Dutch Olympic and Non-Olympic Athletes Differ in Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Third-party Supplement Testing

6 Oct 2020

Dutch Olympic and Non-Olympic Athletes Differ in Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Third-party Supplement Testing / Floris C. Wardenaar, Daan Hoogervorst, Kaila A. Vento, Olivier de Hon. - (Journal of Dietary Supplements (2020) 6 October)

  • PMID: 33021113
  • DOI: 10.1080/19390211.2020.1829248


Abstract

Knowledge of third-party testing is important for elite athletes using nutritional supplements to reduce the chances of a positive doping incident. Therefore, we compared the self-reported knowledge and attitudes of N = 601 Dutch Olympic status and non-Olympic status athletes toward an independent Dutch third-party tested system (NZVT) for purchasing nutritional supplements (NSs). Most of the athletes believed that contaminated NSs could lead to a positive doping test (68.0%), and found it unacceptable to use a contaminated NS as a result of incomplete labeling (87.8%). More Olympic status athletes were familiar with the NZVT system (71.1%) than non-Olympic status athletes (24.5%, p < 0.001). Of the athletes knowing about NZVT, Olympic status athletes reported more frequently using the NZVT than non-Olympic athletes (81.7% vs. 50.0%, p < 0.001). Apart from status, more females were familiar with and used the NZVT system for purchasing NSs than males, p < 0.01. In conclusion, many athletes were not familiar with nor used the preferred third-party testing supplement system in the Netherlands when purchasing NSs. While doping warnings and regulations have been in place, considering the risk of unintentional doping use for over two decades, the knowledge of Olympic status and non-Olympic status high-level athletes could still be improved, as many are not reporting the use of third-party testing systems.

Beta 2- agonist salbutamol augments hypertrophy in MHCIIa fibers and sprint power output but not muscle force during 11 weeks of resistance training in young men

24 Dec 2020

Beta 2- agonist salbutamol augments hypertrophy in MHCIIa fibers and sprint power output but not muscle force during 11 weeks of resistance training in young men / Søren Jessen, Søren Reitelseder, Anders Kalsen, Michael Kreiberg, Johan Onslev, Anders Gad, Niels Ørtenblad, Vibeke Backer, Lars Holm, Jens Bangsbo, Morten Hostrup. - (Journal of Applied Physiology (2020) 24 December)

  • PMID: 33357007
  • DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00553.2020


Abstract

In this study, we examined the effect of beta2-agonist salbutamol at oral doses during a period of resistance training on sprint performance, quadriceps contractile function, skeletal muscle hypertrophy, fiber-type composition, maximal activity of enzymes of importance for anaerobic energy turnover, and sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca2+-handling in young men. Twenty-six men (23±2 years;mean±SD) were randomized to daily intake of oral salbutamol (16 mg/d;RES+SAL) or placebo (RES) during 11 weeks full-body resistance training 3 times/week. Mean power output during 10s maximal cycling increased more (P=0.027) in RES+SAL (+12%) than in RES (+7%), whereas peak power output increased similarly (RES+SAL:+8%;RES:+7%;P=0.400). Quadriceps dynamic peak torque and maximal voluntary isometric torque increased by 13 and 14% (P≤0.001) in RES+SAL and 13 and 13% (P≤0.001) in RES, respectively. Myosin heavy chain (MHC) isoform distribution transitioned from MHCI and MHCIIx towards MHCIIa in RES+SAL (P=0.002), but not in RES (P=0.323). MHCIIa cross-sectional-area increased more (P=0.040) in RES+SAL (+35%) than RES (+21%). Sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca2+-release rate increased in both groups (RES+SAL:+9%,P=0.048;RES:+13%,P=0.008), whereas Ca2+-uptake rate increased only in RES (+12%,P=0.022) but not different from the non-significant change in RES+SAL (+2%,P=0.484). Maximal activity of lactate dehydrogenase increased only in RES+SAL (+13%,P=0.008). Muscle content of the dihydropyridine receptor, ryanodine receptor 1, and sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca2+-ATPase isoform 1 and 2 did not change with the intervention in either group (P≥0.100). These observations suggest that salbutamol is a muscle anabolic drug, which induces greater sprint mean power output, without affecting peak power output and muscle strength when ingested during a period of resistance training.

Keywords: beta-agonists; doping; dynamometer; kin-com; terbutaline.

Relation between Exercise Performance and Blood Storage Condition and Storage Time in Autologous Blood Doping

29 Dec 2020

Relation between Exercise Performance and Blood Storage Condition and Storage Time in Autologous Blood Doping / Benedikt Seeger, Marijke Grau. - (Biology (Basel) 10 (2020) 1 (29 December); p. 1-14)

  • PMID: 33383643
  • PMCID: PMC7824255
  • DOI: 10.3390/biology10010014


Abstract

Professional athletes are expected to continuously improve their performance, and some might also use illegal methods-e.g., autologous blood doping (ABD)-to achieve improvements. This article applies a systematic literature review to investigate differences in the ABD methods and the related performance and blood parameters owing to different storage conditions-cryopreservation (CP) and cold storage (CS)-and different storage durations. The literature research resulted in 34 original articles. The majority of currently published studies employed CS during ABD. This contrasts to the applied storage technique in professional sports, which was mainly reported to be CP. The second outcome of the literature research revealed large differences in the storage durations applied, which were in the range of one day to 17 weeks between blood sampling and re-infusion, which might affect recovery of the red blood cell mass and thus performance outcome related to ABD. Data revealed that performance parameters were positively affected by ABD when a minimal storage duration of four weeks was adhered. This article identified a need for further research that reflect common ABD practice and its real effects on performance parameters, but also on related blood parameters in order to develop valid and reliable ABD detection methods.

Doping practices in international weightlifting: analysis of sanctioned athletes/support personnel from 2008 to 2019 and retesting of samples from the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games

7 Jan 2021

Doping practices in international weightlifting : analysis of sanctioned athletes/support personnel from 2008 to 2019 and retesting of samples from the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games Alexander Kolliari-Turner, Brian Oliver, Giscard Lima, John P. Mills, Guan Wang, Yannis Pitsiladis, Fergus M. Guppy. - (Sports Medicine - Open 7 (2021) 4 (7 January); p. 1-10)

  • PMID: 33415428
  • PMCID: PMC7790029
  • DOI: 10.1186/s40798-020-00293-4


Abstract

Background: The pervasiveness of doping and findings of anti-doping corruption threaten weightlifting's position at the 2024 Olympic Games. Analysing the practices of doping in weightlifters could identify patterns in doping that assist in future detection.

Methods: We analysed publicly available data on sanctioned athletes/support personnel from the International Weightlifting Federation between 2008 and 2019 and announced retrospective Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) from the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games.

Results: There were 565 sanctions between 2008 and 2019 of which 82% related to the detection of exogenous Anabolic Androgenic Steroid (AAS) metabolites and markers indicating endogenous AAS usage. The detection of exogenous AAS metabolites, markers of endogenous AAS usage and other substance metabolites varied by IWF Continental Federation (p ≤ 0.05) with Europe (74%, 11%, 15%) and Asia (70%, 15%, 15%) showing a higher detection of exogenous AAS compared to Pan America (37%, 30%, 33%) and Africa (50%, 17%, 33%). When looking at the 10 most detected substances, the nations with the highest number of sanctions (range 17-35) all had at least one overrepresented substance that accounted for 38-60% of all detected substances. The targeted re-analysis of samples from the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games due to the discovery of long-term metabolites for exogenous AAS resulted in 61 weightlifters producing retrospective ADRVs. This includes 34 original medallists (9 gold, 10 silver and 15 bronze), the highest of any sport identified by Olympic Games sample re-testing. The exogenous AAS dehydrochloromethyltestosterone and stanozolol accounted for 83% of detected substances and were present in 95% of these samples.

Conclusion: Based on these findings of regional differences in doping practices, weightlifting would benefit from the targeted testing of certain regions and continuing investment in long-term sample storage as the sensitivity and specificity of detection continues to improve.

Identification of adrafinil and its main metabolite modafinil in human hair. Self-administration study and interpretation of an authentic case

29 Jan 2020

Identification of adrafinil and its main metabolite modafinil in human hair. Self-administration study and interpretation of an authentic case / Alice Ameline, Laurie Gheddar, Jean-Sébastien Raul, Pascal Kintz. - (Forensic Sciences Research 5 (2020) 4 (29 January); p. 322-326)

  • PMID: 33457050
  • PMCID: PMC7782130
  • DOI: 10.1080/20961790.2019.1704482


Abstract

For several years, the misuse of stimulant substances is increasingly observed both in the field of sport, to improve the functions of the body and therefore to be more performant, and also by non-athletes to make life more tolerable on a daily basis. Adrafinil, 2-((diphenylmethyl)sulfinyl)-N-hydroxyacetamide, is a drug designed for the treatment of narcolepsy by promoting an awakened state, and to treat alertness and neurological symptoms in the elderly. It is primarily metabolized in vivo to an active form, i.e. modafinil, 2-((diphenylmethyl)sulfinyl)acetamide. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) banned these two drugs in sports in 2004. The authors report an authentic case involving adrafinil and modafinil. The laboratory was requested to test for adrafinil in a hair strand collected from a woman found in possession of vials of adrafinil and suspected of trafficking. A specific method was developed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Unlike modafinil (varying from 6.8 to 13.9 ng/mg), adrafinil was not identified in the strand. The interpretation of the results was difficult because this is the first case describing human hair analysis. In order to be able to interpret the results, a self-administration study was conducted after an oral administration to a volunteer (200 mg) whose beard hair was collected 10 days after administration. The analysis of this specimen highlighted the presence of adrafinil at 0.8 ng/mg and modafinil at 0.5 ng/mg. These results demonstrate the dual identification of both compounds after a single consumption, even after administration of a low dose. According to these results, the analysis of the hair strand from the authentic case does not match with a consumption of adrafinil, in accordance with abuse of modafinil alone. Intelligence considered that this was a trafficking case of adrafinil, with no self-consumption.

Comprehensive insights into the formation of metabolites of the ghrelin mimetics capromorelin, macimorelin and tabimorelin as potential markers for doping control purposes

14 Jan 2021

Comprehensive insights into the formation of metabolites of the ghrelin mimetics capromorelin, macimorelin and tabimorelin as potential markers for doping control purposes / Tobias Lange, Andreas Thomas, Christian Görgens, Martin Bidlingmaier, Katharina Schilbach, Eric Fichant, Philippe Delahaut, Mario Thevis. - (Biomedical Chromatography (2021) 17 January; p. 1-18)

  • PMID: 33458843
  • DOI: 10.1002/bmc.5075


Abstract

Analytical methods to determine the potential misuse of the ghrelin mimetics capromorelin (CP-424,391), macimorelin (macrilen, EP-01572) and tabimorelin (NN703) in sports were developed. Therefore, different extraction strategies, i.e. solid-phase extraction, protein precipitation, as well as a "dilute-and-inject" approach, from urine and EDTA-plasma were assessed and comprehensive in vitro/in vivo experiments were conducted, enabling the identification of reliable target analytes by means of high resolution mass spectrometry. The drugs' biotransformation led to the preliminary identification of 51 metabolites of capromorelin, 12 metabolites of macimorelin and 13 metabolites of tabimorelin. Seven major metabolites detected in rat urine samples collected post-administration of 0.5-1.0 mg of a single oral dose underwent in-depth characterization, facilitating their implementation into future confirmatory test methods. In particular, two macimorelin metabolites exhibiting considerable abundances in post-administration rat urine samples were detected, which might contribute to an improved sensitivity, specificity, and detection window in case of human sports drug testing programs. Further, the intact drugs were implemented into World Anti-Doping Agency-compliant initial testing (limits of detection 0.02-0.60 ng/ml) and confirmation procedures (limits of identification 0.18-0.89 ng/ml) for human urine and blood matrices. The obtained results allow extension of the test spectrum of doping agents in multitarget screening assays for growth hormone-releasing factors from human urine.

ISADDP 2020 SI Disciplinary Decision 20207132

30 Jun 2020

In 2017 Sport Ireland reported an anti-doping rule violation against the go-kart racing driver IS 7132 for evading sample collection. Here the Doping Control Officer (DCO) reported that the Athlete attended the Doping Control Station but decided not to complete the sample collection after receiving a phone call about a medical emergency. Although warned by the DCO about the consequences the Athlete decided to leave the Doping Control Station.

Sport Ireland (SI) accepted that the Athlete had compelling justification for failing to submit to sample collection after the Athlete had produced two letters signed by a doctor of a clinic, confirming there was an emergency appointment for the Athlete and a third party.

Hereafter in April 2019 SI received information that raised doubts about the authenticity of the doctors letters provided by the Athlete. At SI's request the doctor in question confirmed that he never had prepared or signed either of these letters nor had the Athlete attended the clinic for an emergency appointment.

Consequently SI in May 2019 reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for evading sample collection and Tampering. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

The Athlete in his submissions at first gave a prompt admission for evading sample collection but denied the Tampering charge as he believed there was a medical emergency. The Athlete alleged that afterwards he was informed that there was in fact no medical emergycy, that someone else had procured the two forged letters without his knowledge but in spite of this he acknowledged that he had provided those letters to SI.

Investigations conducted by SI into the Athlete revealed through witness statements in detail that the Athlete the night before the race had smoked multiple joints of Cannabis. In the situation the Athlete won the race and might be tested he was informed during the sample collection that there was a medical emergency. Instead of attending a hospital, clinic or doctor he went to a pub.

The Athlete again rejected the new evidence, maintained there was a medical emergency but failed to produce witness statements to rebut the statements of SI's witnesses.

Eventually the Irish Sport Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel settled the case based on the written submissions of the Parties after the Athlete had disengaged from the proceedings and ceased submitting communications.

The Panel deems that the two anti-doping rule violations are to be considered as a single first violation and the sanction based on the violation that carries the more severe sanction. Also it notices that there were some delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Regarding the evidence in this case provided by the Parties the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete knew at all times that the supposed medical emergency was not true and was designed to provide him with an excuse to evade the sample collection.

Furthermore the Panel finds that the Athlete deliberately sought to deceive SI by providing false medical records to back up the deception while he was willing to persist with this deception until confronted with proof of these lies. Then the Athlete chose to withdraw himself from the process without any explanation as to why.

Therefore on 30 June 2020 the Irish Sport Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 May 2019

SI 2020 SI Disciplinary Decision 20207131

22 May 2020

In January 2020 Sport Ireland (IS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the swimmer IS-7131 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clostebol. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing and accepted the sanction proposed by Sport Ireland.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and asserted that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence supported by detailed evidence he filed. He explained that he suffered from eczema on his hands since childhood and that he used prescribed cream Denvercort that doesn't contain prohibited substances.

He stated that at the relevant time he was under a great deal of stress and the day before the sample collection he had used the cream to stop the itching on his hands so he could sleep. However he was unaware that he was using an incorrect cream Trofodermin that contains Clostebol while its tube looks very similar to Denvercort.

The Athlete could not explain how the Trofodermin cream came in his possession since he had not purchased the cream and it appeared to be only available in Italy and in Brazil. To explain the cream in his possesion he had contacted athletes he roomed with since 2018 and every friend and family member he hollidayed with since 2018.

SI accepts that the violaton was not intentional and that the Athlete established grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence. The Athlete demonstrated with evidence how the prohibited substance entered his system and that the positive test was the result of mistaken identity in terms of the two creams.

Further SI considers that the Rome Lab confirmed that the found concentration Clostebol in the Athlete's sample was consistent with his use of the cream the day before the sample collection.

Therefore Sport Ireland decides on 22 May 2020 to impose a reduced 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete IS-7131 starting on the date of the sample collection.

SI 2020 SI Disciplinary Decision 20207130

8 Apr 2020

In March 2020 Sport Ireland has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Gaelic football player IS-7130 after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing and accepted the sanction proposed by Sport Ireland.

Therefore Sport Ireland decides on 8 April 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete IS-7130 starting on the date of the sample collection.

ISADDP 2019 SI Disciplinary Decision 20197129

14 May 2020

In December 2019 Sport Ireland (Spórt Éireann) has reported 3 anti-doping rule violations against the wrestler IS-7129 after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 5-Methylhexan-2-amine (1,4-dimethylpentylamine), Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) and Stanozolol.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and although duly informed and invited she failed to attend the hearing of the Irish Sport Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel.

Sport Ireland (SI) contended that the Athlete tested postitive for 3 prohibited substances and requested the Panel to impose a sanction of 4 years. SI argued that the Athlete in her submissions suggested that her medication and contamined supplements she used were probably the source of the positive test. Nevertheless she failed to produce any corroborative evidence in this matter.

Consequently SI holds that the Athlete failed to establish how the substances entered her system. She made no TUE application for her medication and didn't mention her medication and supplements in question on the Doping Control Form.

The Panel finds that the presence of 3 prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly she committed an anti-doping rule violation.The Panel deems that an sanction shall be imposed based on the moste severe anti-doping rule violation.

The Panel considered the Athlete's conduct and submissions in this case and concludes that she failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the Irish Sport Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 14 May 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete IS-7129 starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 December 2019.

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