlete Danil Lysenko. Also they concerted and co-ordinated attempts by RusAF officials to obstruct the AIU’s efforts to investigate the matter. Both sports offials denied the charges and their involvement in the alleged scheme. 

The Panel concludes that there is overwhelming evidence of Mr Karamyan’s involvement in the fraudulent scheme. The Panel also finds that:

• he failed to co-operate with the AIU’s investigation;
• he deleted documents from his computer to prevent them being accessed;
• he lied to the AIU in claiming he had not been involved in the conspiracy.

Considering the evidence against Mr. Shlyakhtin the Panel concludes that the charges are proved regarding Tampering and Complicity. The Panel establish that he lied to the AIU about his own involvement and failed to co-operate with the AIU investigation. 

Therefore on 8 February 2021 the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decides that: 

• Mr Karamyan and Mr Shlyakhtin were party to a conspiracy to provide false documents and evidence and in particular:

1. was guilty of Tampering within ADR 2.5
2. was guilty of Complicity within ADR 2,9
3. was guilty of failing to report an Anti-Doping Rule Violation within ADR 5.10.2
4. was guilty of failing to co-operate with the AIU investigation under ADR 5.10.3

• to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on Mr Karamyan and Mr Shlyakhtin starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 November 2019.

Mr Alexander Parking is the Executive Director for the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF). 

In August 2018 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of the IAAF (now: World Athletics) has reported an anti-doping rule violation of Tampering against the high jumper Danil Lysenko after the AIU had opened an investigation against the Athlete regarding his Whereabouts Failures.

With the assistance of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) the AIU discovered that the Athlete had forged medical documents to the AIU. The AIU also concluded that RusAF officials had been involved in the provision of false explanations and forged documents to the AIU in order to explain whereabouts failures by the Athlete. 

As a result in November 2019 the AIU issued charges against Mr Alexander Parkin, RusAF and several other RusAF officials for committing multiple anti-doping rule violations:

• Tampering or Attempted Tampering
• Complicity
• Refusal or failure to report an Anti-Doping Rule Violation
• Refusal or failure to cooperate with investigations.

After notification Mr Parkin admitted the violations, waived his right to be heard, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU. The AIU considered the violations as a single violation and the sanction based on the anti-doping rule violation that carries the more severe sanction. 

Therefore the AIU decides on 16 February 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on Mr Alexander Parker starting on the date of the notification, i.e. on 21 November 2019.

Related case:

World Athletics 2019 WA vs Elena Orlova (1)
August 21, 2020

Ms Elena Orlova is the Senior Coordinator for the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF). 

In August 2018 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation of Tampering against the high jumper Danil Lysenko after the AIU had opened an investigation against the Athlete regarding his Whereabouts Failures. 

With the assistance of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) the AIU discovered that the Athlete had forged medical documents to the AIU. It also concluded that RusAF officials had been involved in the provision of false explanations and forged documents to the AIU in order to explain whereabouts failures by the Athlete.  

As a result in November 2019 the AIU issued charges against Ms Elena Orlova, RusAF and several other RusAF officials for committing multiple anti-doping rule violations:

• Tampering or Attempted Tampering
• Complicity
• Refusal or failure to report an Anti-Doping Rule Violation
• Refusal or failure to cooperate with investigations.

On 21 August 2020, in seperate disciplinary proceedings, the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal had already decided to impose an 6 year period of ineligibility on Ms Orlova after the AIU had established that she had failed to provide digital evidence without compelling justification during their investigations. She also had disregarded to comply with the Order ussued by the Disciplinary Tribunal in July 2019. 

In the current case Ms Orlova failed to repond to the charges against her within the set deadline regarding the reported anti-doping rule violations. Therefore the AIU deems that Ms Orlova has admitted the anti-doping rule violations, waived her right for a hearing and accepted the sanction proposed by the AIU. The AIU further considered the violations as a single violation and the sanction based on the anti-doping rule violation that carries the more severe sanction. 

Therefore the AIU decides on 16 February 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on Ms Elena Ikonnikova to be served concurrently with the already imposed 6 year period of ineligibility.