The Ethics of Motivational Neuro-Doping in Sport: praiseworthiness and Prizeworthiness

23 Jul 2020

The Ethics of Motivational Neuro-Doping in Sport : praiseworthiness and Prizeworthiness / Hilary Bowman-Smart, Julian Savulescu. - (Neuroethics (2020) 23 July)


Motivational enhancement in sport – a form of ‘neuro-doping’ – can help athletes attain greater achievements in sport. A key question is whether or not that athlete deserves that achievement. We distinguish three concepts – praiseworthiness (whether the athlete deserves praise), prizeworthiness (whether the athlete deserves the prize), and admiration (pure admiration at the performance) – which are closely related. However, in sport, they can come apart. The most praiseworthy athlete may not be the most prizeworthy, and so on. Using a model of praiseworthiness as costly commitment to a valuable end, and situating prizeworthiness within the boundaries of the sport, we argue that motivational enhancement in some cases can be compatible with desert.

Neuro-Doping - a Serious Threat to the Integrity of Sport?

29 Jul 2020

Neuro-Doping : a Serious Threat to the Integrity of Sport? / Verner Møller, Ask Vest Christiansen. - (Neuroethics (2020) 29 July)

  • DOI: 10.1007/s12152-020-09446-4


The formation of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 1999 was spurred by the 1998 revelation of widespread use in professional cycling of erythropoietin (EPO). The drug was supposedly a real danger. The long-term consequences were unknown, but rumor said it made athletes’ blood thick as jam with clots and other circulatory fatalities likely consequences. Today the fear of EPO has dampened. However, new scientific avenues such as ‘neuro-doping’ have replaced EPO as emergent and imagined threats to athletes and to the integrity of sport. In this paper, we analyze the alleged threat from ‘neuro-doping’ in the following steps: First, we outline an understanding of ‘neuro-doping’ in a narrow sense, which we then put into context by looking at the phenomenon in a broader sense. Second, we highlight examples of societal perceptions of sport and science in order to shed light on where the concern for ‘neuro-doping’ comes from. Third, we address the more general fear of technology as a root for this concern. Fourth, we examine the evidence for the performance enhancing capacities of ‘neuro-doping’, where after we look at the obstacles for a ban on this technology. We conclude the analysis by stating that at present ‘neuro-doping’ cannot be considered a threat to the integrity of sport. Finally, however, we put this conclusion into perspective by examining what the most reasonable response would be if in the future neuro-stimulation techniques becomes an effective performance-enhancing mean in sport.

Injecting human growth hormone as a performance enhancing drug: perspectives from the United Kingdom

23 Dec 2009

Injecting human growth hormone as a performanceenhancing drug : perspectives from the United Kingdom / Michael Evans-Brown, Jim McVeigh. - (Journal of Substance Use 14 (2009) 5 (23 December); p. 267-288)


Injectable human growth hormone has been used as a performance-enhancing drug in the United Kingdom since at least the mid-1980s. However, because of its prohibitive cost and limited supply it was initially restricted to a relatively small number of people. More recently data suggest that there has been a large increase in the use of the hormone within some sections of the general population. Here the hormone is usually taken as part of a high-dose polydrug regimen (which includes multiple types of anabolic steroids) predominately to enhance physique and/or bodily aesthetics. However, detailed systematic studies of the cultural diffusion of this drug (including the motivations for use, prevalence, patterns of use, and supply network) are lacking. Moreover, questions about growth hormone's efficacy, effectiveness, and safety (including risks from injecting and the use of adulterated products) when used as a performance-enhancing drug remain largely unanswered. This article reviews the data that are available on the self-directed use of growth hormone in the United Kingdom and the associated risks to individual and public health.

Glucocorticoids: A Doping Agent?

16 Jan 2010

Glucocorticoids : A Doping Agent? / Martine Duclos. - (Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America 39 (2010) 1 (March); p. 107-126).

  • PMID: 2012245
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ecl.2009.10.001- 3.


Certain international sports federations are requesting that glucocorticoids (GCs) be removed from the World Antidoping Agency's list of banned products. Their arguments are based on the fact that GCs are in widespread use in sports medicine and have no demonstrated ergogenic activity. This article shows that there is scientific evidence that GCs mediate ergogenic effects in animals and humans. Moreover, the health risks of using GCs are well characterized. GCs are doping agents and should remain on the World Antidoping Agency's list of banned products.

Cardiac Effects of Anabolic Steroids: Hypertrophy, Ischemia and Electrical Remodelling as Potential Triggers of Sudden Death

1 Jan 2011

Cardiac Effects of Anabolic Steroids : Hypertrophy, Ischemia and Electrical Remodelling as Potential Triggers of Sudden Death / J.H.M. Nascimento, E. Medei. - (Mini reviews in medicinal chemistry 11 (2011) 5; p. 425-429).

  • PMID: 21443509
  • DOI: 10.2174/138955711795445899


Anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) are synthetic testosterone derivatives developed to maximise anabolic activity and minimise androgenic activity. AAS abuse is widespread among both athletes and non-athletes at fitness centres and is becoming a public health issue. In addition to their atherogenic, thrombogenic and spastic effects, AAS have direct cardiotoxic effects by causing hypertrophy, electrical and structural remodelling, and contractile dysfunction and by increasing the susceptibility to ischemic injuries. All of these factors contribute to an increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death.

WADA - ONDCP Report to the United States Congress

26 Jun 2020

WADA - ONDCP Report to the United States Congress / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2020

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was deeply disappointed to read the United States Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) Report regarding WADA funding that it submitted to the U.S. Congress on 17 June and that was made public.

As the U.S. has been a Foundation Board member of WADA since the creation of the Agency in 1999, WADA was particularly troubled by the fact that the ONDCP made allegations towards the Agency without due regard for the facts or context and without having raised any of these concerns during WADA Board meetings.

In Respons WADA sent an annotated version of the ONDCP Report to the Director of the ONDCP, asking him to kindly transmit this version to the U.S. Congress so that the Congress, and/or the appropriations committee, can deliberate and decide on WADA’s future funding based on accurate information. This annotated version outlines (in red) the misleading information and inaccuracies that the Report contains, and what the Report omits in terms of factual information.

CAS 2019_O_6156 IAAF vs RusAF & Aleksandr Shustov

5 Jun 2020

CAS 2019/O/6156 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. Russian Athletic Federation (RUSAF) & Aleksandr Shustov

On 16 July 2016, Professor Richard McLaren (the Independent Person or the IP) issued a first report on the allegations of systemic doping in Russia. Some of the key findings of the First IP Report were that:
1.) the Moscow Laboratory operated, for the protection of doped Russian athletes, within a state-dictated failsafe system, described in the First IP Report as the disappearing positive methodology (DPM) and
2.) the Ministry of Sport of the Russian Federation directed, controlled, and oversaw the manipulation of athletes' analytical results or sample swapping, with the active participation and assistance of the Russian Federal Security Service, the Center of Sports Preparation of National Teams of Russia, and both Moscow and Sochi Laboratories.

On 9 December 2016, the IP elaborated on the First IP Report and released a second report on the doping allegations in Russia, together with the First IP Report. The Second IP Report confirmed the key findings of the First IP Report and described in detail the DPM and the Washout Testing.

Within the context of the Second IP Report, the IP identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered. The IP made publicly available on the IP Evidence Disclosure Package (EDP) website the evidence of the involvement of the Identified Athletes. According to the IP and the IAAF, the evidence on the EDP was retrieved from the hard-drive of Dr Rodchenkov and, after the metadata of all the documents was examined, the documents were determined to have been made contemporaneously to the events.

Mr. Aleksandr Shustov is a Russian high jumper competing in the Moscow 2013 IAAF World Championships.

In November 2017 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete based on the findings of the First and Second IP Report and the disclosed evidence.
After deliberations between the parties the case was referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in February 2019 for a Sole Arbitrator first instance hearing panel.

The IAAF requested the Panel to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete due to aggravating circumstances and for the disqualification of the Athlete’s results from 8 July 2013 until the date of the decision in this case.

The IAAF contended that the Athlete had used anabolic steroids in the lead-up to the Moscow 2013 IAAF World Championships based on the findings of the Second IP Report and the disclosed evidence (the Moscow Washout Schedules). Here 3 official samples, provided by the Athlete, were reported as negative in ADAMS in 2013 by the Moscow Laboratory while the evidence showed that these samples contained prohibited substances. In addition 2 unofficial samples were listed in the Moscow Washout Schedules in 2013 containing prohibited substances. Furthermore one of the Athlete’s B sample bottles had multiple T marks as evidence of tampering.

The Athlete challenged the Sole Arbitrator, denied the use of prohibited substances and disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by the IAAF, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov. Sustained by expert witnesses, he pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete is present in the Moscow Washout Schedules in respect of the 5 samples listed as belonging to the Athlete. Here the Athlete’s presence in the Moscow Washout Schedules are strong indication that the Athlete used the prohibited substances Methandrostenolone (Methandienone) and Methasterone in 2013 as corroborated by the evidence.
The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete's repeated denials and challenges were exposed as empty and his attempts at alternative scientific explanations for the facts were comprehensively refuted.

Accordingly the Sole Arbitrator finds that the IAAF has proven to his comfortable satisfaction that the Athlete violated the IAAF Rules through the use of multiple prohibited substances on multiple occasions. Considering the seriousness of the Athlete's violations and the fact that many aggravating factors are relevant in this case, the Sole Arbitrator finds that a 4 year period of ineligibility is appropriate. Finally the Sole Arbitrator deems it appropriate to disqualify the Athlete's results from 8 July 2013 until 7 July 2017.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 June 2020 that:

1.) CAS has jurisdiction to decide on the subject matter of this dispute and the Request for Arbitration of the International Association of Athletics Federations is admissible and is upheld.
2.) Aleksandr Shustov is found guilty of anti-doping rule violations under Rule 32.2(b) of the IAAF Rules.
3.) A period of ineligibility of four ( 4) years is imposed upon Aleksandr Shustov, commencing on the date of this A ward.
4.) All competitive results obtained by Aleksandr Shustov from 8 July 2013 to 7 July 2017 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, profits, prizes and appearance money).
5.) The arbitration costs (to be determined and notified by the CAS Court Office) shall be paid by the Russian Athletic Federation.
6.) The Russian Athletic Federation shall contribute the sum of CHF 2,500 (two thousand five hundred Swiss Francs) to the International Association of Athletics Federations' fees and expenses.
7.) Aleksandr Shustov shall contribute the sum of CHF 2,500 (two thousand five hundred Swiss Francs) to the International Association of Athletics Federations' fees and expenses.
8.) All other and further prayers or requests for relief are dismissed.

WADA - Athletes' Anti-Doping Rights Act

18 Jun 2020

Athletes' Anti-Doping Rights Act / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2020

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has published the final designed version of the Athletes’ Anti-Doping Rights Act (Act), which WADA’s Athlete Committee developed over two and half years in consultation with thousands of athletes and stakeholders worldwide.

The purpose of the Act, which is based on the 2021 World Anti-Doping Code (Code) and its related International Standards that take effect on 1 January 2021, is to ensure that the rights of all athletes worldwide to participate in doping-free sport are clearly set out, accessible, and universally applicable. The document was approved by WADA’s Executive Committee on 7 November 2019 during the World Conference on Doping in Sport in Katowice, Poland.

Developed by athletes, for athletes, the Act provides an outline of rights provided by the 2021 Code and International Standards in terms of equality of opportunity, fair testing programs, medical treatment, justice, accountability, education, data protection and more. It also makes recommendations around athletes’ rights to be part of a system that is free from corruption, that they are appropriately represented in terms of governance and decision-making, and that they have a right to legal aid.

This Act is made up of two parts. Part one sets out rights that are found in the Code and International Standards. Part two sets out recommended athlete rights, which are not found in the Code or Standards but are rights that athletes recommend that anti-doping organizations adopt for best practice.


Part One
- Equality of opportunity
- Equitable and fair testing programms
- Medical treatment and protection of health rights
- Right to justice
- Right to accountability
- Whistleblower rights
- Right of education
- Right to data protection
- Right to compensation
- Protected persons rights
- Rights during a sample collection session
- Right to B sample analysis
- Other rights and freedoms
- Application and standing

Part Two
- Right to an anti-doping system
- Free from corruption
- Right to participate in governance and decision-makeing
- Right to legal support

iNADO Update #2020-06

19 Jun 2020

iNADO Update (2020) 6 (19 June)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)


- We welcome 14 RADOs as new Members
- Upcoming Webinar
- How Athletes can change the Sport for Good - by Olympic Athlete Nikki Hamblin
- PWC - Useful Guidelines in place for DCOs during COVID-19
- Journalists reveal a massive Abuse of Pain-Killers in German Football
- Richard Pound: "The Russian Doping Scandal: Some Reflections on Responsibility in Sport Governance"
- Testimonials from Whistleblowers urge for better Practices
- The Impact of COVID-19 on Procedures in Sport Disputes Resolution
- Updates by WADA related to COVID-19
- Limited Supplementary Stakeholder Consultation Phase for the 2021 ISPPPI
International Federations
- FIA sets up Whistleblower Hotline
New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge
- Recent cases of meat contamination

NADO Flanders 2019 Disciplinary Commission 20196629

3 Mar 2020

NADO Flanders reported in 2019 an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Clenbuterol, Drostanolone, Mepitiostane, Metenolone, Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine), Nandrolone and Tamoxifen.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission.

The Disciplinary Commission finds that the presence of multiple 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 3 March 2020 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 26 May 2019.

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

  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period