Doping control of testosterone and human chorionic gonadotrophin: a case study

1 Feb 1991

Doping control of testosterone and human chorionic gonadotrophin : a case study / Douwe de Boer, E.G. de Jong, J.M. van Rossum, R.A. Maes. - (International Journal of Sports Medicine 12 (1991) 1 (February); p. 46-51)

  • PMID: 2030059
  • DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1024654

Erratum in:

  • Int J Sports Med 1991 Aug;12(4):430. De Jong EG [corrected to de Jong EG]

Abstract

Doping control for testosterone and human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (hCG) requires special attention as a difference must be made between the endogenous and exogenous origin of both substances. The detection of exogenous testosterone is based on the ratio of testosterone- to epitestosterone-glucuronide (T/E) in urine. The problems with this ratio are discussed. For hCG analysis in urine the utilization of sandwich-type hCG specific assays instead of hCG/hCG beta competitive assays is recommended. A case study in which an athlete self-administered testosterone and hCG before a competition is described. The T/E ratio and hCG concentration in urine were followed during this period of self-administration. The results demonstrate the relevance of the T/E ratio and of the selected hCG assay. The ratio of testosterone to human Luteinizing Hormone (T/hLH) in serum also indicated the use of hormones. Although the athlete's urine was negative for exogenous testosterone directly after competition, he would have been found positive for hCG.

The detection of danazol and its significance in doping analysis

1 Jan 1992

The detection of danazol and its significance in doping analysis / Douwe de Boer, E.G. de Jong, R.A. Maes. - (Journal of Analytical Toxicology 16 (1992) 1 (January-February); p. 14-18)

  • PMID: 1640693
  • DOI: 10.1093/jat/16.1.14


Abstract

The use of anabolic steroids and related compounds in sport is forbidden by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Because danazol (17 alpha-pregna-2,4-dien-20-yno[2,3-D] isoxazol-17 beta-ol) is structurally related to the anabolic steroid stanozolol, its use should be questioned. Therefore, the detection and the significance of danazol in doping analysis are discussed. A urine specimen suspected of containing danazol metabolites was analyzed in order to characterize the metabolites. After isolation and conversion into three different derivatives, the metabolites were subjected to gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) in the electron impact (EI) mode. The structure assignment was based on the molecular ions, fragmentation patterns observed for the three different derivatives, and the possible metabolite structures given in the literature. Ethisterone was identified as a nonconjugated metabolite. 2-Hydroxymethylethisterone was observed in two stereoisomeric forms. One stereoisomer was found mainly in the nonconjugated steroid fraction and the other in the conjugated fraction. The results were confirmed by analyzing urine specimens of a volunteer who was known to have taken danazol. Derivatization methods and GC/MS data are given to implement danazol detection in routine screening and confirmation procedures.

Why do doping control labs need a tandem mass spectrometer?

1 Oct 1988

Why do doping control labs need a tandem mass spectrometer? / E.G. de Jong, R.A. Maes, J.M. van Rossum. - (Biomedical & Environmental Mass Spectrometry 16 (1988) 1-12 (October); p. 75-80)

  • PMID: 3242711
  • DOI: 10.1002/bms.1200160115


Abstract

The International Olympic Committee requires a confirmation by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry for all positive doping cases. Because of the severe consequences involved they should be more specific about the required information and determine the differences allowed. The use of tandem mass spectrometry in dope control should be required before the Olympic Games in Barcelona in 1992. This article shows the power of tandem mass spectrometry in the definite identification of a drug.

Doping Control of Athletes

1 Nov 1988

Doping Control of Athletes / E.G. de Jong. R.A.A. Maes, J.M. van Rossum. - (TrAC. Trends in Analytical Chemistry 7 (1988) 10 (November-December); p. 375-382)

Dopingvrije voedingssupplementen in de sportwereld

1 May 2011

Dopingvrije voedingssupplementen in de sportwereld /
J. van Elderen. - (Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Fytotherapie 24 (2011) 11 (Januari); p. 11-12)



Het gebruik van voedingssupplementen is wijd verspreid in de sport. Zowel in de topsport alsook recreatief. Voor topsporters is het essentieel om de zekerheid te hebben dat producten vrij zijn van doping. Producten die vervuild zijn met doping kunnen namelijk leiden tot een onbedoelde positieve dopingcontrole. Het Nederlands Zekerheidssysteem voor Voedingssupplementen in de Topsport (NZVT) biedt sporters de grootst mogelijke zekerheid van dopingvrije producten. De NPN vervult hierbij een faciliterende rol.

IOC 2019 IOC vs Roxana Cocos

23 Nov 2020

Ms Roxana Cocos is a Romanian Athlete competing in the Women’s 69 kg Weightlifting event at the London 2012 Olympic Games. 

In 2018, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012. 

In December 2019 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IOC, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Metenolone and Stanozolol. After notification the Athlete failed to submit any explanation at any stage to the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

The IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that the presence of the prohibited substances in the Athlete’s samples had been established and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

The Commission holds that the substances found in the Athlete's samples correspond to substances which have very commonly been used for the purposes of doping. The use of these substances are clearly consistent with and indicative of the intentional use of Prohibited Substances specifically ingested to deliberately improve performance. 

Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 23 November 2020 that the Athlete Roxana Cocos:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXX Olympiad in London in 2012 (presence, and/or use, of Prohibited Substances or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen);

2.) is disqualified from the event in which she participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games London 2012, namely the Women’s 69 kg Weightlifting event, in which she ranked 2nd and for which she was awarded the silver medal;

3.) has the silver medal, diploma and pin obtained in the Women’s 69 kg Weightlifting event withdrawn and is ordered to return the same.

4.) The IWF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.

5.) The Romanian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.

6.) The Romanian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the silver medal, diploma and pin awarded in connection with the Women’s 69 kg Weightlifting event to the Athlete.

7.)The decision enters into force immediately.

IOC 2019 IOC vs Gabriel Sincraian

23 Nov 2020

Related case:

CAS OG_AD_2016_10 IOC vs Gabriel Sincraian
December 8, 2016

Mr Gabriel Sincraian is a Romanian Athlete competing in the Men’s 85 kg Weightlifting event at the London 2012 Olympic Games. 

In 2018, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012. 

In December 2019 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IOC, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Metenolone and Stanozolol. After notification the Athlete failed to submit any explanation at any stage to the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

The IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that the presence of the prohibited substances in the Athlete’s samples had been established and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

The Commission holds that the substances found in the Athlete's samples correspond to substances which have very commonly been used for the purposes of doping. The use of these substances are clearly consistent with and indicative of the intentional use of Prohibited Substances specifically ingested to deliberately improve performance. 

Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 23 November 2020 that the Athlete Gabriel Sincraian:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXX Olympiad in London in 2012 (presence, and/or use, of Prohibited Substances or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen);

2.) is disqualified from the event in which he participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games London 2012, namely the Men’s 85 kg Weightlifting event, in which his result was that he did not finish the event.

3.) The IWF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.

4.) The Romanian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.

5.) The decision enters into force immediately.

IOC 2019 IOC vs Razvan Martin

23 Nov 2020

Mr Razvan Martin is a Romanian Athlete competing in the Men’s 69 kg Weightlifting event at the London 2012 Olympic Games. 

In 2018, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012. 

In December 2019 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IOC, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone, Metenolone and Stanozolol. After notification the Athlete failed to submit any explanation at any stage to the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

The IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that the presence of the prohibited substances in the Athlete’s samples had been established and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

The Commission holds that the substances found in the Athlete's samples correspond to substances which have very commonly been used for the purposes of doping. The use of these substances are clearly consistent with and indicative of the intentional use of Prohibited Substances specifically ingested to deliberately improve performance. 

Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 23 November 2020 that the Athlete Razvan Martin:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXX Olympiad in London in 2012 (presence, and/or use, of Prohibited Substances or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen);

2.) is disqualified from the event in which he participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games London 2012, namely the Men’s 69 kg Weightlifting event, in which he ranked 3rd and for which he was awarded the bronze medal;

3.) has the bronze medal, diploma and pin obtained in the Men’s 69 kg Weightlifting event withdrawn and is ordered to return the same.

4.)The IWF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.

5.) The Romanian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.

6.) The Romanian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the bronze medal, diploma and pin awarded in connection with the Men’s 69 kg Weightlifting event to the Athlete.

7.) The decision enters into force immediately.

CAS 2020_A_6892 Andrew Starykowicz vs USADA

5 Aug 2020

CAS 2020/A/6892 Andrew Starykowicz v. United States Anti-Doping Agency

In October 2019 the triathlon Athlete Andrew Starkowics suffered from an acute respiratory infection with bronchoconstriction. He underwent medical treatment and used several prescribed medication including the prohibited substances Methylprednisolone (Medrol), Glucocorticoids and Vilanterol (Breo).

The Athlete applied for a TUE for the use of Medrol and Breo and on 8 November 2019 the USADA TUE Committee granted the use of Medrol.

Previously on 2 November 2019 that Athlete had participated in a triathlon and was subjected to sample collection. In December 2019 the World Triathlon Corporation reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after he tested positive for the substance Vilanterol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

At the time of the notification the Athlete had no TUE for Vilanterol due to his applications for Breo had been repeatedly denied by the USADA TUE Committee and finally by the WADA Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee. The Committees deemed that suitable permitted alternatives were available but were not prescribed by his pulmonologist.

Hereafter in March 2020 the Athlete appealed against USADA challenging the denial of his TUE applications for Breo. He requested the Panel to set aside the decision of the USADA TUE Committee and to grant to grant the use of the medication Breo from 25 October 2019.

The Athlete underlined that his case does not concern the commission of an anti-doping rule violation, but concerns the denial of a TUE for the medication Breo prescribed by his pulmonologist for a severe illness.

He asserted that the only question in this case is whether he could have treated his medical condition with another non-performance-enhancing beta-2 agonist that was not prohibited by WADA. The Athlete argued that he is entitled to such TUE since all conditions prescribed by the relevant rules have been satisfied.

USADA requested the Panel to dismiss the Athlete's appeal because the Athlete was unable to establish the decisions of the USADA TUEC and WADA TUEC to deny his application for a TUE for Breo (Vilanterol) were without basis.

The Sole Arbitrator, having considered the experts' submissions, finds that other medication were not unreasonable alternatives in terms of therapeutic indications and effects, consistent with the anti-doping rules, to the use of Breo. The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the existing alternative therapies suggested by USADA were not reasonable.

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

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Andrew Starykowicz against the United States AntiDoping Agency with the Court of Arbitration for Sport on 27 March 2020 is dismissed.
2.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by Mr Andrew Starykowicz.
3.) Mr Andrew Starykowicz and the United States Anti-Doping Agency shall each bear their own legal and other expenses.
4.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

iNADO Update #2020-12

7 Dec 2020

iNADO Update (2020) 12 (7 December)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)


Contents:

iNADO Community 

  • The Independence of ADOs and the Case of the Athletics Integrity Unit
  • UKAD launches Protect Your Sport to increase Intelligence Reports
  • Sri Lanka Anti-Doping Agency announces three new Developments in the Fight for clean Sport
  • Drug Free Sport New Zealand hold its second Annual Symposium
  • Caribbean Regional Anti-Doping Organisation marks its 15th Anniversary
  • WADA postpones their 2021 Annual Symposium - iNADO Workshop 2021 online
  • EuropeActive hosted the 4th FORUM for Anti-Doping in Recreational Sport

iNADO Bulletin Board 

  • iNADO's Annual General Meeting 2020
  • New iNADO Live Chat Episode Available
  • iNADO Webinar - IT-Security
  • Clean Sport Insight Forum invites you to register
  • European Commission Study on Anabolic Steroids in EU Sport seeks Interviews with NADOs

People 

  • President of ADCH steps down and hands over the Mantel to another former Elite Athlete

Athletes Voice 

  • Olympic Medalist, Sharon Jewell, on what Athletes can bring to Sport Integrity Roles

Science

  • DBS Presentation at iNADOs virtual Workshop

Practical Developments in Anti-Doping

  • Erasmus Project “Keep Football Clean” can call it a Wrap
  • iNADO Webinar: “An Introduction to program Evaluation for Anti-Doping Professionals” by S. Backhouse & L. Patterson

Feature of the Month by UK Anti-Doping

  • Sports Integrity Australia 
  • New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center
Category
  • 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
Origin