In April 2017 NADO Flanders has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for prohibited anabolic substances and Tamoxifen.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete was heard for the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission where he admitted the intentional use of the substances.

The Disciplinary Commission finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordinghly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Commission deems that the violation was intentional.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 10 July 2017 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 April 2017.

Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne partially by the Athlete.

In April 2017 NADO Flanders has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete was heard for the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission where he admitted the purchase and intentional use of Nandrolone.

The Disciplinary Commission finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordinghly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Commission deems that the violation was intentional.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 10 July 2017 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 April 2017.

Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne partially by the Athlete.

In April 2017 NADO Flanders has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Cocaine and Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

After notification the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission and a Decision was rendered in absentia of the Athlete.

The Disciplinary Commission finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 27 June 2017 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 April 2017.

Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne by the Athlete.

In April 2017 NADO Flanders has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Metandienone and Stanozol.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission. The Athlete admitted the purchase and intentional use of the substances for the purpose of fitness training.

The Disciplinary Commission finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Commission deems that the violation was intentional.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 30 May 2017 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 April 2017.

Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne partially by the Athlete.

In March 2017 NADO Flanders has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after he was tested positive for multiple prohibited substances: 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone), Drostanolone, Mesterolone, Stanozolol and Tamoxifen (Selective estrogen receptor modulators). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission.

The Athlete fully admitted the intentional use of the substances and explained in detail that these substances were supplied to him by two fitness centre managers. NADO Flanders regards that the Athlete through his statements provided substantial assistance.

The Disciplinary Commission finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Commission deems that the violation was intentional and that a reduced fine is appropriate due to the substantial assistence the Athlete provided.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 30 May 2017 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 March 2017.

iNADO Update (2021) 06 (5 July)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

iNADO Community

• Drug Free Sport New Zealand supported to deal with new Doping Challenges
• Germany adds Leniency Program to Anti-Doping Law
• Annual Reports 2020
• WADA invites Stakeholders to nominate Candidates for 2022 Standing Committee Member Vacancies

Bulletin Board

• iNADO Webinar: Best Practices in Social and Scientific Research with Guest Speakers from PCC and UKAD
• Interactive Visualization of Capability Register Results v2.0 (Power Bi)
• Vacany at Commonwealth Games 2022

Athlete's Voice

• "Anti-Doping can only benefit from independent and professional Athlete Representations"

People

• Allison Wagner, new Director of Athlete & International Relations of USADA introduces herself
• Kum Pyoung Kim joins KADA as Secretary-General

Science

• New Paper investigates Attitudes towards and susceptibility to doping in Spanish Elite and National Standard Track and Field Athletes
• Autobiographies of Cyclists sanctioned for Performance-Enhancing Drug Use analysed for deceptive Communication Techniques

Practical Development in Anti-Doping

• WADA announces further Rise in Global Testing Figures in lead-up to Tokyo 202

Feature of the Month

• iNADO's #MembersWednesday on Twitter

iNADO Partners & Sponsors

• New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

CAS 2019/A/6148 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Mr Sun Yang & Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA)

Related cases:

• CAS 2019_A_6148 WADA vs Sun Yang & FINA - Annulled Award
  February 28, 2020
• FINA 2019 FINA vs Sun Yang
  January 3, 2019
• Swiss Federal Court 4A_287_2019 Sun Yang vs WADA & FINA
  January 6, 2020
• Swiss Federal Court 4A_413_2019 Sun Yang vs WADA & FINA
  October 28, 2019

On the evening of 4 September 2018, an attempt was made to collect blood and urine samples from the Athlete Sun Yang at the Athlete’s residence compound. This was an out-of-competition (OOC) sample collection mission. The mission was authorized by FINA as the Testing Authority. FINA has Results Management Authority. However, International Doping Tests and Management (IDTM) was the Sample Collection Authority. IDTM attempted to collect blood and urine from the Athlete during the Athlete’s previously selected ‘60-minute’ time slot from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on September 4, 2018.

No blood or urine samples were ever analysed as a result of the OOC mission conducted by IDTM. Blood was collected but the blood container was destroyed and the collected blood was never sent to the relevant WADA accredited laboratory. The blood remains in the possession of the Athlete’s doctor. No urine sample was provided by the Athlete. It is safe to describe the entire OOC mission as problematic, highly unusual and, at times, confrontational. Both FINA and the Athlete offer vastly different explanations regarding what happened, why the evening unfolded as it did and, critically, what consequences must result.

Consequently on 28 February 2020 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decided to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Sun Yang for committing a second anti-doping rule violation.

The CAS Panel concluded that the Athlete failed to establish that he had a compelling justification to act as he did and forego the Doping Control and accordingly that the Athlete committed a tampering violation under Article 2.5 FINA DC.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS Award with the Swiss Federal Court. One of the Athlete's grievances was based on evidence of bias on the part of the presiding arbitrator by reasons of prior comments the presiding arbitrator had made on social media. The arbitrator in question spontaneously resigned shortly. The two remaining arbitrators on the CAS Panel also withdrew and on 22 December 2020 the CAS Award was annulled. A new second CAS Panel was arranged with an all new membership, charged with rehearing this case.

At first the Panel establishes that it has jurisdiction in this Appeal, that it was filed by an authorized representative and that it is admissible.

The Athlete and FINA asserted that the attempted sample collection on 4–5 September 2018 violated numerous provisions of the ISTI, violated the Athlete’s fundamental human rights, and were therefore null and void. These defects fully justified the Athlete to refuse to submit to a defective and unjust process.

WADA contended that the attempted sample collection on 4–5 September 2018 complied with all relevant provisions of the ISTI. Upon meeting the Athlete, the DCO notified the Athlete by showing a Letter of Authority from FINA, as well as a copy of her IDTM Doping Control Officer card. Although they were not required to do so under the ISTI, the DCA and BCA also showed valid identification documents. The DCO’s documents sufficed, in WADA’s view, to establish that the Sample Collection Personnel, under her leadership, was duly authorized and credentialed. The Athlete’s refusal to be tested despite having been properly notified by the DCO placed him in violation of Articles 2.3 and 2.5 of the FINA DC.

Considering the facts of what happened on 4-5 September 2018 at the Athlete’s residence compound the Panel assesses that the Athlete was told numerous times the samples had to leave with the DCO. He refused this. A last-ditch bid at persuading the Athlete’s entourage, perhaps ill-advised, ended in a sample’s destruction. The DCO multiple times tried to notify the Athlete of the potential consequences that this could entail. At the very least, these facts should have created questions in the Athlete’s mind whether his chosen course of action was correct.

As a result the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete tampered with any Part of Doping Control, at latest beginning with his refusal to allow the blood samples to leave with the Sample Collection Personnel. The Panel is also comfortably satisfied that the Athlete refused and failed to submit to sample collection.

The Panel regards that this is the Athlete's second offense and that under the 2021 FINA Rules and 2021 WADC a greater degree of mitigation is possible in determining the period of ineligibility for the Athlete's anti-doping rule violations.

The Panel deems that the circumstances surrounding the Sample Collection of 4-5 September 2018 merit a period of ineligiblility at the lower end of the range starting on the date of the Annulled Decision, i.e. on 28 February 2020.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 July 2021 that:

1. The Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction to hear the present dispute.

2. The appeal filed on 14 February 2019 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision issued on 3 January 2019 by the Doping Panel of the Fédération Internationale de Natation is admissible and is partially upheld.

3. The decision issued on 3 January 2019 by the Doping Panel of the Fédération Internationale de Natation is set aside.

4. Mr. Sun Yang is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 4 (four) years and 3 (three) months, beginning on 28 February 2020.

5. (…).

6. (…).

7. All other and further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

The ESA scenario gets complex : from biosimilar epoetins to activin traps / Wolfgang Jelkmann. - (Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 30 (2015) 4 (April); p. 553-559)

• PMID: 24748667
• DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfu089

Abstract

Recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEpo, epoetin) has proved beneficial in preventing transfusion-dependent anaemia in patients with chronic kidney disease. Apart from copied epoetins distributed in less regulated markets, 'biosimilar' epoetins have gained currency in many regions, where they compete with the originals and with rhEpo analogues with prolonged survival in circulation ('biobetter'). Recombinant erythropoiesis stimulating agents are potent and well tolerated. However, their production is costly, and they must be administered by the parenteral route. Hence, other anti-anaemia treatments are being evaluated. Clinical trials are being performed with stabilizers of the hypoxia-inducible transcription factors (HIFs), which increase endogenous Epo production. HIF stabilizers are chemical drugs and they are active on oral administration. However, there is fear that they may promote tumour growth. Epo mimetic peptides have also raised expectations. Yet the prototype peginesatide was recalled after just 1 year of its widespread use in the USA because of serious side-effects including cases of death. Most recently, clinical trials have been initiated with sotatercept, a recombinant soluble activin receptor type 2A IgG-Fc fusion protein. Sotatercept binds distinct members of the transforming growth factor-β family, thereby preventing the inhibitory action of these factors in erythropoiesis. Taken together, rhEpo and its long-acting recombinant analogues will likely remain mainstay of anti-anaemia therapies in the near future.

Physiology and pharmacology of erythropoietin / Wolfgang Jelkmann. - (Transfusion Medicine and Hemotherapy 40 (2013) 5 (October); p. 302-309)

• PMID: 24273483
• PMCID: PMC3822280
• DOI: 10.1159/000356193

Abstract

Human erythropoietin (Epo) is a 30.4 kDa glycoprotein hormone composed of a single 165 amino acid residues chain to which four glycans are attached. The kidneys are the primary sources of Epo, its synthesis is controlled by hypoxia-inducible transcription factors (HIFs). Epo is an essential factor for the viability and proliferation of erythrocytic progenitors. Whether Epo exerts cytoprotection outside the bone marrow still needs to be clarified. Epo deficiency is the primary cause of the anemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD). Treatment with recombinant human Epo (rhEpo, epoetin) can be beneficial not only in CKD but also for other indications, primarily anemia in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Considering unwanted events, the administration of rhEpo or its analogs may increase the incidence of thromboembolism. The expiry of the patents for the original epoetins has initiated the production of similar biological medicinal products ('biosimilars'). Furthermore, analogs (darbepoetin alfa, methoxy PEG-epoetin beta) with prolonged survival in circulation have been developed ('biobetter'). New erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are in clinical trials. These include compounds that augment erythropoiesis directly (e.g. Epo mimetic peptides or activin A binding protein) and chemicals that act indirectly by stimulating endogenous Epo synthesis (HIF stabilizers).

Adverse events associated with testosterone administration / Shehzad Basaria, Andrea D. Coviello, Thomas G. Travison, Thomas W. Storer, Wildon R. Farwell, Alan M. Jette, Richard Eder, Sharon Tennstedt, Jagadish Ulloor, Anqi Zhang, Karen Choong, Kishore M. Lakshman, Norman A. Mazer, Renee Miciek, Joanne Krasnoff, Ayan Elmi, Philip E. Knapp, Brad Brooks, Erica Appleman, Sheetal Aggarwal, Geeta Bhasin, Leif Hede-Brierley, Ashmeet Bhatia, Lauren Collins, Nathan LeBrasseur, Louis D. Fiore, Shalender Bhasin. - (New England Journal of Medicine 363 (2010) 2 (8 July); p. 109-122)

• PMID: 20592293
• PMCID: PMC3440621
• DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1000485

Abstract

Background: Testosterone supplementation has been shown to increase muscle mass and strength in healthy older men. The safety and efficacy of testosterone treatment in older men who have limitations in mobility have not been studied.

Methods: Community-dwelling men, 65 years of age or older, with limitations in mobility and a total serum testosterone level of 100 to 350 ng per deciliter (3.5 to 12.1 nmol per liter) or a free serum testosterone level of less than 50 pg per milliliter (173 pmol per liter) were randomly assigned to receive placebo gel or testosterone gel, to be applied daily for 6 months. Adverse events were categorized with the use of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities classification. The data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial be discontinued early because there was a significantly higher rate of adverse cardiovascular events in the testosterone group than in the placebo group.

Results: A total of 209 men (mean age, 74 years) were enrolled at the time the trial was terminated. At baseline, there was a high prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and obesity among the participants. During the course of the study, the testosterone group had higher rates of cardiac, respiratory, and dermatologic events than did the placebo group. A total of 23 subjects in the testosterone group, as compared with 5 in the placebo group, had cardiovascular-related adverse events. The relative risk of a cardiovascular-related adverse event remained constant throughout the 6-month treatment period. As compared with the placebo group, the testosterone group had significantly greater improvements in leg-press and chest-press strength and in stair climbing while carrying a load.

Conclusions: In this population of older men with limitations in mobility and a high prevalence of chronic disease, the application of a testosterone gel was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events. The small size of the trial and the unique population prevent broader inferences from being made about the safety of testosterone therapy.