Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids and Prohibited Substances Misuse among Iranian Recreational Female Bodybuilders and its Associated Psycho-socio-demographic Factors / Hooman Angoorani, Maryam Jalali, Farzin Halabchi . - (Addiction & Health 10 (2018) 4; p. 216-222). - PMID: 31263520. - PMCID: PMC6593173. - DOI: 10.22122/ahj.v10i4.614 ___________________________________________________ Abstract Background: The growing tendency to anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) and prohibited substances misuse by female athletes is a new public health concern. Epidemiological studies in this field are necessary to introduce an effective preventive drug control program in gyms. This study directed to evaluate the prevalence of AAS and other banned substances use and assess its association with some psycho-social and also demographic parameters among Iranian female recreational bodybuilders. Methods: This study was done from January to March 2017 and 289 recreational female bodybuilders from 41 randomly-selected fitness and sports clubs in different geographic parts of Tehran, Iran, were included. Age, education level, months of sport involvement, frequency of sport participation in a week (hour), body image assessed by Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ), and history of AAS and substances intake as the psycho-socio-demographic parameters were recorded by interviews using questionnaires. Findings: Subjects were all recreational female bodybuilders [mean and standard deviation (SD) of age: 26.3 ± 6.3, range: 15-52 years]. Self-report of AAS abuse was recorded in 70 bodybuilders (24.2%). Among prohibited substances, the use of stimulants (amphetamine or methamphetamine) and other illicit drugs was recorded in 10 (3.5%) and 95 (32.9%) athletes, respectively. 112 (38.8%) participants reported somatotropin use. Cigarette smoking, hookah use, and alcohol intake were reported by 42 (14.5%), 162 (56.1%), and 49 (17.0%) female bodybuilders, respectively. Among different evaluated parameters, merely the frequency of sport participation in a week and sport experience was inversely associated with AAS consumption. Conclusion: Based on the subjects' self-statement, AAS and substance misuse was surprisingly common in recreational female bodybuilders. Some factors including weekly frequency of sport participation and the duration of sport involvement may influence the prevalence of AAS abuse.

An Experimental Test of the Efficacy of Gain- and Loss-Framed Messages for Doping Prevention in Adolescent Athletes / Lindsay R. Duncan, Laura Hallward. - (Substance Use & Misuse (2019) 18 June; p. 1-12). - PMID: 31210076. - DOI: 10.1080/10826084.2019.1626432 _________________________________________________ Abstract Background: Doping is a prevalent issue, not only among Olympians and professional athletes; young athletes and those at the sub-elite level have reported doping as well. Doping programs have been developed to target adolescent athletes and prevent doping initiation. The efficacy of primary doping prevention initiatives may be enhanced with health communication strategies, such as message framing. To date, there have been very few studies examining message framing among adolescents and none in the context of doping prevention. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of gain-framed and loss-framed messages on key psychological antecedents of doping among adolescent athletes. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, 133 athletes aged 12 to 16 years old (Mage=13.73; 53% boys) from a variety of sports viewed either a gain- or loss-framed video. Intentions, attitudes, self-efficacy, and perceived norms were all assessed immediately before and after the videos. Results: Mixed between-within subjects ANOVAs revealed no differential influence for either message frame on changes in any of the outcomes. Attitudes, self-efficacy, and perceived norms all increased significantly over time for participants in both conditions. Conclusions/Importance: Overall, the findings suggest that a brief messaging intervention may have a beneficial influence on psychosocial constructs related to doping. There is no strong evidence to support definitive recommendations regarding optimal message framing for doping prevention among adolescent athletes. Keywords: Message framing, performance-enhancing drugs, prevention

A Descriptive Study of Adverse Events from Clenbuterol Misuse and Abuse for Weight Loss and Bodybuilding / Henry A. Spiller, Kyla J. James, Steven Scholzen. - (Substance Abuse 34 (2013) 3; p. 306-312). - PMID: 23844963. - DOI: 10.1080/08897077.2013.772083 _________________________________________________ Abstract BACKGROUND: Clenbuterol is a β2-agonist approved in the United States for veterinary use in nonfood animals. Clenbuterol use is emerging among bodybuilders and fitness enthusiasts attracted to the hypertrophic and lipolytic effects. CASES: This was a retrospective chart review of clenbuterol exposures reported to 2 poison control centers. Misuse of clenbuterol for weight loss and bodybuilding was reported in 11 of 13 clenbuterol users. Reported clinical effects included tachycardia, widened pulse pressure, tachypnea, hypokalemia, hyperglycemia, ST changes on electrocardiogram (ECG), elevated troponin, elevated creatine phosphokinase (CPK), palpitations, chest pain, and tremor. Measured serum clenbuterol concentration was 2983 pg/mL post 4.5 mg ingestion. Co-ingestants included T3 and anabolic steroids. Treatments included activated charcoal, benzodiazepines, β-blockers, potassium replacement, and intravenous (IV) fluid. CONCLUSIONS: There is an increasing use of the Internet for illicit drug use for bodybuilding and weight loss purposes. These patients may not present as the stereotype of illicit drug abusers, but as healthy athletic low-risk patients. Clinical effects persisted greater than 24 hours with evidence of myocardial injury in 2 patients. Clenbuterol is increasingly being abused within the bodybuilding subculture. These cases illustrate the hidden dangers of clenbuterol abuse among bodybuilders and fitness enthusiasts.

Clenbuterol : regional food contamination a possible source for inadvertent doping in sports / Sven Guddat, Gregor Fußhöller, Hans Geyer, Andreas Thomas, H. Braun, Nadine Haenelt, Anne Schwenke, Catherine Klose, Mario Thevis, Wilhelm Schänzer. - (Drug testing and analysis 4 (2012) 6 (June); p. 534-538). - PMID: 22447758. - DOI: 10.1002/dta.1330 _________________________________________________ Abstract The misuse of the sympathomimetic and anabolic agent clenbuterol has been frequently reported in professional sport and in the livestock industry. In 2010, a team of athletes returned from competition in China and regular doping control samples were taken within the next two days. All urine samples contained low amounts (pg/ml) of clenbuterol, drawing the attention to a well‐known problem: the possibility of an unintended clenbuterol intake with food. A warning that Chinese meat is possibly contaminated with prohibited substances according to international anti‐doping regulations was also given by Chinese officials just before the Bejing Olympic Games in 2008. To investigate if clenbuterol can be found in human urine, a study was initiated comprising 28 volunteers collecting urine samples after their return from China. For the quantification of clenbuterol at a low pg/ml level, a very sensitive and specific isotope dilution liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry (LC‐MS/MS) assay was developed using liquid/liquid re‐extraction for clean‐up with a limit of detection and quantification of 1 and 3 pg/ml, respectively. The method was validated demonstrating good precision (intra‐day: 2.9–5.5 %; inter‐day: 5.1–8.8%), accuracy (89.5–102.5%) and mean recovery (81.4%). Clenbuterol was detectable in 22 (79%) of the analyzed samples, indicating a general food contamination problem despite an official clenbuterol prohibition in China for livestock.

On 19 February 2018 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the South African hockey player Bernadette Coston after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). Here the Panel deemed that the Athlete did fall short of the high standards imposed on an athlete to exercise utmost caution to avoid an anti-doping rule violation. Hereafter the Athlete appealed the First Instance decision of 19 February 2018 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested for a reduced sanction, denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance and introduced new evidence that could demonstrate how the prohibited substance entered her system. Here the Athlete relied on the witness statement of her brother, and argued that she was unaware that her brother had contaminated the supplement recovery drink that she was using, known as Evolve Nutrition Prolong BCAA, with a different Evolve Nutrition supplement that he was using known as Chemical X, thereby giving rise to her ingestion of the Substance for which she was tested positive. The Athlete asserted that she could not reasonably have been expected to be aware of the possibility of such contamination and that she was unaware of the contamination until after the First Instance Decision of 19 February 2018. SAIDS requested the Panel to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal and to uphold the First Instance decision. It objected against the testimony of the Athlete’s brother as evidence which was new introduced after the First Instance Decision was rendered on 19 February 2018. Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator finds that that SAIDS did not establish that the Athlete intended to cheat, the sanction should drop to two years of ineligibility, unless the Athlete can establish No Fault or No Significant Fault of Negligence. The Sole Arbitrator holds that even if the testimony of the Athlete and her brother were deemed fully justifiable, the Athlete's explanation of how the Substance entered her body is based exclusively on her word and that of her brother. Such explanations, particularly in cases involving contamination scenarios (or scenarios where the Athlete's brother deliberately comingled her product with the Substance), based solely on the word of the accused and his/her entourage, must be approached with caution. It would otherwise be too easy for athletes to cast blame on a family member, partner, friend, etc. who is not subject to any anti-doping rules or consequences. Moreover the Sole Arbitrator finds that no scientific evidence was adduced to explain whether the reported concentration of the Substance in the Athlete's system (approximately 69 ng/ml) would or could have resulted from the approximate 7 servings the Athlete's brother added to her partially filled container. This evidence would however be needed to support the Athlete's theory. Otherwise, it cannot be determined whether the Athlete's brother transferred sufficient quantities of the Substance to the Athlete's container such that she would produce the reported urinary concentration of approximately 69 ng/ml. Regarding that the Athlete did not establish the source of the Substance, the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete cannot qualify for a reduction based on No Fault or No Significant Fault. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 8 February 2019 that: 1.) The appeal filed on 16 April 2018 by Ms. Bernadette Coston against the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport concerning the decision of the SAIDS Tribunal of 20 March 2018 is partially upheld. 2.) The decision of the SAIDS Tribunal of 20 March 2018 is set aside. 3.) Ms. Bernadette Coston is declared ineligible for a period of two (2) years, commencing as from 19 February 2018. 4.) All competitive results achieved during the period of ineligibility shall be disqualified, with all the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money. 5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served separately to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne in equal parts by Ms. Bernadette Coston and SAIDS. 6.) Each party shall bear its own legal costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration. 7.) All other or further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Related case: CAS 2018_A_5695 Bernadette Coston vs SAIDS February 8, 2019 In February 2018 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the hocky player Bernadette Coston after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Tribunal. The Athlete admitted the violation, accepted the test results and explained that she had used several supplements. She asserted that she had mentioned these supplements on the Doping Control Form and had researched the ingredients before using. She claimed that the recovery drink she had used was the possible source of the positive test. However analysis of this product in the Bloemfontein Lab revealed no prohibited substances. SAIDS deems that the test result established the presence of multiple prohibited substances and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. SAIDS holds that the Athlete knew there was a significant risk that her conduct might consitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregared that risk. SAIDS contended that the Athlete failed to research properly this product and failed to consult professional experts she had access to. Instead she relied on the advice of a representative of supplements about this product while the website of this product clearly mentioned that it is to increase testosterone and growth hormones. SAIDS also argued that after analysis in the Lab there is no evidence that this product in fact was contaminated with Methylhexaneamine. The Panel considers the Athlete’s degree of fault in this case and agrees that the Athlete did fall short of the high standards imposed on an athlete to exercise utmost caution to avoid an anti-doping rule violation. Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 20 March 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the hearing, i.e. on 19 February 2018.

In May 2019 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Barend van Staden after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Mesterolone, Methandienone and Methasterone. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right to be heard, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by SAIDS. SAIDS deems that the test result established the presence of multiple prohibited substances and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation with grounds for a reduced sanction. Therfore SAID decides on 31 May 2019 to impose a 3 year and 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 May 2019.

In May 2019 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Luciando Newman Santos after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 1-androstenedione, 19-norandrosterone, 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone), Boldenone, Boldione, Drostanolone and Tamoxifen. After notification the retired Athlete waived his right to be heard, accepted the provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by SAIDS. SAIDS deems that the test result established the presence of multiple prohibited substances and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation without grounds for a reduced sanction. Therfore SAID decides on 30 May 2019 to impose an 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 9 May 2019.

In April 2018 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Labib Kannameyer after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right to be heard, accepted the provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by SAIDS. SAIDS deems that the test result established the presence of a prohibited substance and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further SAIDS finds that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete bears No Significant Fault or Negligence since the Athlete demonstrated that the substance was used recreational out-of-competition. Therfore SAID decides on 27 May 2019 to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the admission, i.e. on 15 April 2019.

In May 2018 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Mixed Martial Arts Athlete Marcel Teniers after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right to be heard, accepted the provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by SAIDS. SAIDS deems that the test result established the presence of a prohibited substance and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation with grounds for a reduced sanction. Therfore SAID decides on 24 May 2019 to impose a 3 year and 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 May 2019.