In January 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Donald Kudangirana after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances drostanolone and testosterone. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by UKAD. The Athlete explained that only his use of Mutant Mass Muscle Gain protein supplement drink could have caused the positive test result. Analysis in the laboratory of the Athlete’s supplement in question confirmed it contained testosterone, nandrolone and drostanolone. In this case UKAD considers the Athlete’s prompt admission, the seriousness of the violation, his degree of fault and grounds to impose a reduced sanction. Therefore with approval of WADA UKAD decides on 5 December 2017 to impose a 3 year and 7 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on de date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 January 2017.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Recently added documents More »
In May 2017 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Craig Hoare after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Drostanolone and Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The RFU attempted to contact the Athlete on several occasions but the Athlete failed to respond. Without the Athlete’s response the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) finds that the Athlete was duly notified and made aware of the charge. The NADP Tribunal rules that the anti-doping violation has been established and decides on 15 December 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 May 2017.
In June 2016 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported anti-doping rule violations against the the boxers Tyson Fury and his cousin Hughie Fury after each of their samples, provided in February 2015, tested positive for the prohibited substance nandrolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Also in September 2016 UKAD reported an anti-doping rule violations against the boxer Tyson Fury because he refused or failed without compelling justification to submit to sample collection. Both Athletes denied the intentional use of nandrolone and Tyson Fury also denied the anti-doping rule violation regarding the Refusal. He alleges (among other things) that the incident in question would never have happened (1) had it not been for UKAD bringing the Nandrolone Proceedings against him in June 2016, after having led him to believe that no charges would be brought against him or Hughie Fury in relation to the elevated levels of nandrolone metabolites reported to be present in their February 2015 urine samples; and (2) if he had been expressly warned at the time of the incident that if he refused or failed to provide a sample he could be banned for four years. The National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) rejected the request to dismiss the charges against the Athletes. However the Panel did uphold the Athletes arguments that no violation had been established, or (in the alternative) UKAD’s delay in bringing the Nandrolone Proceedings. They contended that UKAD failed to warn the Athletes that they may be required to account for the nandrolone metabolites reportedly detected in their systems had caused them prejudice in their defence of the charges. The Athletes argued that these charges should be dismissed or (in the alternative) the normal rules on burden and standard of proof of source should be reversed (such that UKAD should bear the burden of proving that the source of the reported nandrolone metabolites was a knowing and deliberate administration of a synthetic nandrolone preparation) or varied (such that the Athletes' argument that the source of the reported nandrolone metabolites was offal of uncastrated wild boar or pig or contaminated supplements should be accepted at face value). UKAD's position is that the anti-doping rule violations it has asserted have been committed and the consequences set out in the UK Anti-Doping Rules should apply. Tyson and Hughie Fury's position is that they have never knowingly or deliberately committed any anti-doping rule violation. In recognition of the counter-arguments and the risks inherent in the dispute resolution process, each of UKAD and the Athletes (the Parties) recognizes that it/he will have to compromise its/his claims to some degree. In accordance with UK ADR Article 7.7.4 and section 51 of the Arbitration Act 1996, at the request of the parties the NADP Tribunal has issued an order terminating the proceedings before it without making any substantive award. This decision is not an order or award of the NADP Tribunal. UKAD accepts that Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury were not put on notice before they were charged for their violations in June 2016 that they may have to account for the presence of the elevated levels of nandrolone metabolites in their February 2015 samples, and that as a result there is an argument that the normal rules on burden and standard of proving source should be varied, and Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury should be found to have proved source to the required standard, or else UKAD should be found not to have proved intentional ingestion to the required standard, and as a result the presumption arising under UK ADR Article 10.2 that Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury acted intentionally should be deemed rebutted. On the other hand, Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury accept that the normal rules on burden and standard of proof may be held applicable, in which case they may be found not to have proved source to the requisite standard, and as a result they may not be able to get the presumptive four year period of ineligibility reduced. In such circumstances, the Parties compromise by accepting that the period of ineligibility to be imposed on the Athletes for the violations asserted in the Nandrolone Proceedings shall be a 2 year period of ineligibility. Both Tyson Fury and Hughie Fury had already served periods of provisional suspension since the notices of charge were served. Given further the delays in results management that are not attributable to the Athletes, the period of ineligibility will be back-dated to start from 13 December 2015, so that it ends at midnight on 12 December 2017.
In September 2017 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazil tennis player Thomaz Bellucci after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right to be heard and accepted the sanction proposed by the ITF. The Athlete argued that there were grounds for imposing a reduced sanction. He explained with evidence that the positive test result was caused by his use of vitamin supplements preparations that, unknow to him, were contaminated with the prohibited substance. The Athlete had used prescribed supplements produced by two pharmacies in Brazil. Laboratory analysis of the vitamin supplement capsules confirmed that these capsules contained varying levels of Hydrochlorothiazide as a result of contamination in the pharmacy. The Athlete acknowledged that he failed to mention his supplements on the Doping Control Form. Considering the evidence in this case the ITF accepts the Athletes explanation and agreed that a reduced sanction should be imposed on the basis of No Significant Fault or Negligence. The ITF considers also the Athlete’s prompt admission and the delays in the results mananagement that were not attributable to him. Therefore the the ITF decides on 4 January 2018 to impose a 5 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete back-dated starting on 1 September 2017.