Urinary marker of oral pregnenolone administration

1 Mar 2021

Urinary marker of oral pregnenolone administration / Christophe Saudan, Aurélien Desmarchelier, Pierre-Edouard Sottas, Patrice Mangin, Martial Saugy. - (Steroids 70 (2005) 3 (March); p. 179-183)

  • PMID: 15763596
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.steroids.2004.12.007


Abstract

Pregnenolone (PREG) can potentially be abused by athletes to maintain an equilibration of the steroidal environment after sex steroids administrations. Five men volunteers orally ingested 50 mg PREG to determine optimal urinary markers for detection of this steroid. Our findings show that ingestion of PREG has no significant effects on the testosterone/epitestosterone (T/E) and testosterone/luteinizing hormone (T/LH) ratios, whereas variable changes on the carbon isotopic values of three T metabolites: androsterone, etiocholanolone, 5beta-androstane-3alpha,17beta-diol (5beta-androstanediol) together with 16(5alpha)-androsten-3alpha-ol (androstenol) and 5beta-pregnane-3alpha,20alpha-diol (pregnanediol) have been observed. The difference between the carbon isotopic values (delta13C-values) of androstenol and pregnanediol is potentially the most reliable marker of exogenous PREG administration in males. For all subjects, the differences differ by 3.0 per thousand or more over a period of about 10 h and for both of them the detection window for positivity is extended over 40 h.

UKAD 2020 RFU vs Ralph Rainbow

11 Feb 2021

In July 2018, UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) was informed that the UK Border Forced had intercepted and seized a package addressed to the rugby player Ralph Rainbow and contained Human Growth Hormone. In January 2020 in an interview with UKAD the Athlete admitted the purchase of this substance.

Hereafter in September 2018 the Rugby Football Union (RFU) reported 2 anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for Possession (by purchase) and Use or Attempted Use of the prohibited substance Human Growth Hormone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Because the Athlete indicated that he did not wish to contest the charges the National Anti-Doping Panel renders a Decision based on the written submissions of the Parties.

The RFU contends that the Athlete had admitted the violations and had not disputed the charges. There was no evidence that the violation was not intentional nor were there grounds for a reduced sanction.

The Panel finds that the Athlete has committed the anti-doping rule violations and as he has not disputed the charges, he is deemded to have admitted the violations and to have waived his right for a hearing.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 11 February 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 30 September 2020.

ADAK 2019 ADAK vs James Mwangi Wangari

23 Sep 2020

In March 2019 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete James Wangari after his sample tested posive for the prohibted substances Androsterone, Etiocholanolone, Testosterone and its Adiols.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal. The Athlete gave a prompt admission in July 2020, denied the intentional use and accepted the sanction proposed by ADAK.

Therefore the Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 23 September 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 19 March 2017.

World Archery 2016 WA vs Jason Lyon

5 Jul 2016

In May 2016 the World Archery Federation (WA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Canadian archer Jason Lyon after his A and B sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxilofrine in a low concentration.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the WA Anti-Doping Panel. The Athlete accepted the test results, denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that he was tested before without issues.

The Athlete had conducted an investigation into the source of the positive test and established which food, supplements and medication he had used prior to the competition in Phoenix in April 2016 where he provided a sample for drug testing. 

The Athlete asserted that certain oranges he had consumed could be the likely source of the Oxilofrine while he was unaware that these oranges might contain Oxilofrine. For analysis in a Laboratory the Athlete had purchased Satsuma oranges from a local Wal-Mart in Canada. These were the same oranges he had purchased from a Wal-Mart in Phoenix and consumed on the day of the competition.

Supported by an expert witness the Athlete demonstrated, with Lab analysis of these Satsuma oranges, the presence of Oxilofrine in a concentration to be consistent with the low concentrations found in his A and B samples. Analysis in this Lab of the supplements and medication he had used had revealed no prohibited substances. 

On the other hand the expert witness of the Lausanne Lab was very skeptical regarding the Athlete’s claims of the presence of Oxilofrine in oranges since he was was unaware of any publication which addresses the question whether gas of liquid chromatography performed on fruits or vegetables has detected the presence of Oxilofrine. 

Considering the test results the Anti-Doping Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substance Oxilofrine had been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

In view of the pleadings and the testimony provided both by the Athlete himself and his expert witness, the Panel remains unpersuaded, based on the balance of probability, that the oranges purchased at a Wal-Mart, of which he alleges to have consumed up to six in the hours leading up to the competition and the sample collection, are the source of the Oxilofrine. 

Considering the missing proof of purchase and chain of custody, the preponderance of scientific opinion that Oxilofrine is not a natural substance which develops organically in oranges and the misdirected and unsubstantiated testimony of the Athlete’s expert witness with regard to his laboratory methodology, the Panel is forced to conclude that the Athlete has not met his burden of proof regarding the source of the Oxilofrine. Consequently the Panel finds that the Athlete failed to establish that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence. 

The Panel finds no grounds to assume that the Athlete in consuming Oxilofrine acted intentionally in order to enhance his performance. This view is also shared by WA and a four year ban was not requested.

In addition the Panel holds that it has no reason to assume that the Athlete is a “cheater”. His excellent performance record and lack of any previous violations of the Rules over many years of competition speak for themselves. 

Therefore the Anti-Doping Panel decides on 5 July 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 May 2016.

World Archery 2016 Oscar Alfonso Guillén Ticas

5 Jul 2016

In May 2016 the World Archery Federation (WA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Salvatorian archer Oscar Alfonso Guillén Ticas after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clostebol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the WA Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained with sustained with evidence and witness statements that he suffered from a knee wound on 21 February 2016 which was treated with Neobol, an over-the-counter antibiotic spray that contained Clostebol. The medication was administered until 24 February while he was tested later on 6 March 2016.

The spray was suggested and administered by a physiotherapist and he was told that there was no risk that the use of this medication would result in an anti-doping rule violation. Medication was available without a prescription and used regurlarly by the National Athletics Federation for the treatment of wounds in their athletes.

WA accepts that the violation was not intentional and the result of the Athlete's use of the Neobol spray to heel a knee wound. WA considers that the Athlete trusted his physiotherapist and genuinely believed that the product suggested to him was safe although he did not verify this medication with his personal doctor or the pharmacist.

The Anti-Doping Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Considering the evidence in this case the Panel concludes that the violation was not intentional and the result of the use of the Neobol spray containing Clostebol.

The Panel finds that the Athlete acted with some degree of Negligence as he trusted his physiotherapist but failed to consult an authorized physician nor researched the Neobol on the internet revealing the presence of the prohibited ingredient Clostebol.

Therefore the Anti-Doping Panel decides on 5 July 2016 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 May 2016.

CAS 2020_A_6763 Trinidad and Tobago Olympic Committee vs World Athletics

24 Feb 2021

CAS 2020_A_6763 Trinidad and Tobago Olympic Committee (TTOC) v. World Athletics

In August 2019 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) for World Athletics reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ms Michelle-Lee Ahye from Trinidad and Tobago for having 3 Missed Tests within a 12 month period: in June 2018, February 2019 and in April 2019. 

In First Instance before the Disciplinary Tribunal the Athlete accepted that the First and Second Missed Tests amounted to breaches of World Athletics Rules. As to the Third Missed Test the Athlete stated that she was at home on 19 April 2019 but had not heard the doorbell or the knocking on the door or the telephone.

Contrary to the Athlete's statement the Doping Control Officer (DCO) reported that during the 60-minute time slot he knocked on her door 36 times and rang the bell 12 times while he also telephoned her twice.

Although the Athlete offered a number of reasons, the Tribunal concluded that she failed to demonstrate that she didn’t acted negligently for her failure to be available for testing on 19 April 2019. Consequently the Disciplinary Tribunal decided on 7 January 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of Third Missed Test, i.e. 19 April 2019. 

Hereafter in February 2020 the Trinidad and Tobago Olympic Committee (TTOC) appealed the Decision of 7 January 2020 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Sole Arbitrator rendered a decision based on the written submissions of the Parties. 

The TTOC on behalf of the Athlete did not dispute the First Missed Test but did address the Second and Third Missed Tests. The TTOC argued that the Athlete was not to blame for the Second Missed Test then it follows that the Second Missed test should not be taken into account as a violation, with the result that no anti-doping rule violation has been committed, or that no fault or negligence to be attributed to the Athlete regarding to the Second Missed Test. 

As to the Third Missed Test the TTOC asserted that in First Instance the Tribunal erred in law when it found that the World Athletics did discharge its burden of proof at the requisite standard in relation to the actions of the DCO in question. The TTOC claimed that the DCO did not do all that was reasonable necessary to locate the Athlete and that he failed to act in accordance with the applicable Guidelines. 

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete has committed three Missed Tests within a 12-month period (commencing 23 June 2018). Having taken into account the nature and circumstances of the Three Missed Tests, and the evidence on each of them proffered by the Athlete, the Sole Arbitrator finds that the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal was correct in applying a 2 year period of ineligibility from the date of the Third Missed Test (being 19 April 2019).

Further he finds that there is no reason to grant a reduction of the period of ineligibility. In the Sole Arbitrator's view, there is nothing about the degree of fault on the part of the Athlete that commends itself to a reduction of sanction. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 February 2021 that:

  1. The appeal filed by the Trinidad and Tobago Olympic Committee against World Athletics with the Court of Arbitration for Sport on 10 February 2020 is dismissed in its entirety.
  2. The decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal dated 7 January 2020 is confirmed.
  3. The Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (onethousand Swiss Francs) paid by the Trinidad and Tobago Olympic Committee, which is retainedby the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
  4. The Trinidad and Tobago Olympic Committee shall make a contribution of CHF 3000 (threethousand Swiss francs) to the legal costs and other expenses incurred by World Athletics in connection with these proceedings.
  5. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

    WADA - Compliance Annual Report 2020

    11 Mar 2021

    Compliance Annual Report 2020 / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2021



    WADA has publishes its 2020 Code Compliance Annual Report (Report). This second yearly report of its kind is an important element of WADA’s commitment to transparency and of WADA’s Compliance Strategy that was endorsed by WADA’s Executive Committee in 2019.

    One of WADA’s primary roles as the global regulatory body for anti-doping is to monitor effective implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code (Code) and its related International Standards (Standards) by over 350 Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs); such as, National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs), International Federations (IFs) and Major Event Organizations.

    In particular, the purpose of the Report is to:

    • Clearly outline the achievements and challenges of WADA’s Compliance Monitoring Program in an integrated fashion, measuring objectives against key performance indicators through quantitative and qualitative analysis, including areas for improvement;
       
    • Detail the interpretation and implications of the findings, trends and lessons learned over time towards Code Signatory Organizations, enhancing their compliance maturity as defined in the Compliance Strategy; and
       
    • Identify opportunities for continual improvement that are the foundation for the following year’s Compliance Annual Plan. This cycle is repeated annually as WADA seeks to develop compliance maturity through continual improvement of its own compliance activities and the global anti-doping system.

    Some of the key findings of the Report include the following:

    • Flexible compliance measures applied by WADA to recognize the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Code Signatories, in particular the temporary freezing of deadlines and enforcement procedures in the compliance monitoring program, resulted in fewer corrective actions being implemented by Signatories.

    • The area of results management generated a significant number of non-conformities across WADA’s monitoring programs compared with previous years.
       
    • Due to the more complex nature of their anti-doping programs, NADOs generated more non-conformities than IFs and took longer to implement corrective actions.
       
    • Agencies and organizations such as the International Testing Agency (ITA) and the Canadian NADO, to which a number of IFs delegated some or all parts of their anti-doping program, contributed to significantly improve IF anti-doping program independence and compliance.

    World Athletics - Annexes to the RusAF Reinstatement Plan - 1 March 2021

    1 Mar 2021

    Annexes to the RusAF Reinstatement Plan / RusAF Reinstatement Commission. - Moscow : World Athletics, 2021


    Content

    • Annex A. Rusaf Operational Roadmap
    • Annex B. Russian Law For Physical Education And Sport
    • Annex C. Charter
    • Annex D. Employment Contract With The Coach
    • Annex E. Employment Contract With An Athlete
    • Annex F. The Assessment Of The Structure Of Anti-Doping Rules Violation And The Evaluation Of Anti-Doping Measures Efficiency In Russian Athletics During 2000-2020
    • Annex G. Regulation For The Anti-Doping And Athletics Integrity Department
    • Annex H. Rusaf Body And Structure
    • Annex I. Sports Management In Russia
    • Annex J. Rusaf Budget Structure For 2021

    World Athletics - RusAF Reinstatement Plan - 1 March 2021

    1 Mar 2021

    RusAF Reinstatement Plan - Towards a Clean Future for Russian Athletics : version of February 2021 sumbitted for the approval of World Athletics / RusAF Reinstatement Commission. - Moscow : World Athletics, 2021


    Contents

    1. Executive Summary
    2. Pillars Of Reform, Kpis And Timescales
    3. Rusaf Strategic Steps, Priorities And Timeline
    4. Introduction
    5. Background
    6. Vision Of A Clean Future Of Russian Athletics
    7. Brief Review Of The Origins Of The Crisis
    8. The Current State Of Russian Athletics
    9. The Immediate Actions To Be Undertaken - Governance
    10. The Actions To Be Undertaken – Anti-Doping
    11. Conclusions


    Following detailed work by World Athletics’ Russia Taskforce, its independent experts, and RusAF, a final plan for the reinstatement of RusAF to membership of World Athletics was recommended to the World Athletics Council last week.

    In an email to the World Athletics Council, Taskforce Chairman Rune Andersen wrote: “The Taskforce has now reviewed and provided detailed feedback on three different drafts of the Reinstatement Plan. The three international experts appointed by World Athletics have worked closely with RusAF on the development of the Reinstatement Plan and advised the Taskforce that they believe the Plan is fit for the purpose of embedding in Russian athletics the deep-rooted change in culture that Council has been demanding for the past five years. In addition, although RusAF President Peter Ivanov has been required to step down for two years because of his appointment as a senior official of the Russian Government (to respect the CAS sanctions imposed on Russian Government officials in the WADA/RUSADA compliance case), the international experts also consider that the senior management that Mr Ivanov has put in place will be able to move the Plan forward in his absence, under the temporary leadership of RusAF Vice-President Irina Privalova as Acting President.

    “For its part, the Taskforce stands ready to monitor the milestones and KPIs in the Reinstatement Plan carefully, so that it is able to report to future Council meetings whether RusAF is keeping up with the enormous work that will be required to implement the Reinstatement Plan successfully.

    “On this basis, the Taskforce recommends that Council resolves (1) to approve the Reinstatement Plan; and (2) to publish it on the World Athletics website.”

    World Athletics’ Council unanimously agreed the Taskforce recommendations.

    2020 Revised Terms of Reference for the World Athletics Russia Taskforce

    2 Dec 2020

    2020 Revised Terms of Reference for the World Athletics Russia Taskforce / World Athletics. - Monaco : World Athletics, 2020


    The chair of the Russian Taskforce Rune Andersen reported that there has been progress on the part of the Russian Federation in developing a meaningful Reinstatement Plan to drive the cultural change required for Russia to return to full international membership of the sport.

    Andersen said that a foundation had been laid in recent months for the new RusAF leadership, which was elected on Monday, to put an appropriate plan in place by the deadline of 1 March 2021.

    The World Ahtletics Council approved revised terms of reference for the Taskforce to reflect these recent developments.

    RusAF must meet the deadline of 1 March 2021 and continue to pay the costs associated with the reinstatement process or the Council decision from July this year – to propose that Congress expels RusAF from membership of World Athletics – will come into effect.

    The Council will consider whether to allow Russian athletes to compete again as Authorised Neutral Athletes in international competitions (including allowing up to 10 ANAs to participate in World Athletics Series events and the Tokyo Olympic Games) at its next meeting, in March 2021, or earlier if the Taskforce so recommends, based on the progress made by RusAF to that date.

    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