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 »

Anti-doping rule violations in sport: The attractive leniency effect and attributions of guilt and punishment

Anti-doping rule violations in sport: The attractive leniency effect and attributions of guilt and punishment / Mark S. Allen, Kirsty McRae, Emma E. Walter. - (Body Image 28 (2019, March) p. 76-80). - PMID: 30594002. - DOI: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.12.008 _________________________________________________ Abstract: The attractive-leniency effect predicts that more attractive people are perceived as less guilty and less deserving of punishment compared to less attractive people. This closely aligned conceptual replication study sought to explore athlete physical attractiveness, sex, and anti-doping rule violation severity (ADRV) as factors contributing to attributions of guilt and punishment. After initial pilot testing, 411 participants (135 men, 276 women; Mage = 20.30, SD = 4.69 years) were shown one of eight vignette-photograph pairings that differed in sex (male/female), ADRV severity (serious/minor), and physical attractiveness (high/low). Participants were asked to provide attributions of guilt, severity of punishment, and most appropriate course of action (sport-related punishment). Analyses of variance showed that attributions of guilt and punishment were related to ADRV severity, but there were no significant main or interaction effects for physical attractiveness on any of the outcome variables. Follow-up sensitivity analyses provided some evidence that less attractive athletes are afforded harsher punishments (reflecting a longer suspension from sport) than more attractive athletes, but this finding was not robust. Overall, the findings of this initial research indicate that an attractive leniency effect is likely to be trivial or negligible in the context of anti-doping rule violations in sport.

The Effects of Inhaled Terbutaline on 3-km Running Time-Trial Performance

The Effects of Inhaled Terbutaline on 3-km Running Time-Trial Performance / John Molphy, John W. Dickinson, Neil J. Chester, Mike Loosemore, Gregory Whyte. - (International journal of sports physiology and performance (2018, 20 Dec) p. 1-26). - PMID: 30569748. - DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0633 _________________________________________________ Abstract: PURPOSE:: To investigate the effects of two therapeutic (2mg; 4mg) inhaled doses of terbutaline on 3km running time-trial performance. METHODS:: Eight males (24.3±2.4yrs; 77.6±8kg; 179.5±4.3cm) and eight females (22.4±3yrs; 58.6±6kg; 163±9.2cm) free from respiratory disease and illness provided written informed consent. Participants completed 3 km running time-trials on a non-motorised treadmill on three separate occasions following placebo, 2 mg or 4 mg inhaled terbutaline, in a single-blind, repeated-measures design. Urine samples (15mins post-exercise) were analysed for terbutaline concentration. Data were analysed using one-way repeated measures ANOVA, significance was set at p<0.05 for all analyses. RESULTS:: No differences were observed for completion times (1103±201; 1106±195; 1098±165s; P=0.913) for the placebo trial, the 2mg inhaled trial and the 4mg inhaled trial, respectively. Lactate values were higher (P=0.02) following 4mg terbutaline (10.7±2.3mmol·L-1) vs. placebo (8.9±1.8mmol·L-1). FEV1 values were greater following inhalation of 2mg (5.08±0.2; P=0.01) and 4mg terbutaline (5.07±0.2; P=0.02) compared to placebo (4.83±0.5L) post-inhalation. Urinary terbutaline concentrations were mean (306±288ng·mL-1; 435±410ng·mL-1; P=0.2) and peak (956ng·mL-1; 1244ng·mL-1) following 2mg and 4mg inhaled terbutaline, respectively. No differences were observed between the male and female participants. CONCLUSIONS:: Therapeutic dosing of terbutaline does not lead to an improvement in 3 km running performance despite significantly increased FEV1. Our findings suggest that athletes using inhaled terbutaline at high therapeutic doses to treat asthma will not gain an ergogenic advantage during 3 km running performance.

IBSF 2018 IBSF vs Aleksander Kasjanov, Ilvir Khuzin, Aleksei Pushkarev & Aleksander Zubkov

IBSF 2018 IBSF vs Aleksander Kasjanov (Kas'yanov / Kasyanov) Ilvir Khuzin, Aleksei Pushkarev & Aleksander Zubkov Related cases: - CAS 2017_A_5422 Aleksandr Zubkov vs IOC April 23, 2018 - CAS 2017_A_5476 IBSF vs Alexander Tretiakov, Elena Nikitina, Mariia Orlova, Olga Potylitsyna, Ilvir Khuzin, Alexander Kasyanov & Aleksei Pushkarev January 3, 2018 - IBSF 2017 E. Nikitina, M. Orlova, O. Potylitsyna, A. Tretiakov, A. Kasyanov, A. Pushkarev, l. Khuzin, A. Zubkov & S. Chudinov vs IBSF - Provisional Suspension #2 December 1, 2017 - IBSF 2017 IBSF vs Alexandr Zubkov - Provisional Suspension #3 December 18, 2017 - IOC 2017 IOC vs Aleksandr Zubkov – Decision December 6, 2017 - IOC 2017 IOC vs Aleksandr Zubkov - Operative Part November 24, 2017 - IOC 2017 IOC vs Aleksei Pushkarev – Decision December 20, 2017 - IOC 2017 IOC vs Aleksei Pushkarev - Operative Part November 29, 2017 - IOC 2017 IOC vs Alexander Kas'yanov – Decision December 20, 2017 - IOC 2017 IOC vs Alexander Kas'yanov - Operative Part November 29, 2017 - IOC 2017 IOC vs Ilvir Khuzin – Decision December 20, 2017 - IOC 2017 IOC vs Ilvir Khuzin - Operative Part November 29, 2017 _________________________________________________ Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof Richard McLaren as Independent Person (IP) on 18 July 2016 and 9 December 2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IP reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample. As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. In the context of this Commission the IOC decided that all the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establish whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated. The IOC Disciplinary Commission considered in detail the findings in the IP Reports and concludes that it is more than comfortably satisfied that samples or urine collected from Russian Athletes were tampered with in Sochi in a systematic manner and as part of an organized scheme. The Disciplinary Commission further concludes that it was not possible that the athletes were not fully implicated. They were also the main beneficiaries of the scheme. The Disciplinary Commission holds that Prof. McLaren’s findings are not only based on the evidence provided by Dr Rodchenkov in his interviews, but on a wealth of other corroborating evidence, including other witnesses, the forensic examination of the sample bottles, the evidence showing abnormal salt results and the additional elements coming from DNA analysis. The corroborating evidence considered by Prof. McLaren included further objective elements, such as e-mails confirming that athletes were protected through different methods. _________________________________________________ Alexander Kas'yanov (Kasyanov / Kasjanov), Ilvir Khuzinis, Aleksei Pushkarev and Aleksandr Zubkov are Russian Athletes competing in the Men's Bobsleigh Events at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. In October and in December 2016 the IOC Disciplinary Commission reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against these Athletes for tampering, conspiracy and use of prohibited substances. Here the IOC Disciplinary Commission deemed - based on the investigations, the evidence and findings - that the participation of the Athletes in the doping scheme was established to its comfortable satisfaction. The Disciplinary Commission concluded that it was more than comfortably satisfied that these Athletes were a participant in, and a beneficiary of, the cover up scheme implemented on the occasion of the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. Accordingly the IOC Disciplinary Commission decided on 6 and 20 December 2017 that these Athletes have committed anti-doping rule violations and are disqualified from the events in which theyt participated upon the occasion of the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. Further these Athletes were declared ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. Hereafter 42 Russian athletes, including the 4 Athletes in this matter, appealed the IOC decisions with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). On 1 February 2018 the CAS Panel decided to partially uphold the appeals of these 4 Russian Athletes and to confirm the anti-doping rule violations committed during the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The Panel did not confirm the imposed lifetime ban from all Olympic Games. The Athletes were declared ineligible to compete for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games. As a consequence of the IOC decisions (December 2017), the CAS decisions (February 2018) and the sanctions imposed on Alekander Kasjanov, Ilvir Khuzinis, Aleksei Pushkarev and Aleksandr Zubkov the International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation (IBSF) ordered a provisional suspension in December 2014 and reported anti-doping rule violations in February 2018 against these Athletes for the use of a prohibited substance and use of a prohibited method. The Athletes filed a statement in their defence and were heard for the IBSF Anti-Doping Hearing Panel. The Athletes stated in their submissions clearly not to be involved in any ADRV and not to play or have played any role in the allegations mentioned in the McLaren Reports, the IOC Decisions and the CAS Awards. They contended in their submissions: - The Athletes are elite athletes already for a number of years. - During those years none of the Athletes tested positive or were convicted for committing any ADRV. - Each of the Athletes have declared that they have not been confronted with the alleged tampering of their samples. - Dr Rodchenkov is anyone but a reliable and trustworthy witness. - Alternative theories for the salt levels in the urine samples of each of the Athletes. - The subject alternative theories have been rejected by CAS without a reasonable basis. The ISBN Panel deems that in accordance with the Rules, the Panel is bound to the facts established by CAS in their CAS Awards (CAS 2017/A/5425, CAS 2017/A/5426, CAS 2017/A/5427, CAS 2017/A/5422) as "irrefutable evidence against the Athletes". The Panel holds that the CAS Awards have established ADRVs for each of the Athletes relating to the Use of a Prohibited Substance and the Use of a Prohibited Method (i.e. urine substitution of the samples). Therfore the IBSF Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 16 January 2019 that Mr Aleksander Kasjanov, Mr Ilvir Khuzin, Mr Aleksei Pushkarev and Mr Aleksander Zubkov have committed an ADRV for the use of a Prohibited Substance and the Use of a Prohibited Method (i.e. urine substitution). The Panel rules that these violations are for each of the Athletes regarded as one and first single doping violation. There are no circumstances that will lead to an elimination or reduction of the standard period of ineligibility. The Athletes' period of ineligibility start on the date of their provisional suspension ordered in December 2018. Finally the Athletes’ results obtained at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games (medals, points and prices) are disqualified automatically.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CCES 2018 CCES vs Alexandra Stodalka

In July 2018 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter Alexandra Stodalka after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs). After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, waived her right for a hearing, accepted the provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by CCES. The CCES decides on 3 October 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of notification, i.e. on 12 July 2018.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CCES 2018 CCES vs Lucas Merlin

In December 2018 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Lucas Merlin after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold. After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted the provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by CCES. The CCES establish that the Athlete’s degree of fault was low because the use of the substance was out-of-competition, social in nature and unconnected to sport or training. Therefore the CCES decides on 2 January 2019 to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete ending backdated on 2 Januari 2019. Here the Athlete had to serve at least 1 month of the sanction.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

Time Trial Performance Is Sensitive to Low-Volume Autologous Blood Transfusion

Time Trial Performance Is Sensitive to Low-Volume Autologous Blood Transfusion / Jacob Bejder, Andreas Breenfeldt Andersen, Sara Amalie Solheim, Mikkel Gybel-Brask, Niels H. Secher, Pär I. Johansson, Nikolai Baastrup Nordsborg. - (Medicine and science in sports and exercise (2018, 6 november)). - PMID: 30407276. - DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001837 ___________________________________________________ PURPOSE: This study tested the hypothesis that autologous blood transfusion (ABT) of ~50% of the red blood cells (RBCs) from a standard 450 ml phlebotomy would increase mean power in a cycling time trial. Additionally, the study investigated whether further ABT of RBCs obtained from another 450 ml phlebotomy would increase repeated cycling sprint ability. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover design (3-month wash-out), nine highly trained male subjects donated two 450 ml blood bags each (BT-trial) or were sham phlebotomized (PLA-trial). Four weeks later, a 650 kcal time trial (n=7) was performed three days before and 2 h after receiving either ~50% (135 ml) of the RBCs or a sham transfusion. On the following day, transfusion of RBCs (235 ml) from the second donation or sham transfusion was completed. A 4×30 s all-out cycling sprint interspersed by 4 min of recovery was performed six days before and three days after the second ABT (n=9). RESULTS: The mean power was increased in time trials from before to after transfusion (P<0.05) in BT (213±35 vs. 223±38 W; mean±SD) but not in PLA (223±42 vs. 224±46 W). In contrast, the mean power output across the four 30 s sprint bouts remained similar in BT (639±35 vs. 644±26 W) and PLA (638±43 vs. 639±25 W). CONCLUSION: ABT of only ~135 ml of RBCs is sufficient to increase mean power in a 650 kcal cycling time trial by ~5% in highly trained men. In contrast, a combined high-volume transfusion of ~135 and ~235 ml of RBCs does not alter 4×30 s all-out cycling performance interspersed with 4 min of recovery.

Health consequences of androgenic anabolic steroid use

Health consequences of androgenic anabolic steroid use / H. Horwitz, J.T. Andersen, K.P. Dalhoff. - (Journal of internal medicine (2018, 20 november)). - PMID: 30460728. - DOI: 10.1111/joim.12850 _________________________________________________ BACKGROUND: The lifetime prevalence of androgenic anabolic steroid abuse is estimated to be around 6% for men, but there is limited knowledge about the side effects of these drugs. OBJECTIVE: To investigate mortality and morbidity amongst users of androgenic anabolic steroids (AAS). METHODS: In this retrospective matched cohort study, 545 male subjects tested positive for AAS in Danish fitness centres during the period 3 January 2006 to 1 March 2018. Subjects were matched with 5450 male controls. In addition, 644 men who were sanctioned because they refused to submit to a doping test and 6440 controls were included as a replication cohort. RESULTS: Mortality was three times higher amongst users of AAS than amongst nonuser controls (hazard ratio 3.0, 95% CI 1.3-7.0). The median annual number of hospital contacts was 0.81 in the cohort of AAS users and 0.36 in the control cohort (P < 0.0001). Acne, gynaecomastia and erectile dysfunction affected more than 10% of the androgenic anabolic steroid users, and the prevalence of these disorders was significantly higher than in the control group (P < 0.0001). The results could be replicated in a similar cohort. CONCLUSION: Androgenic anabolic steroid users have an increased risk of dying and significantly more hospital admissions than their nonuser peers. Side effects of AAS and their metabolites were highly prevalent. Given the high rate of androgenic anabolic steroid abuse, these side effects are of public health concern.

Drug Use in Gyms

Drug Use in Gyms / Ask Vest Christiansen. - Aarhuis : Aarhus University, 2015. - Published in: Routledge Handbook of Drugs and Sport, Chapter: 33, Publisher: Routledge, Editors: Verner Møller, Ivan Waddington, John Hoberman, p. 421-438, ISBN 9780415702782 Abstract: Taking some of the most significant academic works into consideration this chapter describes how the scholarly interest in drug use in gyms rose from studies of competitive bodybuilding to studies of larger segments of the gym population. The challenge of establishing reliable figures for the frequency of anabolic steroid use and describing the typical users is then addressed. Next, the chapter discusses the associated cultural, psychological, and evolutionary explanations for anabolic steroid use in gyms and fitness centres. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of some of the significant political campaigns and strategies to regulate and counter drug use in gyms.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

Statement from National Anti-Doping Organisations on Russia Compliance Deadline

Statement from National Anti-Doping Organisations on Russia Compliance Deadline / Agence Française de Lutte contre le Dopage (AFLD), Anti-Doping Denmark (ADD), Anti-Doping Singapore (ADS) Antidoping Norge, [...] et al. . - 2019 _________________________________________________ NADO Leaders acknowledge the January 1, 2019 Release from WADA outlining the current status of the management of anti-doping compliance matters in Russia. With a view to its 31 December 2018 deadline for Russia to provide the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) with the critical LIMS data from the Moscow Laboratory, the anti-doping world fully expects a decisive response in support of the clean athletes of the world. After more than three years of review, indecision and compromise in response to the worst doping scandal in the history of sport, the time has come to demonstrate that no individual nor nation is exempt from compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code. On 20 September 2018 the WADA Executive Committee created an opportunity by providing a new opportunity for Russia to demonstrate interest in protecting the rights of clean athletes and a willingness to play by the rules. Russia has failed to meet its obligations. Therefore, we now call on WADA to stand firm, enforce the missed deadline and move without delay towards a decision in this matter. Recognizing WADA had previously scheduled a Compliance Review Committee meeting on January 14-15, 2019, NADO Leaders now call on WADA to acknowledge the gravity of this missed deadline and call for an immediate review and recommendation from the CRC. We recognise RUSADA has been working with WADA in an effort to resolve these issues, but the conditions agreed on 20 September 2018 were unequivocal and without the data there can be only one outcome. The importance of this situation does not warrant providing a further two weeks for Russia to comply. With the interest of clean sport hanging in the balance, WADA must call for CRC to convene and consider this matter without further delay. In October 2018 NADO Leaders signalled our steadfast commitment to the global athlete community in support of clean sport. Today, that commitment is stronger than ever, and that is why we believe Russia must be held accountable for its continuing failure to comply. A return to international sport should only be considered for Russia once full confidence in a clean Russian sporting culture is restored – in other words, only once WADA has received and verified the electronic LIMS data as well as access to the samples in the Moscow Laboratory. NADO Leaders implore WADA to use its full authority and resources to expedite this matter. This Statement is supported by the National Anti-Doping Organisations of: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Singapore, Sweden, and USA.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

iNADO Update #2018-10

iNADO Update (2018) 10 (21 December) Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO) __________________________________________________ Contents: - Outcomes of the iNADO Board Meeting in December - Programme 2019 iNADO Workshop - Register to 2019 iNADO Workshop - Message from WADA Vice President - World Athletes Forum 2019 - WADA NADO Ad Hoc Working Group - Consultation Phase Begins: 2nd Round for Code and 2rd for International Standards - CCES Symposium on Match Manipulation and Gambling in Sport (Toronto, April 24-25, 2019) - Play the Game National Sports Governance Observer - Reanalysis Cases against Tatyana Chernova (CAS) and Teja Gregorin (IBU)

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