Rapport d'activité 2017 / Agence Française de Lutte contre le Dopage (AFLD). - Paris : AFLD, 2018

Ethical aspects of doping and anti-doping : in search of an alternative policy / Bengt Kayser. - Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven), 2018. - Dissertation KU Leuven presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor in Kinesiology.
- With summary in Dutch: p. ix - xii

Abstract:

The general aim of this thesis is to contribute to the discussion on doping and anti-doping, and to sketch the outlines of an alternative way of dealing with doping inside and outside of sport. After a short introduction (Chapter 1) that sketches the historical background of the main issues, an analysis of modern anti-doping in elite sport is presented, highlighting some paradoxes and weaknesses at the basis of today’s anti-doping policies (Chapter 2). Chapter 3 provides an analysis of the argument that allowing doping would merely result in a uniform shift of the playing field at the cost of greater health risks. It is shown that this is unlikely to be the case and a counterargument in favour of allowing some regulated forms of doping, because potentially leading to a more dynamic playing field, is then presented. Chapter 4 provides a perspective accounting for some of the side effects of modern anti-doping, also from a legal perspective. It highlights some of these side-effects and shows that anti-doping comes at a considerable cost to the individual athlete and the community. Chapter 5 then introduces the idea of using a harm reduction approach in the realm of doping in sport. First the principle of harm reduction is explained, building upon the evidence base in the field of recreational substance use. This is followed by a first attempt of applying its principles to doping practices in sport. Chapter 6 then takes the reasoning of the preceding chapter further by completing it with a specific analysis of the ethical implications of such a harm reduction approach for doping, concluding that such an approach can be defended. Chapter 7 finally provides a general discussion that ends with some conclusions and perspectives. The overarching conclusion of the thesis is that there is no society-wide solution to the problem of doping. Therefore practical ways of dealing with its presence aimed at containing its potential risks may represent preferable policy alternatives as compared to today’s runaway effects of globalisation of anti-doping efforts, all while promising to enrich the spectacle of modern elite sport.

Contents:

1.) Introductory remarks
2.) Current anti-doping policy: a critical appraisal
3.) What if we relaxed the anti-doping rule: towards a Red Queen effect?
4.) On the presumption of guilt without proof of intentionality and other consequences of current anti-doping policy
5.) Doping and performance enhancement: harms and harm reduction
6.) Ethics of a relaxed anti-doping rule accompanied by harm-reduction measures
7.) Discussion, conclusions and perspectives
- Appositions
- Short CV
- Publications on doping and anti-doping
- Acknowledgements, Personal contributions, Conflict of interest statement
A.) French speaking athletes’ experience and perception regarding the whereabouts reporting system and therapeutic use exemptions
B.) The anti-doping industry coming of age: in search of new markets
C.) Do public perception and the ‘spirit of sport’ justify the criminalisation of doping? A reply to Claire Sumner

In March 2017 Anti-Doping Norway (ADNO) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the foreign kickboxer after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. Without a hearing the NIF Judging Committee settled the case based on the written submissions of the parties. 

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He asserted that he was only an amateur Athlete and that he had not received anti-doping education, nor support in this matter from the Norwegian Kickboxing Federation.

Initially the he didn’t know how the Meldonium had entered his system. Later he explained that his foreign ex-girlfriend had provided him Mildronate (Meldonium) tablets in January 2017 as treatment for his fever, headache and cold whereas he believed it was a painkiller. 

ADNO did not accept the Athlete’s explanation and contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor how it entered his system. ADNO established that the Athlete’s Mildronate was produced in October 2016, thus after the Athlete allegedly had used the tablets in January 2016. He didn’t demonstrate the origin of the Mildronate box, neither showed any evidence of purchase of this medication.

Further the Athlete’s girlfriend did not respond to the communications of ADNO and prior he had testified that he had used a high number of medications and supplements. He failed to mention his medication on the Doping Control Form nor was there any evidence that he suffered from a medical condition that needed treatment with Meldonium. 

The NIF Judging Committee finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete’s samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Considering the evidence the Committee rejected the Athlete’s explanation and holds that he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, neither No Significant Fault or Negligence. 

Therefore the NIF Juding Committee decides on 16 May 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 March 2017.

Independent Observers Report of the XXIII Olympic Winter Games Pyeongchang 2018 / McDevitt, Ben. - Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2018

Related case:
CAS 2018_A_5768 Dylan Scott vs ITF
September 11, 2019

In August 2017 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American tennis player Dylan Scott for the use of the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (DHCMT) ‘Turinabol’ after the metabolite 4-chloro-18nor-17β-hydroxymethyl, 17α-methyl-5-andros-13-en3-ol was found in his sample. Later in March 2018 the Athlete also tested positive for DHCMT.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the ITF Independent Tribunal.

The Athlete argued - with an expert witness - that the metabolite found in his positive sample was not caused by the substance DHCMT but maybe caused by his use of the product Halodrol 22 months earlier. This product has a similar chemical structure to DHCMT and is not listed as a prohibited substance on the WADA List.

The ITF asserted that the Athlete’s theory about the ingestion of the supplement Quad (Halodrol) some 22 months earliers as the source was wholly speculative and unjustified by the scientific evidence. The IFT contended that the Athlete had not on the balance of probability proved the source of the prohibited substance. The ITF finds that undoubtedly the Athlete had been at fault as he deliberately had used a prohormone product Quad that also had an explicit warning on its label.

The Tribunal holds that it is clear from the evidence that the found metabolite is not exclusively and necessarily a metabolite of DHCMT. It may be produced in the body from the ingestion of other exogenous anabolic steroids. These include Halodrol, as relied upon by the Athlete. They also include the steroids known as Promagnon and Methylclostebol. It was noted that Methasterone, a steroid specifically named on the Prohibited List, might also produce this metabolite in question.

The Tribunal accepts the ITF scientific evidence and concludes that Halodrol, Promagnon and Methylclostebol are all substances with a similar chemical structure to DHCMT and that they all constitute Prohibited Substances for the purpose of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP).

The Tribunal holds that there was an Anti-Doping Rule Violation and that the Athlete failed to establish that the violaton was not intentional. He also failed to demonstrate that his consumption of Quad 22 months earlier was more likely than not the source of his positive test in July 2017. In addition the similar concentration found in his positive sample in March 2018 makes the Athlete’s theory more unlikely.

Therefore the ITF Independent Tribunal decides on 9 May 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension i.e. on 19 August 2017.

NADA Annual Report 2017 / National Anti Doping Agency of Germany. - Bonn : Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA), 2018
NADA Material No. 63

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

In January 2018 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jagtar Singh Kang after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete gave a prompt admission about the violation and provided substantial assistance to INADA. Here INADA argued that the Athlete’s substantial assistance was without success, that he failed in his duty that no prohibited substance entered his system, nor did he establish grounds for a reduced sanction.

The Panel finds that the test results establish the presence of a prohibited substance in the Athlete’s system and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel agrees that the Athlete’s assistance was insufficient and deems that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor did he demonstrated grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 5 April 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 28 June 2017.