Smart Drugs and Synthetic Androgens for Cognitive and Physical Enhancement : Revolving Doors of Cosmetic Neurology / Paola Frati, Chrystalla Kyriakou, Alessandro Del Rio, Enrico Marinelli, Gianluca Montanari Vergallo, Simona Zaami, Francesco P. Busardò. - (Current Neuropharmacology 13 (2015) 1 (January); p. 5-11).

• DOI: 10.2174/1570159X13666141210221750.
• PMCID: PMC4462043.
• PMID: 26074739

Abstract:

Cognitive enhancement can be defined as the use of drugs and/or other means with the aim to improve the cognitive functions of healthy subjects in particular memory, attention, creativity and intelligence in the absence of any medical indication. Currently, it represents one of the most debated topics in the neuroscience community. Human beings always wanted to use substances to improve their cognitive functions, from the use of hallucinogens in ancient civilizations in an attempt to allow them to better communicate with their gods, to the widespread use of caffeine under various forms (energy drinks, tablets, etc.), to the more recent development of drugs such as stimulants and glutamate activators.
In the last ten years, increasing attention has been given to the use of cognitive enhancers, but up to now there is still only a limited amount of information concerning the use, effect and functioning of cognitive enhancement in daily life on healthy subjects. The first aim of this paper was to review current trends in the misuse of smart drugs (also known as Nootropics) presently available on the market focusing in detail on methylphenidate, trying to evaluate the potential risk in healthy individuals, especially teenagers and young adults. Moreover, the authors have explored the issue of cognitive enhancement compared to the use of Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AAS) in sports. Finally, a brief overview of the ethical considerations surrounding human enhancement has been examined.

Report of the Independent Observers : 2019 Pan American Games, Lima, Perú / Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2020

2018 Anti-Doping Testing Figures / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2019

Contents:

- Executive Summary - pp. 2-6 (5 pages)
- Laboratory Report -– pp. 7-34 (28 pages)
- Sport Report - pp. 35-159 (125 pages)
- Testing Authority Report - pp. 160-304 (145 pages)
- ABP Report-Blood Analysis - pp. 305-343 (39 pages)

2017 Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) Report / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2019.
- Report compiled based on cases received by WADA before 31 May 2019

This is the fifth year that WADA publishes the ADRVs Report. The Report illustrates doping offencescommitted under the World Anti-Doping Code (Code) in 2017.

The Report includes the decisions received by WADA before 31 May 2019 of all Adverse AnalyticalFindings (AAFs) for which the samples were collected by Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) in 2017and reported in ADAMS. This also includes Non-Analytical Anti-Doping rule violations for decisionsrendered in 2017. Discrepancy from ADOs’ published statistics may occur due to different reportingcriteria.

The ADRVs Report is divided as follows:

1.) An Introduction and an Executive Summary which provide an overview and highlight the key observations of the 2017 ADRVs Report.
2.) Sections 1 and 2 present the results management outcomes (including ADRVs) of all AAFs detected by WADA-accredited Laboratories for samples collected from athletes in- and out-of-competition in 2017. They are presented by sport, discipline (Section 1) and testing authority (Section 2).

3.) Section 3 includes ADRVs that resulted from Non-Analytical findings committed by Athletes (presented by sport and nationality) and by Athlete Support Personnel (presented by nationality).

4.) Section 4 indicates the total number of ADRVs from Athletes in 2017, which includes AAFs that resulted in an ADRV and all Non-Analytical ADRVs. The data is presented by sport andnationality.
The information is further divided into:
- Sample type (urine or blood),
- Type of test (in- or out-of-competition), and;
- Athlete gender.

Contents:

Introduction
Executive Summary
Section 1: Outcomes of 2017 AAFs by Sport Category
Section 2: Outcomes of 2017 AAFs by Testing Authority Category
Section 3: Report of 2017 Non-Analytical ADRVs
Section 4: Report of 2017 Total Analytical and Non-Analytical ADRVs

CAS 2018/A/5681 Nationale Anti-Doping Agentur Deutschland v. Vincent A.

In June 2017 the National Anti Doping Agency Germany (NADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the baseballplayer Vincent A after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Amfetamine.

In first instance the Athlete demonstrated with evidence that he was the victim of sabotage through contamination of his supplement. The German Institution of Arbitration (DIS) accepted the Athlete’s assertion an decided on 19 March 2018 not to impose a sanction on the Athlete.

Hereafter in April 2018 NADA appealed the DIS decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). NADA requested the Panel to set aside the DIS decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

NADA accepted that the violation was not intentional but is doubtful that the Athlete acted without Fault and didn’t demonstrate how the substance entered his system. It contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the alleged contamination of his supplement in question was the result of sabotage by an ex-girlfriend. Also NADA pointed to a number of inconsistenties in the Athlete's statements made during the proceedings and during the police investigations into the doping violation.

The Athlete requested the Panel to uphold the DIS decision of 19 March 2018, he accepted the test results and he denied that he had committed the violation knowingly and intentionally. He asserted that the sample collection was initiated after NADA had received anonymous reports and he undertook enormous efforts in order to find an explanation for the positive test. Further the Cologne Lab had confirmed that the prohibited substance was found in his supplement in question while the Athlete’s hair analysis showed the presence of low concentrations of Amfetamine consistent with low ingestion.

Considering the evidence, the opinion of expert witnesses and the Athlete’s assertions the Panel is unconvinced that on a balance of probability the Athlete’s ex-girlfriend had sabotaged his supplement by mixing a crumbled amfetamine tablet into this supplement during her alleged visit to his apartment in March 2017. The Panel holds that the probability of sabotage is significant less than 50% and accordingly the Panel rejects the Athlete’s assertion.

The Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and that the source of the positive test remained unknown. Also the Panel finds that the Athlete acted negligently regarding the storage and use of his supplements as this represents a conceivable risk in case of sabotage by friend or foe.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decides on 27 December 2018:

1.) The Decision of the German Institution of Arbitration (DIS) of 19 March 2018 is set aside.
2.) The Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and a 2 year period of ineligibility shall be imposed.
3.) The provisional period of suspension served by the Athlete shall be credited.
[…]

CAS 2014/A/3603 Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA) ./. Michael W.

In October 2013 the National Anti Doping Agency Germany (NADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the baseballplayer Michel W. after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG).

Here the Athlete admitted the use of the prohibited substance to improve his fertility since he and his wife were unsuccessfull in having children. The German Institution of Arbitration (DIS) accepted the Athlete’s explanation and decided on 14 April 2014 to impose only a warning on the Athlete.

Hereafter in May 2014 NADA appealed the DIS decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). NADA requested the Panel to set aside the DIS decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

NADA contended that the Athlete had used the substance intentionally to enhance his sport performance and not to improve his fertility. In first instance he had already admitted the violation, explained where he had purchased the substance and through injection administered into his system.

NADA asserted that the Athlete failed to provide medical information and he didn’t consult a doctor about his condition. Instead he followed the recommendation of an anonymous training partner and he acquired the substance through dubious channels. House searches conducted as part of criminal proceedings against the Athlete revealed the presence of prohibited substances in his house including hCG while he also had a shop for Sports nutrition and food supplements.

The Athlete requested the Panel to uphold the DIS decision and disputed the jurisdiction of CAS, the competence of NADA to appeal and the criminal proceedings against him. He denied that he had used the substance intentionally but solely to improve his fertility for having children as sustained by his wife’s witness statement.

The CAS Panel establish that it has jurisdiction under the applicable Rules, rejects the Athlete’s objections and finds that the NADA appeal is admissible.

The Panel holds that the Athlete in First Instance had admitted the violation and concludes that he had used the substance knowingly and intentionally. The Panel finds it possible that the Athlete assumed that the hCG would increase his fertility. Considering the Athlete’s fault in this case the Panel deems that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction. The Panel regards that Athlete could have known that the hCG is a prohibited substance through research on the internet. Also he failed to seek medical assistance nor did he apply for a TUE.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 10 February 2015:

1.) The NADA appeal is admissible.
2.) The Decision of the German Institution of Arbitration (DIS) of 14 April 2014 is set aside.
3.) On the Athlete is imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility.
4.) The sanctions starts on the date of the provisional suspension.
5.) […]
6.) […]
7.) [...]

Facial features and unethical behavior - Doped athletes show higher facial width-to-height ratios than non-doping sanctioned athletes / Bjoern Krenn, Callum Buehler. - (PLoSONE (2019) 30 October); p. 1-9).
- PMID: 31665155.
- PMCID: PMC6821090.
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224472

Abstract

Past research has emphasized the role of facial structures in predicting social behavior. In particular the facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) was found to be a reliable predictor for antisocial and unethical behavior. The current study was aimed at examining this association in the field of sports: FWHRs of 146 doping sanctioned athletes in athletics (37 male/38 female) and weightlifting (44 male/27 female) were compared to the fWHRs of randomly chosen non-doping sanctioned athletes of the Top Ten at the World Championship 2017 and Olympic Games 2016 in both sports (146 athletes). The results showed that doping sanctioned athletes due to the use of anabolic steroids had larger fWHRs than non-doping sanctioned athletes. However, doping sanctioned athletes due to other doping rule violations than the use of anabolic steroids, did not show this effect. The study provides empirical evidence for the relation between fWHR and unethical behavior in a real-world setting and contributes to the discussion about fWHR’s biological origin, emphasizing the role of anabolic steroids. A mutual interaction between fWHR and doping behavior is discussed, at which a larger fWHR might signify a higher tendency to behave unethically, whereas the consequential intake of anabolic steroids might also shape individuals’ faces.

Related cases:

• AAA 2017 No. 01 17 0003 6197 USADA vs Jeffrey Brown
  September 30, 2019
• CAS 2019_A_6530 Jeffrey Brown vs USADA | Alberto Salazar vs USADA
  September 15, 2021

Mr. Alberto Salazar is an American track coach and former world-class long-distance runner and the head coach of the Nike Oregon Project (NOP) in Portland, Oregon.

In June 2017 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against Mr. Salazar:

1.) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including testosterone and prohibited intravenous (IV) infusions and related equipment (such as needles, IV bags and/or syringes, storage containers and other infusion equipment and devices).
2.) Trafficking and/or attempted trafficking of testosterone and prohibited IV infusions.
3.) Administration and/or attempted administration of testosterone and prohibited IV infusions.
4.) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up, and other complicity involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations (“Complicity”).
5.) Tampering and/or attempted tampering.

Also charged is Dr. Jeffrey Brown, a physician and a consultant for the Nike Oregon Project. Here USADA reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against Dr Brown for trafficking, administration, complicity and tampering.

After notification Mr. Salazar filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the Tribunal of the American Arbitration Association (AAA).

In this case against Mr. Salazar the Panel has reviewed and examined approximately 1,562 exhibits, heard seven full days of testimony, which are documented in 2,543 pages of hearing transcript, reviewed and carefully considered the parties’ prehearing and post-hearing briefs, which consist of 1,154 pages, reviewed and ruled on various motions and issues that arose between the parties, which are articulated in the 14 Procedural Orders issued by the Panel, and the Panel was required to spend thousands of hours on this matter.

USADA contended with evidence and witness statements that Mr. Salazar was involved in the infusions/injections of L-carnite administered to the Athlete Steve Magness and NOP athletes; possession and use of testosterone gel and tampering together with his attorneys during the investigation and arbitration. During the proceedings USADA did not pursue the Administration or Attempted Administration of Testosterone for personal use.

The Panel finds that USADA has met its burden of proof to show that there was:
1.) A Prohibited Method, an infusion over the applicable limit;
2.) Mr. Magness was an Athlete; and
3.) Mr. Salazar, specifically and aggressively, facilitated and otherwise participated in Mr. Magness’ Use of the Prohibited Method.
Accordingly the Panel finds that Mr. Salazar has committed a anti-doping rule violation of the Rules.

A majority of the Panel finds that USADA has not met its burden of proof with respect to the Attempted administration charge in the matter of the NOP Athletes. Neither with respect to Mr. Salazar committing a Complicity anti-doping rule violation regarding to the Athlete Steve Magness infusion nor to the NOP Athletes.

A majority of the Panel finds that Mr. Salazar did deliberately engage in intentional conduct to alter results or prevent normal procedures from occurring. He was clearly operating under the impression that the NOP Athletes could be asked about infusions and a majority finds he tried to prevent the normal procedure from occurring by instructing the NOP Athletes that no declaration of use of LCarnitine was required and that they should deny they had the L-carnitine infusion when asked about infusions when getting drug tested in or out of competition.

The Panel is concerned that Mr. Salazar conducted a Testosterone Experiment on two non-Athletes, i.e. his own sons, at a reputable and well known training facility, by a very experienced and well known Athlete Support Person, with no actual justification and involving the administration of a controlled substance in potential violation of federal laws. While the Panel accepts Mr. Salazar’s contention that the experiment was designed to protect athletes of the NOP, it could have also been conducted as part of a nefarious attempt to “beat” the testing system and thus is susceptible to creating an appearance of cheating that one could argue would bring the experiment much closer to being “in connection with” an Athlete, Competition or training.

Also regarding the Testosterone Experiment the Panel concludes that Mr. Salazar as Athlete Support Person is strictly prohibited from trafficking in Testostereone by giving it to third parties and committed the anti-doping rule violation for Trafficking. Further the Panel finds that there is insufficient evidence that there was Complicity regarding the Testosterone Experiment and the Panel declines to find a violation here for Tampering based on Mr. Salazar’s conduct in the investigation and arbitration.

Therefore on the basis of the foregoing facts and legal aspects the Panel decides on 30 September 2019:

1.) Respondent has committed the following anti-doping rule violations: Administration, Tampering and Trafficking.
2.) The following sanction shall be imposed on Respondent: a period of Ineligibility (as defined in the World Anti-Doping Code) of four years from the date of this Award, with all attendant consequences.
3.) The parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this arbitration.
4.) The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association, and the compensation and expenses of the Panel, shall be borne entirely by USADA and the United States Olympic Committee.
5.) This award is in full settlement of all claims and counterclaims submitted to this Arbitration. All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby denied.
6.) This award may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall constitute together one and the same instrument.