CAS 2017/A/4967 Adel Mechaal v. IAAF & Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte (AEPSAD) In December 2016 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (AEPSAD) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Spanish Athlete Adel Mechaal for his whereabouts filing failures and 3 missed tests within a 12 month period. Consequently the AEPSAD sole arbitrator decided on 16 January 2017 to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Hereafter in January 2017 the Athlete appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and requested the Panel to annul the AEPSAD decision of 16 Janurary 2017. The Athlete disputed the composition, the impartiality and independence of the decision body in first instance and asserted that during Results Management several procedural irregularities occurred regarding the whereabouts and the notification of the missed tests leading to departures of the international standards. Further the Athlete argued that 2 of the 3 whereabouts filing failures were caused by system failures in ADAMS. The Panel holds that in the first instance of the case the decision body should be pluripersonal and agrees that the impartiality and independence of the Spanish sole arbitrator was in question since he was also external legal advisor for AEPSAD and therefore should not have been selected as the sole arbitrator in the case. Considering the evidence and circumstances in this case the Panel establishes that the AEPSAD notification about the Athlete’s first missed test on 8 December 2015 was correctly made due to circumstances on 29 January 2016. Meanwhile there was already a second missed test on 24 January 2016 while the communication of AEPSAD’s second notifiction was made on 11 February 2016. The third missed test was on 15 July 2016 and the IAAF notification was on 2 August 2016. As a result of the sequence of events the Panel concludes that the Athlete was only aware of the first missed test on 29 January 2016, 5 days after he had missed the second test. For this reason and under the Rules the Panel deems that there were only 2 whereabouts missed tests and consequently the Athlete did not commit the reported anti-doping rule violation for 3 missed tests. Further the Panel deems that the Athlete acted not in full compliance with his obligations to send his whereabouts to AEPSAD in January 2016 only by using e-mail in the situation that there were technical problems with ADAMS and a lack of availability of other electronic resources. Therefore and in spite of the not completely compliant acting of the Athlete the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decides on 24 April 2018 that the Athlete’s appeal is assignable and to annul the AEPSAD decision of 16 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 »
Tracking internet interest in anabolic-androgenic steroids using Google Trends / JosephTay Wee Teck, Mark McCann. - (International Journal of Drug Policy 51 (2018) January ; p. 52-55). - PMID: 29197722. - PMCID: PMC5788329. - DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.11.001 ____________________________________________________ The study lists the individual Anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) ranked in order of popularity based on RSV and the results of statistical testing. The individual decomposition graphs for each AAS is available in the Supplementary material. Fig. 1 reproduces the GT output for the 5 more popular AAS with the output for the less popular AAS in the Supplementary material. A seasonal component for each AAS was identified with peaks occurring in April to July and troughs from September to December. This seasonality was statistically significant for all the AAS except Testosterone enanthate when tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Statistically significant trends were identified in all the AAS except Boldenone. Anavar, Trenbolone, and Masteron had statistically significant upward trends. Stanazolol, Dianabol, Sustanon, Nandralone, Metenolone and Testosterone enanthate had statistically significant downward trends.
IOC consensus statement: dietary supplements and the high-performance athlete / Ronald J. Maughan, Louise M. Burke, Jiri Dvorak, D. Enette Larson-Meyer, Peter Peeling, Stuart M. Phillips, Eric S. Rawson, Neil P. Walsh, Ina Garthe, Hans Geyer, Romain Meeusen, Lucas J.C. van Loon, Susan M. Shirreffs, Lawrence L. Spriet, Mark Stuart, Alan Vernec, Kevin Currell, Vidya M. Ali, Richard G.M Budgett, Arne Ljungqvist, Margo Mountjoy, Yannis P. Pitsiladis, Torbjørn Soligard, Uğur Erdener, Lars Engebretsen . - (British Journal of Sports Medicine 52 (2018) 7 ; p. 439-455). - doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-099027 _________________________________________________ Abstract: Nutrition usually makes a small but potentially valuable contribution to successful performance in elite athletes, and dietary supplements can make a minor contribution to this nutrition programme. Nonetheless, supplement use is widespread at all levels of sport. Products described as supplements target different issues, including (1) the management of micronutrient deficiencies, (2) supply of convenient forms of energy and macronutrients, and (3) provision of direct benefits to performance or (4) indirect benefits such as supporting intense training regimens. The appropriate use of some supplements can benefit the athlete, but others may harm the athlete’s health, performance, and/or livelihood and reputation (if an antidoping rule violation results). A complete nutritional assessment should be undertaken before decisions regarding supplement use are made. Supplements claiming to directly or indirectly enhance performance are typically the largest group of products marketed to athletes, but only a few (including caffeine, creatine, specific buffering agents and nitrate) have good evidence of benefits. However, responses are affected by the scenario of use and may vary widely between individuals because of factors that include genetics, the microbiome and habitual diet. Supplements intended to enhance performance should be thoroughly trialled in training or simulated competition before being used in competition. Inadvertent ingestion of substances prohibited under the antidoping codes that govern elite sport is a known risk of taking some supplements. Protection of the athlete’s health and awareness of the potential for harm must be paramount; expert professional opinion and assistance is strongly advised before an athlete embarks on supplement use.
Urine Caffeine Concentration in Doping Control Samples from 2004 to 2015 / Millán Aguilar-Navarro, Gloria Muñoz, Juan José Salinero, Jesús Muñoz-Guerra, María Fernández-Álvarez, María del Mar Plata, Juan Del Coso. - (Nutrients 11 (2019) 2 ; p. 1-11). - PMID: 30699902. - DOI: 10.3390/nu11020286 _________________________________________________ Abstract: The ergogenic effect of caffeine is well-established, but the extent of its consumption in sport is unknown at the present. The use of caffeine was considered “prohibited” until 2004, but this stimulant was moved from the List of Prohibited Substances to the Monitoring Program of the World Anti-Doping Agency to control its use by monitoring urinary caffeine concentration after competition. However, there is no updated information about the change in the use of caffeine as the result of its inclusion in the Monitoring Program. The aim of this study was to describe the changes in urine caffeine concentration from 2004 to 2015. A total of 7488 urine samples obtained in official competitions held in Spain and corresponding to athletes competing in Olympic sports (2788 in 2004, 2543 in 2008, and 2157 in 2015) were analyzed for urine caffeine concentration. The percentage of samples with detectable caffeine (i.e., >0.1 μg/mL) increased from ~70.1%, in 2004–2008 to 75.7% in 2015. The median urine caffeine concentration in 2015 (0.85 μg/mL) was higher when compared to the median value obtained in 2004 (0.70 μg/mL; p < 0.05) and in 2008 (0.70 μg/mL; p < 0.05). The urine caffeine concentration significantly increased from 2004 to 2015 in aquatics, athletics, boxing, judo, football, weightlifting, and rowing (p < 0.05). However, the sports with the highest urine caffeine concentration in 2015 were cycling, athletics, and rowing. In summary, the concentration of caffeine in the urine samples obtained after competition in Olympic sports in Spain increased from 2004 to 2015, particularly in some disciplines. These data indicate that the use of caffeine has slightly increased since its removal from the list of banned substances, but urine caffeine concentrations suggest that the use of caffeine is moderate in most sport specialties. Athletes of individual sports or athletes of sports with an aerobic-like nature are more prone to using caffeine in competition.
The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on objective and subjective indexes of exercise performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis
The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on objective and subjective indexes of exercise performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis / Darías Holgado, Miguel A. Vadillo, Daniel Sanabria. - (Brain stimulation 12 (2019) 2 (March - April) ; p. 242-250). - PMID: 30559000. - DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2018.12.002 _________________________________________________ Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on objective and subjective indexes of exercise performance. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search of electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar) and reference lists of included articles up to June 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Published articles in journals or in repositories with raw data available, randomized sham-controlled trial comparing anodal stimulation with a sham condition providing data on objective (e.g. time to exhaustion or time-trial performance) or subjective (e.g. rate of perceived exertion) indexes of exercise performance. RESULTS: The initial search provided 420 articles of which 31 were assessed for eligibility. Finally, the analysis of effect sizes comprised 24 studies with 386 participants. The analysis indicated that anodal tDCS had a small but positive effect on performance g = 0.34, 95% CI [0.12, 0.52], z = 3.24, p = .0012. Effects were not significantly moderated by type of outcome, electrode placement, muscles involved, number of sessions, or intensity and duration of the stimulation. Importantly, the funnel plot showed that, overall, effect sizes tended to be larger in studies with lower sample size and high standard error. SUMMARY: The results suggest that tDCS may have a positive impact on exercise performance. However, the effect is probably small and most likely biased by low quality studies and the selective publication of significant results. Therefore, the current evidence does not provide strong support to the conclusion that tDCS is an effective means to improve exercise performance.
Anabolic Steroid Cases in United States District Courts (2013–2017): Defendant Characteristics, Geographical Dispersion, and Substance Origins / Bryan E. Denham. - (Contemporary Drug Problems 45 (2018) 4 (December) ; p. 441-459). - DOI 10.1177/0091450918800823 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0091450918800823 _________________________________________________ Abstract: This study examined contextual factors associated with 63 anabolic–androgenic steroid (AAS) cases involving 184 defendants in 41 United States District Courts. Information came from press releases distributed electronically by the U.S. Department of Justice across a 5-year period, January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017. In addition to the demographic characteristics of defendants and the regions in which cases took place, the study considered the number of defendants per case, the nations from which AAS or raw materials had been imported, the presence of illicit substances beyond AAS, allegations of additional crimes, and whether a case involved public safety personnel. Courts in the South Atlantic division, and especially courts in Florida, heard the most cases involving the most defendants. Additionally, in 27 of 63 cases, defendants had obtained AAS or raw materials used to manufacture AAS from China; and in 12 of 63 cases, former police officers appeared as defendants. The study observes that more AAS sellers appear to be purchasing raw powders and liquids in bulk, using “homebrewing” techniques to increase profits and reduce counterfeiting. The relatively large number of cases in Florida may have reflected crackdowns on “pill mills” and the high-profile Biogenesis case.
Report of the Independent Observers XXI Commonwealth Games Gold Coast 2018 / Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2018
Report of the Independent Observers XVIII Asian Games Jakarta Palembang 2018 / Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2019
CAS 2018/0/5666 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. Russian Athletic Federation (RUSAF) & Tatyana Firova Related case: IOC 2016 IOC vs Tatyana Firova August 29, 2016 Ms. Tatyana Firova is a Russian Athlete competing in the 400m Athletics event at the Beijing 2008 and the London 2012 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. In May the IOC reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol) and the metabolite of 1-Androstenediol, 1-Androstenedione or 1-Testosterone. Consequently the IOC Disciplinary Commission decided on 29 August 2016 to disqualify the Athlete from all the events in which she participated upon the occasion of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games including her medals and diplomas and the related results of the Russian Federation Team. In November 2016 the International Association of Athletics Federations reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete since her case had been referred from the IOC to the IAAF. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered in June 2016 and the Athlete failed to respond to the IAAF communcations. _________________________________________________ On 16 July 2016, Professor Richard McLaren (the Independent Person or the IP) issued a first report on the allegations of systemic doping in Russia. Some of the key findings of the First IP Report were that: 1.) the Moscow Laboratory operated, for the protection of doped Russian athletes, within a state-dictated failsafe system, described in the First IP Report as the disappearing positive methodology (DPM) and 2.) the Ministry of Sport of the Russian Federation directed, controlled, and oversaw the manipulation of athletes' analytical results or sample swapping, with the active participation and assistance of the Russian Federal Security Service, the Center of Sports Preparation of National Teams of Russia, and both Moscow and Sochi Laboratories. On 9 December 2016, the IP elaborated on the First IP Report and released a second report on the doping allegations in Russia, together with the First IP Report. The Second IP Report confirmed the key findings of the First IP Report and described in detail the DPM and the Washout Testing. Within the context of the Second IP Report, the IP identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered. The IP made publicly available on the IP Evidence Disclosure Package (EDP) website the evidence of the involvement of the Identified Athletes. According to the IP and the IAAF, the evidence on the EDP was retrieved from the hard-drive of Dr Rodchenkov and, after the metadata of all the documents was examined, the documents were determined to have been made contemporaneously to the events. _________________________________________________ In October 2017 the IAAF reported a new anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete based on the findings of the First and Second IP Report and the disclosed evidence. After deliberations between the parties the case was referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in April 2018 to be settled by a Sole Arbitrator first instance hearing panel. The IAAF requested the Panel to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete due to aggravating circumstance and for the disqualification of the Athlete’s results from August 2008 until June 2016. The IAAF contended that the Athlete tested positive for the prohibited substances Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol) and the metabolite of 1-Androstenediol, 1-Androstenedione or 1-Testosterone as a result of the Athlete’s Beijing 2008 A and B samples. Further the IAAF contended that the Athlete had used a wide range of anabolic steroids in the lead-up to the London 2012 Olympic Games based on the findings of the Second IP Report and the disclosed evidence (the London Washout Schedules). Here 3 official samples, provided by the Athlete, were reported as negative in ADAMS by the Moscow Laboratory while the evidence showed that these samples contained several prohibited substances. In her submissions the Athlete disputed the filed evidence in this case provided by the IOC, the IAAF, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenko and pointed to inconsistencies in the proceedings and evidence. Considering all the Parties submissions the Sole Arbitrator notes that, the main issues to be resolved are the following: A.) Did the Athlete commit an anti-doping rule violation in the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, i.e. did she violate Rule 32.2(a) of the 2008 IAAF Rules? B.) Did the Athlete commit an anti-doping rule violation prior to the London 2012 Olympic Games, i.e. did she violate Rule 32.2(b) of the 2012-2013 IAAF Rules? C.) In case either or both questions are answered in the affirmative, what is the appropriate sanction to be imposed on the Athlete? Based on the test results of the Athlete’s Beijing 2008 samples the Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation under de Rules. This finding is consistent with the IOC Disciplinary Commission’s finding. Based on the evidence and having duly considered the arguments put forward by each Party, the Sole Arbitrator finds that the entries concerning the Athlete in the London Washout Schedules shall be considered reliable and the respective ADAMS entries by the Moscow Laboratory inaccurate. The Athlete nor RusAF failed to establish that the London Washout Schedules would be fictitious. The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the IAAF has established, to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator, that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation in July 2012 prior to the London Olympic Games by using three prohibited substances: Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (DHCMT), Boldenone, and 1-testosterone. Considering the seriousness of the Athlete violations and the fact that many aggravating factors are relevant in this case, the Sole Arbitrator finds that a 4 year period of ineligibility is appropriate in relating to the degree and severity of the Athlete’s misbehaviour. Based on the principle of fairness the Sole Arbitrator deems it appropriate to disqualify the Athlete's results until 31 December 2012. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 February 2019 that: 1.) The Request for Arbitration filed by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) on 6 April 2018 is partially upheld. 2.) A period of ineligibility of four (4) years is imposed on Ms Tatyana Firova, starting from 9 June 2016. 3.) All competitive results of Ms Tatyana Firova from 20 August 2008 through to 31 December 2012 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, profits, prizes, and appearance money). 4.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne in their entirety by the Russian Athletic Federation. 5.) The Russian Athletic Federation and Ms Tatyana Firova are ordered to pay, jointly and seperately, CHF 3,000.00 (three thousand Swiss Francs) to the International Association of Athletics Federations as a contribution towards its legal fees and expenses. The Russian Athletic Federation and Ms Tatyana Firova shall bear their own legal fees and expenses. 6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
In April 2018 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the the Athlete Abigael Jerop after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Salbutamol. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and he was heard for the Kenya Judiciary Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal. The Athlete admitted the violation, accepted the test result, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. She explained with medical evidence that she suffered from asthma, underwent treatment in a hostpital and had used prescribed Salbutamol through an inhaler. The Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and that she established No Significant Fault or Negligence in this case. Therefore the Kenya Judiciary Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal decides on 16 January 2019 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 1 April 2018.