Anti-doping news

WARNING – METHYLHEXANEAMINE

Methylhexaneamine is classed as an S6. Stimulant on the Prohibited List. The IWF is advising all athletes to carefully consider their use of supplements and products. Methylhexaneamine is increasingly being found in nutritional supplements, typically those that are designed to increase energy or aid weight loss. Any product that contains any of the following ingredients on the label will be reported as an Adverse Analytical Finding for Methylhexaneamine: Geranuim -oil, -extract, -flower, -stems, -leaves, Methylhexaneamine; Methylhexanamine; DMAA (dimethylamylamine); Geranamine; Forthane; Forthan; Floradrene; 2-hexanamine, 4-methyl-; 2-hexanamine, 4-methyl- (9CI); 4-methyl-2-hexanamine; 1,3-dimethylamylamine; 4-Methylhexan-2-amine; 1,3-dimethylpentylamine; 2-amino-4-methylhexane; Pentylamine, 1, 3-dimethyl-. As an example, the following list of products contains the banned substances (not necessarily listed on the label): 1. Jack3d – USPlabs (1,3 Dimethylamylamine (Geranium [Stem], caffeine) 2. OxyELITE Pro – USPlabs (1,3 Dimethylamylamine(Geranium [Stem], caffeine) 3. Hemo-Rage Black Ultra Concentrate – Nutrex (1,3 Dimethylamylamine) 4. C4 Extreme - Cellucor (1,3 Dimethylamylamine HCI, caffeine) 5. Rezolution – LG Sciences (1,3 Dimethylamylamine (Geranium Flower), Bitter Orange (synephrine), caffeine) 6. Liquid Clenbutrx Hardcore – VPX (Apple Geranium (Pelargonium Odorantissomum) (Leaves) [Std. To 1,3-Dimethylpentylamine],caffeine) 7. Heat Accelerated – Magnum Nutraceuticals (Geranium Oil Extract, Citrus Aurantium, caffeine) 8. CryoShock – Neogenix (1,3 Dimethylamylamine, caffeine) 9. RedLine Black On Blue V2 – VPX (Supra-Amine™ Apple Geranium (Pelargonium Odoratissimum) (Leaves) [Std. To 1,3-Dimethylpentylamine], caffeine) 10. Motivate – Anabolic Innovations (1,3 Dimethylamylamine, caffeine) This is not an exclusive list. There are several other food supplements that contain the above stimulant that is prohibited in- and

U.S. Judo Athlete, Lock, Receives Sanction for Anti-Doping Rule Violation

USADA announced today that Jane Lock, of Colorado Springs, Colo., an athlete in the sport of Judo, has received a two-year suspension for committing an anti-doping rule violation in which she failed to file her whereabouts information. Lock, 24, is a member of the USADA National Testing Pool, which consists of a select group of athletes subject to certain whereabouts requirements in order to be located for USADA Out-of-Competition testing. Lock failed to comply with the whereabouts requirements and, as a result, accrued three Whereabouts Failures within an 18-month period. Under the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing and the International Judo Federation Anti-Doping Rules, both of which have adopted the World Anti-Doping Code (“Code”), the combination of three Whereabouts Failures within an 18-month period constitutes a rule violation. A Whereabouts Failure for National Testing Pool athletes includes failure to provide required quarterly whereabouts filings and/or failure to be available for testing due to inaccurate or incomplete information provided by the athlete. Lock’s two-year period of ineligibility, began on April 20, 2012, the date she received the sanction. As a result of the violation, Lock has been disqualified from all competitive results achieved on and subsequent to January 1, 2012 the date of her third Whereabouts Failure, including forfeiture of any medals, points, and prizes. In an effort to aid athletes, as well as all support team members such as parents and coaches, in understanding the rules applicable to them, USADA provides comprehensive instruction on its website on the testing process and prohibited substances, how to obtain permission to use a necessary medication, and the risks and dangers of taking supplements as well as performance-enhancing and recreational drugs. In addition, the agency manages a drug reference hotline, Drug Reference Online (www.GlobalDRO.com), conducts educational sessions with National Governing Bodies and their athletes, and proactively distributes a multitude of educational materials, such as the Prohibited List, easy-reference wallet cards, periodic newsletters, and protocol and policy reference documentation. USADA is responsible for the testing and results management process for athletes in the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement, and is equally dedicated to preserving the integrity of sport through research initiatives and educational programs. Source:

Minimising The Risk of Taking Contaminated Supplements

Many athletes have blamed ‘supplement contamination’ for testing positive over recent years. With an abundance of products now available, it is becoming increasingly difficult to ensure that each and every one is free from banned substances. We recently received an email from Informed Sport asking us to publish an article on the subject to help athletes understand the possible risks involved with taking such substances and how they ensure that certain products are safe. Research has shown that an untested product has a risk of approximately 1 in 4 being contaminated with steroids. It is increasingly the case that athletes, both professional and amateur alike, must take supplements in order to compete at their desired level. However, there is an ever growing concern that supplements are the cause of a number of failed drug tests in the professional sporting arena, so that top athletes are simply advised not to take supplements – advice which is then commonly ignored. Whilst some supplements are specifically designed to enhance performance via the inclusion of banned substances, the real concern behind the paranoia is not so much the knowledgable use of such products, but an issue of “unintended contamination” across the whole range of available supplements. HFL Sport Science (which operates the Informed-Sport testing programme) carried out surveys in the USA in 2007 and in the UK in 2008 that revealed up to 25% of supplement products on shelves can, in fact, contain low levels of steroids and/or stimulants, none of which may be declared on the label. So – how do you address this risk of taking contaminated supplements? WADA (the World Anti Doping Agency) take a firm stance – that it is the responsibility of the athlete to understand the risk of taking a supplement, advising elite athletes that they should simply not take supplements – recommending instead that a balanced diet will provide all of the necessary nutrition. However, it is clear that many supplements are indeed beneficial to performance, and many athletes take a variety of such supplements. Indeed, it is not at all clear that any successful athlete can effectively compete at their highest level without some form of supplementation (even if it is just a rehydration drink)! The risk of taking contaminated supplements cannot be made to disappear. If this is the case, how do athletes minimise the risk when taking a supplement? The answer is to look for products that have been subjected to safeguards throughout the manufacturing process. This risk may not be eliminated, but it can be effectively managed. Such safeguarding requires some basic good practice by manufacturers to ensure that products are not inadvertently contaminated: 1. Look for evidence that raw ingredients have been sourced with care – many ingredients are purchased cheaply from geographies with poor quality control. 2. Cleaning procedures at the manufacturing and packaging facilities must be capable of removing traces of possible banned contaminants to avoid cross contamination from product to product. 3. Products should be tested prior to release for sale for trace levels of banned substances by a reputable sports doping control lab, using tests accredited to the ISO 17025 standard. These tests should specify both the substances being looked for, and the levels that they will be found at (typically parts per billion levels!). But unless you are an expert in such matters, how will you know? This is the purpose of the Informed-Sport testing programme. The Informed-Sport testing programme, developed by HFL Sport Science (a world class anti doping laboratory based in the UK), provides a quality assurance programme allowing athletes and their connections to make a choice about the risks associated with the use of supplements. If the Informed-Sport logo is shown on the product, it is an indicator that the product has been subjected to: - manufacturing and raw ingredient review as part of a product registration process; - testing by a world class anti doping laboratory, against internationally recognised standards (ISO 17025).; - analysis for the widest practical list of banned substances (as defined by the World Anti Doping Agency); - analysis at trace detection levels demanded by the world of anti doping – essential for effective risk management; - routine testing of batches manufactured – and approved prior to release for sale. Research has shown that untested product has a risk of approximately 1 in 4 being contaminated with steroids. Products that have been through a rigorous certification programme reduces this risk to BETTER than 1 in 500 (any contaminated batches are destroyed prior to release for sale). For More Information visit www.informed-sport.com Source:

IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the London 2012 Olympic Games

During the Period of the London Olympic Games, all Doping Controls initiated by the IOC shall include testing for all Prohibited Substances and all Prohibited Methods referred to in the Prohibited List. The Period of the London Olympic Games is defined as “the period commencing on the date of the opening of the Olympic village for the Olympic Games, namely, 16 July 2012, up until and including the day of the closing ceremony of the Olympic Games, namely, 12 August 2012”. For the purposes of the Prohibited List, the Period of the London Olympic Games shall be treated as an “in-competition” period, meaning that all Prohibited Substances and all Prohibited Methods are prohibited. Athletes will be subject to Doping Controls at any time during the Period of the Olympic Games for all Prohibited Substances and all Prohibited Methods referred to in the Prohibited

Bodybuilding.com CEO admits selling steroids

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — The founder of an online fitness and bodybuilding company in Idaho pleaded guilty to illegally selling misbranded dietary supplements that contained steroids, according to federal prosecutors. The plea agreement says that while DeLuca was CEO between 2007 and 2009, the Meridian company sold five products as dietary supplements that the Food and Drug Administration classified as drugs. The supplements contained I Force Methadrol, Nutra Costal D-Stianozol, I Force Dymethazine, Rage RV5, and Genetic Edge Technologies (GET) SUS500 which are synthetic anabolic steroids or synthetic chemical clones of anabolic steroids. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had issued public health advisory, warning consumers to stop using products that contain these substances. The agency said in 2009 that it had received reports that men between 22 and 55 who had used such products have suffered serious liver injury, stroke, kidney failure and pulmonary embolism. Many of the products were neither safe nor legal and by selling them, the company was "misleading, defrauding and endangering its customers," according to the agent. "DeLuca acknowledged at the plea hearing that as Bodybuilding.com's CEO, he was responsible for Bodybuilding.com's sales of misbranded products," prosecutors said in a statement. He will be sentenced on June 20. Read more

WORLDVIEW: Rotten standards for young kids By Richard Pound

As the 2012 Summer Games in London approach, the fight against doping continues. Despite notable progress in testing and enforcement, we’re still a great distance from the eradication of steroid use in sports. In order to close the gap between the testers and the dopers, the World Anti-Doping Agency(WADA) needs the help of both government and professional sports organizations. Doping is cheating.Sports competition is supposed to be a measure of an athlete’s ability, honed by training and preparation, against other athletes who play by the same rules. Cheating devalues that competition. And I certainly don’t want my children or grandchildren to have to become chemical stockpiles in order to be competitive in sports. The fight against doping is no easy game. For one thing, athletes have the first-move advantage. They decide what they’re going to do and when they’re going to do it. Officials, on the other hand, have to figure out how to catch them. While we have diminished the interval between the perpetration of doping and the point of detection, the need for rigorous testing programs and stiffer punishments for dopers remains paramount. This is not to say there has not been progress in the fight against doping. Fewer athletes are getting through the cracks with the new tools at our disposal. The World Anti-Doping Code, for example, harmonizes anti-doping regulations across all sports and all countries of the world. Underthe International Convention against Doping in Sport, there are real consequences for athletes and states that do not live up to their treaty obligations. Nevertheless, doping still occurs. Why? Well-financed, well-educated professionals are still assisting athletes in their doping practices. In some countries and in some sports, systematic programs are designed to aid dopers, or at least allow officials to turn a blind eye to their activity. WADA has already commented publicly on Russia and some of the former Soviet Republics, for example, where it is difficult to get in and test athletes on a no-notice basis. If these governments aren’t organizing these restrictive practices, they are at least making it difficult to enforce the existing rules. Yet, obstacles to testing are only one part of the problem. Enforcement is also key to discouraging doping, and the surest way to improve enforcement is to get governments on side. Unlike sports authorities, public authorities have the investigative power needed to build cases, and the authority to enter private premises and seize doping substances. They are also better equipped to trace the sources and distribution of banned substances and prosecute those involved in what has become a huge market. The bottom line is that significant sentences associated with the crimes make a much more effective deterrent for dopers. On a macro level, thisis a far more effective way of getting at the problem than having athletes pee in bottles or provide blood samples and hoping that you get the timing right. While public authorities can help deter dopers by taking a more involved role in these efforts, sports federations outside of the Olympics must also be fully on board in this fight. A lot of sports federations talk a pretty good game about clean sport but don’t actually care to take the necessary actions to make sure their sport is clean. Professional sports leagues, in particular, are sending a horrible message with testing programs that are almost designed to make sure that no athlete is caught or that, if an athlete is caught, the penalty is light. Due to insufficient testing regimes and poor enforcement strategies, dopers know they are unlikely to get caught and that if they do, their suspension will be short. When compared to the four- to five-year benefits that an athlete can garner from a steroids program, this is almost an invitation to dope. Even worse than the direct impact this laissez-faire approach to eradicating doping has on sports competition is how it affects public perception. The athletes that the public see, day after day, are the professionals, not the amateur Olympians, so the standards of conduct that young kids are learning are rotten. Young athletes figure they have to dope to get to the top, and that the price of getting caught is just a slap on the wrist. This is not the message professional sports organizations should be sending to young athletes. If we want future Games to be clean, we will certainly need our governments and sports authorities to sing from the same song sheet and show the public they are serious about solving the problem. Richard Pound is partner of the law firm Stikeman Elliott, the former president of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), and the former vice-president of the International Olympic Committee