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)
Complete Overview of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods from the IOC Lists (1968-2003) & WADA Prohibited Lists (2004- ) / ed. M.C. Tuk, Olivier de Hon. - Doping Authority Netherlands (Dopingautoriteit); Anti-Doping Knowledge Center (ADKC), 2019
Annual banned-substance review: analytical approaches in human sports drug testing / Mario Thevis, Tiia Kuuranne, Hans Geyer. - (Drug testing and analysis 12 (2020) 1 (January); p. 7-26)
Contents:
Abstract
Within the complex construct of today's anti-doping work, continuously updated routine doping controls as well as advancements in sampling and analysis have been of particular relevance and importance. New analytes of existing classes of prohibited substances are frequently included into sports drug testing assays, analytical approaches are optimized to allow for better sensitivities, selectivity, and/or faster turnaround times, and research dedicated to addressing analytical issues concerning scenarios of both (potentially) inadvertent doping and new emerging doping agents is constantly conducted. By way of reviewing and summarizing, this annual banned-substance review evaluates literature published between October 2018 and September 2019 offering an in-depth evaluation of developments in these arenas and their potential application to substances reported in WADA's 2019 Prohibited List.
In December 2018 and in January 2019 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and in March 2019 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) have reported anti-dopng rule violations against the swimmer Conor Dwyer after his samples - provided in November and in December 2018 - tested positive for the prohibitied substance Testosterone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the Tribunal of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). FINA referred the results management to USADA to consolidate with the existing proceedings.
The Athlete accepted the test results, argued that the violation was not intentional and requested for a reduced sanction. He testified that for many months, he had been suffering from health issues such as brain fog, low mental and physical energy, difficulty sleeping, depression and anxiety. As treatment for his diagnosed testosterone deficiency prescription BioTe pellets (in fact Testosterone) were surgically implanted by his physician in a short procedure in October 2018.
The Athlete asserted that he did not know that the insertion of the BioTE pellets would result in an anti-doping rule violation and that he was not concerned with his swimming performance, but rather his overall mental health and well-being.
The Athlete had assurances from his long-time trusted adviser and coach that the pellet therapy was not prohibited by the Code; the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee was consulted about this treatment by his physician; and he had no doubt what his adviser and physician told him about the treatment.
USADA accepts that the prescribed BioTe pellets were the source of the positive test and contended that the Athlete failed to establish that he bears No Significant Fault of Negligence.
In this case, the Panel considers that the Athlete took the primary step of consulting with a doctor, who reported getting the treatment approved. In his view, the doctor had the necessary expertise, as the Athlete understood it, the doctor was reliable based on his advisor’s experience, and the doctor was not consulted for performance enhancing reasons. However the Panel holds that he also failed to conduct other steps to ensure that the treatment is not prohibited.
The Panel finds that balancing all of the objective factors, both in favor of and against Athlete’s case, the Athlete’s level of fault falls within the “normal” degree of fault. When considering the subjective elements, they are not exceptional such as to change his level of fault, so his fault remains within the “normal” range, leading to a suspension in the 16-20 months range.
Therefore the Panel decides on 11 October 2019:
A.) Respondent has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the Code, for Use of a Prohibited Substance;
B.) The default period of ineligibility for the anti-doping rule violation under Article l 0.2.3 of the Code is two years, subject to further reduction;
C.) Respondent has sustained his burden of proofunder Article 10.5.2 of the Code that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence for the anti-doping rule violation, and the period of Ineligibility is reduced from two years to 20 months;
D.) The start date of Respondent's period of Ineligibility is the date of his provisional suspension, December 21, 2018, and the period of ineligibility expires on August 20, 2020;
E.) Respondent's competitive results from the date of his sample collection, November 15, 2018 through his acceptance of Provisional Suspension, on December 21, 2018, if any, are to be disqualified, and any medals, points and prizes earned during that period shall be forfeited;
F.) The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs associated with this Arbitration;
G.) The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association, and the compensation and expenses of the Panel, shall be borne by USADA and the United States Olympic Committee; and
H.) This Award shall be in full and final resolution of all claims and counterclaims submitted to this Arbitration, All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby denied.
Prohibited List January 2020 : The World Anti-Doping Code International Standard / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2019.
- The official text of the Prohibited List shall be maintained by WADA and shall be published in English and French. In the event of any conflict between the English and French versions, the English version shall prevail.
- This List shall come into effect on 1 January 2020
Annual banned-substance review: Analytical approaches in human sports drug testing / Mario Thevis, Tiia Kuuranne, Hans Geyer. - (Drug Testing and Analysis 11 (2019) 1 (January; p. 8-26)
Contents:
Abstract
A number of high profile revelations concerning anti‐doping rule violations over the past 12 months have outlined the importance of tackling prevailing challenges and reducing the limitations of the current anti‐doping system. At this time, the necessity to enhance, expand, and improve analytical test methods in response to the substances outlined in the World Anti‐Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List represents an increasingly crucial task for modern sports drug testing programs. The ability to improve analytical testing methods often relies on the expedient application of novel information regarding superior target analytes for sports drug testing assays, drug elimination profiles, and alternative sample matrices, together with recent advances in instrumental developments. This annual banned‐substance review evaluates literature published between October 2017 and September 2018 offering an in‐depth evaluation of developments in these arenas and their potential application to substances reported in WADA's 2018 Prohibited List.
Multiple incidence of the prescription diuretic hydrochlorothiazide in compounded nutritional supplements / Donata Favretto, Sindi Visentin Salvatore Scrivano, Emanuele Roselli, Fabio Mattiazzi, Roberto Pertile, Susanna Vogliardi, Marianna Tucci, Massimo Montisci. - (Drug Testing and Analysis 11(2018) 3 (March) ; 512-522)
Abstract
Diuretic agents are prohibited in sports in- and out-of-competition according to the regulations of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) because of their possible masking effects on other doping agents in urine samples, and their ability to produce fast acute weight losses. Despite previous studies reported adverse analytical findings (AAFs) resulting from contaminations at ppm level (μg/g) of medicinal products, and recommended to introduce reporting limits for diuretics in doping controls, these are not adopted in analyses performed by WADA-accredited laboratories. We report the case of an athlete with two AAFs for hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) at low urinary concentrations (<10 ng/mL), who declared the use of nutritional supplements prepared in a compounding pharmacy. His nutritional supplements were analyzed revealing HCTZ presence in different concentrations, at the ppm level (μg/g and ng/mL). With the aim of testing the plausibility of the observed urinary HCTZ concentrations with the nutritional supplement ingestion, a urinary excretion study with three healthy volunteers was performed. HCTZ-contaminated powder (6.4 μg/g of HCTZ) was administered to each subject in different dosages, reproducing the possible ingestion pattern occurred. Urine specimens were collected before and after ingestion of the powder, up to 24 hours, and underwent liquid-liquid extraction and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry determination. Post-administration specimens were found to contain HCTZ at concentrations of 5-230 ng/mL, which supported the accidental inadvertent intake of the prohibited substance by the athlete. This study makes the argument that the introduction of reporting limits for diuretics are warranted in doping control samples, in order to protect against inadvertent AAFs due to contaminated products.
In December 2017 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the wrestler Shri Bhagwan after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone) and 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 stated that he had used prescribed medication as treatment for his injury. Here he failed to apply for a TUE nor did he mention his medication on the Doping Control Form.
The Panel did not accept the Athlete’s statement and evidence as it does not explain the presence of Meldonium in his sample. The Panel deems that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor how the substance entered his system.
Therefore the ADDPI decides on 15 October 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on de date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 December 2018.
