2019 Anti-Doping Testing Figures / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2020

Contents:

• Executive Summary - pp. 2-8 (7 pages)
• Laboratory Report -– pp. 9-37 (28 pages)
• Sport Report - pp. 38-174 (137 pages)
• Testing Authority Report - pp. 175-313 (139 pages)
• ABP Report-Blood Analysis - pp. 314-355 (42 pages)

Report Highlights

• A 5.5% increase in the overall number of samples analyzed: 263,519 in 2018 to 278,047 in 2019.
• A slight decrease in the total percentage of Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs): 1.05% in 2018 (2,774 AAFs from 263,519 samples) to 0.97% in 2019 (2,702 AAFs from 278,047 samples).
• About 60% of WADA-accredited Laboratories saw an increase in the total number of samples recorded.
• An almost similar total number and percentage of non-Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) blood samples analyzed: 9.3% in 2018 (24,495 of 263,519) and 9.1% in 2019 (25,339 of 278,047).
• An increase of 16% in the number of ABP blood samples tested: 31,265 in 2018 to 36,401 in 2019.
• An increase in AAFs reported for Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents (ESAs), Growth Hormone (GH) and Growth Hormone Releasing Factors (GHRFs).

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has published its 2019 Testing Figures Report (2019 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 2019.

This is the fifth set of global testing figures under the version of the World Anti-Doping Code (Code) that came into effect in January 2015. The 2019 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 AAFs and Atypical Findings (ATFs).

CAS 2019/A/6587 Badminton World Federation v. Kate Jessica Foo Kune

In 2017 the Badminton World Federation (BWF) launched an investigation against the official of the Mauritius Badminton Association (MBA) Mr. Raj Gaya and established that he had diverted funds intended for the MBA into his personal bank account.

Consequently the BWF Ethics Hearing Panel decided on 21 November 2018 to impose a fine and a lifetime ban from performing any function in badminton. In this ethics case the Mauritian badminton player Kate Jessica Foo Kune and another key withness assisted the BWF in their investigation and testified against Mr. Gaya. 

In June 2019 the BWF reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Kate Foo Kune after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 1-androstenedione. On 21 October 2019 the BWF Doping Hearing Panel deemed that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation but decided not to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete due to no fault or negligence.

Here the Doping Hearing Panel determined that the Athlete more likely than not had demonstrated that she had consumed water that was deliberately spiked with the prohibited substance and victim of malicious sabotage by the MBA. 

Hereafter in November 2019 the BWF appealed the decision of its Doping Hearing Panel with the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The BWF requested the Panel to set aside the Decision of 21 October 2019 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. 

The BWF accepted that the Athlete’s violation was not intentional but contended that she failed to establish the origin of the prohibited substance. She didn’t demonstrate on the balance of probabilities how the prohibited substance had entered her system nor how an ill-intentioned individual could have deliberately spiked her food or drink with this prohibited substance. 

The BWF argued that it is willing to accept any new evidence, and that it is open to re-evaluate its position regarding such new evidence, that would allow the Athlete to demonstrate that sabotage took place, or any other mitigating circmumstances. 

The Athlete explained why an accidental contamination of her supplements or her food and water consumed during the Championships in Nigeria was not possible. Instead she submitted that the positive test resulted by way of the malicious sabotage by the MBA or Mr. Gaya, or an associate of either. In particular, she asserted that her team backpack had been left out-of-sight several times during the Championships in Nigeria and that the most likely explanation for the positive test is that her water was intentionally spiked without her knowing during this period. 

The Panel regards that the Parties in this case did not dispute that the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation was unintentional. It also finds that it is not absolutely necessary for the Athlete to show the origin of the prohibited substance to establish absence of intent.

Nevertheless the Panel deems that the Athlete didn’t provide sufficient evidence that supports her assertion while the scientific analysis of an independent expert witness underminded the allegation of sabotage.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to establish on a balance of probabilities how the prohibited substance entered her system. Consequently andy plea of no (significant) fault or negligence must be rejected. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 December 2020 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the Badminton World Federation against the decision rendered by the BWF Doping Hearing Panel on 21 October 2019, is upheld.

2.) The decision issued by the Badminton World Federation Doping Hearing Panel on 21 October 2019, is partially set aside.

• Ms. Kate Jessica Foo Kune has violated Article 2.1 of the BWF Anti-Doping Regulations and committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• Ms. Kate Jessica Foo Kune is suspended for two (2) years as from the date of this decision in accordance with Article 10.1 of the BWF Anti-Doping Regulations, with credit given for any period of ineligibility already served.
• The results obtained by Ms. Foo Kune during the All African Championships on 28 April 2019 shall automatically be disqualified, pursuant to Article 9 of the BWF Anti-Doping Regulations.

3.) The present arbitration procedure shall be free of charge, except for the CAS Court Office Fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss francs), which has already been paid by the Badminton World Federation and is retained by the CAS.

4.) Each party shall bear its own legal and other costs.

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

Strong stuff : the size and seriousness of the doping trade in the Netherlands / Ilse van Leiden, Marjan Olfers, Anton van Wijk, Rebecca Rijnink, Joey Wolsink, Juno van Esseveldt. - 2020

Sterk spul : aard, omvang en ernst van de dopinghandel in Nederland / Ilse van Leiden, Marjan Olfers, Anton van Wijk, Rebecca Rijnink, Joey Wolsink, Juno van Esseveldt. - Bureau Beke; Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; i.o.v. Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport. - Arnhem : Bureau Beke, 2020. - (Beke reeks)

• ISBN 9789492255402
  
  

Abstract

The use of image and performance enhancing drugs (IPEDs) for cosmetic reasons and in amateur sport has become accepted, a 224 page Report examining the size and seriousness of the doping trade in The Netherlands has highlighted. The Report found that this is in contrast to elite sport, where use of doping substances remains taboo.

The Report concludes that around 2% of the Dutch population uses or has used doping substances, and is fastest increasing amongst noncompetitive athletes who use doping substances to enhance their appearance. In addition, it found that doping is becoming accepted in recreational sport.

The Report found that elite athletes generally come into contact with doping substances through their entourage, which means that they are likely to receive guidance on usage. In contrast, cosmetic and recreational sport users do not receive guidance and gather most of their information from the internet, which puts their health at greater risk.

In elite sport, the Report found that the most common doping agents are anabolic steroids, stimulants, and hormonal and metabolic modulators. It found that there has been a decrease in the number of athletes who are prescribed substances without medical need in an attempt to boost performance since 2015. Micro doping (i.e. using substances in small amounts to avoid detection) is on the increase, as well as utilisation of experimental food (such as ketones).

More shipments of doping substances from outside the EU are being intercepted. From 2016 to 2018, customs seizures tripled with officers intercepting over 8,000 shipments involving medication, including 1,000 that contained doping substances. The most common substances intercepted were stimulants, glucocorticoids, and anabolic agents. Seizures of diuretics, masking agents, beta blockers, and hormonal and metabolic modulators are also increasing.

The Report points out that pharmaceutical companies in Eastern Europe are well known supply chains for the Dutch market. Also, it is impossible to know what substances are being imported into the country from other European Union countries, due to free trade rules. However, it did find that due to stricter regulation on doping substances in recent years, there has been a boost in Underground Laboratories (UGLs) in The Netherlands.

As well as the usual worries about the quality of substances produced in such labs being dangerous to health, the Report found that the increase in UGLs that compete with each other has led to a ‘hardening’ of the market. ‘In the Netherlands, a violent incident is already known where those involved in an UGL were extorted by new players on the market’, it reads.

Doping is not as lucrative as drug trafficking, but the Report did find that criminals are increasingly becoming involved in the doping market. This is because due to the increase in UGLs, the supply of doping substances is no longer dependant on foreign pharmacies. Products can now be produced for export where they can be sold in person or via the internet or dark web.

Doping in sport is not a criminal offence in The Netherlands. However, the Report concludes that the increased intertwining of doping with drug trafficking and the doping trade due to UGLs enabling an international market fo doping products represents a ‘serious problem’.

Source: www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com

Samenvatting:

In de media duiken met enige regelmaat berichten op over het gebruik van doping in de sport. Niet alleen in de topsport, ook daarbuiten worden middelen gebruikt om de (sport)prestaties te vergroten. Maar wat gaat er achter het dopinggebruik en de -handel schuil?

In opdracht van het ministerie van VWS onderzochten wij samen met de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam de aard, omvang en ernst van dopinghandel in Nederland. In ‘Sterk spul’ komen profielen van gebruikers van dopingmiddelen aan bod en welke risico’s er met het gebruik gepaard gaan. Daarnaast wordt ingegaan op de vraag hoe de handel in dopingmiddelen in elkaar steekt, hoe grootschalig deze handel is en in hoeverre er in Nederland ook dopingmiddelen worden geproduceerd. Een relevante vraag hierbij is wie er bij het produceren, verstrekken en verhandelen van dopingmiddelen betrokken zijn.

Annual Report 2019 / Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (AEPSAD). - Madrid : Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, 2020

Prohibited List January 2021 : The World Anti-Doping Code International Standard / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2020

The Prohibited List is a mandatory International Standard as part of the World Anti-Doping Program.
The List is updated annually following an extensive consultation process facilitated by WADA. The effective date of the List is 1 January 2021.

Anti-Doping Poland Annual Report 2019 / Polska Agencja Antydopigowa (POLADA). - Warszawa : POLADA, 2020

NADA Annual Report 2019 / National Anti Doping Agency of Germany. - Bonn : Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA), 2020
NADA Material No. 85

Anti-Doping Statistics of Turkisch Anti-Doping Commission for 2019 / Turkish Anti-Doping Commission (TADC). - Ankara : Türkiye Dopingle Mücadele Komisyonu (TDMK), 2020