ADAS Annual Report 2018 / Anti-Doping Agency of Serbia (ADAS). - Belgrade : Antidoping Agencija Republike Srbije, 2019

ADAS Annual Report 2019 / Anti-Doping Agency of Serbia (ADAS). - Belgrade : Antidoping Agencija Republike Srbije, 2020

ADAS Annual Report 2020 / Anti-Doping Agency of Serbia (ADAS). - Belgrade : Antidoping Agencija Republike Srbije, 2021

Anti Doping Danmark Årsberetning 2000 annual report / / Anti-Doping Denmark (ADD). - Brøndby : ADD, 2001

Indhold
Forord 2
Sammensætning 4
ADD Programmet 8
Dopingkontrollens etablering 10
Analyser og statistik 12
Nationale samarbejder 16
Internationale samarbejder 18
Information 22

Contents
Preface 3
Structure 6
The ADD Programme 9
The Establishment of Doping Controls 11
Analysis and Statistics 13
National Co-operations 17
International Co-operations 20
Information 24

Adverse Analyzing : A European Study of Anti Doping Organization Reporting Practices and the Efficacy of Drug Testing Athletes / Walter Palmer, Simon Taylor, Andrew Wingate. - Nyon : UNI Global Union, 2011

Anti-doping in sport is a multi-million Euro industry employing thousands of people that impacts upon the day-to-day lives of every professional athlete. It relies upon cutting-edge biological, chemical and medical investigations. However there is a paucity of publicly available statistical evidence to support current policies and practices on drug testing programmes for athletes.
The lack of statistical evidence to support an effective, proportional and efficient drug testing regime raises serious questions about WADA’s management of the World Anti-Doping Code.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the World Anti-Doping Agency has little or no evidence about the effectiveness of international drug testing for athletes. This has serious implications for its drug testing policies and procedures; if they are not based on hard statistical evidence then we must question how these policies are being developed and monitored.
WADA is already aware of the lack of statistical evidence on the efficacy of international drug testing yet has done little to address the shortcoming. There are clear and obvious failings in the limited statistics that WADA does publish. These omissions combined with the lack of detail renders them almost meaningless for any detailed analysis of anti-doping statistics. The findings of this report strongly suggest that WADA is in breach of the World Anti- Doping Code with regards to Article 14.4. It is failing to collect and publish comprehensive national anti-doping statistics despite being required to do so by its own Code.

Contents:

Section 1: Factors Limiting Data Collection
1.) Limited Availability of NADO Annual Reports
a.) Table: Availability of NADO Annual Reports
b.) Lack of centralized information on NADO websites
c.) Table: WADA reporting – 2008 vs. 2009
d.) Potential Code Violations
2.) Lack of a standard approach to the listing of sports and sport categories
3.) Ambiguous or general sport categories
4.) Lack of complete reporting
5.) Lack of a standard approach on third party testing
a.) Overview and Comments
b.) Table: Comparison of Report Contents
c.) Summary
d.) Interesting Individual Cases
i.) Germany
ii.) Latvia
iii.) Netherlands
iv.) United Kingdom
6.) Variation of Reporting Practices in Key Areas
a.) Violations
b.) Substances
c.) Positives (Adverse Analytical Findings – AAFs)
d.) Therapeutic Use Exemptions
e.) Missed tests
f.) Reporting failures
Section 2: Analysis of the Available Data
1.) Testing
a.) Total Number of Reported Tests – (Table)
b.) Number of tests in and out-of-competition
2.) Violations
a.) Total number of reported violations
i.) Interesting Individual Cases
1.) Belgium
2.) Germany
3.) Netherlands
4.) Luxembourg
5.) United Kingdom
b.) Sports in Which Violations occurred in 2009
c.) Number of Violations per Sport
d.) Analysis – Number of Violations per Sport
e.) Breakdown of Violations by Sport
f.) Number of violations in and out of competition
g.) Number of violations in and out of competition per sport
h.) Analysis – In and Out-of-Competition
i.) Table: Table – Ratios: Number of tests to number of violations per NADO
j.) Interesting individual cases
3.) Substances
a.) Introduction
b.) Initial Plan
c.) Problems of categorization and substance identification
d.) The amended table
e.) Table description
f.) Table: Violations: Total number of violations per sport categorized by substance
g.) Interesting Individual Cases
h.) “Multiple Violations”
i.) Non-identified substances
j.) General analysis of substances and violations
k.) General analysis of substances and sports
l.) Cannabis
Section 3: Executive Summary

The Essendon Football Club supplements controversy (commonly known as the Essendon supplements saga) is a sports controversy which began in late 2011. The Essendon Football Club, a professional Australian rules football club playing in the Australian Football League (AFL), was investigated starting in February 2013 by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) over the legality of its supplements program during the 2012 AFL season and the preceding preseason.

The initial stages of the investigation in 2013 made no findings regarding the legality of the supplements program. Still, they highlighted a wide range of governance and duty-of-care failures relating to the program. In August 2013, the AFL fined Essendon $2 million, barred the club from the 2013 finals series, and suspended senior coach James Hird and general manager Danny Corcoran as a result of these findings.

After four years of investigations and legal proceedings the AFL and ASADA reported in November 2014 multiple anti-doping rule violations against 34 current and former players of the Essendon Football Club for the use of prohibited substance Thymosin Beta-4 and their involvement in prohibited methods.

Following assessment of the evidence the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that TB4 was a prohibited substance under the AFL Code at the relevant time. However the Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that each player was injected with TB4. As a result the Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that any Athlete had violated clause 11.2 of the AFL Anti-Doping Code.

Therefore the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 31 March 2015 to dismiss the ASADA reports about multiple anti-doping violations committed by the player of the Australian Essendon Football Club for the administration and use of the prohibited substance Thymosin Beta-4.

Facts
The French Baseball and Softball Federation (Fédération Française de Baseball et Softball, FFBS) charges respondent M01 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on May 20, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substances.

History
The respondent explains that he uses cannabis five or six times a day, he uses it in a recreational setting and only out of the sports season.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of nine months, as pronounced in the decision dated September 29, 2007, by the disciplinary committee of the FFBS but extended to all relevant French sport organizations.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the time already served by the voluntary suspension and the decision of September 29, 2007.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Baseball and Softball Federation (Fédération Française de Baseball et Softball, FFBS) charges respondent M60 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on May 11, 2008, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisone and prednisolone which are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list, they are regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent explains that he had used medication to prevent an allergic reaction or asthma attack. He has medical documentation to prove his allergy for cat and dog hair.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision (one month period of ineligibility) of August 9, 2008, by the disciplinary committee of the FFBS should be modified.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.