2016 Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) Report / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2018.
- Report compiled based on cases received by WADA before 31 December 2017

This is the fourth year that WADA publishes the ADRVs Report. The Report illustrates doping offences committed under the World Anti-Doping Code in 2016.

The Report includes the decisions of all adverse analytical findings (AAFs) for which the samples were collected by anti-doping organizations (ADOs) in 2016 and the results are reported in ADAMS as well as non-analytical anti-doping rule violations for decisions rendered in 2016. Discrepancy from ADOs’ published statistics may occur due to different reporting criteria.

The ADRVs Report is broken down as follows:

• An Introduction and an Executive Summary, which provide an overview of the Report and highlight the key observations of the 2016 ADRVs Report.
• 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 2016. They are presented by sport, discipline (Section 1) and testing authority (Section 2).
• 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).
• Section 4 indicates the total number of ADRVs from athletes in 2016, which includes AAFs that resulted in an ADRV plus all non-analytical ADRVs. The data is presented by sport and nationality. The information is further broken down into type of samples (urine or blood), type of test (in- or out-of-competition) and athlete gender.

Contents:

Introduction
Executive Summary
Section 1: Outcomes of 2016 AAFs by Sport Category
Section 2: Outcomes of 2016 AAFs by Testing Authority Category
Section 3: Report of 2016 Non-Analytical ADRVs
Section 4: Report of 20165 Total Analytical and Non-Analytical ADRVs

The proceedings of the 2017 Macolin Anti-Doping Summit : a fresh look at the science, legal and policy aspects of anti-Doping / Antonio Rigozzi, Emily Wisnosky, Brianna Quinn. - Bern. - Editions Weblaw, 2017. - ISBN 9783906836966

This book sets out the proceedings of the 2017 Macolin Anti-Doping Summit.

The Summit brought together many of the most experienced and knowledgeable specialists from various disciplines, encouraging open and thought-provoking discussions on each of the major facets of anti-doping (the science aspect, the legal aspect and the policy aspect), viewed through the lens of the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code in practice.

Speakers delved into issues as diverse as whether anti-doping science and regulation are keeping pace with doping, whether the law is jeopardising anti-doping efforts, the impact of the new emphasis on intelligence operations in anti-doping cases, what anti-doping can learn from the athlete?s perspective and the ethical challenges currently faced in anti-doping efforts.

Contents:

I. Introduction comments and acknowledgments
II. The <science> aspect
- 1. Session introduction: Professor Martial Saugy
- 2. A scientist's perspective: Professor David Cowan
- 3. A lawyer's perspective: Dr Marjolaine Viret
- 4. Panel discussion - Are anti-doping science and regulation keeping pace with doping?: Baron Dr Michel D'Hooghe, Dr Matthias Kamber, Dr Francesco Botre and Dr Peter Van Eenoo
III. The <legal> aspect
- 1. Session introduction: Mr Michele Bernasconi
- 2. Legal issues with minor athletes under the Code: Mr Herman Ram
- 3. Does the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code punish the <real cheaters> more harshly?: Ms Emily Wisnosky
- 4. Shifting the focus from testing to intelligence & investigations - Lessons learned: Mr Mathieu Holz
- 5. Addressing systematic failures within an anti-doping regime designed for individuals: Professor Ulrich Haas
- 6. Panel discussion - Is the law killing anti-doping efforts: Mr Michael Beloff QC, Mr Mike Morgan, Ms Brianna Quinn, Mr Jacques Radoux and Mr Mario Vigna
IV. The <policy> aspect
- 1. Session introduction: Professor Philippe Sands QC.
- 2. Overview of a current ethical challenge in anti-doping: Professor Andy Miah
- 3. Panel discussion - What can anti-doping learn from the athlete perspective?: Mr Obadele Thompson, Mr Johannes Eder and Mr Lucas Tramer
- 4. Psychological aspects of anti-doping - The decision to dope and the impact of getting caught: Dr Mattia Piffaretti
- 5. <Independence> of the anti-doping process - From the involvement of international federations to the role of CAS: Professor Antonio Rigozzi
- 6. Panel discussion - Outlook for the future of anti-doping: Full speed ahead or back to square one?: Mr Benjamin Cohen, Dr Paul Dimeo, Dr Bengt Kayser, Professor Denis Oswald and Mr Jaimie Fuller
V. Closing remarks

In July 2015 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Sandile Ngunuza after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) and Oxilofrine (methylsynephrine).

After notification a provisional suspenstion was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

During the proceedings the charge against the Athlete was amended by SAIDS in September 2015 and Oxilofrine excluded because re-analysis in the accredited laboratory of the Athlete’s A-sample showed that the previous reported substance Oxilofrine was in fact Hydroxy-pseudoephedrine (Pseudo-oxilofrine) a metabolite of Pseudoephedrine. Also the concentration Pseudoephedrine found in the Athlete's sample was below the WADA threshold.
In this matter WADA previously had issued a Guideline on 7 May 2015. However the accredited laboratory in South-Africa failed to introduce a timely procedure in accordance with the WADA Guideline to test for Pseudo-oxilofrine.

The Athlete admitted the violation and assumed that one of the supplements he had used contained the prohibited substance. However analysis of the Athlete’s supplements in question revealed that they didn’t contain prohibited substances. Also the Athlete suggested that the fluids he ingested from the different water stations along the 89 km route of the marathon could have been the source of the positive test.

Considering the evidence and circumstances in this case the Panel concludes - as accepted by SAIDS - that the anti-doping violation was not intentional and also finds that the Athlete could not establish on a balance of probability to the satisfaction of the Panel how the prohibited substance entered his system.

Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 26 February 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 2 July 2015.

Initially during the proceedings against the Athlete the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel had already reached an unanimous decision before the charge was amended by SAIDS in September 2015 because of the new test result. For this reason the Panel renders in this case a full reasoned decision as required under the Rules. In addition the Panel notes in the Annex their concerns dealing with the possible constitutional imperatives, anomalies and unintended consequences of the application of the Rules.

In August 2017 the Royal Dutch Baseball and Softball Federation (KNBSB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his sample tested positive for 4-Fluoroamphetamine. After notification the Person filed a statement in his defence and waived his right to be heard for the ISR-KNBSB Disciplinary Committee.

The Person accepted the test result, denied that the violation was intentional and submitted that he could not explain how the substance entered his system. He assumed the substance possible came into his body at a festival through the ingestion of a drink 3 days before he was tested.

The Disciplinary Committee concludes that the Person failed to show how the substance entered his system and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.
Therefore the ISR-KNBSB Disciplinary Committee decides on 22 November 2017 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on the date of the decision.

Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the Person.

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

2016 Anti-Doping Testing Figures Report / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2017

Contents:

- Executive Summary - pp. 2-9 (7 pages)
- Laboratory Report -– pp. 10-36 (26 pages)
- Sport Report - pp. 37-150 (113 pages)
- Testing Authority Report - pp. 151-287 (136 pages)
- ABP Report-Blood Analysis - pp. 288-323 (35 pages)

The First Competitive Video Gaming Anti-Doping Policy and Its Deficiencies Under European Union Law / Colby Stivers. - (San Diego International Law Journal 18 (2016) : p. 263 - 294)

Abstract

This Comment identifies the deficiencies of the ESL anti-doping regime and proposes solutions for compliance with international law. In addition to achieving compliance, the proposed solutions analyzed are selected to serve the values of eSports stakeholders, as well as the philosophical valuesof sports competition as a whole. Section II will identify those stakeholdersand values. Section III will identify and attempt to solve potential noncompliance with EU treaty-based law under the European Convention on Human Rights and resolutions of the Council of Europe. Section IV will identify and propose solutions transposed from traditional sports anti-doping policies that address discrepancies with EU law and serve the identified policy objectives that are unique to eSports.

http://digital.sandiego.edu/ilj/vol18/iss2/4

Anti-Doping Statistics of Turkisch Anti-Doping Commission for 2014 / Turkish Anti-Doping Commission (TADC). - Ankara : Türkiye Dopingle Mücadele Komisyonu (TDMK), 2014