Related case:

SAIDS 2019_07 SAIDS vs Tega Odele
July 22, 2019

On 22 July 2019 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Metenolone.

In first instance the Panel deemed that the Athlete failed to demonstrate with any evidence that the violation was not intentional, nor how the prohibited substance had entered his system. Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision of 22 July 2019 with the SAIDS Appeal Committee.

The Athlete argued that in first instance the Panel failed to assist the unrepresented Athlete, SAIDS had not established that there was an anti-doping rule violation, nor had it discharged the required burden of proof. He had no funds to test the B sample and the imposed sanction was erroneous.

SAIDS contended that the Athlete was informed on numerous occasions of his right to legal representation by SAIDS whereas the Athlete had received anti-doping education. Although the first Doping Control Form got wet the Athlete had confirmed on the second Doping Control Form its contend while this matter could not have caused the positive test result. Also the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor how it had entered his system.

The Appeal Committee establishes that the Athlete was duly informed about his right of legal representation and that the Panel had assisted the Athlete during the proceedings where the Athlete had no representation. The Committee holds that SAIDS indeed had discharged the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation had occurred.

The Appeal Committee finds that the Athlete failed to explain the positive test result, neither had he demonstrated that there was any cross-contamination that could have caused the positive test result. The Committee agrees that a wet Doping Control Form could not have caused the Athlete's positive test result.

Finally the Appeal Committee concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor the origin of the prohibited substance.

Therefore the SAIDS Appeal Committee decides on 9 March 2021 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision and the imposed sanction of 4 years.

In May 2019 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Nigerian Athlee Tega Odele after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Metenolone.

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 denied the intentional use of the subsance and could not explain how it entered his system. He had only used supplements provided by his coach to him and other athletes. He assumed that the positive test was the result of both a clinical and herbal treatment he had received in Nigeria.

The Athlete did not accept the test result and alleged that his sample was contaminated during the chain of custody. He acknowledged that he had not checked the supplements provided by his coach before using.

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 Athlete failed to demonstrate with any evidence that the violation was not intentional, nor how the prohibited substance had entered his system.

The Panel concludes that as an experienced International and Olympic Athlete, he did not show that he acted with a duty of care or exercised the utmost caution to ensure that he did ingest any substances that are on the prohibited list.

Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 22 July 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 May 2019.

Related cases:

• IAAF 2018 IAAF vs Reneilwe Aphane
  May 2, 2019
• SAIDS 2018_07 SAIDS vs Retshidisitswe Mlenga
  July 1, 2019
  
  

On 1 July 219 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Tribunal Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Retshidisitswe Mlenga after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

In First Instance the Panel deemed that the Athlete failed to explain how the prohibited substance had entered his system. He also provided contradictory evidence, and he appeared to be an unreliable witness.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision of 1 July 2019 with the SAIDS Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal. The Athlete alleged that the Appealed Decision was erroneous and he requested for a redcued sanction.

The Athlete argued that the violation was not intentional, that he lacked the intention to cheat, nor acted with Significant Fault. He asserted that he was a young naïve amateur athlete, just turned 18, who trusted his coach. He used the amino acids, provided by his coach, without question or further investigation, instead of attending a medical facility when he felt ill.

SAIDS requested the Appeal Panel to reject the Athlete's appeal and contended that he failed to demonstrate that he lacked intention to cheat, neither proved the source of the prohibited substance on a balance of probabilities.

Considering the circumstances in this case the Appeal Panel concludes that there are no grounds to annul the Appealed Decision and to reduce the imposed sanction.
Further the Appeal Panel finds that the Athlete has not been fully forthcoming in regard to stating the whole truth of what he ingested and the source thereof.

In this regard the Appeal Panel deems that:

• The Prohibited Substance is a Non-Specified substance and is prohibited both in and out of competition.
• SAIDS is not required to prove anything more than ‘presence’ and no substantive factors have been advanced by the Athlete to suggest that there is a basis for reducing the period of ineligibility.
• The Athlete failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the violation was not intentional.
• Reducing the period of the sanction would be arbitrarily unfair to other athletes, who were minors at the time of testing, who were also from disadvantaged backgrounds and who also stood to lose their scholarships to various universities as well as their sponsorships.
• It is only when the Anti-Doping Rules are strictly applied that Athletes will begin to take what they ingest seriously and strive to perform at their best without the assistance of chemically prohibited substances and ensure the integrity of sport.

Therefore the SAIDS Appeal Panel decides on 23 January 2020 that:

1. The Appeal is dismissed;
2. The period of ineligibility shall be four years and the decision of the Tribunal is upheld;
3. In addition, that the Athlete receives a credit for the period of provisional suspension as well as the period of ineligibility already served with effect from the date of his provisional suspension
4. Each party to pay its own costs in regard to the Appeal.

In September 2019 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) for World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the South African Athlete Carina Horn after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Ibutamoren and LGD-4033 (ligandrol).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Analysis of the Athlete's supplement Mutant Madness in the Bloemfontein Lab and again in the Lausanne Lab revealed the presence of LGD-4033 in both an unsealed and a sealed bottle of Mutant Madness. Analysis of other supplements in question in the Lausanne Lab showed the presence of Ibutamoren in a sealed bottle of Amplify Whey.

The Athlete argued that she had ingested two contaminated supplements, Mutant Madness and Amplify Whey, which were analysed by two different WADA-accredited laboratories and which

• (i) detected LGD-4033 in the unsealed bottle of Mutant Madness with lot number #50381 used by the Athlete
• (ii) detected LGD-4033 in a sealed bottle of Mutant Madness with the same lot number #50381 and
• (iii) detected Ibutamoren in a sealed bottle of Amplify Whey which had been purchased form the same store that the Athlete had previously purchased the Amplify Whey that she used.

In support of her explanations the Athlete filed witness statements and an expert report about her use of the products Mutant Madness and Amplify Whey at the relevant time.

Finally in June 2021 the Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the prohibited substances, waived her right for a hearing and accepted the sanction proposed by the AIU. She asserted that she had demonstrated how the substances had entered her system. 

Independent scientific advise for the AIU confirmed that the Athlete's explanations were consistent with the presence of the substances in the samples. As a result the AIU concludes that the Athlete's has established that the probable source of the LGD-4033 and Ibutamoren are the products Mutant Madness and Amplify Whey.

Therefore the AIU decides on 10 September 2021 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 September 2019.

Between November 2018 and July 2021 three Colombian weightlifters affiliated with the Colombian Weightlifting Federation (FEDEPESAS) tested positive for prohibited substances and a sanction of 4 years was imposed. These three violations occurred during the Qualification Period of the upcoming Tokyo Olympic Games.

Consequently the International Testing Agency (ITF), on behalf of the IWF, charged the FEDEPESAS of breaching the IWF ADR and the IWF Olympic Qualification System (OQS) regarding the Tokyo Olympic Games.

The FEDEPESAS did not challenge the alleged breaches in June 2021 and agreed on the consequences without the need for a dispute before the IWF Independent Member Federations Sanctioning Panel. In July 2021 the ITA and the FEDEPESAS reached a settlement Agreement and they requested the IWF Panel to issue a consent Decision.

Therefore the IWF Panel decides on 5 July 2021:

1. Member Consequences applicable to the FEDEPESAS are as follows:

• Withdrawal of 5 out of the 8 quotas for the Tokyo Olympic Games, leaving the FEDEPESAS with 2 male quotas and 1 female quota.
• For the duration of one year (starting on 29 June 2021 when the terms have been agreed and until 29 June 2022):
• withdrawal of the right to organize IWF Events, IWF Congress, IWF Executive Board meetings, meetings of IWF Commissions and Committees (if the right to organize such event taking place during the period of sanction has been allocated to the Member Federation prior to the notification of the sanction, the event shall be considered as revoked);
• exclusion from participation in the IWF Congress with voting rights;
• withdrawal of the right to submit proposals for inclusion on the Agenda of the IWF Congress;
• withdrawal of the right to take part in and benefit from the IWF Development program apart from Education and anti-doping seminars.

2. The FEDEPESAS ensures that its Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel attend two anti-doping education sessions hosted by the ITA (in Spanish) within the next 12 months and to bear the ITA’s related costs and the costs of ensuring that the Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel are available, if any;

3. The FEDEPESAS makes its Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel aware of the ITA’s Reveal confidential reporting platform, the FEDEPESAS posts a link on its website to the ITA’s Reveal platform, and the FEDEPESAS Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel download the ITA’s Reveal reporting app (once available);

4 The FEDEPESAS ensures that it shares the dates and locations of training camps of the National Team’s Athletes with the ITA on a timely basis;

5. The FEDEPESAS makes its Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel available for an interview with the ITA, upon ITA’s simple request;

6. The FEDEPESAS cannot apply for a conditional lifting of the suspension as per 12.6.1 Article IWF ADR.

7. No fine is to be imposed against the FEDEPESAS given the cost saving of this settlement procedure and absence of appeal procedure.

8. The FEDEPESAS accepts to waive any and all rights or claims for damages in the scope of this proceeding.

Between November 2018 and July 2021 four Vietnamese weightlifters affiliated with the Vietnam Weightlifting Federation (WFV) tested positive for prohibited substances and a sanction of 4 years was imposed. These four violations occurred during the Qualification Period of the upcoming Tokyo Olympic Games.

Consequently the International Testing Agency (ITF), on behalf of the IWF, charged the WFV of breaching Article 4(a) of the IWF Olympic Qualification System (OQS) regarding the Tokyo Olympic Games. The case was referred to the IWF Independent Member Federations Sanctioning Panel.

The IWF contended that 4 anti-doping rule violations had been established during the Qualification Period and that the WFV as Member Federation had violated the IWF OQS Rules. The IWF requested the Panel to reduced the WFV's quota places from participation in the Tokyo Olympic Games.

The WFV asserted that due to limited funding it had not control of the four athletes at the time they committed the anti-doping rule violations. Further the WFV argued that allowing the WFV to compete at the Olympic Games would result in more funding for the development of weightlifting in Vietnam.

Considering the evidence the IWF Panel concludes that the WFV has breached Article 4(a) of the IWF OQS due to 4 anti-doping rule violations occurred during the Qualification Period. The Panel finds that the WFV should not be suspended from participation in the Olympic Games, yet to reduce the WFV's quota places.

Therefore the IWF Paneld decides on 4 July 2021:

1. The Weightlifting Federation of Vietnam has committed a breach of Article 4(a) of the IWF OQS.
2. The Weightlifting Federation of Vietnam’s quotas for the Tokyo Olympic games shall be reduced from six to two (one 1 male and 1 female).

iNADO Update (2021) 09 (6 September)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

iNADO Community

• Two Athlete Focussed Updates from Drug Free Sport New Zealand
• UKAD Renews Partnership with The Drug Control Centre to Test Athlete Samples
• Eighth Session of the Conference of Parties to the International Conference against Doping in Sport scheduled for 26-28 October, 2021

Bulletin Board

• Reminder: Clean Sport Education Repository Webinar
• Reminder to apply for 2022 WADA Standing Committees

Athlete's Voice

• "Challenges of Paralympic athletes are different, as should
  be their anti-doping education."

Science

• Research Paper analyzes the Strengths and the Weaknesses of the 2021 WADA Code
• The Number of Records broken in Summer Olympic Games is decreasing

Practical Development in Anti-Doping

• iNADO's Survey about Substances of Abuse
• New Practical Information on the Use of Natural Products and Supplements

Feature of the Month

• TonTon visits iNADO

iNADO Partners & Sponsors

• New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

Performance- and image-enhancing drug use in the community: use prevalence, user demographics and the potential role of wastewater-based epidemiology / Katja M. Shimko, Timothy Piatkowski, Kevin V. Thomas, Naomi Speers, Lance Brooker, Ben J. Tscharke, Jake W. O'Brien. - (Journal of Hazardous Materials 419 (2021) 5 October; 126340)

• PMID: 34171672
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126340

Abstract

Performance- and image-enhancing drug (PIED) misuse is a significant public health issue. Currently, seizure data, surveys, anti-doping testing, and needle service provider data are used to estimate PIED use in populations. These methods are time consuming, single point-in-time measurements that often consist of small sample sizes and do not truly capture PIED prevalence. Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) has been used globally to assess and monitor licit and illicit drug consumption within the general community. This method can objectively cover large populations as well as specific subpopulations (gyms, music festivals, prisons), and has potential as a complementary monitoring method for PIED use. Information obtained through WBE could be used to aid public health authorities in developing targeted prevention and education programmes. Research on PIED analysis in wastewater is limited and presents a significant gap in the literature. The focus is on anabolic steroids, and one steroid alternative currently growing in popularity; selective androgenic receptor modulators. This encompasses medical uses, addiction, prevalence, user typology, and associated public health implications. An overview of WBE is described including its benefits, limitations and potential as a monitoring method for PIED use. A summary of previous work in this field is presented. Finally, we summarise gaps in the literature, future perspectives, and recommendations for monitoring PIEDs in wastewater.

Geographical heterogeneity of doping-related knowledge, beliefs and attitude among 533 Youth Olympics participants / Karsten Königstein, Katharina Gatterer, Kathrin Weber, Arno Schmidt-Trucksäss, Stéphane Tercier, Cornelia Blank. - (Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport (2021) 15 June)

• PMID: 34176766
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2021.06.001

Abstract

Objectives: Doping-related knowledge, beliefs and attitude influence adolescent athletes' susceptibility to prohibited performance-enhancing substances. They might be modified by different cultural backgrounds. This study's aim was to analyse the geographical heterogeneity of doping-related knowledge, beliefs and attitude among adolescent elite athletes.

Design: Cross-sectional study.

Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to athletes participating in the Winter Youth Olympic Games 2020 in Switzerland. Main outcomes ('subjective and actual knowledge', 'beliefs' and 'attitude') were stratified for athletes' region of origin. Geographical heterogeneity was tested with a two-way analysis of variance, and two multiple regression analyses were conducted to assess independent associations of knowledge, age and athletes' geographical region with doping-related beliefs and attitude.

Results: 533 athletes (54% females, mean age: 16.0 ± 1.0 years), completed the questionnaire (response rate: 33%). Actual knowledge was moderate-to-good (9.2 ± 2.9 correct answers out of 13), and scores of attitude and beliefs showed favourable patterns. Considerable geographical heterogeneity was found for knowledge (p < 0.001), beliefs (p = 0.004) and attitude (p < 0.001). Higher subjective knowledge and actual knowledge were favourably associated with attitude (β = -0.096, p = 0.049; β = -0.316, p < 0.001) and beliefs (β = 0.120, p = 0.016; β = 0.212, p < 0.001), independent of age and geographical region.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates considerable geographical heterogeneity of doping-related knowledge, beliefs and attitude, which are three essential target factors of doping prevention in adolescent elite athletes. This evidence should encourage medical doctors and other professionals to change their educative anti-doping approach from teaching knowledge about negative consequences into investigating and forming a young athlete's mind-set.

Coupling Complete Blood Count and Steroidomics to Track Low Doses Administration of Recombinant Growth Hormone : An Anti-Doping Perspective / Luca Narduzzi, Corinne Buisson, Marie-Line Morvan, Alexandre Marchand, Michel Audran, Yves Le Bouc, Emmanuelle Varlet-Marie, Magnus Ericsson, Bruno Le Bizec, Gaud Dervilly. - (Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences (2021) 10 June)

• PMID: 34179089
• PMCID: PMC8222787
• DOI: 10.3389/fmolb.2021.683675

Abstract

Growth Hormone (GH) under its human recombinant homologue (rhGH), may be abused by athletes to take advantage of its well-known anabolic and lipolytic properties; hence it is prohibited in sports by the World Anti-Doping Agency. Due to the rapid turnover of rhGH, anti-doping screening tests have turned to monitor two endocrine biomarkers (IGF-I and P-III-NP), but unfortunately, they show population-wise variability, limiting the identification rate of rhGH users. Previous studies have evidenced the numerous effects of GH on human physiology, especially in hematopoiesis and steroidogenesis. In this work, aiming to discover novel physiological rhGH biomarkers, we analyzed the complete blood count and the steroidomics profile of healthy, physically active, young males treated either with EPO + rhGH or EPO + placebo. The time-trends of these two physiological routes have been analyzed through geometric trajectory analysis (GTA) and OPLS-DA. Individuals supplemented with micro-doses of rhGH exhibited different leukopoietic and steroidal profiles compared to the control population, suggesting a role of the rhGH in both pathways. In the article, hypotheses on the observed differences are discussed according to the most recent literature and compared to results in animal models. The use of leukopoietic and steroidal biomarkers together with endocrine biomarkers (IGF-1 and P-III-NP) allows to correctly classify over 98% of samples with no false positives, miss-classifying only one single sample (false negative) over a total of 56; a promising result, if compared to the current rhGH detection strategies.