The Critical Power Model as a Potential Tool for Anti-doping / Michael J. Puchowicz, Eliran Mizelman, Assaf Yogev, Michael S. Koehle, Nathan E. Townsend and David C. Clarke. - (Frontiers in Physiology 9 (2018) 643 (6 June) : 1-21). - https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.00643. - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2018.00643/full Abstract Existing doping detection strategies rely on direct and indirect biochemical measurement methods focused on detecting banned substances, their metabolites, or biomarkers related to their use. However, the goal of doping is to improve performance, and yet evidence from performance data is not considered by these strategies. The emergence of portable sensors for measuring exercise intensities and of player tracking technologies may enable the widespread collection of performance data. How these data should be used for doping detection is an open question. Herein, we review the basis by which performance models could be used for doping detection, followed by critically reviewing the potential of the critical power (CP) model as a prototypical performance model that could be used in this regard. Performance models are mathematical representations of performance data specific to the athlete. Some models feature parameters with physiological interpretations, changes to which may provide clues regarding the specific doping method. The CP model is a simple model of the power-duration curve and features two physiologically interpretable parameters, CP and W0. We argue that the CP model could be useful for doping detection mainly based on the predictable sensitivities of its parameters to ergogenic aids and other performance-enhancing interventions. However, our argument is counterbalanced by the existence of important limitations and unresolved questions that need to be addressed before the model is used for doping detection. We conclude by providing a simple worked example showing how it could be used and propose recommendations for its implementation.
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 »
iNADO Update (2018) 5 (2 August) Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO) _________________________________________________ Contents: - Upcoming iNADO Webinars - Save the Date - iNADO Workshop 2019 - 2019 Prohibited List Recommendations by the Dutch Doping Authority (incl. Salbutamol) - Job Vacancy at Drugfree Sport New Zealand: Programme Manager - Testing - What is the Status of Anti-Doping Programmes in Latin America? - Innovative Education Tools (Mobile App, Augmented and Virtual Reality). ASADA is ready to share these with Other ADOs. - Reminder: iDCOs Applications for 2nd European Games Minsk 2019 - Latvian NADO gains Independence and becomes Anti Doping Bureau of Latvia - The Athlete as Ambassador for Clean Sport: Also a Place for the Cheaters? - Azerbaijan Anti-Doping Agency: New Website and 13 New Sanctions published - Athlete Performance as (indirect) Evidence of Doping: Scientific Study - New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Centre
CAS 2017/A/5099 Artur Taymazov v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) Related case: IOC 2016 IOC vs Artur Taymazov March 31, 2017 Wrestling Doping (turinabol; stanozolol) Automatic disqualification of results Application of the principle nulla poena sine culpa Burden of proof regarding fault or negligence Proportionality of the sanction Application of automatic disqualification of results in exceptional cases 1. Art. 8.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) provides for the so-called automatic disqualification of results following an in-competition positive doping control. Automatic disqualification of results of a competition in consequence of a positive in-competition test for a substance prohibited in that competition does not engage any consideration of fault or negligence or proportionality at all. 2. An anti-doping rule violation is in the language of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) a ‘violation’; and ‘automatic disqualification’ takes its place in a provision entitled ‘Sanctions’. Therefore, concepts relevant to crime and punishment are not entirely to be ignored to the detriment of the athlete. It is still incumbent on the relevant sports’ governing body to prove that a violation, as defined in the relevant regulations, has occurred and to place upon the athlete who has committed such violation only the prescribed consequences. Both the violation and its consequences are expressly and clearly provided for in the IOC ADR (and in the WADC, its source). There can be no departure from the presumption of innocence. The athlete is not presumed, but must be proven, to have committed an anti-doping rule violation. Therefore, there is no infringement of the principle nulla poena sine culpa. 3. Where the concepts of fault and negligence are material to the outcome of an appeal, the burden lies on the athlete to disprove their occurrence. Such burden cannot be discharged by reliance on a record of multiple clean tests or by the mere assertion by his or her counsel. At the very least an athlete must give evidence, preferably orally before the CAS panel, of the steps he or she took to discharge the “personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body” (WADC Art 2.2.1). It is the athlete who holds the key cards where the cause as distinct from the correctness of the adverse analytical finding is in issue, since he (or she) either knows, or ought to know what he or she has ingested, and the sport’s governing body is unlikely to have either actual or constructive knowledge of this pivotal fact. 4. Disqualification is not only a proportionate penalty, but an inevitable one. Certain substances are prohibited under the WADC precisely because they are considered to have performance-enhancing properties. To allow an athlete to retain a medal in circumstances where such substances were present in his system would be unfair to his ‘clean’ competitors. 5. Art. 8.1 of the IOC ADR applies to all cases within its reach, whether admitted to be standard or said to be exceptional. _________________________________________________ Mr Artur Taymazov is a Uzbek Athlete competing in the Men’s 96-120 kg Freestyle wrestling event at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. In 2016, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2008. As a result in July 2016 the IOC reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances stanozolol and dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol). The IOC Disciplinary Commission decided on 31 March 2017 that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and to disqualify his results including withdrawn of his gold medal and medallist pin. Hereafter in April 2017 the Athlete appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested to set aside the IOC decision of 31 March 2017 and argued that he bears no Fault of Negligence in this case. The IOC requested the Panel to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal and contended that the Athlete was sanctioned as a result of valid positive in-competition doping test. The automatic disqualification was proportional and the Athlete failed to establish that there was no Fault or Negligence in this case. The Panel holds that the submissions of the Athlete, powerfully expressed though they were, were based on a fundamental misconception: that is to say, that automatic disqualification of results of a competition in consequence of a positive in-competition test for a substance prohibited in that competition engages any consideration of fault or negligence or proportionality at all. In the Panel’s view, that position is misconceived. All such considerations may be highly germane where periods of ineligibility (or other sanctions) are at stake, but this Panel is not concerned whether such sanctions are appropriate. The Panel finds that there was contrary to the Athlete’s submission, no infringement of the principle nulla poena sine culpa (enshrined in Article 7, no punishment without law) rather than Article 6 (a fair trial) of the ECHR and indubitably a principle of the lex ludica. Both the violation and its consequences are expressly and clearly provided for in the IOC ADR (and in the WADC, its source). There can be no departure from the presumption of innocence. The IOC was obliged to establish the ADRV and did so. The Athlete was not presumed, but proven, to have committed an ADRV. As to due process, the Athlete has accepted the re-test results and has not contended that the fact that the analysis was carried out in 2016 rather than in 2008 somehow and (if so, in what way) prevented him from challenging that analysis. As to whether, and to what extent, such delay would have prevented him from obtaining evidence which showed that the admitted presence of the prohibited substance in his sample was the result of circumstances for which he bore no or no significant responsibility (and therefore was guilty of no or no significant fault) the Panel need not consider. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 December 2017 that: 1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Artur Taymazov against the International Olympic Committee concerning the decision of the IOC Disciplinary Commission dated 31 March 2017 on 21 April 2017 is dismissed. 2.) The decision rendered by the IOC Disciplinary Commission on 31 March 2017 is upheld. 3.) (…). 4.) (…). 5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
CAS 2016/A/4534 Maurico Fiol Villanueva v. Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) Related case: FINA 2016 FINA vs Mauricio Fiol Villanueva March 14, 2016 Aquatics (swimming) Doping (stanozolol) Mechanism of proof by an athlete of his/her absence of intent to commit an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) Inconclusive evidentiary value of results of polygraph tests 1. Pursuant to art. 10.2.1.1 of the FINA Doping Control Rules, an athlete found to have committed an ADRV that does not involve a Specified Substance is subject to an ineligibility period of four years, unless the athlete can establish that the ADRV was not intentional. Neither the World Anti-Doping Code nor the applicable FINA Doping Control Rules, however, explicitly require an athlete to show the origin of the substance to establish that the ADRV was not intentional. Accordingly, while the determination of the origin of the prohibited substance undoubtingly represents a crucial element in the analysis of an athlete’s degree of Fault, a narrow corridor remains open for the athlete to establish his/her absence of intent to cheat despite being unable to identify the source of the prohibited substance causing the ADRV. 2. While other CAS panels may have previously found polygraph evidence to be admissible, such evidence is of limited value. Moreover, the cost involved is disproportionate to any probative value of such test. _________________________________________________ On 14 March 2016 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Peruvian swimmer Maurico Fiol Vilaueva after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. Hereafer in April 2016 the Athlete appealed the FINA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the FINA Decision of 14 March 2016 and to impose a proportional reduced sanction. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance nor that he was reckless or negligent to his obligations to avoid and anti-doping violation. Neither did he know that there was a significant risk that his conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping violation and manifestly disregarded that risk. The Athlete raised the theory that the source of the prohibited substance was contaminated horse meat consumed in Peru. Further the Athlete argued that he gave a prompt admission, accepted the test results, limited his arguments to the issue of the sanction and he cooperated with the doping control process throughout the proceedings before FINA and CAS. FINA contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor did he establish how the substance entered his system and therefore must be sanctioned with a 4 year period of ineligibility. FINA rejected the Athlete’s polygraph evidence, his hair sample as evidence, his theory regarding his consumption of contaminated horse meat and his arguments for a further reduction of the sanction. The Panel holds that the following are the main issues which arise in this appeal: (i) In order to establish absence of intent for the purposes of DC, is it necessary for the Athlete to establish the source of the prohibited substance present in his sample? (“Proof of Source”) (ii) If it is necessary, has the Athlete established the source of the Stanozolol present in his sample? (“Source of Stanozolol”) (iii) If it is not necessary, has the Athlete established his lack of intent? (“Proof of Lack of Intent”) (iv) What is the meaning of FINA DC 10.6.3? (“FINA 10.6.3”) (v) Is the Athlete entitled to a reduction thereunder? (“Reduction for Admission”) (vi) Is the sanction of 4 years ineligibility on the Athlete disproportionate? (“Proportionality”). The Panel establish that there was no evidence upon which the Athlete could rely to discharge his burden of proving lack of intent. Also the absence of evidence as to the source of the Stanozolol closed off one avenue. All that was left were his protestations of innocence, the character evidence given by his coach, the lie detector test, the hair sample analysis and his bare assertion that his recent improvements in terms of times for his events achieved prior to the Pan-Am Games were the product of superior conditioning. The Panel notes that CAS Panels have in the past considered the suitability of polygraph evidence and in doing so, have never found it dispositive. Considering the Athlete’s other arguments in this case the Panel is unable to allow the Athlete a reduction of the sanction in accordance with the FINA DC or the WADC 2015. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 March 2017 that: 1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Mauricio Fiol Villanueva on 4 April 2016 is dismissed. 2.) (…). 3.) (…). 4.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.