Welcome

Welcome to Doping.nl, the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center.
This site has been established to host information about doping in the broadest sense of the word, and about doping prevention.

Initiator
The Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands (the Dutch Doping Authority for short) established this site and maintains it. The Doping Authority was founded in 1989 and it is one of the oldest NADOs in the world. Doping.nl was developed with financial support from the Dutch Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sport.

Goals
This website  was established because of the importance that the Doping Authority and the Ministry attach to the dissemination of information relevant to doping prevention. Disclosing and supplying relevant information is one of the cornerstones in the fight against doping in sport. However, in practice, a significant amount of information is still not available, or only available to a limited group of users. We therefore decided to bring together all the relevant information in a single site: Doping.nl.

Activities
The Doping Authority aims to supply as much information through this website as possible on an ongoing basis. The information will be varied but will focus primarily on: WADA documents like the World Anti-Doping Code, the International Standards like the Prohibited List, Doping Regulations, scientific articles and abstracts, decisions by disciplinary bodies (mainly CAS decisions).As well as making documents available, the Doping Authority aims to supply searchable documents when possible, and to add relevant keywords to ensure easy access.
In the future, Doping.nl will also become a digital archive containing older information that is no longer available elsewhere.

Target readers
This site has been designed for use by anti-doping professionals such as National Anti-Doping Organisations and International Federations but also for students, journalists and other people interested in the subject.

Register
To use the lightbox option, you need to register.

More information explaining how to use this website can be found under "help".

Recently added documents More »

IOC - ADRVs during or after the Games (1972-2018) & Anti-Doping Reanalysis Programme (2004-2018)

Anti-Doping Rule Violations during or after the Games (1972-2018) & Anti-Doping Reanalysis Programme (2004-2018) / International Olympic Committee (IOC). - Lausanne : IOC, 2020 Listed in this document on and updated until 25 February 2020: - Factsheet number of Anti-Doping Rule violations (1972-2018) - IOC Anti-Doping Reanalysis Programme 2004-2018

show » details »
Type:
pdf

IOC 2019 IOC vs Klodiana Shala

Ms Klodiana Shala is an Albanian Athlete and member of the athletics team of the National Olympic Committee of Albania at the London 2012 Olympic Games. In 2018, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012. In August 2019 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IOC, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2012 sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. After notification the Athlete failed to respond to any of the communications from the ITA and the IOC. The IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that the test result established the presence of the prohibited substance in the Athlete’s sample and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Commission holds that use of this substance is clearly consistent with and indicative of the intentional use of Prohibited Substances specifically ingested to deliberately improve performance. The Athlete’s refusal to participate in these proceedings and to provide any explanation at this stage only reinforces a corresponding inference. Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 19 February 2020 that the Athlete, Klodiana Shala: 1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXX Olympiad in London in 2012 (presence of Prohibited Substances or their Metabolites or Markers in the Athlete’s bodily specimen), 2.) The IAAF is requested to consider any further action within its own competence. 3.) The National Olympic Committee of Albania shall ensure full implementation of this decision. 4.) The decision enters into force immediately.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

Prevalence of Performance-Enhancing Substance Use and Associated Factors Among Portuguese Gym/Fitness Users

Prevalence of Performance-Enhancing Substance Use and Associated Factors Among Portuguese Gym/Fitness Users / Ana Sofia R. Tavares, Sidónio Serpa, Luís Horta, Elisabete Carolino, António Rosado. - (Substance Use & Misue (2020) 18 February; p. 1-9). - PMID: 32068479. - DOI: 10.1080/10826084.2020.1726392 _________________________________________________ Abstract Background: Nowadays, doping is not confined to elite sport, it is also spread throughout gymnasia and fitness centers, and it is seen as a public health concern. Studies focusing on performance-enhancing substances (PES) use among gym users are few and mostly concern the practice of bodybuilding and the use of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS), without providing information about social indicators to further explore why this specific population use these substances. Objectives: To investigate the extent of PES use and examine the way social indicators, exercise profile and gym modalities influence the use of these substances among a sample of gym users. Methods: Cross-sectional descriptive study, among a convenience sample of 453 Portuguese gym users, recruited directly by five institutional gyms´ email and Facebook. Data were collected via a structured web-based survey, between October and November 2017. Multiple binary logistic regression, the Chi-Square test or Monte Carlo Simulation or Fisher’s Exact test were used. The odds ratios and their respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results: 11,1% of gym users reported the use of prohibited PES, which varies significantly according to gender, education, exercise profile and type of practice. Gender was associated with the class of PES used. Polypharmacy was a common practice among users, increasing the risk of side-effects. Peer effect and media appear to be strikingly important in the misuse of PES. Conclusion: Results provide precise insight into the specific factors associated with PES use, which could support prevention strategies in gym/fitness context.

Inter-individual Variation of the Urinary Steroid Profiles in Swedish and Norwegian Athletes

Inter-individual Variation of the Urinary Steroid Profiles in Swedish and Norwegian Athletes / Jenny Mullen, Lasse Vestli Baekken, Timo Törmäkangas, Lena Ekström, Magnus Ericsson, Ingunn R. Hullstein, Jenny J. Schulze. - (Drug Testing and Analysis (2020) 12 February; p. 1-18). - PMID: 32052600. - DOI: 10.1002/dta.2778 _________________________________________________ Abstract The steroidal module of the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) aims to detect doping with endogenous steroids, e.g. testosterone (T), by longitudinally monitoring several biomarkers. These biomarkers are ratios combined into urinary concentrations of testosterone and metabolically related steroids. However, it is evident after 5 years of monitoring steroid passports that there are large variations in the steroid ratios complicating its interpretation. In this study, we used over 11000 urinary steroid profiles from Swedish and Norwegian athletes to determine both the inter- and intra-individual variations of all steroids and ratios in the steroidal passport. Furthermore, we investigated if the inter-individual variations could be associated with factors such as gender, type of sport, age, time of day, time of year, and if the urine was collected in or out of competition. We show that there are factors reported in today's doping tests that significantly affect the steroid profiles. The factors with the largest influence on the steroid profile were the type of sport classification that the athlete belonged to as well as whether the urine was collected in or out of competition. There were also significant differences based on what time of day and time of year the urine sample was collected. Whether these significant changes are relevant when longitudinally monitoring athletes in the steroidal module of the ABP should be evaluated further.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CND 2019 Dopingautoriteit Decision Compliance Appeal Commission 2016010 NB

Related cases: - ISR 2006 KNKF Decision Disciplinary Committee 2006127 T November 2, 2006 - ISR 2016 KNKF Decision Disciplinary Committee 2016010 T November 10, 2016 - ISR 2016 KNKF Decision Appeal Committee 2016010 B February 2, 2017 - CND 2019 Dopingautoriteit Decision Compliance Commission 2016010 N July 8, 2019 - Dopingautoriteit 2019 Decision Complaint 2016010 AB August 27, 2019 On 10 November 2016 the ISR Disciplinary Committee of the Dutch Royal Strength Sport and Fitness Federation (KNKF) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Person after his sample tested posititve for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. The Person appealed but the ISR-KNKF Appeal Committee decided on 2 February 2017 to uphold the First Instance decision of the ISR-KNKF Disciplinary Committee. On 8 July 2019 the Doping Sanction Compliance Commission (CND) of the Doping Authority Netherlands (Dopingautoriteit) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Person - starting on 19 June 2020 until 19 June 2021 - after the Dopingautoriteit had reported that the Person had breached the imposed period of ineligibility (ending on 19 June 2020) through his participation in a KNKF competition. Here the CND established that the KNKF had rendered an invalid decision while the KNKF had no jurisdiction to reduce the Person’s sanction. In July 2019 the Person filed a complaint against the CND Decision and requested the Dopingautoriteit to reconsider the decision of 8 July 2019. However the Dopingautoriteit decided on 27 August 2019 that the Person’s Complaint was inadmissible, unfounded and dismissed. In July 2019 the Person had also filed an appeal with the CND and he was heard for the CND Appeal Commission. The Appeal Commission considered the following arguments of the parties: - The Person had acknowledged that he had breached his period of ineligibility but denied it was intentional since he had received written permission from the KNKF to participate in competitions; - He was unaware that the KNKF decision was invalid; - The Dopingautoriteit contended that the Person previously had been involved in legal anti-doping proceedings and deliberations; - Therefore the Dopingautoriteit holds that the Person could have known and verified that the KNKF had no jurisdiction and that the KNKF decision was invalid. The Appeal Commission does not accept the arguments of the Dopingautoriteit and finds that the Person was entitled to expect that the KNKF written permission of 8 July 2019 was valid. As a result there was no need for the Person to question the KNKF jurisdiction, nor the validity of their permission. Finally the Appeal Commission concludes that the Person was not at Fault when he breached the imposed period of ineligibility through his participation in a KNKF competition. Therefore the CND Appeal Commission decides on 21 January 2020 to annul the CND Decision of 8 July 2019 and to cancel the additional 1 year period of ineligibility imposed on the Person.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

SAIDS 2019_38 SAIDS vs Anna Marie Barnard

In December 2019 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder Anna Marie Barnard after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Clenbuterol, Drostanolone and Stanozolol. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by SAIDS. SAIDS finds the that Athlete's sample established the presence of prohibited substances and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. Considering the Athlete's prompt admission SAIDS decides on 14 January 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 23 November 2019.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

SAIDS 2019_36 SAIDS vs Wesley Durga

In November 2019 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder Wesley Durga after his sample tested positive for multiple prohibited substances: 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone), Anastrozole, Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone, Drostanolone, Fluoxymesterone, Hydrochlorothiazide, Methandienone, Methyltestosterone, Oxandrolone, Stanozolol and Triamterene. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by SAIDS. SAIDS finds that the Athlete's sample established the presence of prohibited substances and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Considering the Athlete's prompt admission SAIDS decides on 13 December 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 14 September 2019.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

SAIDS 2019_35 SAIDS vs Gordon Lesetedi

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the athlete Gordon Lesetedi after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Prednisone. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by SAIDS. The Athlete explained with evidence that he had used Prednisone prescribed by his doctor as treatment for his medical condition. SAIDS finds that Athlete's sample established the presence of prohibited substance and accordinghly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. SAIDS deems that the Athlete failed to apply for a TUE and neither had checked his prescribed medication for prohibited substances Considering the Athlete's prompt admission SAIDS decides on 13 December 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 1 September 2019.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

SAIDS 2019_34 SAIDS vs Tshepiso Masilo

In November 2019 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder Tshepiso Masilo after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Furosemide, Stanozolol, 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone). After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by SAIDS. The Athlete stated that he had used pills, he provided a reason for the use of the substances but could not produce corroborating evidence in support. SAIDS finds the that Athlete's sample establishes the presence of prohibited substances and accordinghly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Considering the Athlete's prompt admission SAIDS decides on 4 December 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 15 September 2019.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

SAIDS 2019_33 SAIDS vs Unathi Tshezi

In November 2019 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder Unathi Tshezi after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Clenbuterol, Fluoxymesterone, Furosemide, Mesterolone, Oxandrolone and Stanozolol. After Notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by SAIDS. The Athlete explained how the substances entered his system and provided a reason for the use of these substances. SAIDS finds that the Athlete's sample tested established the presence of prohibited substances and accordinghly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Therefore SAIDS decides on 3 December 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 15 September 2019.

show » details »
Type:
pdf
Category
  • Legal
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin