Jaresbericht 2021 / Natonale Anti-Doping Agentur Austria (NADA Austria). - Wien : NADA Austria, 2022

Contents:

NADA Austria

• Leitbild, Vision, Mission, Werte, Ziele, Qualitätsmanagement
• Kommissionen
• Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter
• Nationale und internationale Kooperationen
• Central European Anti-Doping Organization (CEADO)

DopingkontrollSystem

• Dopingkontrollprogramm 2021
• Dopingkontrollstatistik 2021

Medizin

• Medikamentenabfrage - MedApp
• Medizinische Ausnahmegenehmigungen

Recht

• Zwei Jahre nach "Operation Aderlass"
• Zusammenarbeit mit den Ermittlungsbehörden / Internationale Vernetzung
• Überwachung der Einhaltung der Anti-Doping Bestimmungen
• Verstöße gegen die Anti-Doping Bestimmungen 2021

Information & Prävention

• International Standard for Education
• Online - Individuelles Lernen
• Onsite - Gemeinsames Lernen
• Schulungsprogramme
• Internationale Kooperationen

Ausblick NADA Austria
Anlagen

Dopingautoriteit Annual Report 2022 (Netherlands) / Anti-doping Authority Netherlands (Dopingautoriteit). - Capelle aan den IJssel : Dopingautoriteit, 2023

Contents:

Chapter 1 – Education
Chapter 2 – Doping control
Chapter 3 – Intelligence & Investigations
Chapter 4 – Disciplinary Proceedings
Chapter 5 – Legal Affairs
Chapter 6 – Scientific research
Chapter 7 – Knowledge management
Chapter 8 – Therapeutic Use Exemptions
Chapter 9 – International Affairs
Chapter 10 – People & organisation
--------------------------
Annex 1 - Financial overview
Annex 2 - Members of Advisory Board and Committees
Annex 3 - Personnel
Annex 4 - Overview of presentations and scientific publications
Annex 5 - Secondary positions
Annex 6 – Abbreviations
Annex 7 – Result management

CAS 2021/A/8284 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. World Baseball Softball Confederation (WBSC) & Laura Vigna

• Softball
• Doping (evading, refusing or failing to submit to sample collection)
• Right of a CAS panel to issue a consent award and purpose of it
• Duty of the CAS panel to verify the bona fide of the settlement agreement

1. In accordance with Article R56 para. 2, second sentence, of the CAS Code, a CAS panel is expressly allowed to issue an award embodying the terms of the settlement if all parties to the dispute agree. The CAS panel’s endorsement of the settlement agreement and incorporation in an award serves the obvious purpose of rendering it easier for the parties to enforce the settlement agreement.

2. As any settlement “may” be embodied in an award, it is up to the CAS panel to verify the bona fide of the settlement agreement, so that the consent award mechanism is not manipulated by the parties as an instrument of fraud, and to acknowledge that the settlement terms are not contrary to public policy principles or mandatory rules.

In April 2021 the International Testing Agency, on behalf of the World Baseball-Softball Confederation (WBSC), reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian Athlete Laura Vigna for her evasion, refusal or failure to submit to sample collection.

In July 2021 ITA and the Athlete reached an Agreement on Consequences. In this settlement the Athlete accepted a sanction of 8 months for the committing the anti-doping rule violation.

Thereupon the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) requested the case file to the ITA in view of a potential appeal to be filed. Hereafter in August 2021 WADA appealed against this Agreement on Consequences with the Cour of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

WADA requested the Panel to amend the Appealed Decision and to impose on the Athlete a period of ineligibility of between 12 and 24 months.

In December 2021 WADA reported to CAS that the Parties had settled the matter. They requested that the adapted Settlement Agreement be embodied in an Arbitral Award rendered by consent of the Parties.

The Parties agree:

• The previous Agreement of July 2021 is set aside.
• The Athlete is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 1 year.
• The sanction starts on the date of the anti-doping rule violation, i.e on 19 November 2020.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 19 April 2022:

1. The terms of paragraph 1 of the Settlement Agreement submitted to the CAS Court Office on 2 December 2021 are hereby ratified by the CAS with the consent of the Parties and embodied in this arbitral Award.

2. The arbitral procedure with reference CAS 2021/A/8284 World Anti-Doping Agency v. World Baseball Softball Confederation (WBSC) & Laura Vigna is terminated and deleted from the CAS roll.

3. (…).

4. (…).

5. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

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.

CAS 2017/A/5477 Aaron Sloan v. Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) & Baseball Australia (BA)

In April 2017 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the baseball player Aaron Sloan after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance D-Methamfetamine.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and ASADA proposed a sanction of 4 years. However the Athlete failed to repond within the set deadline. On 30 November 2017 he was deemed to have admitted the violation, to have waived his right for a hearing and to have accepted the sanction of 4 years proposed by ASADA.

Hereafter in December 2017 the Athlete appealed the Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). He requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete admitted the recreational use of D-Methamfetamine and explained that the night before the competition he had consumed alcohol with friends and used the substance. He asserted that the use occurred out-of-competition and not within the relevant 12 hours before the competition the next day.

ASADA and Baseball Australia contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the use of D-Methamfetamine was not intentional, nor that it was used in a context unrelated sport performance. With expert evidence they challenged the Athlete's assertion that he had not used the substance within the relevant 12 hours prior to the competition.

Following assessment of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator concludes the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. He could not demonstrate that the D-Methamfetamine was used out-of-competition nor in a context unrelated to sport performance.

Furthermore the Sole Arbitrator is satisfied that the Athlete has not discharged his onus of proving that he did not know there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and that he did not manifestly disregard that risk.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 12 October 2017 that:

1.) The Appeal filed by Mr Aaron Sloan on 21 December 2017 against the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and Baseball Australia concerning the decision of Baseball Australia rendered on 30 November 2017 is dismissed.

2.) The decision of Baseball Australia dated 30 November 2017 to impose a sanction of four years ineligibility upon Mr Aaron Sloan commencing on 26 April 2017 is confirmed.

(…)

5.) All further requests for relief are dismissed.

Prohormone supplement 3β-hydroxy-5α-androst-1-en-17-one enhances resistance training gains but impairs user health / Jorge Granados, Trevor L. Gillum, Kevin M. Christmas, Matthew R. Kuennen

• Journal of Applied Physiology 116 (2014) 5 (March), p. 560-569
• PMID: 24381122
• DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00616.2013

Abstract

Prohormone supplements (PS) are recognized not to impart anabolic or ergogenic effects in men, but the research supporting these conclusions is dated. The Anabolic Steroid Control Act was amended in 2004 to classify androstenedione and 17 additional anabolic compounds as controlled substances. The viability of PS that entered the market after that time have not been evaluated. Seventeen resistance-trained men (23 ± 1 yr; 13.1 ± 1.5% body fat) were randomly assigned to receive either 330 mg/day of 3β-hydroxy-5α-androst-1-en-17-one (Prohormone; n = 9) or sugar (Placebo; n = 8) per os and complete a 4-wk (16 session) structured resistance-training program. Body composition, muscular strength, circulating lipids, and markers of liver and kidney dysfunction were assessed at study onset and termination. Prohormone increased lean body mass by 6.3 ± 1.2%, decreased fat body mass by 24.6 ± 7.1%, and increased their back squat one repetition maximum and competition total by 14.3 ± 1.5 and 12.8 ± 1.1%, respectively. These improvements exceeded (P < 0.05) Placebo, which increased lean body mass by 0.5 ± 0.8%, reduced fat body mass by 9.5 ± 3.6%, and increased back squat one repetition maximum and competition total by 5.7 ± 1.7 and 5.9 ± 1.7%, respectively. Prohormone also experienced multiple adverse effects. These included a 38.7 ± 4.0% reduction in HDL (P < 0.01), a 32.8 ± 15.05% elevation in LDL (P < 0.01), and elevations of 120.0 ± 22.6 and 77.4 ± 12.0% in LDL-to-HDL and cholesterol-to-HDL ratios, respectively (both P < 0.01). Prohormone also exhibited elevations in serum creatinine (19.6 ± 4.3%; P < 0.01) and aspartate transaminase (113.8 ± 61.1%; P = 0.05), as well as reductions in serum albumin (5.1 ± 1.9%; P = 0.04), alkaline phosphatase (16.4 ± 4.7%; P = 0.04), and glomerular filtration rate (18.0 ± 3.3%; P = 0.04). None of these values changed (all P > 0.05) in Placebo. The oral PS 3β-hydroxy-5α-androst-1-en-17-one improves body composition and muscular strength. However, these changes come at a significant cost. Cardiovascular health and liver function are particularly compromised. Given these findings, we feel the harm associated with this particular PS outweighs any potential benefit.

2021 Anti-Doping Testing Figures / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2023

Contents:

• Executive Summary - pp. 2-9 (7 pages)
• Laboratory Report -– pp. 10-39 (30 pages)
• Sport Report - pp. 40-153 (114 pages)
• Testing Authority Report - pp. 154-267 (114 pages)
• ABP Report-Blood Analysis - pp. 268-311 (44 pages)

Report Highlights:

• A 61.2% increase in the number of samples (both urine and non-ABP blood samples) analyzed
  and reported into ADAMS: 149,758 in 2020 to 241,430 in 2021.
• An increase in the total number of samples analyzed and reported by nearly all WADAaccredited
  laboratories and WADA-approved laboratories into ADAMS in 2021 compared to 2020.
• An increase in the total number and percentage of non-ABP blood samples analyzed: 7.3%
  (10,940 of 149,758 samples) in 2020 to 9.3% (22,398 Blood + DBS samples out of 241,430).
• An increase of 36% in the number of ABP blood samples analyzed: 22,666 in 2020 to 30,821
  in 2021.
• A decrease in the total percentage of AAFs: 0.67% in 2020 (1,009 AAFs from 149,758
  samples) to 0.65% (1,560 AAFs from 241,430 samples).
• An increase in the total number of AAFs for growth hormone (GH): 1 in 2020 to 7 in 2021,
  including the first reported AAF for a GH biomarker.
• A 46% decrease in the overall number of samples analyzed: 278,047 in 2019 to 149,758 in 2020.
• A decrease in the total percentage of Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs): 0.97% in 2019 (2,702 AAFs from 278,047 samples) to 0.67% in 2020 (1,009 AAFs from 149,758 samples).
• All WADA-accredited Laboratories saw a decrease in the total number of samples recorded.
• A decrease in the total number and percentage of non-Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) blood samples analyzed: 9.1% in 2019 (25,339 of 278,047) and 7.3% (10,940 of 149,758) in 2020.
• A decrease of 38% in the number of ABP blood samples tested: 36,401 in 2019 to 22,666 in 2020.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has publishes its 2021 Testing Figures Report (2021 Report), which summarizes the results of all the samples WADA-accredited laboratories analyzed and reported in WADA’s Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS) in 2021.

This is the first set of global testing figures under the 2021 World Anti-Doping Code (Code) that came into effect in January 2021. The 2021 Report – which includes an Executive Summary and sub-reports by Laboratory, Sport, Testing Authority and Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) Blood Analysis – includes in- and out-of-competition urine samples, blood and ABP blood data, and the resulting Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs) and Atypical Findings (ATFs).

2020 Anti-Doping Testing Figures / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2021

Contents:

• Executive Summary - pp. 2-9 (7 pages)
• Laboratory Report -– pp. 10-36 (27 pages)
• Sport Report - pp. 37-137 (101 pages)
• Testing Authority Report - pp. 138-244 (107 pages)
• ABP Report-Blood Analysis - pp. 245-279 (35 pages)

Report Highlights:

• A 46% decrease in the overall number of samples analyzed: 278,047 in 2019 to 149,758 in 2020.
• A decrease in the total percentage of Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs): 0.97% in 2019 (2,702 AAFs from 278,047 samples) to 0.67% in 2020 (1,009 AAFs from 149,758 samples).
• All WADA-accredited Laboratories saw a decrease in the total number of samples recorded.
• A decrease in the total number and percentage of non-Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) blood samples analyzed: 9.1% in 2019 (25,339 of 278,047) and 7.3% (10,940 of 149,758) in 2020.
• A decrease of 38% in the number of ABP blood samples tested: 36,401 in 2019 to 22,666 in 2020.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has publishes its 2020 Testing Figures Report (2020 Report), which summarizes the results of all the samples WADA-accredited Laboratories analyzed and reported in WADA’s Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS) in 2020.

This is the sixth and last set of global testing figures under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code (Code) that came into effect in January 2015. The 2020 Report – which includes an Executive Summary and sub-reports by Laboratory, Sport, Testing Authority and Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) Blood Analysis – includes in- and out-of-competition urine samples; blood and ABP blood data; and, the resulting Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs) and Atypical Findings (ATFs).